That has nothing to do with shutting down elders or stranding people. This coming testnet is a real network with pretty much all features. It will not be a single node, but a network. the network will get taken down at some stage to move on to the next test, but we surely have to do that?
I have no problem with resetting a in development test net. I don’t even care if it fails in 3 minutes. The attempt to launch one will be the biggest step forward we’ve seen around here in years.
Why does maidsafe control whether a network lives or dies?
Why not let a testnet live until a new one is created?
We are building in and giving folk access to help out. It helps us and them, we are not some kind of Gods and spend all our time working for the good of us all. No person in MaidSafe wishes to exert any control over any other person. It’s kinda our core principle.
If a testnet is working and being used and is helpful we don’t need to leave it up, anyone can join nodes and we cannot stop that. We can take our own nodes down, but that should not kill the network. We need to ask everyone to take theirs down to help in next iteration.
I think you are confusing maidsafe here with some kind of evil corporation. We are hopefully the opposite of that
It costs money and time to keep a network up, and the current code fails anyway, so you would have to keep restarting it.
If people want to they can start and run their own networks, and people have done this in the past and I expect will do so again once this is feasible. Right now I don’t think it is feasible, and even if the network was running the APIs are only there in Rust, not web.
So there is more work needs doing before anyone can provide what you are asking for. At least that is my understanding.
I’ve had bad experience with a similar project that was open to all to start their own network to eventually closing off the parameter options for starting a new network, making it incredibly difficult to start a new network and deleting the documentation for how it could be achieved.
I’m hoping for maidsafe not to go the same direction.
We are not closing these off they now only exist in one place in code. It’s easier to change, easier to see and easier to be sure different parts don’t use different numbers. So this is only simplification and readability, zero reduction in functionality. So you are OK.
Looking forward to test net. It feels like we could really do with it at the moment. With filecoin live and defi booming, it would be good to see tangible, usable, progress here. We could all do with a safe network shaped Christmas present (especially if Christmas gets covid cancelled!).
Your words incredible, you are so right!
The DBC thing sounds like a big distraction. SAFE Network is already anonymous. If you have your smartphone with SAFEcoin on it, you already have anonymous currency that is better than cash because it is tougher to steal. You have to steal the smartphone and then get past any security the user put on.
I read that article and it sounded totally ridiculous. Bearer cash was designed for a pre-internet age. We don’t need it anymore.
It’s been said that it is no distraction and being investigated in parallel, it could make rather beneficial and perhaps necessary improvements, though if for whatever reason it doesn’t pan out we can fall back on pure AT2 rather than DBC with AT2 settlement (if I understand what was said correctly).
Yes, this is the case. With DBC we can separate the users “account” or “balance” from being held by the network and instead users hold bits of data. This adds to privacy as there is no point attackers trying to mass query the network or persuade elders to reveal certain balances.
So what we have just now seems very secure and private, there is a small potential for leaks. It also costs the network to look after accounts.
AT2 and DBC are quite related in many ways, use of AT2 to spend or re-issue a DBC when done in conjunction with BLS secret shares and blinded (encrypted) DBC’s gives us a bit more flexibility and certainty of privacy. This is due to the fact no Elder knows the whole DBC.
It’s a bit like using bulletproofs to secure bitcoin transaction privacy, well I say like, I mean similar outcome. Bitcoin will use a public blockchain to record blinded transactions and we use the network key store to do similar (kind of, we use it to record certain DBC (hash) was spent).
Hopefully that helps, DBC is not instead of AT2, it advances the AT2 process in many ways to remove the notion of the network holding balances and gives that back to the user.
David if you think DBC is a good idea, I trust you. I did not understand your explanation in the slightest. If you want people to use these sophisticated financial new tools, you will need to have a sales pitch that is very powerful where the benefits are flagrantly self evident. Your explanation above probably would not be good enough.
Is there a reason why Maidsafe needs to develop DBC? Why not just provide the SAFE Network alone and someone else can do that part? Or add on DBC after the Network is entirely perfect and completed.
The currency and therefore transactions are an essential part of the network, so this needs to be working from the start. They could go with what they have, but are using spare resources to check out this option.
WRT marketing. Few people understand how the banking system works and they don’t need to do so to trust and use it. The early adopters will want this understanding and will check it out in most depth, followed by savvy folks who trust them, followed by the people who trust them or don’t care. And so on.
This is pretty amazing.
I have been struggling to grasp what exactly is happening but it is making far more sense now.
The trust level that our banking system has is based on a few hundred years of tradition and has official backing from government. Plus everyone already has extensive personal experience with it. Good luck replicating that with a bunch of technical jargon.
How can DBC not be using Maidsafe resources and distracting from the Network creation? For me that is a tough sell. You’re going to create something else without using any resources?
Several times is been pointed out that they are using spare resources.
I think you need to read more carefully, I’m not going to keep repeating myself or pointing out what you’ve missed. Have a good day.
Can you clarify how this offers better or equal security? I don’t understand this part of the DBC discussion.
The user endpoint devices (and the users themselves) are the weakest link in the chain. The most complexity a human should have to deal with manually is keeping track of network login credentials. If someone drops their phone in a lake, they can’t have their coin balances disappear with it.
How are these “spare resources?” Could you explain that part of it? Why are they not allocated to something directly associated with the Network?
I’m surprised you are losing your patience so quickly!
The phrasing of this suggests they need to invent DBC, I don’t think that’s what you mean? DBC for all intents and purposes has existed quite some time and is proven in as much a way as it needs to be to know it functions and it’s beneficial. Is there a DBC rust library? Idk. If there is then I reckon it’s basically adapting it to Safe, testing, other basics.