When you make open source software, you actually make a huge poster that says, “Come and compete with us.”
Google, Facebook, Amazon do not use another’s products. They take what works and make their own version.
Facebook does not use someone else’s crypto, Facebook makes its own crypto.
If Safe is successful we will see its technology used by everyone but changed according to his needs.
In general I agree but hasn’t chainlink had “partnerships” with companies like google and Microsoft? (I’ll have to check). Some projects misuse the term partnership but even when there is some kind of connection it usually is a form of validation or approval from big tech that gives investors encouragement.
Giving your product away for free is not a partnership…
No if it’s free and profit and liability is not shared then no it’s not a partnership. Tell that to half of the crypto projects or youtubers out there though. People buy when a big company uses a blockchain service or what have you, that’s all I’m saying.
They do, and some projects such as MongoDB and Redis have changed their licensing in response to protect their core IP, but those are both databases mostly managed by single VC-backed companies (especially in Mongo’s case) rather than being community-based. In the case of Safe, I guess AWS could host a private network based on Safe, but what would be the point of them replicating a public one? Would people trust ‘AWS-Safe’ where most of the nodes would no doubt be owned by Amazon? I wouldn’t!
Do not be so sure. Most of humanity trusts Facebook and uses its services. The same goes for Google’s mail and search engine.
In my opinion, it is very likely that we will see a version of Safe with federations of vaults modified to use people’s free resources, but with the ability to delete harmful content such as child porn and bombing guides.
But to have that level of central control the architecture would have to be modified out of all recognition and therefore it wouldn’t really be Safe anymore but something else entirely.
Of course, and this is important for both you and me. But does it matter to people who use Windows when there is a free alternative in the form of Linux? But if our version of Safe pays more money it is more likely to be used more…
I’m sure all the big companies are keeping an eye on decentralised networks as they develop, and will no doubt create their own when the time comes by buying out or copying some project or other. That’s just the way it goes, but a company-owned new internet is not the same as a new internet that no-one owns but its users. Interesting AWS hasn’t made a move for Storj yet (AFAIK), which makes a point of competing with it directly on price.
They have nowhere to hurry. If Storj proves to be a competitor, they will simply buy the company behind it and either close it or use it. At the moment, people don’t want to be Storj’s beta testers, despite the low price. It may take years without customers for the service …
So, how would that scenario be any different from the SAFE Network? If Big-Tech is watching decentralized networks’ development, couldn’t the same thing happen with SAFE?
My personal view is unpopular in the forum. I personally think that few people will use the network to store information in the first stage.
In my opinion, most people who keep bags with MAID will not spend them to buy storage in Safe. They bought for speculation. And these are the people who believe most in our mission.
So if the core of believers will not use the network to upload information, then what is the probability that the average person will do so? Again, I’m talking about the first phase.
What everyone would like, however, is to receive free money. There is currently no crypto that can be farm by all of humanity (with the free computer resource of the people).
So I think in the first stage, Safe will just be a reasonable money printing machine (money that has “storage” hedging). What I personally do not believe is that people will exchange the reasonable money for storage in the network. I think they will keep them and speculate. And speaking of people, I’m talking about 99% of them, of course there will be 1% who will use the network.
The difference with Storj, Filecoin, Sia is that they have very little speculative value and very few people can farm them.
That’s why I’m currently imagining the Safe era in the following stages:
As I said, it is not a popular opinion, but at the moment I think it is realistic. People don’t care about eternal preservation of their information, they don’t care about freedom, they don’t care about security. But they care about money. And we live in a time when this year 20% of all the money in the world are printed, it is a theft of the savings of every working person and it is the main problem we all face. I see how the Safe networks will be used for its solution, although Safe is not designed for this purpose…
Isn’t the issue with that hypothesis though that if multiple safe networks are competing for control then if a fork of the network is “more successful” than the original then the original tokens could be rendered worthless because another system won out and in effect making the monetary aspect worthless as well?
The problem here, @waveman352, is that you are thinking logically and attempting to argue with someone who does not.
Lol. I guess I was looking for an education on say how ethereum exists with many many tokens, projects, smart contracts ect. built on top of it but ethereum always sees some level of benefit either price surge or strengthening of its eco system and if that was something that is really more likely to happen within the safe network then this idea of 100 diff networks with 100 diff coins which seems not to make sense to me.
Ethereum has a self-reinforcing system where smart contracting capability + the ability to mint tokens creates a “virtuous” gas cycle. This reinforces the value of Ethereum itself.
To the degree that Safe incorporates things like smart contracts and token creation on top of a distributed data network it will become a superior dApp platform that more than rivals anything Ethereum can do. The value of Safecoin would be reinforced by its utility to provide/support at least:
Inherent to the above is the power of The Network effect. As is the case with any network—decentralized, distributed or even centralized—the bigger the network grows, the stronger it becomes.
There is always the chance that someone(s) fork the code, but it’s easily predictable to see what happens should such occur. Where the majority of the network “power” resides, the value remains. ETC vs ETH is a good example of this. If someone forks Safe for no other reason than opportunism and the core dev team (I.e. David Irvine and co) along with the majority of this community doesn’t support said fork, that Network is likely DOA as is the case with the myriad bitcoin spinoffs.
I think almost the exact opposite. It will be the best way to back up our data. It will be the easiest and highly competitive ways to back up our data. We can either farm for it but more likely we’ll need to purchase some amount to back up a large amount of data. Maybe the price will be low or high but the network should charge an appropriate amount of that to be competitive in fiat terms.
A large bag holder will have plenty to speculate and hold. Not everyone in fact most aren’t huge bag holders and even if they want to purchase storage they would probably rather do so with the coins they already bought for cheap some time ago.
I actually think FIL and HBAR are more speculative with their accredited investor fundraising than MAID will be. I say will be because right now with no official release we are highly speculative just in a different way.
I also am not a big believer in multiple forks, or ones that happen that would last. I haven’t heard of any successful forks in the prominent competing projects yet. Maybe I’m just unaware. I feel like I’ve seen less forks overall since 2017 but maybe we’ll get a resurgence of that in another speculative cycle.
I understood the dapps part and such but thank your the ladder as that better explains my curiosity.
Forking SAFE after it has any reasonable level of penetration will be extremely difficult compared to a blockchain fork. With a blockchain, you can fork it and take the history with you, at least lowering the barriers to entry for old users switching to your fork. With SAFE, you can’t take the data with you. Users would have to re-upload everything, redo all their contacts, fight for their domains, etc.
The only option is to launch another ‘like SAFE’ network and try to attract users faster. And with a dev team that doesn’t understand the ins and outs of the code, and without the same community of app devs that have been thinking for years about how to implement basic services in this new paradigm. The only way this could work IMHO is if there is some serious flaw in SAFE’s design that can’t be updated out.