There was also the issue of maintaining the code for each browser and each browser’s version. So the decision was made to go the proxy (for now) which is a far easier maintenance path, more secure and easier for the user to install.
I have no idea if safe:// will be introduced once the network is live and the devs have more time.
Although a SAFE browser development is on the table for CEP
Any idea on how ipfs handles it?
Something along these lines was mentioned in the responses …
I think we should not be reluctant , these days one can fork the best browser
engines and mod , add or delete a few lines of code to make safe:// work …
Over time such forks and leaving the code to adapt open source will likely result
in major browsers including it as soon as we get enough traction and users aboard .
I say : We should just do it 
Mozilla is doing a Browser built in RUST language , Servo 69 , would be cool to use that … This Week In Servo 69 - Servo, the embeddable, independent, memory-safe, modular, parallel web rendering engine
Yes safe:// is extremely important and I hope to see it in the CEP browser
I agree otherwise it just looks like a new long domain and not something unique
Could you remind me why :// is better or even necessary with a native browser…I’ve lost track of that conversation.
I’ve warmed to the .safenet scheme…clean and descriptive.
With a native browser no prefix is necessary. Even the www creators have stated that including http:// is unnecessary and was a mistake.
In the end this is largely up to opinion, but safe:// describes better the idea of it being something else than the standard internet with it’s myriad of weird new .domains. A great example of this is how .safe is already taken.
edit: how to resolve the situation if the standard internet implements .safenet in the future as a normal domain?
Not 100% sure (I may be wrong)
<nitpick> I think it was the double / that they said was a mistake. The protocol identifier is, however, probably important (http ftp safe etc.). </nitpick>
The questions here are interesting though, if we hack a browser then we can use safe:XX, however this means the browser perhaps can use http:XX as well, the mix though has to be agreed (i.e. safe with http, safe only etc.).
If we are to provide plugins to normal browsers then, AFAIK we cannot affect the protocol handler. Tor seems to also agree with this part AFAIK.
Of course it’s all code, so we can do anything, however a hacked browser like tor’s or even servo may be a way we can do anything, but maybe exclude those who do not want another browser (a big issue for many folks).
So then back to plugins and playing by the rules browser manufacturers stipulate 
My feeling is the browser should be integral to SAFE apps, where folk use their usual web browser for the web, but in safe apps the browser is a SAFE only browser. This does though draw a large battle line between safe web and clearnet web.
We also need to remember folk can and will create bridges between the two and it may take off as a simpler easier, but less secure network (in terms of browsing at least). This could be unfortunate but perhaps unavoidable.
So my feeling (right now) is that what folk know as a browser should not exist in SAFE, but SAFE apps should make use of a SAFE browser, maybe even looking very different from their web browser.
So Open Source win’s as usual, the best solution will win here, we just need to decide where our efforts go for now. With more resources we can have more options (bad for people to have too many options, the paradox of choice == stagnation and no choice).
Hmm, maybe I need to go into politics after reading this.
TL;DR My vote is a SAFE only browser that can easily be called from any SAFE app and never allows clearnet links. I know others will have equally compelling reasons not to restrict people like this and I know the only correct answer will be answered in the future looking back with the “obviously” statements 
I think you are right, it was only the // part. But i could not find confirmation on quick search.
That makes sense…thanks.
With an ‘assesment’ fee of US$185,000 for a gTLD, the odds of it happening within the next 10 years would seem slim…barring nefarious intent.
No, a thousand times no. SAFE has nothing to do with http!!!
This is the very confusion we need to avoid!!!
barring nefarious intent.
This should not be dismissed surely.
Seems like we are ready to ignore this disaster scenario more because it’s convenient and easy to hope it won’t happen, because we don’t have an alternative that appears as neat.
This worries me. I’ve said it before but nobody else seems worried about it enough to join in with my worry!
Let’s imagine: $200k to mount an attack that would devastate SAFEnetwork.
Who would do this? There are plenty! Example 1: someone shorting Safecoin, 2: any number of governments, 3: any number of threatened commercial interests.
We seem ready to debate some more dubious technical attacks on the network and satisfactorily refute them, but just let this one pass. I’m a bit baffled really.
Please convince me this is not a threat someone?
The obvious mitigation is to purchase the TLD, although that is not watertight, it would be a much higher hurdle. Maybe we need to develop a plan to fund that, or maybe one already exists but has to be kept secret for some reason.
Please don’t
Very glad to see a post with your stance on this. Have been very interested in your & MaidSafe’s thoughts on creating “safe://”
Lets make a poll to see people their opinion just curious what everyone thinks
Give us some threat clues
Edit:
The application window for the last round closed on 12 April 2012.
In the gTLD database .safe is listed, but not .safenet
The next round has not been announced
They, the oligarchs, are more subtle than that: they try to co-opt stuff over rather than destroy it.
You don’t need to look far to see an instructive example: The Tor network. Apart from some governments blocking it, no-one (AFAIK) has put such a bounty on it or tried to destroy it.
What they have done (well documented) is to put up sybil nodes and (not so well documented, but likely done by the NSA) to mount traffic analysis attacks. And, of course, they use it themselves, since Tor was created by the US military.
Therefore my informed guess is that, when SAFEnet’s technical merit becomes widely known, the (state and non-state) gangsters will use it themselves as another tool of their operations. They will also hire people to “attack” its security in order to discover the participants and owners of SAFE sites and services, and then perhaps to get them to turn informant or otherwise do their bidding. But they won’t try to bring it down.
I see two camps of users, 1) devs who don’t care about clearnet vs SAFE and just use the network for its cheap easy backend and possible income and 2) users who want and most likely will demand a locked down tough as nails SAFE only browser to make sure that data is as secure as possible.
I certainly prefer #2 myself (I want to know 100% that any links or communication to the clearweb from apps or pages are not a concern because the browser doesn’t even recognize them…) but anything that uses SAFE network storage is a plus in my book.
I would LOVE to see a browser that isn’t the 20 year old layout of back, forward, refresh, bookmarks and address bar! With SAFE acting as essentially a local(ish) file system, getting around can look like whatever someone can dream up!
Since Mozilla and Servo are FOSS, and the latter is written in Rust, it would seem easier to just fork one of them to SAFE, in the manner of Tails. Building a browser from scratch is a big undertaking, and for some time there will be other pressing demands on our resources.
I know Brave has been mentioned several times and seems like a prime candidate since they are trying to implement a payment protocol within the browser as well…
Open bazaar’s browser is pretty neat visually. Certainly unlike the generic FF or Chrome.