SAFE Network TEST 9 + SAFE Mail Tutorial

Safenet is currently still completely theoretical. Before we see an actual implementation that works in the wild we should think of it as a next-gen cloud storage architecture. It works, as long as your nodes are managed by a trusted entity.

Then the alpha could of been called testnet 8 and 9, cause as long as the vault are runned by droplets the maidsafe network would never be seen as decentralized and free.

Yes? I wholeheartedly agree the ‘alpha’ release was premature, it has very little in common with what maidsafe/safe network was supposed to be.

The Alpha releases let the application developers have access to API’s as they become more stable. There are some great debates on this in house and on the dev forum. TESTnets do show vaults from home on occasion but right now we know the trip point so until we apply the fixes for unbalanced nodes vaults from home are pointless. I do not think it’s all that theoretical as we can show vaults form home and show exactly the issues. We can code in some temp safeguards, like vaults self test and self terminate, but it takes time and distraction. Instead we are doing the right job and the correct fix for the unbalanced nodes.

Remember the guys in the field in Carolina did a very similar thing, heres a plane, see it works, now let’s make this great!. Flight was proven and things moved on. So folks can run their own networks, we can run more test from home networks (again) and show something similar to what happened near Kitty Hawk, but we have done. Now we need to make the changes for data republish and nodes of varying capability (which includes killing or not accepting some nodes).

I am not saying we have proven everything, satisfactory security, republish etc. as an example, but I think we can safely say we are beyond theory by this stage. The remaining parts are there in rfc’s or discussions, atm we are choosing as wisely as possible the completion works in routing for a network to allow vaults to run from anywhere.

Anyhow I hope this helps a little in terms of context, like Orville and Wilber never provided a 3 course menu and air hosts etc. not many could say it was only theory, there has to be a point where we can see what’s real and what’s still conjecture. So not complete and no 3 course meals but not purely theory ether.

BTW Fun fact, nobody believed the plane did fly for nearly a year and serious papers etc. did not even turn up apparently (I think it was a farmers journal or something that reported it and it still took many science journals a year to see for themselves). Even after then taking a couple of years to progress the tech, they tried and failed to sell to the US, UK, Russia etc. as no government believed it was possible . so we are not alone there either, it’s happened before and it will happen again and again and again and … :wink:


“When you change the world and no one notices”:

In his 1952 book on American history, Frederick Lewis Allen wrote:

Several years went by before the public grasped what the Wrights were doing; people were so convinced that flying was impossible that most of those who saw them flying about Dayton [Ohio] in 1905 decided that what they had seen must be some trick without significance – somewhat as most people today would regard a demonstration of, say, telepathy. It was not until May, 1908 – nearly four and a half years after the Wright’s first flight – that experienced reporters were sent to observe what they were doing, experienced editors gave full credence to these reporters’ excited dispatches, and the world at last woke up to the fact that human flight had been successfully accomplished.

The Wrights’ story shows something more common than we realize: There’s often a big gap between changing the world and convincing people that you changed the world.

Jeff Bezos once said:

Invention requires a long-term willingness to be misunderstood. You do something that you genuinely believe in, that you have conviction about, but for a long period of time, well-meaning people may criticize that effort … if you really have conviction that they’re not right, you need to have that long-term willingness to be misunderstood. It’s a key part of invention.


This also reminds me of the Japanese mathematician who published a proof 4 years ago, that nobody else could understand.
I just googled it, and guess what there is improvement: :slight_smile:


TEST 9 has been restarted – all data has been reset

About an hour ago, we restarted the vault network. There was a bug in churn handling that ended up taking all the nodes offline. We had to patch this in safe_vault and restart the vault network with updated binaries.

For testing purposes, we make the nodes crash immediately for certain types of errors. We obviously wouldn’t do that in production code, instead we would simply make the nodes print error messages. But for testnets, making the nodes fail fast instead of printing error messages can help us catch bugs faster. In this case, it helped us catch a small bug in safe_vault. You can see the fix here.

All accounts and data have been reset, therefore you will need to create a new account with SAFE Launcher.

You can keep using the same version of SAFE Launcher (v0.9.0).



He’s back!! :innocent:



Just to note, I’m seeing a “The proxy server is refusing connections” in Firefox.
Working ok in beaker; so, I guess we now must all use only the one true browser at least for Test9… available at

Removing the proxy, stops my scanning for sites using wget. :expressionless:
Also, links above the don’t work as links, as you can’t view the list in beaker and cannot move from here to beaker. Copy+Paste.repeat? Not sure this is the right point to remove the proxy…


re: everything must be authorised

I wonder that the launcher authorisation, should have an ‘allow scripts globally’ in the same way that no-script addon for Firefox does. That would allow - with a warning - users control over what application can access SAFE. So, that would fix Firefox for those fools who want a quick route around the need to have the latest beaker; those who want wget to zing requests; and whatever other bespoke applications might not have been setup for get an authorisation token. no-script works well and the launcher could equally have an :scream_cat:!exclamation icon warning that its wide open to ‘abuse’ by any and all applications. Another alternate that would work, would be that launcher instead of refusing unauthorised app, puts a confirm or deny option up in front of the user, allowing for single exceptions to be allowed for that session.

Has anyone tried to run the email app from webstorm or intellij? I can’t seem to get it running from there, although I haven’t used node js before so maybe it’s something simple… Webstorm isn’t recognising the import packages at the moment.

I have a 30Mbps download speed and never been abled to download the safe launcher 50m ~ … is there any other way than GitHub ?

Here are my first thoughts seeing this email tutorial app:

It doesn’t look like anyone is deleting the Immutable data structures… so basically anyone’s one off messages will pollute the network for all of eternity?

Looks like you can trick users into allowing your app access just by copying the name/version etc of another non malicious app they use frequently, “oh weird it just asked for mail access twice in a row, must be a bug i will click allow”

If these apps are all being run by one os-level user, then these apps can reach into each others install directories cant they (seeing other apps keys or object ids etc)? So now we have another security nightmare of trying to run every app in a sandbox or its own os-level user

Seems like this launcher is quickly going to become super vital and never have as many features as users will want:

  • You are going to have to put in features like limiting how much data apps can use, since it is the user paying and not the app.
  • Going to have to put in a feature to “track” all the data that apps put on the network so you can delete stuff that rogue or lazy apps dont delete themselves

The whole idea of a third party (an app) being able to use up resources that you (user) have to pay for is going to be a nightmare. Just like in the real world where condo associations waste your money and there is nothing you can do about it.

So once again, at the end of the day all this incredibly smart and sophisticated peer to peer secure system is being weak linked by user convenience and naivety about how they will run apps and how operating systems currently work.

1 Like

Not in answer directly but prompted by… could the apps’ data not be within the SAFE network?.. then there is no reaching into other directories.

Yes, but a proper app would be doing caching wouldn’t it? Sounds like very inefficient to download all data over and over instead of storing it locally to me.

That should happen automatically, they use opportunistic caching, I believe.

/edit Not sure if that will work if it’s only one person requesting the data, and only occasionally. But if you request the data more often, it should come closer to you, I think.


I think this is more of a tech demo to get us started doing things on the network than the full featured launcher will we will have at launch. As you said, the system needs to be much more flexible robust to handle user’s data and it will only get worst when Safecoins are added in.

I’m confident the team at MaidSafe are well aware of that tough and I’m quite curious to hear what they have in mind for the future of the launcher.

1 Like

So, its cached locally within the capability of a mini vault… lots of routes away from it being liable to only what the OS can do.

1 Like

Lots of good feedback there, but try to think of the potential and how solvable these problems are. We are in the early days and there will be plenty of time to optimise the UX once the core components are functioning well.

1 Like

@fergish I just send you the first hashcash transaction on the SAFE Network.

I basically send you a bitcoin privatekey as subject :kissing_heart: Thanks for the safecrossroads.

What I would love to see in the future is:
That you include the privatekey in the SAFE Mail’s subject and when you click send a message is
also send to the bitcoin network to change the password to that privatekey. It would be fun, if somehow the bitcoin network could send the password to your SAFE email. Although this transaction was fun, fact is I can still spend it, because I also got the privatekey.


Hope @fergish ergish still remembers his account info :joy:

Nice gesture by the way @19eddyjohn75