For the first year I’d be okay making that bet. As for after a couple of years however, there’s just no way there wouldn’t be. Gamers aren’t gonna care about the NSA finding out about what games they play, and the NSA isn’t going to go all-out on some random bittorrentor, ergo the XOR address system will be (worse than) useless to these groups, so there’s a fork right there. The MAIDSAFE foundation wants Safenet to be controlled by a decentralized community (consensus), without any single entity that has final voting power. Well in bitcoin land that got us the blockchain size debate, so screw that. Fork number two. The core code won’t work with the forks? Fork number three. There you go. And so on and so on.
1 Like
I neither don’t see an explosion there, however it really depends on the success of the project. If it fails it is really irrelevant whether there are forks. It will be even better if there are some good ones. If it is a full success there will be forks, but that’s a really high hurdle. There are many alternative projects challenging the success of SAFE. These are the real challengers. SAFE could be happy if there were some forks after some time. I can see some people expect automatic mass traction because people will eventually understand how great SAFE is. As I have said elsewhere I think that belief is mostly due to people remaining in the bubble of this forum. But yeah, for the first year I’m willing to bet on this development and wait for bet against me.
Perhaps I’m digressing here, but I myself am more pessimistic of the chances of the competing projects. To my albeit limited knowledge of the competition, they’re either free to use i.e., the same model that mesh networks and programs like I2P have used to not even put a dent on the legacy internet for a decade plus, or are bittorrent/blockchain based i.e., anybody can NSA your data and god help you if someone uses your hardware for kiddy porn, or aren’t getting into the internet network competition any time soon.
Unless the team messes up on the quality of the features, or Mr. Irvine bumps into a squirrel and dumps the entire project into another coding language again, the possible scenarios where the safenet fails completely (as in, people don’t even contribute code ala Linux) involve people continuing to put up with their servers and homes being raided by the thugs in blue.
1 Like
You can build a very effective Rube Goldberg machine, but that doesn’t mean it is the most effective route from point A to point B – Nor does it mean that most users care to get to point B in the first place…
SAFE is complicated. Lots of parts. All of them need to work.
SAFE is also overkill for most things…
Other projects may have the same goals but they take a more elemental approach – tackling one problem at a time with a simple straightforward command line solution - then eventually being able to peice together a string of these into doing a myriad of things including most of what SAFE intends to do …
If SAFE fails - chances are good that Self Encryption won’t - Chances are good that CRUST won’t - etc… But the particular stack of tools that accomplishes what SAFE aims to accomplish may not be the best set of tools. The aim might not be the correct aim for the market either. SAFE may be the best solution for high security - censorship prone content – but that may be a pretty big minority – If something else can bring many of the benefits at less cost - the market will flow to the path of least resistance…
I believe that the more complicated SAFE becomes, the less likely it will be to succeed in the long term. Chances are that if it succeeds or fails however it will entice the competition to find ways to solve the problems that need to be solved.
1 Like