SAFE Network: Mobile Tech Preview

As MaidSafe continues its progression in the role out of the network, we have hit another important milestone that we would like to share. We now have SAFE mobile applications, running on Android and iOS, and today we have released some demonstration apps to showcase this progress. iOS requires some code updates and app certification to be ready for user testing and is currently limited to testing via the iOS simulator.

It is important to note that these apps should be considered as a technology preview, a very useful proof point for us that the SAFE Network accommodates mobile devices. This is the culmination of several changes that have been made over the past 9 months, including a new data type and a new access mechanism, in the form of the ‘Authenticator’. In time we will provide mobile developers with the tools and documentation that they would need and want to start developing SAFE mobile apps. In the meantime, please refer to today’s dev update for instructions and requirements for running these apps for yourself.

The Authenticator
The first of these applications is the Authenticator. This is the focus of the imminent alpha 2 release and the mechanism by which users securely access the network, while maintaining control of each SAFE applications access to their data.


SAFE Messages
The second application is a stripped back and simple mail app. It provides end to end encrypted messaging that uses the public key of the recipient to encrypt the message, ensuring that only the recipient can read its contents.

Alpha 2
The mobile tech preview comes at an exciting time in MaidSafe’s development roadmap, a welcome lead into alpha 2 which we will be releasing next week, on Thursday the 21st of September. This latest alpha will incorporate the Authenticator, a new SAFE Network access mechanism that is network enforced, and as you can see from today’s announcement mobile friendly. We look forward to providing more detail next week.

At MaidSafe, our development approach has been different to many other projects in the space. We have focussed on the hard problems first. This is not a criticism, just recognition of a different approach. Rather than putting out a network that gives little thought to the security of the data on it, or ignores the issue of how it will scale to millions of users, we have prioritised finding solutions to these big questions up front. This may create the appearance that we are moving slower than many of the other larger infrastructure projects in this sector, but in tackling the more challenging issues from the outset, in a methodical and transparent way, we anticipate being well placed to provide the decentralised infrastructure of the future.

Beyond a copy of the Internet.

This is a repost of a piece that David wrote on his own blog on the 6th of September 2017 exploring some of the use cases of the SAFE Network.


We know Artificial Intelligence (AI) is coming, we see the Internet of Things (IoT) happening.


We know trains, planes and automobiles will become autonomous. This is not news. We know data is key to modern industries, we know robots will communicate, we understand and accept securing all of this will be a nightmare. The consequences of failure could be cataclysmic. I will refrain from inserting the obligatory terminator graphic here.

We also know that companies, projects and devices need to not only communicate, but they also need to share information securely. This is another issue. If nobody, including the NSA, GCHQ, Governments or large tech companies can secure the information, who can? Not only that, but the holder has a wee bit more power than they should, especially if they control access. If it’s given to third parties to control, then it gets much worse.

We need a way to…

View original post 2,112 more words

SAFE, use case. Honest data networks

This is a repost of a piece that David wrote on his own blog on the 21st of August 2017.



Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Initially this “use case” is more like a “reuse case” to solutions that some blockchain based projects have promoted or implemented. This post will not name or directly criticise any project in the space, innovation is innovation and will always improve. We need to take step one, but we need to realise it is the first of many. I hope this post also encourages more people to dig a little deeper into this important area.

This first case I would like to discuss is where projects use a public ledger (blockchain) and claim to “publish” data and ensure its integrity, meaning it cannot be removed, edited or ignored in the future. This notion has also slipped into “private ledgers”, but in a very curious way. Let’s take a moment to explore the conundrum that covers many cases in today’s blockchain based projects.

Secure document…

View original post 710 more words

Data is the currency, literally!

This is a repost of an article that David wrote on his own blog on the 15th of August 2017.


Photo by Freddie Collins on Unsplash

In the last post, I discussed “the impossible network“, an autonomous network designed to protect the worlds people and their data.  Before moving on to use cases for such a network, I thought it required a little more clarification.

Many people have said that sounds like project … (insert many blockchain products that store data), however I think this could not be further from the case.  SAFE is an autonomous network for a start, I do not think any other project that manages private and public data claims this (private means it must provide some method of self authentication), but would love to hear of any that did. Never mind one with an inbuilt incentive mechanism.

The currency on such a network would obviously be data, but I do not mean that in some abstract sense, I am literally stating the currency…

View original post 298 more words

The Impossible Network

This is a repost of a piece that David wrote on his own blog on the 12th of August 2017.



In recent weeks and months, the MaidSafe team have been very quietly progressing something quite amazing.  The dedication and commitment of the team is admirable, but the task is so great that we forget how huge the prospects are. Not only that we also at times forget to talk publicly about it. This will change I am sure, but in this personal blog I do intend to get the message across and try to really explain the potential here, it is quite astounding and can change our world, but it needs better understood, even by early adopters.

The Back Story

We have had several discussion in house recently about the SAFE network or the MaidSafe design. These discussion are surprising, we are thinking about what we are offering, not the vision, not the design and not the roadmap, these don’t change. The issue we have been discussing is one of…

View original post 2,592 more words


Since the last blog update in May we have published new test networks that are helping us to evaluate much of our recent development work. If you recall, we made several changes to be able to accommodate mobile devices as network clients. These changes included the addition of the Authenticator (a secure access mechanism that is bundled with the SAFE browser) and a new network data type – mutable data – as well as a significant number of changes within the APIs.

Test 17
The current network, test 17, was introduced initially to a small number of forum users, but has since been scaled out in order to accommodate more users. Updated mid July (13th) and re released based on initial feedback (and barring a few minor bugs), test 17 has behaved as anticipated and we’re very encouraged by its stability. We intend to keep a test network in place from now on to enable app developers to develop against this network, rather than resorting to running apps locally.

Forum member Zoki has put together a couple of videos which he has posted on YouTube that demonstrate the use of the Authenticator and the Web Hosting Manager, as well as viewing a few SAFE websites along the way. The Authenticator enables users to create their own network credentials without the involvement of third parties and provides access to the test network.

DNS, but not as we know it
The Web Hosting Manager facilitates users creating their own public ID and service that they can then upload content to and publish for other network users to view. This feature demonstrates a differing approach to the Domain Name Service (DNS) used on the existing Internet that is managed by several DNS providers, such as Dyn and Verisign. Within the SAFE Network, this Decentralised Naming Service, enables web site owners to create their own domain without the involvement and cost of third parties and enables instant publishing of data.

If you are a SAFE Network forum member of trust level 1 and higher, you will be able to participate in this test and play about with these demo apps for yourself, and the following thread contains links to many of the websites published by other forum members.

SAFE email client
The second video produced by Zoki demonstrates the Email application, which is an end to end encrypted messaging app that uses the public key of the recipient to encrypt the message, ensuring that only the recipient can read its contents. Currently using nodes managed by MaidSafe in test 17, SAFE email in future alphas will be decentralised, ensuring that no central entity can view or control access to your communications.

It is important to note that these example applications are intended as tutorials which demonstrate the features of the network while guiding application developers to create more fully featured and polished apps with the SAFE Browser DOM APIs.

Data Chains
What we currently have in test 17 is likely to not have too many more changes before we move to alpha 2. As mentioned above, we are very encouraged with the stability of this network. In tandem with much of the work above the team has been working on a feature called Data Chains. You may remember from our previous blog post that this is a feature we anticipate will ultimately enable the secure republishing of data should the network ever lose power, as well as providing validation that data has been stored on the network. The team has considered multiple implementation options, and subject to simulation tests, has agreed an approach and have started the implementation. Testing of this new Routing design is likely to be incorporated within alpha 3. For plans beyond this, please refer to our roadmap.

For those who regularly go on our forums you will notice an increasing number of new team members. Recruitment continues to receive significant focus as we scale the team to increase the speed and quality of the network roll out while also spreading the load more evenly across the team. As such, we have brought on board some operations staff at our HQ in Scotland and continue to grow the team overseas, who are currently based anywhere from Australia to Argentina!

We now have 23 people working with the company, but we are still looking for Network Engineers. If you are proficient in Rust, or have experience with C or C++ and have experience within P2P architectures, please visit our careers page for more details on how to apply.

Well, that concludes this update, we really appreciate the continued support of everyone in the SAFE community (investors, testers, forum members). As you know we are doing everything possible to expedite the network rollout and giving you the privacy, security and freedom you all so richly deserve.

Power of the Crowd Series: Number Four

Image: Desi Mendoza
It has been a while since we shared our initial thinking around the challenges facing the internet and we have had some excellent reaction to the discussion so far. We very much appreciate the feedback and it is pleasing to see this is a timely discussion. Everyone from Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Wired and the Economist are all debating the impact and consequences that technology, particularly the Internet, is having on society. There have been many different solutions put forward as the best answer to deep rooted issues such as poverty, inequality and social mobility. We agree the current social and economic model, underpinned by the internet and other technologies, has not benefited everyone equally, but we are not convinced by the proposed solutions, such as universal basic income. Therefore, it is time to put forward our suggested response and open it up for further debate and improvement. As technologists we cannot solve all the complexities, but there are ways to use technology, especially an improved internet, to deliver a fairer, safer and inclusive society.

So how can improvements to our internet infrastructure benefit everyone?
At MaidSafe we believe the solution is community-led, hence why we talk about the Power of the Crowd; but for the crowd to be successful control has to shift from a handful of organisations to individual users and we have to develop an open, incentive-based economic model that rewards participation in a community. Technology will continue to play a sophisticated role, but it should be the enabler, not the source of problems and inequality. Above all those that develop the technology should not be allowed to retain an unhealthy level of control.

We believe this will go a long way to addressing the political/philosophical, rational and emotional debates outlined below.

The Political and Philosophical Challenge
No one has worked out how global societies should move forward in their relationship with technology. A lack of consensus means thinking is being informed by both rational and irrational ideas and uncertainty is becoming the only uncomfortable constant. As technologists we are excited by this uncertainty, but as humans we have instinctive responses to fear and threats, which should not be overlooked. While some describe a future that includes flying cars, autonomous vehicles and neural lace that blur the lines between robots and humans, others see no clear path forwards for themselves and their families. These people are what Guy Standing describes as the Precariat – a new class that has evolved as a result of the rapid advances in technology. This community has no job security, is burdened with debt and living in constant fear of social exclusion. They see robots and artificial intelligence as a threat. They look at the dominance of Google, Facebook and Amazon as unfair. Add to this the growing threat of cybercrime and desire for governments to use mass surveillance in the name of national security and it is easy to see why there is growing frustration. Inherent rights to self-determination, employment, privacy and security are being denied or stripped away.

The response of governments, policy makers and regulators are stuck in the 20th Century at best. They believe mass surveillance powers are the only way to combat cybercrime and terrorism, yet there is no evidence this approach works. To address the rapid address of technology they set up innovation funds to foster economic opportunities for future generations and commission academic bodies to analyse the social impact. Yet they skirt nervously around the big ugly question of control and ownership, particularly that exerted by the internet technology vendors. Jonathan Taplin argues that breaking up Google would lead to the same type of innovation explosion that accompanied the break-up of AT&T. Resorting to regulators always makes markets uneasy but you know there is a problem when even free market advocates like the Economist suggest regulation is required!

Rightly the Economist has identified that it is not technology that defines our current era. It is data and that ceding control of all our data to a few vendors is a bad idea. Furthermore the current regulatory model is not fit-for-purpose as it has failed to keep up with the pace of technological change. The answer is simple. We must switch control back to the user and give the individual the rights, education and skills to make informed decisions about how and when they engage with technology, and those providing products or services via the internet.

The Rational Problem
Perhaps where governments can effectively support this switch in control is to introduce regulation that changes the dynamics of the current internet-led economic model. The most radical answer would be a disbandment of existing intellectual property laws, which the likes of Guy Standing believe concentrate control in the hands of the few. Allowing a small number of companies to hold patents on crucial technologies enables them to defeat competition and maintain regular income flows. This is the key rational economic challenge to overcome. We have to ensure technology does not enhance disparity between the ‘haves and have nots’ but closes the gap.

At MaidSafe, we are sceptical regulation alone can address the economic disparity question. One idea would be that an international governing body oversees the internet and levies a tariff on internet companies, dividing the proceeds between countries to support the expansion of infrastructure and improvement of technical skills. This is unrealistic. Anyone observing the World Trade Organisation attempting to secure agreement on universal trade shows how hard countries find it to set aside national interests.

Another more radical approach is demanding greater adherence from internet companies to the principles of open source and the open web; in particular rebalancing what is considered intellectual property (IP), in order to improve accessibility. It is one of the main reasons why MaidSafe has made the underlying SAFE Network code available under the GPL license and transferred ownership of the underlying and defensive IP to the MaidSafe Foundation, a Scottish charity focussed on fostering education and innovation. Both Jonathan Taplin and Guy Standing talk about the internet companies being the landlords taking rent from those using their IP. We are not suggesting all protection for innovators be removed, but there is an argument that economically we have become over-reliant on patents and should reduce that dependency.

By encouraging the open sourcing of more critical infrastructure technologies it creates the potential for a more even playing field as a start point for those who want access to the internet. Of course the big technology companies will say their business models fundamentally rely on revenue streams from existing products to fund the next generation of products, but they appear to have forgotten that a lot of today’s products and services started out as publicly funded research projects. If commercial companies are going to secure a long-term revenue stream from rentable models then surely they must be encouraged to take a different approach to patents and IP.

More importantly, though it would show willingness from industry to address the even bigger issue of inclusion; despite technologists heralding ever growing numbers of people accessing the internet there are still far too many cut off from its opportunities. Ultimately, this is one issue the policy makers and governments have to address, but adopting a more open source approach can go some way to enabling greater access.
Image Slava Bowman

The Future is a Community-Led Movement
However, we believe the above options do not go far enough. Internet companies, particularly those obliged to report to Wall Street, will always struggle to balance commercial pressures against social good. That is why we have significant doubts about universal basic income, which the technology industry appears to be backing over-enthusiastically. On one level it appears arrogant, suggesting that ‘poor’ people should rely on a form of welfare system to make up for a lack of work. Perhaps we should all be grateful that the top 1% dole out hand outs, but the vast majority of people we know would be offended if their family and future generations had to rely on UBI to get by. It lacks innovative thinking – yes technology will take away jobs, but we also believe it will create new ones and new economic models. Frankly, UBI is not radical enough, borne of traditional approaches to the welfare state.

Our proposal is the network becomes a source of income and economic opportunity based on contribution and participation. Fundamentally it becomes a reward system, where individuals and communities can contribute and feel a sense of accomplishment based on their level of participation. Above all this should be a bottom up approach, led today by communities of like-minded individuals. Network technologies and reward mechanisms are being developed to empower communities to take control of their identities and be more fairly rewarded. This will mean we are less reliant on the dominant internet companies and not waiting for government policy to catch up.

It allows commercial companies still to profit, but it also means users and content producers get to share the spoils. We should be offering users a reward in return for access to their data and we should find innovative ways for users to monetise their computing resources. More and more households and communities will have sophisticated computing equipment which could be a source of capacity that could provide revenue streams when individuals are not working. For example, at MaidSafe we are developing Safecoin, which provides a fair reward and payment mechanism for access to data. Combined with the ability of the SAFE Network to identify the owner of each chunk of data it will be a better way for content producers (artists, bloggers and musicians alike) to receive payment, as well as paying users for access to their spare computing capacity.

The Emotional Challenge
We believe incentivising participation is crucial in addressing the final and most divisive challenge – the ambiguity that the rise of technology has created for many people. Understandably it has led many to react instinctively and angrily to the control of the internet oligarchy. People are worried machines will lead to widespread redundancies and ultimately long-term unemployment with no positive alternatives explained. The only way to address these concerns, which can become very emotive, is to create a community led response. Working together communities should be able to define opportunities, whether they are economic or social. The key is enablement and encouraging groups to work together, which again comes back to rewards and incentives. We already see a lot of this collaborative working in the SAFE Network Forum, which is moderated by members of the community, and MaidSafe is only a contributor.

Using incentives and open source technology will make participation both accessible and beneficial. It will allow groups to work through challenges and create very local solutions. For example, imagine a community-led computing facility that generated income to support the group by offering capacity to the SAFE Network. That income could be shared among the group or used in exchange for products and services with other communities via the platform.

Clearly it is hard to envisage this reality, while the SAFE Network is still in development, but the growth of the SAFE Network Forum emphasises the value of a community-led approach. There is a role for government in supporting these communities, making people aware of them and educating them on ways to participate. This is a central element of the inclusion issue. If governments and education institutions can provide the training and support to help citizens to understand the opportunities this model offers it will empower communities to find their own answers.

However, we should not wait for policy makers to catch up. We have left it to the politicians for too long to come up with the answers and they have failed. We will have far greater influence over our relationship with technology and how it affects our lives if we build a movement that mobilises around our needs. The vision is not one huge amorphous online community, but many different ones focused around common interests and needs, benefiting from open access, being rewarded for participation and being allowed far greater control of our personal data.

One final note to add. While this may seem like a huge and almost unmanageable challenge this is no different to any other stage in history where the pace of technological change has forced a rethink of our approach to society and economics. Take this example:

“The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.”

This was written in 1890 by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in the Harvard Law Review. Similar to today’s technology, advances in photography in the late 19th century were seen as seen as hugely disruptive to society. We survived that inflection point. We got some things right and some things wrong. I’m sure with a willingness to take some brave decisions and a community-led approach we will get through this next stage in our relationship with technology.