Topic: MAIDSafe coin to launch in this month! - page 2. (Read 5630 times)

I am proposing a solution.

1. The DHT (a distributed database keyed on file hash that returns a list of repositories of the file) should be an orthogonal protocol to the storage repositories protocol. The DHT can be stored on users' computers operating P2P over the users' home ISP connections. This is a low bandwidth protocol, so won't violate the asymmetry of upload versus download bandwidth physics for home ISP connections which I explained dooms Bittorrent.

2. Creators of files must have a means to record their policies (and also perhaps/optionally their verifiable identity). I have suggested that before they publish the file, they create a record in a block chain. Policies could include for example the crypto currency payment per download expected (this record could be updated on the block chain by the signer of the original record). To record a verifiable identity, I suggested including a SSL/TLS enabled URL and signing it with the public/private key of the site certificate, so that governments can blame the site owner for copyright infringements. If the URL is taken offline, then storage repositories should remove the file if they want to be compliant with government edicts (of course decentralized providers can do what ever they want). The protocol for the DHT could either honor (or not honor) the URL removals, so perhaps there should be two versions of the DHT so that at least the one that honors government edicts won't be banned by ISPs. Users could run both versions (if they can). Note afaik DHT consensus is like a block chain in that all have to agree (c.f. David Mazières' work on Steller's SCP consensus protocol and the venerable Kademlia DHT), or if not the DHT could be combined with a longest chain rule of a block chain to enforce a global consensus on DHT policies.

3. Of course payment policies can't be enforced on decentralized storage providers and it is impossible to prove that files have been served and the crypto currency payment to the creator wasn't enforced by the storage provider, but content creators can't stop download theft by decentralized repositories any way. Note that any storage provider that advertises that it violates policies can thus be prosecuted by the State (and note this new design encourages storage repositories to be hosted not run from users' computers), so in reality the warez shit will remain non-mainstream same as for Bittorrent (e.g. fraudster MegaFatKimDotCom shit will always be shut down by the State) because also note my point that the DHT can honor policies and thus without advertising the theft-oriented provider can't be located by users. The storage provider might also be charging a crypto payment for serving the file (and to fund its operation including the storage). So that solves the issue of how to pay for this system, because the irreparable concept of proof-of-storage/retrievability is discarded.

4. As for IPFS's concept of moving the cache of immutable content closer to the request (to reduce bandwidth consumption × distance), I think this can be handled by algorithms running on a layer on top of the DHT.

So this provides the best of all worlds. We also stop the asymmetric consumption of upload bandwidth which Bittorrent is fucking up the internet with as I warned them in 2008.

Note afaik that none of the decentralized file systems currently proposed (and in development or near release) are implementing the above correct design. That includes MaidSafe, Storj, Sia, IPFS/Filecoin, etc..

I have emailed to Juan Benet, the creator of IPFS, a link to this.

Edit: so MegaFat deployed the fraudulent profits from reselling copyrighted content to buy himself a filipina prostitute[mail order bride] Monica Verga that he saw in FHM magazine (which btw is also technically illegal but mostly unenforced):

Testnets do not prove that the Sybil attack resistance and payment model economics work (because game theory is fully incentivized in the wild).

Regarding case 1) in the quote above, the fact is the math models are often myopic[1] (and again that is so in this case), because it is impossible to prove proof-of-storage/retrievability:

These proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms also employ a challenge/response to force the node to have access to the full copy of the data which should be stored, but this does not prevent the node from outsourcing the storage to a single centralized repository. So to attempt prevent that centralized repository attack (i.e. Sybil attack on the nodes) these proof-of-storage/retrievability algorithms “try to use network latency to prevent centralized outsourcing, but [that is impossible because] ubiquitously consistent network latency is not a reliable commodity”.

[1]

Meni Rosenfeld's myopic math, and note Meni is a widely respected academic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13633504 And my explanation of the myopia: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13797768 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13819991 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13763395 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13647887

---

The political argument is irrelevant for as long as the technology and payment (economic) models are irreparably flawed, as I explained above.

Of course decentralized file systems are not compatible with the 19th century business models of the MPAA and RIAA, such as placing music on Edison Cylinders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_cylinder and then distributing the Edison Cylinders by sailing ship. That does not mean however that decentralized file systems are doomed, what it does mean is that decentralized file systems will serve to further accelerate the demise of these 19th century business models, and the corporations that promote them.

This is the entire point though... how can the normal joe bloggs know what to think. TPTB certainly gives convincing argument (well from the small parts most can understand) and nobody seems to really challenge his points - mostly because it is way beyond the scope of the general board reader so they have no clue.... even seasoned well known devs and coders either agree with him or can never seem to convincingly point out he is dead wrong except perhaps one time and he acknowledged it and moved on without an issue. So all the other times they seem to meet headlong into each other it seems like a lengthy drawn out discussion where eventually the discussion seems at an end and I never really know what to think.

I mean if he says these projects have issues then I get worried. If say cfb and monsterer and smooth agree then I guess it is very worrying.
The thing is this. Can it work to a point we can profit from this price point and fail to be an ideal solution later down the road with out modification ( kind of like what some would argue btc is doing long term without being modified) or is it just a total bogus idea that will never function well from the start?

Or is it fine?

I'd love to see the trades the top coders or most knowledgeable cryptographers on here make at exchanges. Do any of the top coders here that don't work on these project hold any maid or storj? I have a little of both and do like the idea.

so which one

maid or storj? and why?

The mathematical models are right there in the paper. We are collecting live data from the network, which proves the models are correct.

"Its not going to work" in face of real data showing that is working is not going to cut it. Please provide some data or mathematical models that say otherwise. Latency doesn't matter for proofs.

For a little while.

And KimDotFatCom is not in prison for a little while longer.

 Torrents exist.

I read the white paper last week.


There is no way to do proof-of-storage that is robust. The only way is to make some assumptions about latency of propagation to a centralized copy of all files, but that can be gamed. Propagation is not proof.


The Storj FAQ confirms these are opt-in, and not forced. Thus I maintain my point that the Storj protocol can become banned (refused) by Hosts (and even ISPs). We are moving into totalitarianism and increased government control over the internet.

This direction of enabling theft of copyrights is begging for your project to be attacked and fail.


Pay how? Micropayments for each access to bandwidth?

How to pay for storage when it is decentralized with unbounded replications and can be Sybil attacked.

Sorry these decentralized systems are doomed. The concept can't work.

But TPTB is a genius and you are an imbecile. He is so smart that he can determine your cryptocurrency is broken, worthless, and doomed without even researching it or reading the whitepaper. 

I feel sorry for all of the people that consider everything he has to say as the gospel, because he will certainly claim he is correct and never wrong.. apparently without even doing the proper research.

Storj guy here. All of the actor vectors you described are addressed in the our whitepaper or a blog post.

1) Sybil - Bonds and unique pieces
2) Illegal content - Greylists
3) Bandwidth vs storage - pay for both

I follow http://blog.mpettis.com/ and Martin Armstrong. Armstrong has consistently said China will have a crisis starting 2017 and bottom in 2020 (but I don't know about Yuan and FX crisis), as well that oil will rise again in 2017 as the War Cycle heats up to hot wars. Pettis has argued that China needs to rebalance from manufacturing to services and they would need < 3% growth for a decade. Both have made the point that China has refused to revert to the mean and thus will suffer Waterfall collapse 2017 - 2020. Armstrong has noted $850 billion of capital exodus from China just within the past year, as the wealthy diversify out of China and into SE Asia and more so luxury investments in the USA and USD denominated investments.

Note China and India will rise up and be the financial leaders of the world from 2032 onwards.

Edit: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35516054

I've been hearing about MAIDSafe coin for a long time but they will only release this month ? What's that joke ?

It has been explained by the devs, that when the network launches, MaidSafe will be exchanged for SAFE coins at a 1:1 rate, and since "most" of the coins are in Poloniex, it will all happen between the exchange and the devs, so users won't have to worry about anything.

Maidsafe Coin is far from shit coin but you will need to trade it in for SAFE Coin when the network is live.

You pay SAFE Coin to store data on the SAFE Network.

All data packets on the SAFE Network are encrypted.

Use will just grow from there as more services and apps are added to work on the SAFE Network.

Go to forums.safenetwork.io to ask questions or check out maidsafe.net, their official website!

Don't miss the rocket to the moon!

https://i.imgur.com/xeIV1xA.png

I am a big fan of start up coins but it should be good and promising not just another shit coin to over crowd the crypto currency world
would like to see how this coin goes and what are it's advantage and disadvantages over the other coins..

It's getting time. There have been a lot of voices calling this Vaporware. Now we will see if it get's really finished.

Indeed I hate when people are promoting technology and they don't even enumerate the tradeoffs or bad aspects.

Any one who can't state their weaknesses and still find a way to make their coin compelling based in fact rather than hyperbole is on my shit list. Especially given none of the altcoins (except perhaps DOGE but I am not sure about that) have any adoption (other than speculators) at all.

DOGE is I guess an example of a coin that is humble/honest about its technological significance and overachieves and understates. But I am also a bit ignorant of all the details of DOGE's history and current state.

So for now, the only coin I support is Bitcoin mainly because it has adoption and creates the market for crypto as well as having Satoshi's invention for decentralized consensus (but also acknowledge the scaling is broken and it is being centralized). Also Bitcoin doesn't have on chain privacy. I also support the research on Zcash and it has the potential to be a coin I support because the technology is a potential game changer but not sure yet, depending on how the details play out. And especially if they remain very honest and open about the pitfalls in their technology (and it also depends too what they do with the funding and distribution strategy but I can support the open source research regardless).

I give an honorable mention to Cryptonote coins for attempting to solve the privacy issue. Also a fair mining launch (to some extent). I have no qualms about them getting some ROI in the markets. But I no longer support the technology (see link above for my reasons). I understand many of those guys put a lot of money and effort into that. I never did like the way their community behaved (snobbish, overbearing, etc).. They've seemed to have stopped that now, so hopefully there is peace. Perhaps they could say the same about me being overbearing or in too many threads. C'est la vie. Bottom line is I think I've lost any reason to support the research and development in Cryptonote or RingCT (unless something changes my understanding of the issues, which is highly doubtful at this point).

I support the creative attempt of Iota to solve the scaling and centralization issues. I argue in my Decentralized thread that they failed technologically, but I have no qualms about them getting some ROI in the markets. I mean we need to fund research otherwise without experiments then no progress will be made. For example, Iota's design influenced my thinking/design on how to potentially improve Satoshi's PoW design. That seems to be how progress is made by taking inspiration from each other and of course starting with Satoshi.

I was actually more positive on Bitshares until via private communications some others convinced me the likelihood that there is no adoption and many gimicks to mine the speculators. I took another look to see what had changed or been accomplished since 2013 when I stopped following it closely. And Bitshares is still off in bizarro hyperbole fantasy land in my opinion. I don't understand those guys at all. They certainly think they are up to something important, but none of it makes sense to me. Nobody is going to want to move all their trades onto one system. I don't see any compelling use cases of BitUSD (removing volatility doesn't make crypto attractive to the masses, and the speculators want volatility). Etc.. I just think Dan conceptualizes everything backwards from how I would. And I think I have a more correct understanding of economics, marketing, and what can work and what can't.

I am particularly disappointed with Ethereum. $millions down the hole and they didn't solve the fundamental issue for a scripting block chain. I support research but not wasting $millions with no major research achievements. At least with Zcash, they come hat in hand with blockbuster accomplishments in research already completed. For example, imagine I actually wanted to program (invest my effort) apps built on top of Ethereum, but I would not have the confidence to do so, because they haven't solved the fundamental technical issue. How can I get excited about what I can't use. I get excited about Android programming, because I can use it. I get excited about Node.js because I can use it in real projects.

About Nxt, I can't comment, because I have a conflict of interest.

For the 100s of other coins, that is far too much for me to study.

I provided some thoughts about Ripple and Stellar the prior day (just go to page 34 or so of my Decentralization thread).

@OP

I have adjusted accordingly.

I think the value of Storj will take a hit if Maidsafe is released, so I took my profits there. Storj looks like it is enduring a correction anyways. I will leave that in BTC until I think it has bottomed, which I don't expect to happen until MAID's MVP is released, and then get back into my Storj position as I still feel like it has good potential to compete with Siacoin. MAID seems to be a different beast than Storj/Siacoin.

I left my Siacoin position the same as it was, since it is still the only data storage focused cryptocurrency that is actually out in the wild and working. It also has a solid developer behind it that has been pushing out updates often. Also, Siacoin seems to be targeting more of a niche "dropbox" market, while MAID is targeting a wide market... "the internet, messaging, apps, email, social networks, data storage, video conferencing, and much more."

Also, I bought up some more cheap MAID because I think it will explode when it is successfully released.

He hates them all equally, because they all have fatal flaws.