SAFEr Browser(s) Proposal

A million percent with you.

Especially with my and everyone else’s money is involved…

.safenet represents another domain on the old http www internet.

SAFE: represents a new internet with a new protocol that replaces http www.

5 Likes

How long and much funding would it take to make a simple striped down browser that all it did was SAFE:, had a link to download the launcher, and simple instructions on how to use?

I believe @MrAnderson almost had this built.

1 Like

Perhaps @frabrunelle will upload the Q&A soon so that we may understand why the changes were decided on.

2 Likes

That’s all well and good, and plugins can be built for the outside browsers. But we’re talking about SAFEr browser here.

You are the one in charge of SAFEr, so if we’re funding and creating a whole new browser, then making safe: is totally possible and should be done!

Why make SAFEr browser if not for safe: ? What other point is there for SAFEr? Why make it? For what function?

You were on our side, and you went way out of your way @joshuef to create SAFEr, with the primary function of using safe:. That was the first function you gave it. It’s the most important.

Very interested to see what made you change your mind about this.

Seems like we’re funding another Opera or Firefox here, instead of a SAFEr browser, because they’ll all be using .safenet, so I’m honestly trying to see the point of creating it?

2 Likes

Exactly, that’s the browser we’re funding.

Uses safe: so you won’t need a all those .pac steps, and an embedded launcher so you can login and post data etc all with one powerful browser.

Save the .pac etc for the other browsers.

4 Likes

I’d be with you, but I just think MaidSafe has been pretty firm thus far about adding support for them, and I’ve learned over the years that it can be hard to change their minds, once set :stuck_out_tongue:

So I just say why not have both? We’re making a browser from the ground up, so why not give it all the features? 1-click & go?

And also let them have plugins for a few browsers, if people want. But I’m with you, and think the plugins should be very very far down on the priorities list; we can’t forget what’s actually important (SAFE takeover)!

Hope to donate ASAP.

Here’s the recording of the Q&A. It’s an Ogg file, so you will need to download it and use a software such as VLC media player to play it. I haven’t done any editing, so it’s a bit long :stuck_out_tongue: (1:04:06)

Also, here are the notes I had prepared for the Q&A.

I could write a summary of everything we discussed, but there were a lot of topics so maybe it’s better if we focus on one topic at a time? I could start by writing a summary of the part where we discussed SAFE protocols (safe: and safe://) and domains (.safenet).

6 Likes

Pretty please :slight_smile: thx for the upload

1 Like

Just listened to the .ogg, and there was 1 “one” only 1 point raised against ‘safe:’ and it was this:

  • One person in the voice chat was concerned that SAFE Network would lose a large chunk of its potential userbase by not catering to chrome, since chrome (and only chrome!) doesn’t allow custom protocols, so the command won’t be intercepted / read by that particular browser.

That’s it. So they’re saying that we shouldn’t focus on creating a custom protocol in the SAFEr browser because it can’t be supported in Chrome (and he said web devs would therefore have to make separate builds for people who insist on viewing their creation on chrome).

Needless to say, I disagree.

Like said in all of the many many excellent and powerful points above by many community members, setting a powerful precedent early on is crucial. We are building the next generation of the internet, not just another type of .onion!!

This needs to be clear, and I don’t think anyone will be put off by the new browser, especially if it (SAFEr) can work on mobile. It will be easier than .pac’s and extensions for each browser, for both the builders and for the SAFE viewers!

PLEASE DON’T LET CHROME HOLD US ALL BACK!!!

8 Likes

I feel like we have all brought up a good amount of bulletproof points for this here, and have been pushing for safe: for a long time as a community.

We have all also given you a good amount of money to make a browser that does this (safe:), as this is what was advertised to us.

I think that switching back to safe: is the only logical thing to do at this point.

Very much looking forward to hearing MaidSafe or @joshuef at this point now

2 Likes

To be fair, it wasn’t MaidSafe; it seemed to be just one person in the voice chat, who had a convincing tone, and the rest just seemed to go with it.

So I definitely am not saying MaidSafe or even @joshuef did anything dishonest or misleading on purpose.

Just hope we get this sorted out, as it is the right thing to do here

3 Likes