I plan to writeup the denominations stuff (which applies only to blind sigs prototype btw) for a future update, so I won’t go into detail here.
I will just say that your example works for our original dbc design, but doesn’t work for a denomination based approach (required for blind sigs) as one could never have a single Dbc worth exactly 253478000000000000000000000000 to begin with. That’s like having a paper bill worth 253.478 dollars. Doesn’t seem right does it?
Well, actually it is technically possible (via key derivation) and we’ve discussed it, but then every possible amount becomes a denomination, the anonymity set shrinks to 1 for many outputs, and fungibility is therefore lost because it becomes pretty easy to link transactions by unique amounts.
Can the coin be dropped from SAFE if need be?
Shouldn’t Maidsafe prepare a version of the network without the coin as a precaution?
I don’t think any crypto except BT will be legal. My sense is BT is just a fiat patch and the others were tollerated as temporary cover for launching BT. But BT crucially isn’t anonymous. But I’d be shocked if they treated evidence of use of blind DBCs differently than they treat felony contraband or forgery or criminal conspiracy. I think they will treat people who use this like they commited an act of war against the state. The states by consensus think money laundering led to WWII more than anything else. Making free, perfected, frictionless laudering systems will literally have the states declare war on you as fast as debasing their currencies. Having private communication is one thing but this goes to secrecy which is another.
And there really isn’t any ethical high ground here. Yes a crypto like will help people in the 3rd world against despots but despots would use blind dbcs to murder their countrymen and avoid sanction and maybe start the next major conflict which won’t necessarily be survivable.
We shouldn’t be denied a platform for protected free communication because people can’t money grub with it. Maybe it could work with the fiats or BT?
I think there is something that is forgotten here, SAFE is running on people’s hardware, on their power and their connections and what it is doing is filtering out stuff they don’t want. That has a value, but for instance for the storage there is still a prior underlying layer of ownership with end users and they aren’t going to want to charge themselves too much to access what on average will be their own contributed resources.
And how much load are these coin considerations adding to the network in performance? And what if the public prefers to use fiats on the network?
But I guess I never think in terms of secure storage only in terms of secure current communication. And I’ve got low expectations for DeFi.
If USA declare TCP/IP illegal, then Internet will destroy or USA will be not United countries?
The decentralized thing cant control even goverment. Even Bitcoin (and all other blockchains) is hard to stop, just regulating the “exchanges which are operated on server”.
But Maidsafe dont need server, that means everything(exchanges, movies, payment, pictures, message, website, and farming) are on the Maidsafe network itself.
Then let’s go back to first question, Can USA change or regulate TCP/IP protocol or USA can move every IP4 users to IP6 ?
If these are not possible, any government cant regulate SAFE and even they ban it the citizens will join farming for their profit. And I am sure the citizens never happy with their government make a law to regulate farming. And if there are a law to regulate farming, there is no actual way to stop farming.
I think blockchain is just a small piece of “the big decentralized wave”. Let’s think more deeply, and you will know why SAFE need over decades of time to launching.
P.S. If SAFE need any kinds of traditional marketing or promotion thing, I dont bet on this project.
This is what the government think. If the US government recognizes that SN is a very difficult problem due to the anonymity of SN and decides that SN cannot be allowed, he will try to 1) reduce usage by illegalizing maid tokens with governments around the world, and 2) be picked up by modifying the protocol of UDP or TCP to identify made’s transactions.
Anyway, if the government decides to make SN illegal for reasons such as national safety, etc., he will prevent SN from using it in many ways. Or, one of the government’s responses is to require SNs to provide only privacy instead of anonymity.
Governments would prefer privacy over anonymity. Privacy, like email, hides the content, but reveals the sender and recipient. This is mainly from a government point of view and is not my opinion.
Either way, I think there seems to be a big social debate about How far to allow anonymity.
You can earn tokens by running a node, hence you can still store data. Also you don’t need tokens to access and use the network. Lastly, decentralized exchanges on the network itself will be developed. So unstoppable in the longer term at least.
Not sure what you mean by modifying the protocol. But the code for the network will sooner or later be stored on the network, so won’t be modifiable - the history of all code will be preserved as data on the network is permanent.
Transaction data will be mixed with all other traffic, so I think it may be difficult if not impossible to sort that out. Plus there are other tricks that can be done to disguise/obfuscate packets.
They won’t be able to do that as I mentioned above the code will be on the network itself, so no means to force nodes to comply with changes.
Certainly true … Safe Network though is going to make that debate moot.
I agree. I think human history has progressed in the direction of reducing the influence of religious and governmental authorities. However, the server-client model helps to move toward enabling a surveillance society. In other words, the server can be a means to suppress the freedom of citizens excessively. This is against the history.
I think it’s good to guarantee personal privacy and to have transparency in the public domain like cyberpunk’s menifesto.
Changing TCP & UDP protocols would require a long time to be ratified and then a long time of allowing previous stacks to continue working since the stack is in so many legacy systems that will not be changed but HAVE to work. EG government systems still on XP
Illegal to trade fiat <–> Tokens is possible, but the modern method is to simply tax them.
By the time Safe Network is taking over the internet as it is currently, it will be too late. Their thinking has always been as long as they reach 80% of the population then that is considered as good as it gets. (IE 100% satisfaction) If Safe network gets to 20% adoption then by its nature it will grow and by the time any government takes effective action it will already be too late. They’d have to act before, and there is not many instances of that happening anywhere, unless its Oil
Yes, However, in case of end-to-end encryption, I think it can be possible to technically set the new protocol so that portion of http:// or safe:// is not encrypted in the packet. But I don’t know the details.
I don’t know what the government will think when it finds out about SN. I was only referring to cases where it was decided that this would pose a great threat to the country.
I don’t know what the utilization of SN network over Internet will attract the government’s attention. However, regardless of this utilization, if all governments around the world agree that SN is risky, the SN tokens can be delisted from all exchanges around the world. This could lead to the loss of the ability to store value because the price of the token cannot be measured.
Another possibility would be to encourage countries to use this SN code to create other tokens that remove anonymity and provide privacy, and to encourage free trade of these new tokens.
But, I am very positive about SN. Since society is a place where we live together within the basic rules, laws, I think it is helpful to see it from the perspective of other people or country involved. Thank for @neo