I’ve understood that the chosen fixed upper limit of safecoins is chosen as 32bit register. What fraction of the 4,294,967,295 coins would be “active” in the sense of having an owner, and what amount staying in potential pool of available memory allocations is another interesting question for which I don’t know the answer.

Positive Integers representable by 32bit register having owner data repeatedly attached to them and removed from them over the “lifetime” of those integers is not much of a consolence for e.g. 5 billion unique human beings wishing to own at least one coin representable by a 32bit register. In that game of musical chairs 5,000,000,000 - 4,294,967,295 people will be always excluded from the possibility of having even a single 32bit integer representation in their possession.

When I was young one christmas we calculated with my cousin that the solution to the classic chess story of 64bit register would amount to enough of rice grains to turn Baltic Sea into nice rice porrige . Integers representable by 64bit register is actually not so very different from 32bit register on logarithmic scale, which seems to be how we usually perceive quantifiable relations. The usually estimated amount of atoms in observable space is about 10^80, which is, say, a bit more… but still much less than theoretically pragmatically possible limits of *encoding* biggish and bigger numbers.

I’m first to admit that my own mathematical handicaps are nothing short of spectacular and grow exponentially etc as we get to biggish and bigger and then some numbers, but I try to learn, here’s one nice introduction to the theme (and much more from the same guy starting about at wild math foundation 173):

What I’m trying to get to, in this age of information revolution, is that *information* is wider much wider and more ®evolutionary concept than e.g. a fixed “pretty big” number of all available planck areas in all possible universes, which as mind bogling it is, boils down only to much more limited question of theoretical and pragmatic possiblities of *mathematical representation* of information. And just because mathematical representations and computations of information give much form and meaning also to our qualitative behaviour and experience, constant striving for more holistic comprehension of mathematical representation is no trivial matter. And as we strive to achieve more holistic comprehension of mathematical representations of information, and how to make math of information society rather our friend than tyrant, it is very clear that the magic is in dynamic algorithms and their inter-relations, not so much in fixed integer values.

It is of no small wonder how people who appear to me math geniuses, e.g. coders of new consensus algorithms, show much less algorithmic and dynamic comprehension when it comes to matters of economy and money. Or maybe that’s the glaring achievement of what they call “education” of economics, ie. hypnotically stupidifying indoctrination of underlings into eazily exploitables.

My working hypothesis is that programming mathematically sound (ie distributed and decentralized) economical systems is not much more complex task than developing better and better consensus algorithms for decentralized networks, and can be in many aspects much simpler, and in all complex systems simplicity and communicability has much inherent value. But neither can we afford to be naive about dynamic algorithmic aspects of mathematized economics.

I don’t expect SAFEnet to get the economical aspects of the whole equation “right” in the first go, or that there is a single, final “right”, but it would be nice if safecoin would not stay on the same level of naive as BTC and current general state of affairs in the cryptoscene, but strive for next step of path finding and evolution also in the aspect of innovative building of economical architecture, which is no less important part, but in many ways more challenging because of long history of conditioning by various religio-politico-ideological blinders which often hinder informative and innovative intelligent discussion of mathematical modelling and programming of actually practical economical systems. Of course I have carried and keep on carrying my share of these blinders.