Does not having smart contracts make maid less competitive in the market?
The only thing he got correct was “It’s not a blockchain”
The only thing he got correct was “It’s not a blockchain”
Yep, I double checked.
The question is if he is right in the sense, can it be sybilled?
If it could easily be sybil attacked, do you think we would all be wasting our time here?
The whole point of node aging for good behaviour (a sort of proof of work), deferred rewards (a bit like proof of stake), elder promotion, etc, is to protect the network against such attacks.
He is just spouting shit tbh. He doesn’t want to engage in debate. He doesn’t seem to understand the technology.
Safe Network is competitive in many spaces. Smart contracts, no … at least not yet. That said if it adopts a compute layer and adopts an interesting efficient scalable language for that compute layer, it could be highly competitive in that space. The team have plenty on their plate now though, so IMO, smart contracts - even in theory, can wait for a while.
Personally, I think smart contracts is an a overused term but it’s something that many in the cryptospace look for. SN has plenty going for it regardless. Securing your network oracle(s) where consensus enforcement meets the real world seems far more important than any contract computation mechanism.
As far as he is concerned
We are messing with his emporors tailor.
I wonder how long it took him to adopt blockchain tech.
There will come a point where he has his light bulb moment and for the final time says…
oh shoot! It’s not blockchain!!!
By that point though it will be too late for him to buy in cheap.
Why not invite him to crash the network (at an appropriate time)
That would be great marketing at the right time.
Put up a $1,000,000 prize for the first person to hack the network.
I think at the right time many of us will be able to contribute to such a fund.
I think I was more curious from those of you who are technically inclined if this was good or bad for potential cross integrations and if not having it was a downside for maid. I understand what you are saying though.
To be clear you are asking if a theoretical network (as it’s not in beta yet), can be theoretically taken over.
The Safe Network is possibly the most complex autonomous crypto project every designed. It has many safeguards in the design against Sybil attack.
But Sybil attack success is a question of scale - how much resources does the attacker have (and are willing to lose) and how much resources do the good nodes in the network have.
ANY network can lose to a Sybil attack if the attacker is willing to throw enough resources at it. If world governments were to really push hard against Bitcoin, bye-bye BTC.
Safe Network should IMO, have good advantages here - consumer-facing product means huge numbers of nodes - far more than BTC. Xor addressing means it’s really hard for attackers to gain a foothold - they really have to mass attack - overwhelm the network with nodes. Adults and Elders means that the attacker has to spend a lot of resource (think actual wealth/value/money) to gain control even AFTER they have swarmed the network.
So theoretically, the Safe Network should, IMO, be highly resistant to Sybil attacks - once it is established. Notice my caveat at the end. Until it has a fair number of nodes, it is vulnerable IF a wealthy attacker decides to take it down … then what … it goes back up again and the attacker has to spend more wealth to take it down again …rinse wash repeat, are the attackers pockets infinite?
So ultimately, “can it be sybilled”? yeah, sure … but will it?
What is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life the universe and everything?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
There are a lot of buzzwords in that that are not necessarily used correctly and it is clear that he has not done general research beyond ‘scripture’ (cue to St Vitalik with a shining lambo). Let’s pick a random example:
“Small work network” … charitably assuming he means a “small world network” (formally meaning that while every node may not be connected to peers, their connections are likely to be, and if not … under certain circumstances the chance of successful data retrieval degrades) e.g. how many direct hops does it take to reach data…
As a quick aside, we know that TOR is generally not broken and it has a worse ‘small world’ score than SAFE, but I digress… We know that there is a max bound that scales with log(N) nodes, and can be substantively minimized (e.g you - elder - elder_responsible_node - storage_node_with_data), so that falls on its face. “destroying a small [world] network” is at best a misaprehension. Language like “masternodes”? Pls leave your blockchain world and well worn critiques of competitors… , etc. etc.
Hate to say it, but there is a shit load of this inbound. First they laugh, then they dismiss, then they fight, etc. etc.
I think the number of people who do currently care, and the new people coming that will care and “get it” will be a large enough number so that we don’t to care about what’s inbound.
We will progress by doing, not talking (marketing pumps in all other coins).
Once my data is online - what do I care about the misinformed criticisms from some dude?
I will have immediate satisfaction from the network unlike people who follow blockchain tech who need to wait for gainz in their investment and are fragile to any criticism.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Haha just caught up with this thread. The guy is so very sure of himself and so totally and comically wrong. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in that one. What a plonker.
Referring to oneself as a ‘polymath’ as he does in his Twitter bio is usually a bad sign…
Polymath experts are rarely worth debating It’s the sad side of crypto currencies, a lot of new to the world experts, technical experts who are experts in cryptography, concurrency, consensus, economics, business models and well after a while they do prove expertise in … nothing at all.
Isn’t it 42???
Cruel but true, no offense!