If you search the MaidSafe Community for “wasteful” you’ll find plenty of references to the wasteful Proof of Work approach used by Bitcoin (and other major coins) which is not much different from complaints about gold one can hear from the dimwitted proponents of easy money. Why waste resources on something that you can simply print as needed, for FREE?
While complaints against PoW on that forum have persisted for years, MaidSafe itself hasn’t done much to make the forum and project less of a joke. Had Safecoin made any progress, I’d be re-reading those posts now. But at the moment it’s sure that Safecoin won’t be ready in 2016, so one can’t help but wonder just how superior Safecoin’s approach is. In all likelihood, it isn’t.
Before writing this post I decided to take another look at these jokers’ attempts to create a superior coin.
Secure vault joining
One of big issues – that was raised a long time ago, but again recently by the forum member vtnerd (who was of course trashed and ridiculed by “thought leaders” from the community forum) – is the ability of rogue nodes to keep rejoining the network until they become a majority in one (any) group (as a reminder, the SAFE network consists of many such groups, each of which decides on matters that happen within its realm, such as Safecoin generation, payments and so on).
The latest “solution” proposed for that problem is “Secure vault joining” (see here) which comes up with a clever solution to prevent the gathering of rogue nodes in groups. Note that this is “the latest” solution, that is not the first. They have a solution for everything, but as no solution works, they keep inventing new ones. Consider the latest innovation:
When a client recognises responses are not coming back from a
RelayNodeor are to slow then the client will stop routing via that node.
So – in theory – group members (nodes) would have to progress from the lowest Relay level up before they can participate in more important group tasks such as voting in group leader election. As with most “solutions”, this one was also greeted with enthusiasm by the clueless fools on the forum.
I’m not a PoW expert, but what’s to prevent me to modify my (SafeNet) client to do exactly the opposite and that is to simply change the RelayNode algorithm and rebuild the client, so that the result is to stop using a Relay Node if it is (rather than isn’t) responding?
With such modified client one can easily and quickly find his rogue nodes (because they aren’t responding/relaying as they should) and help them get easily and quickly promoted to more advanced roles so that they can take control of the group at a later time. If anything, this “solution” actually makes it easier to overtake groups!
Then there’s this:
[This] will require to confirm a joining token (
Get) and send the delete on to that address. This could cause churn issues and requires discussed in detail.
They already understand that rogue users (nodes) would be able to create stress on the network by simply standing up hundreds or thousands of new MaidSafe nodes in a continuous re-create mode, which pretty much invalidates the entire approach.
Now that the issue of PoW-less group join has been “solved” again, the proposed solution only lacks a PoW system to be able to work.
In another RFC we have another problem. In “Payment Address” section we see that group nodes pay out (“reward”) various participants based on payment addresses.
- App Developer -> App developers will include wallet address in any
- Publisher -> As data is stored a wallet address of the owner is stored if this is first time seen on the network (stored in DM account for the data element)
- Core development -> Initially every node will be aware of a hard coded wallet address for core development. This will likely lead to a multi-sign wallet.
How to change the address(es)?
- The best, but harder approach is to take over a group (see Secure vault joining above). If you take control of a group, you can steal Safecoin with impunity.
- The second best approach doesn’t require any (technically) illegal work.
To understand why the latter can work it’s enough to read the community forum. Everyone agrees that only Open Source apps can be trusted. What does that mean for App Developers?
It means they can count on community support only if they fully open source their software (app). When/if they do that, then anyone can rebuild the app and publish it from their own address to earn Safecoins that would normally be paid to app developers. This applies to all open source content on the network, not just applications but also data. Spammers and advertisers should do very well if Safecoin ever sees light of the day.
Another unresolved issue related to this is that there’s currently no way to prevent “developers” from creating apps that download garbage content from the network.