SafeNet needs a completely new communication protocol

Somehow I was also thinking that the chunks are now downloaded straight from adults to clients. But I’m not sure. Maybe someone from @maidsafe can set us straight.

1 Like

But does it matter? Nobody knows what data in one chunk is?

There are a few moving parts here. But we are looking at stability first. The anonymity or IP hiding is still fundamental, but not great yet. Tor like onion routing etc. will all be considered and tested, but even tor is struggling these days. We may need to look at something better than that.

I would not be surprised governments soon demand even proxies/vpn etc. become registered in the frantic push for control over digital data.

All in all it’s all up in the air, but our fundamental is to protect users of the network from snooping. Encryption helps a lot, but we would prefer even the use of Safe is not known, but we will see how we get on there.

The world’s changing fast, we need to be smart about this one.

18 Likes

It was being said that the Elder will do the sending from the section, there is the issue of ensuring the chunk is correct.

If the adult sends the chunk directly to the client then the adult could send garbage (after giving valid hash to elder as proof), if the client complains then how does the section (elders) know the client isn’t lying causing delays, extra work, etc for the elders as they punish the adult when the adult was correct.

Read the latest (that I’ve found) on this.

9 Likes

Yeah, I guess I just mixed two things in my head.

  1. The change in data replication, where adults send the data directly to each other, not via elders anymore.
  2. How data travels from adults to client.

I just remembered something got a bit straighter, and mixed things up.

2 Likes

Does it relate to messaging protocol, or pt. 4 on clearnet protocols? What applications are you talking about implementing in WASM, some messenger app or safenet node/client itself?

Perhaps it could be done in client, but it’s sometimes important to have your messages on another device, it’s like difference between POP3 and IMAP in e-mail.

1 Like

Sorry for the late reply.

I will try to explain what I meant - in the Network Fundamentals, the features of the SN are described which say how you can send messages for free but with guaranteed privacy and security - in short it concerns the following points:

2 - The Safe Network will never have any third parties who have the ability to either read or store the information sent by a User .

4 - The Network will always ensure that the User has the ability to send transaction messages and posts with a temporary and single-use ID that is not linked to any known identity on the Network.

6 - Each Client Account manages information about the User which will include several identities. These identities are likely to be cryptographic key pairs.

9 - The Network itself will never hold passwords as this is a common cause of data loss. Instead, a User will only ever be required to enter a password locally on the device which they use to access the Network.

10 - The Network must ultimately be accessible to any User on any device. When that User logs out from the Network and leaves that machine, there must be no evidence, that shows what activity the User undertook on the Safe Network.

11 - After a User has started to communicate directly with anyone else after the first Safe Network node that it connects to, the User’s IP address is scrubbed and untraceable.

15 - The Safe Network will never rely on servers, as to do so introduces a third party weakness that undermines the entire Network.

16 - By ensuring that all transactions are digitally signed, the Network is able to ensure that the transactions have been authorised in accordance with the rules of the Network.

Especially point 17 - Ensure that Client-to-Client direct messages are free. It will charge, however, for Client-to-Client messages involving traversal through the Safe Network.
Clients are software programs that allow users to connect to the Safe Network. There will never be charge levied by the Network if messages are sent directly between two Clients. However, any indirect messages that are sent between Clients that involve travel across the Network will carry a cost.

18 - Never use time as a network tool.
There is no concept of time in a decentralised network, Safe uses a completely event-driven paradigm to circumvent the need to try and synchronise and then use time periods as valid tools on the network. This is something the Network avoids with rigour.

19 - Services or traffic must be encrypted if they are to be used by the Safe Network.

As you can see, SafeNet’s structure is so different from clearnet’s operation that sending quick messages on a p2p basis guarantees full privacy and security without the need to go through intermediate nodes. Such messages could be free - unless you want to save them data network.

Case two → see your next post to me.

1 Like

Im unsure how data could be sent p2p , normally data is stored on the network then accessed by someone who knows where its stored and has the keys to decrypt it.

If p2p is possible thats great, but alot has changed over time.

Edit.
I guess it could be stored locally and deleted later, i would imagine that is going to compromise some security though.

Maybe I did not express myself very precisely, but I quoted proposal of @bochaco’s,, which (if I understand correctly) would be an intermediate variant between communication based on CRDT data structures stored in the SN, and the communication of fast, free messages saved locally - described by me in the previous post.

Bochaco proposed - “E.g. perhaps implementing the Lightning Network protocol (over DBCs) where a mobile farmer can create channels where messages will be routed through, obtaining tiny fractions of SNT as rewards for it, which would be the mobile farming reward. So all separate from the nodes farmers which take care of Safe persisted data.” - this means a lightweight protocol for quick messages but paid (indirect variant).
Whereas I agree with the proposal to create a Lightning Network protocol, but I believe that for saving gossips the participation of mobile farmers and the creation of channels is not necessary, because SafeNet itself guarantees a sufficient level of privacy and security.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

1 Like

Differences in viewpoint / perception maybe.
You were calling for it to be free, which it could be from a user viewpoint.

I was saying if it had a real world cost it needed paying for.

This is covered in the bit you just posted by

So it would be paid for, but by the network.

Edit.
Im unsure if it should be free though to the user.
Thats basically forcing those paying for storage to pay for communications to be provided at their expense, forcing up their costs, as they are the only ones paying into the ecosystem.
Doesnt seem reasonable to me.

1 Like