This topic does seems like it should be moved to another sub-forum ...
I don't understand how people isn't talking about this like crazy.
Comparison to other technologies
Difference between Freenet and Maidsafehttps://www.reddit.com/r/maidsafe/comments/273lj2/difference_between_freenet_and_maidsafe/The SAFE Network differs from many of the organisations and products in the space because it offers the decentralized Internet at the core of it's design. Some of these projects are currently trying to add components that bend them into the shape of a decentralized Internet, but this is not what they were designed for. As a result, many of these projects require significant set up and only work on certain platforms. It is worth noting that MaidSafe, and it's community, supports any project that backs a decentralized Internet, however we don't see any with the same goals as the SAFE Network: Privacy, Security and Freedom for everyone!
Bitcoin vs Safecoin
David Irvine explains.. "User Defined data" of a SafeCoin can hold a file/directory (no blockchain bloat issues cos SafeCoin confess with its own storage, accessible to everyone, free, all the time - nothing to pre-download as in bitcoin-QT).
Safecoin can be used for anything, such as bets, shares, trades, smart contracts etc." ----> SAFE is bitcoin/Ethereum on steroids!
Safecoin are held differently to immutable data chunks (to be documented):
"Coins are held as group data and maintained by that group, so not distributed like immutable chunks, but managed more like structured_data_versions." ~ David Irvine
SAFE is more like I2P and Freenet than bitcoin IMO. The first paragraph is largely fluff and non-sense - Freenet wasn't meant to be a decentralized internet? Its goal is to provide a decentralized data storage network! How is that not decentralized internet at the core of its design? And I2P has many of the same goals too. The biggest difference with SAFE is the crypto-currency, and it gets a little murkier from there. Someone would have to dig into all of the projects some more for a detailed response.
Safecoin Differentiators
Safecoin is a secure decentralised currency secured by cryptography and a decentralised network, with similar characteristics, but wholly different technology.
Secure (safecoin is at least as secure as bitcoin. For example, the famous bitcoin "51% attack", would require at least 75%, and even then have only limited vulnerability.)
Truly Anonymous (no blockchain--only anonymous IDs are recorded, and only the current and immediately preceding owners' IDs are retained.)
Massively Scalable (Instant or near-instant transactions, regardless of transaction volume--no blockchain bottleneck.)
Accessible (Anyone with a computing device can obtain safecoin simply by joining the network and farming by sharing bandwidth and disk space with the network, whereas this was only feasible with bitcoin during the early days and now a small number specialised "miners" earn almost all the bitcoin available. On the SAFE Network, farming capability will remain much more evenly distributed even as the network matures and farming rates decline. See @fergish's post).
These factors have very significant implications for the widespread adoption, application and longevity of safecoin as opposed to other cryptocurrencies which are, in the case of bitcoin and other blockchain based currencies, for example, severely hamstrung by deficiencies in several of the above areas.
SAFE is vastly different from bitcoin. The lack of ledger (history) makes it
somewhat more anonymous, although nodes validating the transaction will see the before and after owner. Also any node could "sample" a coin at a high rate with a high likelihood of seeing ownership changes. Since consensus on the SAFE network is on a per-coin basis amongst a smaller group of machines, validation should be quicker than on a blockchain.
However -
The network should be suspectible to "close group" attacks outlined on the
mailing list. The problem is that the network is relying on the pre-image resistance of SHA512 for security (its difficult to create a specific hash), but the number space is so large that someone requesting a resource could have difficulties determining if the response messages from the "group" were actually the closest nodes. In this way you don't have to be within the closest group, you just need to be
near the closest group, which requires a lower amount of computation. If this attack is possible, someone could "overtake" a coin group (coins require 3 quorum groups), and declare whoever they want as the owner. This attack would create a murky environment where different nodes see different states (byzantine fault).
They also have
not implemented any type of distributed consensus algorithm such as Raft or Paxos the last time I checked. It could interesting if someone put in two valid requests from different machines (either for storing data or coin transfers), because the consensus group could see messages in a different sequence. If this occurs, the resource controlled by the group should go into a state of deadlock (byzantine failure) until some members get kicked out or leave, and others enter the group and happen to copy the
same state from the remaining set of nodes. Google implements Paxos (I believe), and Amazon does some crash s*** that makes it harder on client developers. Implementing any of these consensus algorithms in a P2P network should be ... interesting.
...[snip]...
Tor vs SAFETor is a routing layer that is built on top of the current internet. It works by routing traffic through a relay of nodes, thereby concealing its origin. While Tor can offer anonymity, it comes at the cost of decreased performance. One problem inherent to Tor is that the exit nodes remove the last layer of encryption and therefore are able to read the traffic. Governments can maintain a large number of exit nodes and thereby read some of the traffic. Furthermore, successful attacks on the Tor network have been reported [citation needed]. There is no built-in reward mechanism to incentivize individuals to run nodes, hence their number is still rather small.
The SAFE Network is designed from the ground up to provide strong anonymity by default and does not suffer from any of the weaknesses of the Tor network. Successful attacks on the SAFE Network would require the attacker to gain control over very large percentage of vaults. Even then, the damage an attacker could possibly do is very limited.
https://www.reddit.com/r/maidsafe/comments/2bnbeo/will_maidsafe_be_a_network_with_some_properties/ This paragraph isn't entirely factual. A tunneled Tor connection can be encrypted itself (i.e. SSL). Theoretically someone with large amount of entry and exit nodes could determine the two endpoints, but thats slightly different than reading the traffic itself. Tor is designed to obfuscate sender and receiver.
I'm not sure what SAFE is doing here (this seemed to be a constantly shifting target), but I know some work was needed over the initial implementation(s). A chunk id request was sent directly to the closest peers, so those nodes could map IP to a chunk id request, which ultimately would map IP <--> file. Either some type of onion routing would need to be setup (so node receiving the chunk request would receive an encrypted blob that another node would have to decrypt), or some bitmessage type hub routing would be required (deliver-to this group of machines, where no one knows who has associated key).
I'll have to see what Freenet does in this situation, maybe I making this too hard ...
Bitcoin will most likely remain the #1 cryptoCURRENCY out there with the most potential to reach worldwide mainstream approval at "official" govermental-level sort of type as well, but when it comes to decentralizing everything else... why would you trust anything that isn't Maidsafe? why would you deal with the bloat of a blockchain when Maidsafe uses an anonymous system without blockchain and instant transactions?
Why would you build all of the things that can be done on Maidsafe on top of Bitcoin? or even on top of ETH (maybe beyond some specific stuff...)
I just don't see anything as exciting and huge as Maidsafe right now. Is there anything that Maidsafe cannot do that justify other technologies to be used instead of it?
Well SAFE has to be proven to work before it starts trouncing any existing technologies. If it works as desired, it obviously has massive advantages.
[...snip...]
Can we truely have a global internet that cuts out the ISPs and governments?
If you haven't heard about the net neutrality issue -- then this would be what solves the problem once and for all?
Or do we hand over more power to the governments, or the businesses? The fight for more power over the internet is now between all governments, businesses, and individuals.
In the end 2 out of 3 can always be readjusted.
When you create a global support for a global problem, I think nothing is ever going to out weigh us as individuals. In effect, government and businesses must abandon this selfish desire for more power over said individuals.
Maidsafe is not intended to "cut out ISPs and governments" - it is a DHT based system, similar to bittorrent, and therefore requires a lower level routing layer. Maidsafe could be combined with a wireless
mesh network technology, which would could cut out the ISP entirely. However, it would be the mesh network subverting the ISP, and not Maidsafe directly.