Things That Would Not Have Happened On Safe



I didn’t know the story of Bylock, I confess. Very disturbing.

I can see how several aspects of the sorry tale could have been avoided through the SAFE Network, but it also shows the determination of some state actors in suppressing technology such as this, and punishing those that use it.


Iceland may soon use more electricity to mine bitcoin than it uses to power every home, according to an Icelandic energy expert.


Celebrity photo leaks. SAFENet photo storage a must for the famous and in the public eye.


I’m not a fan of celebrity culture so I don’t like myself for floating the idea that this could be a way to get celebrities interested in advocating for security and privacy online, and that if MaidSafe were to help them do this, it would be a way to create mass awareness when the time comes.

There are several sensible, astute and politically active (non aligned) celebrities. I’m thinking Hugh Grant for example (very hacked off - see his twitter handle - over press intrusion and phone hacking). George Clooney maybe. Surely some Scots? And of course we are seeing many women come to the fore with the #MeToo movement and while that’s a different topic, it may still fit well with their goals and values. @dugcampbell?


Good point. Like you @happybeing, not mad keen on either Celebrity culture (or indeed the Daily Mail…) :wink: But the principle’s a sound one. Now, no doubt it needs to be articulated with a bit more finesse than ‘SAFE is great for storing your naked selfies’ … but building into that conversation around what privacy and security actually means when viewed through today’s cultural lens is a really strong message IMO. Some people find the concepts of privacy and security harder to buy into because they somehow seem too remote to them. However, pull that back and simply show how the absence of these protections in real life keeps on coming back to bite you (as this thread keeps highlighting) and you end up leaving a very different picture. At some stage, I’d be very surprised if some of these high profile characters who’ve been burned in the past aren’t drawn to SAFE.


A good option for celebrities would be big pod casters and/or YouTubers. For example, Joe Rogan talks to a lot of random people about new technologies, science, etc. He, I believe, also has the largest podcast in the world, and a pretty big YouTube following too. He’s a self described Libertarian, big on free speech, which would be an easy in to get him interested. We would just need someone to volunteer to talk to him, which I’d imagine would have to be Irvine.

Another option might be H3H3, who are also big free speech advocates, and formerly big YouTubers. They have since branched out into a pretty big podcast.


bless you my friend :pray:


I agree and hope personalities like Joe Rogan would be receptive. One thing Bitcoin has is this mystery to it, and therefore altruistic talking heads to market it. It is different for SAFE. Not to say it can’t be done but it must be done in a creative and authentic way. I think David and/or Nick would actually vibe well with Joe, they are both great speakers with a good sense of humor. They both have their strengths. I think David could blow Rogan’s mind with his futuristic visions though. Hope these avenues are persued after :rocket:


I’ll send him a message :slight_smile:

Worst that can happen is he says no



Worth a read. Worrying changes in China, but I love that Winnie the Pooh is banned too. Such a subversive image!


So, could China theoretically ban the safe network once up and running? Would there be a way to do it? ISP, Chinese firewall etc… just curious


The only realistic way they could do so would be to ban all encrypted traffic. That would cause a lot of other issues, obviously.


I think to some extent they have already done so. Not sure. But wasn’t Safenet traffic capable of looking unencrypted while still being encrypted? Or something?


hmmmm - i guess you are referring to something like

not in connection with safe but similar

and for safe:

but i’m pretty sure it’s that protocols can be hidden inside other protocols so it would look like https//ssl traffic
(the second link has a reference to something that might uncover us though as just hiding inside another protocol :smiley: … [@nice s post 2 down from the think] … but didn’t read the rest - just an observation)


Added to the OP:


@nice Love, love, love, love… Love that.


Another one for the growing list.


Speaking of the internet of things…


So, looks like the whole Binance mess is another thing to add to this list…