Thoughts about offering "SAFE" as a business solution

What are one of the major costs for reasonable sized business networks and risks? Storage and backup with the risk of downtime doing restores or even permanent loss of data.

The idea is to

  • Expect that the commercial license would have removed any reward structure since whole network belongs to a business
  • the commercial license prevents the connection to any other SAFE networks. In other words it only talks to itself.
  • spread out the core data store across the business machines, maybe tailor a SAFE system that can have favoured machines for storage so that only machines on the core network can have vaults. Vaults can be predefined as persistent since no rewards for farming would exist.
  • The business can then keep some performance critical databases on dedicated servers if needed but all other data can be spread across the other machines.
  • If remote offices lose connection to main office then the majority of the business data will still be accessible without any requirement for specialised file systems. safe would replace any distributed file system requirements since it is one.
  • The data is always stored encrypted. Am “evil” employee cannot gain access to some “server” and download files s/he would not normally have access to.

Is there a potential market in selling SAFE to businesses?

  • The licensing profits could go towards developers of SAFE to reward them for their efforts and for the running of the non-profit organisation. And for support to the business. (add Support Maintenance fees)
  • The business has greater security of their core data.

Am I being silly here and missed something, or could this be a future possibility to support further development and aid in expanding the exposure of SAFE.

SAFE cannot prevent anyone from connecting to it.

I believe using the real SAFE network is much safer than using a micro-copy. There is no compelling reason to privatize SAFE, as it is already private. You just run on a much smaller and less redundant network…

3 Likes

This was mentioned before and I think everyone agreed it would be a bad idea. You could juice your own farm, you could create a “hosted wallet” service that could (effectively) take users’ data for ransom, etc.

Licensing for access is not possible without knowing the identity of each individual user. David said it’s not possible to physically prevent anyone from accessing the service, but even if you could do require that from the T&C perspective, people could simply ignore it, so it’d be unenforceable.

There is a major reason why business’ will not join SAFE, that is they refuse to put their data onto outside machines.

I see no reason that SAFE could not be made such that it will only recognised a modified system. It routes to itself and must know how to recognise itself, so a variant could be made that is “not SAFE” but is “SAFE by another name”. Also the business could set their firewalls to not route the range of ports

Certainly a bad idea for SAFE. But since its a company version then the problems become mostly if not all non-existent.

Perhaps the reasons for providing licensed versions is for providing support, and maybe some mods so that the company can limit some parts of it. This support can be worth a lot to companies and the non-profit organisation could benefit from that.

Understand me, this is only a thought and may not be worth the electrons used to post it.

1 Like

There is a major reason why business’ will not join SAFE, that is they refuse to put their data onto outside machines.

As with any new tech. (email, cloud storage etc) some businesses will leap in and others will be slow to adopt, some may even try what you suggest - fork SAFE and try to create/sell walled SAFE-alike networks. I don’t think it makes sense to do myself, but I also don’t see it as an issue for the project. Anyone can take the code and try doing what they want with it.

In time, when SAFE becomes proven, business will join SAFENetwork because it does the job, and even though they don’t own the computers (just like the internet now).

Addressed in Great detail here:

2 Likes

Okay, let’s see some potential reasons against an internal fork of Maidsafe:
a) 4 copies could be a bit too much for any individual company’s own use
b) companies don’t need to farm their own data and earn their own currency

There are reasons why companies would want to use Maidsafe (the non-forked version), but they probably wouldn’t want to be identifiable or in any way distinguishable from the rest of its users (security in numbers).

2 Likes

A key point I used to present. SAFE presents a backwards approach to security. Rather than a silo where all your data is locatable in one place, spread it far and wide, which mixes it with all data. It’s much harder to decrypt data when you do not even know where or what it is.
So instead of local-> LAN -> MAN -> WAN being less secure, we turn that around where Local si the worst, LAN is very bad, MAN is a target etc. Many miss this so great to see the community spotting it :slight_smile: Very happy

4 Likes

@jreighley thank you for the video and ultimately thank you David @dirvine for answering this thought.

1 Like