SAFE Network Dev Update - January 23, 2020

Thanks so much for all of your hard work! 2020 is going to be a great year!

18 Likes

Great to see that Vaults2 is narrowing down. Keep it up guys

15 Likes

Thanks for sharing updates!

11 Likes

@JimCollinson I don’t know how you do it but dammit you get it done and the end result is always amazing. That was a tall order you just ninja’d. :love_you_gesture: And the mock ups look fantastic! Also props to @m3data :slightly_smiling_face:

20 Likes

Late to the party, and much has already been said. Much praise deserved. Awesome = attention to UX, data hierarchy. Getting rid of Guarded and putting that responsibility on the app dev is a deep insight… love it when thinking through all the possible endgames makes things simpler. Did I just hear ‘digital bearer bonds on a private, encrypted, uncensorable global network’? :open_mouth:

18 Likes

Great update, and seeing the UX side of things progress as well as the core network tech is brilliant.

I’d be up for another Glasgow meetup if others are.

I don’t think we should wait until any significant announcement due to uncertainties in timing - probably best to just book one and go for it, perhaps in February? Let’s discuss it in the Glasgow meetup thread.

8 Likes

I’d defo be up for that! Maybe, if we don’t have anything specific to discuss, we could skip the meetup branding, and just call it ‘beers’?

7 Likes

Thanks for the kind comments folks. It’s most definitely just the first steps we are on here on the UX of data controls, plenty more complexity to layer up, but it feels like the right place to be, and hopefully it will bear some really useful fruit.

On a day off today, but looking forward to getting stuck in to the nitty gritty next week.

21 Likes

Totally killer update. Please, please, please give us DBCs.

11 Likes

Cool to see the UI design work going in to the file permissions, thanks for taking the time to share those insights. Good to know it’s being very carefully thought out

10 Likes

Just incase you are considering this a vote.
Yes yes yes

11 Likes

DBCs sound like a Good Thing and I want them very soon.
BUT… IMHO DBCs should NOT be part of the MVE.

The devs are doing a fantastic job, lets not stretch them any thinner. DBCs should, if feasible, be part of a future upgrade. I don’t think they are part of the ‘M’ for Minimum in the MVE

8 Likes

No they are not. But imagine decentralized coin that can be transfered offline! This itself can bring huge attention from current crypto coin traders. Crypto community cares mostly about coins and their features. So generally I agree to move as fast as possible to MVE. But if there is a cheap way how to make a coin much cooler, than we should at least think about it a lot.

10 Likes

This much is true…
And the minute the MVE is out, I’ll be the loudest voice shouting for DBCs if they are half as promising as I think they are.

But I still think we should not make any further feature requests for MVE as it now seems within touching distance.

8 Likes

In the update they say

AFAIK DBC’s have insanely fast transaction rate because it’s a relatively light weight/simple design. Having it as a mixing service for SAFE is something that any current project out there should be able to take advantage of but to have it be a replacement of Safecoin could have further privacy and speed advantages. This is where I’m somewhat uncertain but one perk apparently is even the issuer (in our case elders?) doesn’t know who the cert went to when by the time it is redeemed as there are many out there and they can be exchanged and or mixed offline easily. It’s very much more like cash in a way than even safecoin given the offline status. It’s like the SAFEnetwork is a decentralized bank and we can still hold something in our hands to exchange with others. That means we don’t necessarily have to live in a cashless society but a hybrid using the same unit.

11 Likes

I missed this bit,

My vote is for this bit,

At least until I am further educated on the matter.

4 Likes

Yeah I’m a little on the fence because I don’t want delay to MVE. But I think there is still time otherwise they wouldn’t have slipped in replacing the current authentication with tokens to be able to apply labels, plus a lot of the UI needs to be implemented, the routing is undergoing optimizations, data types are being refined and will need further work afterwards I think. At this point I think DBC could possibly fall within the time frame of the completion of the rest of these are all likely intended to converge into MVE at a similar time. I’d support it being a replacement. It has advantages but I’ll respect any move Maidsafe makes as they would know what’s best at balancing time/funds etc to get to MVE and having something we’d be happy with long term.

8 Likes

I checked that DBC proposal for bitcoin. That guy suggests DBC solution as additional layer on top of BTC, not as native fork. IMHO DBC on Safenet can be first ever autonomous decentralized solution. Blockchain can’t use it as native solution, since consensus it uses is not suitable for that.

15 Likes

We need a working data network first! :grinning: It is great to think what the future may hold, but let’s get the foundations down first.

22 Likes

What @Traktion said

9 Likes