And it’s of course good to reflect on the fact that email as most people know isn’t really free at the moment—you just don’t pay up front. Have a Gmail account? You are paying for it by your emails being scraped and harvested for advertising profits.
Yes, this something that I really like. I feel frustration every time I need to create a new account for some one-off thing I like to do in the net.
Do I have this thing right: In SAFE Network I can log into tubes and forums with one login, and still at the same time have different “masks” for all those different platforms? Otherwise anybody could collect and put together the information of my behaviour in all these various sites. I mean, obviously I can create different accounts for different purposes when in need for true secrecy, but the question is if it is easy to not have same username/identifer in tubes, forums, “likes” for some restaurant, theatres…?
There was discussion about the site host paying on behalf of the client too. It isn’t implemented yet, but it was a smart contract of sorts. I’m sure someone on the maidsafe team can comment further.
However, retaining ownership of your data is a powerful thing. Some stuff users may not care about, but other stuff users would likely rather pay the tiny fee to retain control of their data. It would be great to have the choice.
It does take a while to get your head around this, because it’s a really change from what we have at the moment:
You’ll only log in to the Network; from there it’ll be a case of giving different web apps or services permission to access certain types of data, that you stay in control of.
It’s a bit like going back to the old pre internet days of everything happening on your own PC. Your hard drive contains all your data, and you install applications that allow you to create and manipulate your data in different ways. You stay in control of it all. Think of the SAFE Network as your PC in that regard.
And as far as identities go, you can create multiple IDs or ‘profiles’ (all within the one account, so no need for multiple log-ins) and allow different apps to access different IDs. They could be pseudonyms, or relate to your real identity. It’s all up to you, but there is no inherent way for you to be tracked around the Network like there is on the clearnet, so none of it can happen without your say-so.
Yes, I understand this layered, tree-like structure of identities. I know what is possible, the question for me is what is easy, what goes along or against the habits that I as a human have? Even now I’m capable to hide my tracks in the net when I really want to, but at the same time I’m habituated enough and connected to other people through these habits so that I use Gmail (and other Google services) because of the easiness of it.
From my perspective this thing:
…sounds like a burdensome thing to keep track of. Because at the moment these very easy to use apps that we have, have become kind of transparent to me, so that in live situations I kind of forget that there even is an app. It feels more like “The World” asks my opinion about the recent Cafeteria and I’d like to give “The World” my opinion without having to think what kind of plot it is planning to take over me when the tides turn.
So, what I would like to see in the SAFE Network is not so much the freedom to choose what rights any app have, but the freedom of not having to choose the level of exposure every time I want to casually tell my opinion to “The World”. And it should be that way also for the future so that I don’t leave a track that is anonymous only if I stay careful ad infinitum. Of course in the end it comes back to the apps and the core, but from my user perspective it is more about “situations” that “apps”.
I don’t know, I guess in the end it will be as easy as having some kind of anonymous setting on all the time and use another setting if I spesifically wish so.
Well, there will be an anonymous ‘always on’ setting—that’s the default state of browsing and downloading.
But as soon as you communicate with others (like in the commenting scenario describes) you are have to decide what level of disclosure of your identity you’re comfortable with in the given situation. This could be, say, by creating a one-time throwaway pseudonym ID, a persistent pseudonym, or an ID that discloses more about your actual identity. That’s entirely at your discretion.
These are elements of the User Experience Design, which aren’t directly covered in the fundamentals, but are part of the implementation of them; this is very much becoming our focus now as we move toward launch. There is no reason why it couldn’t be as simple to use as Google profiles for example, with the added bonus of not having to learn all new parameters, nor sift through privacy policies, for each new service you want to use.
I would argue that you probably aren’t, even if you go to really extreme lengths. But with the SAFE Network hidden tracks will be the default, with no extra effort on your part, and revealing your identity is a progressive disclosure, based on your individual requirements.
Well, I believe your assessment more than my own, so you are probably right
It may be difficult to get one’s head around at the moment, but when the UX is in place it will be clear and natural to even the most inexperienced or casual user!!!
Should the “if” be there?
Also would that not be Spending a safecoin (instead of the coin just being present) since an attack is to simply
- create account with a safecoin present
- send safecoin to new ID
- create new account
- repeat for 1 million or billion times.
Doesn’t look right does it.
Thanks for expanding the quote, it was not clear with just the part I used. Rereading it over and over I am now a bit confused. Perhaps I am missing something.
How could one have the presence of Safecoin in their account if the account has not been created yet?
Hey all, excellent and helpful post, I have a small question maybe someone can help with: what will this ‘connecting directly’ look like on the network? What info will Alison and Bobby need about each other to get going sharing files freely? Maybe it depends entirely on the software they’ve downloaded to transfer files… If so what is the minimum info that would be required? Or are the answers obvious and I’m showing my ignorance thanks!
I had seen this direct messages being free thing mentioned, but had in no way grasped what was being implied. The ramifications for the sharing of knowledge/ideas make me practically giddy. Again, amazing work you people are doing.
It is something like this. You can create an account without Safecoin, but it isn’t committed to the network - it exists temporarily to allow you some time to deposit Safecoin into it.
If you deposit Safecoin, that is used to pay for the account to be created on the network, if the grace period expires first the account will disappear.
For clarification, point of entry to have an account on SAFEnet would be to have a friend that donates you safecoin or to buy from an exchange (kyc etc) ? And there is a time limit so exchanges should be set up beforehand?
You will also be able to farm without an account. I’m not sure how that works, but you will be able to have a wallet address without an account and then add the wallet to your account to open it.
Absolutely as a wallet address is just an ed2559 signing key and the API will allow you to create these.
This is good news. A little point but it does add a little barrier to point of entry though. For me personally, i can handle that, but my brother for example
I am fairly certain there will be app level functionality to make this seem pretty transparent. Also things like faucets that only allow 1 coin per IP or similar can happen when the time is right. Then things like every twitter user that has been on twitter for X period gets one and so on. (twitter/facebook etc.)
How is this allocated? I don’t see that in the SAFECOIN section of the “Fundamentals”.
Does this mean app developers will earn safecoins and then will have to distribute them to get people to be able to use their app? If so, would this not require some initial investment on the devs part?