Will there be a SAFE fork explosion at launch?

Anyone care to comment on the potential and impact of a SAFE fork explosion at launch.

I’ll start by stating that I think its vital that it happen and not in anyway a dilution. Think IBM PC clones.

i can’t understand what you said, any source?

The code will be out there. Maybe shortly after launch there will be a explosion of SAFE fork projects and a year later the onslaught. Some have wondered Kim Dot Com might already be trying.

Kim Dotcom’s is blockchain based.

No. I suspect SAFE will be difficult to fork. It has a lot of layers of personas and you would have to connect and disconnect different parts and wire around them, then prevent your fork from talking to other forks.

Besides the network is much more secure and reliable as one piece rather than have 30 or 40 networks. Maintaining multiple copies of files is much harder and less diverse on smaller networks.


The potential equals 0. There´s barely a chance that there will be an explosion of vaults at launch.

1 Like

That’s way to pessimistic and the fork explosion would even a handful would raise the possibility of a vault explosion.

An ecosystem of networks is inevitable and a positive I think. The core logic of the network applied through forks with different economic systems in particular seems like a good way to test new ideas.


I think we’ll see a number of them, maybe not at the beginning because Rust isn’t that common as C++. But they will show up. I expect experiments with “unlimited PUT” or “pay to GET” and things like that. Less encrypted networks in the hope to speed things up.

1 Like

I would imagine that MaidSafe will only support the ‘official’ first safe network, and if this means their apps are only available on this network (not on forks), it’ll have quite an advantage for a while, reducing the traction any forks can create. If this network grows quickly, it will have a huge network effect advantage over any competing forks.

1 Like

There will be forks but it will a lot less than bitcoin. Bitcoin forks are there mainly because of the mining algorithm.

1 Like

The fork that could be bridged would be a feature and the ultimate network.
This would give options to different communities and create a local currency backed by safe coin…

1 Like

I was actually thinking of that earlier. What if vaults are able to access to exclusive networks, the outsiders who tries access via URI will give a 404. Users need to know they are connecting to outside of safe official network. By doing so will compromise their security, and safeness.

This would create more confusion, like wallet.dat in bitcoin. If you have multiple altcoin wallet.dat, it is best not to get mixed. Otherwise you’re ******. This could go badly for the URI, and vaults.

1 Like

I can see some forks occurring because some one wants a slightly different client operation or such thing. These forks still use the same SAFE network and at the protocol level they are the same.

I cannot see many, if any forks that change networks (different at the protocol level or separate network) because the whole point of SAFE network is the network. A small network will find it difficult to survive unless it can appeal to a certain sector that is loyal to the fork.

Once the SAFE network is live and growing in size, each day will make it so much harder for a fork to take over and the fork may grow, but eventually die off when the participants learn of the original SAFE network. Even if its when they try to buy/sell that fork’s coin


Will forks utilize the same SafeCoin that the Safe Network will utilize (just as BitCoin forks still mine BitCoin)? Or will forks of the Safe Network issue their own currencies? I ask because of what David Irvine says here:

“there may be others with their own safecoin, but they will not
interoperate at the network level, but maybe humans will interoperate to
transfer cash between them”

1 Like

@polpolrene and yet that Rust makes it the size of DOS 1.0 and within the size of human comprehension 4-7k lines. And there will be other world class minds that are refiners who just vibrate with the ability to hit things with fresh eyes and to tweak without limit. What Irvine and crew has created will be like extreme candy for the kind of minds that can understand it and improve upon it.

I floated this forking notion in the “start the SAFE web” thread and I think some people’s feelings were hurt because its like shat upon the face to suggest to people who’ve been tirelessly working to save the web that the solution needs to shattered into countless incompatible fragments as that seems to be no solution at all. But there is so much F to the power of U force in being able to just start up another instance of the network with a genetic modification or just another incompatible but otherwise identical instance. Think of its demoralizing power against the police state mf(s.)

But alas my own feelings were hurt when this anarchy was rejected on its face, one of my favorite people after Irvine informed me that a mod no less initially flagged it to be pulled and that it didn’t matter who it was as long as there was mod consensus. Damn group think! How can one be a mod and still retain flagging power? Even if police state mods can figure out how to cancel a SAFE network instance there will be just too many, they will be oozing out of every little crevice.

I know its fragmentation but we need as many species of ant universe as creativity will support. Human minds will one way or another link them all together and the best will win according to our human circumstances. Or maybe this will form another layer against super intelligence when it spawns and tries to eat us. Slowing SI down just a little may mean our survival!

@4chanlite what an awesome nic. Could there be a Chris Poole lurking?


No they cannot, unless they use the same network.

The reason they cannot is that safecoin is an actual SD type (data stored in the network) and so if different network then the coins have to be different. They can seem the same but anyone on the original network just will not have those forked (SD) coins available in the network. The coins (SD) in the original network will be owned by accounts on the original network, or unallocated.

So an exchange using original network will never see those coins from a forked network and thus never transact them. The exchange would have to have the forked code to access the forked network and logically labeled the forked coins with something other than safecoin.

In other words,

  • I cash out the forked coins and buy the original safecoins
  • I cash out SAFEcoins and buy the forked coins
  • I copy the data from the forked network (to my disk) and then store it onto the SAFE network
  • I copy data from the SAFE network (to my disk) then store onto the forked network
1 Like

Well, for someone who is blindly optimistic it may sound pessimistic, but I´m willing to place bets that during the first year there won´t be any meaningful forks. How about you?

1 Like

Ohw I agree on that for sure! I think it was a great decision to move to rust for as far I know about programming. But it might take some time for others to jump on. Although on the last sprint 10% of tasks was done by community devs.

1 Like

If a company isn’t going to use the official SAFE Network I can see companies wanting to have their own SAFE network for the security but only time will tell.

1 Like

Yes, although I only got a glimmering I think what you just articulated was what I was reaching for.

1 Like