What if we get DAO'ed?

What if Safecoin gets DAO’ed? Since we don’t have a blockchain/ledger, I can’t think of a way to roll back the theft.

Two entirely separate structures. MAID doesn’t work like the dao. There is no consensus based mechanism or anything like that.


Would the introduction of Structured Data on Maidsafe Network enable the building of smart contracts? If so would that make Ethereum / DAO redundant?

1 Like

the long and short of it is we could make the DAO on maidsafe and It would be better more effective more secure than the DAO on ethereum.

It’s just a matter of who developed and implements the maidsafe variation.


Pretty sure safenet has a consensus mechanism , just different to blockchain consensus , it’s technically possible to change the address/ownership of coins in the network but you would need to have huge amounts of power to be able to control such a large amount of the network to hope you are lucky enough to get control of enough groups to push such a change to the ownership of a coin , technically possible, but hugely expensive and not worth the effort i don’t think , maybe in the beginning but it will become infinitely harder the larger the network is.

Smart contracts will be possible but it wouldn’t make ethereum /DAO redundant , but DAO is already pretty much redundant , they did that all by themselves .


All of what you said but also very difficult, almost infeasible of targeting a group as churn happens, ip addresses are scrubbed, and groups are picked based on xor closeness


I think this will happen in many stages. StructuredData is stage 1 for sure. Then introduce programmable primitives a bit at a time. There are already several languages suited for this and this is also where I am very keen on zk-snarks to ensure no runaway program can occur. So it will provide capabilities like ethereum for sure, but much slower and not initially turing complete.

A great thing about the dao is people will now think of this much more and there are already a ton of papers/posts regarding doing it right. That all helps. looks like Cornell will help out and I think Zooko and his team over at zcash will also be important in doing this correctly, of course with all the lessons the DAO and Ethereum are learning/finding at the moment. I think it all helps and also shows that starting with a DSL or similar is a perhaps a more secure approach.


Thanks for the explanation. So it is eventually achievable… All the more reason to go long on maid i suppose.


Of course Safecoin will be designed to prevent theft, but the DAO was too. There can always be bugs in software. Is there a contingency plan in case a Safecoin bug is exploited in order to steal a large amount of Safecoin? The Ethereum network’s contingency plan is a hard fork but that isn’t possible without a blockchain/ledger.

1 Like

The theft or the roll-back?

The roll-back is harder to imagine on SAFEnet, since the coins are not on a single ledger as in the case of Ethereum.

Thefts might happen in similar ways because the smart contracts mechanism is likely to have bugs.

The best way to mitigate such threats to the system would be to not have one huge DAO but many, smaller mechanisms.

1 Like

First thought: Using “DAOed” as verb is hilarious! What if we got daoed! Lol. Or conversely: “How do we raise funds for that?” “Simple, we DAO it!”

Second: Roll back perhaps wouldn’t be the case on the SAFE network. A fork? Perhaps. As we know anyone can fork the network. And when one does so one is essentially creating a whole new network. So it would essentially be a case something like the old bitcoin core vs the new bitcoin improvements that essentially split the blockchain. They couldn’t do both. So the network became divided. Same for SAFE essentially people opting for the new code would go with the fork and people who wanted to try and tough it out with the classic system would stick with the old network. Which network would become dominant would depend on adoption rates. So yeah for SAFE I’m thinking roll back situation would = fork and new network.

I’d have to agree with @bluebird here. The best way to avoid a catastrophe like being DAOed chuckles is to introduce mutation and variety. Why did the potatoe famine happen? Not enough genetic diversity. Why would a massive software crash like the DAO happen? Too much central dependency and not enough diversity, decentralization and competing models. 1. Apps on the SAFE network are not likely to cause the whole network to fail if they themselves fail. 2. If we have a bunch of competing DAOs, which is more likely given it sounds like they’ll be easier to code on SAFE, then if one fails that doesn’t mean they all will. Or if one has a security breach that doesn’t mean they all will and everyone using a DAO will lose money.


Pretty sure this is a confusion of how it works . (the initial question being asked)

Getting DAO’ed aint even possible . transferring the ownership of a coin is completely different to a smart contract milking a smart contract DAO dry .

It would be like saying , how do we prevent people stealing private keys by guessing them , its mathematically impossible to do so.(with current computer power we have) or attacking and taking control of a huge chunk of the blockchain or in safenets case, a huge chunk of new accounts being created . which in safe’s case is likely even more difficult .

the DAO attacker didn’t steal and break some some mathematical theorem , they used the code to funnel coins out of the main project address , it didn’t require control over a majority consensus , it didn’t require a specific amount of power or control over the chain . It was a function of the code to allow it to happen without needing consensus or power over the system.

1 Like

Not a good example, since the received narrative is a fiction: Ireland actually produced a wide range of produce of all kinds, as it does now - which were forcibly exported under the guard of British troops. It was a deliberate genocide “genocide”) by the British government. It was quite similar to the Ukraine genocide of the 30s: a matter of state policy.

But in another way the example fits: such a monopoly of power has to go.

Yes, the great British army implemented it. You won’t see that on the BBC!

Funny how the genocide we hear the most about was actually a hoax, while a supposed act of nature was an equal hoax to conceal a real genocide. So the German army is demonized for doing what the British actually did. Hilarious.


You know I think this is another subtler reason we need SAFE. To get people talking and comparing versions of history. Correcting mistakes, filling in blanks and discussing implications. Getting rid of censorship also helps get rid of revisionist history.

Yes I agree it was a deliberate genocide and caused by monopoly as they were exporting most of their crops. Which is why they were growing potatoes from cuttings and ending up with genetically identical potatoes. Hence when the blight struck there was devastation. But perhaps my information is faulty. What’s your response to sources like the following?


I’d agree much of the famine conditions were caused by economic and political policy. And it’s clear the English didn’t want outsaid aid even when it was offered. Similar to how the Canadian gov’t turned down help from Russia, the U.S. and even African firefighters during the massive fires that were ravaging Alberta and B.C. this summer. It’s political saving of face at the expense of the people.

I was reading through this.

And while it seems a bit complex the main trend seems to be market regulation in favor of England and then ineffectual supports for the Irish and outright turning away of outside charity. One could say gross incompetence and negligence but it’s more likely to be deliberate genocide.

I’d be interested in whatever material you have. I haven’t heard anything about the British army wiping them out but I wouldn’t be surprised. In any event I agree with getting rid of monopoly, protectionism and government regulation of the market. Let people grow what they want to grow.

@dirvine Can you confirm that this would be possible on the SAFE network?

The attacker exploited a bug. The same thing could happen with Safecoin or any other software.

It would but with all new data, from scratch. Of course you can code almost anything. The trick is not to have to. I suspect trying to get lots of people to fork will be much more difficult than a few miners though, but who know really?


Ahh ok so by DAO’ed you don’t mean a company being built on top of a platform and forcing an effective folk on the platform it was built on because it was “too big to fail”

just a normal bug in any software platform that happens to pretty much every piece of software

1 Like

Now you got it…

No, a bug whose exploitation threatens the existence of the whole project. Most bugs do not qualify.