If you can not transfer ownership then you do not own it.
Of course it has everything to do with that (what I said).
Ehm, nope.
There were 2 questions, one about transfer of file ownership, and another for domains on .safenet
.
You can send a file, but the network doesnât have the concept of the file title (ownership) transfer.
That files can be sent (and downloaded) we knew before this topic existed. And that has nothing to do with the concept of file ownership. If it existed, the same file wouldnât be allowed to exist in two accounts at the same time. Get it?
We know that private data can be shared via messaging. The files donât exist in the accounts at all, they exist in xor space, the accounts just link to them and share them. The relevent question when it comes to private data is who owns the encryption keys for a given file? But shouldnât that be just as easy to transfer to another account as a file location in xor space if need be?
You canât write to another personâs account, they must upload on their own behalf.
The protocol could allow transfer of file ownership if it made sense.
For example, it may make sense if the network had some censorship, uh, I mean, enforcement features, so that it refuses to store a copy. Then files on the network would be valuable and âownedâ at least as far as the SAFE network is concerned.
But I understand SAFE deduplication will merely not store identical copies, but it will allow people to âhaveâ them in their accounts.
If file ownership existed it would be tough as it would automatically create monopolistic situations. For example whoever has the most money could upload whatever garbage from the web exists and prevent everyone from uploading their garbage to the network. So you could find housefly in a situation where you canât post and use your own photo (without altering it). Simplistic banning of duplicate content would create more problems than it solves.