Avoid double spending

Also, if the section doesn’t achieve consensus of the transaction (because you sent the same coin to different addresses), you basically lose that coin.
So it is a natural deterrent to even attempt to do something like that.

Ok so if I understand correctly:

It’s not possible for two simultaneous transfers because the transfer of a coin (e.g. A to B, A to C) will always resolve to the same section of nodes (e.g. S1) – and therefore the two transactions will be handled sequentially (as opposed to simultaneously by different sections). If handled sequentially, it’s trivial to see if a coin was previously transferred and the coin is lost.

I was under the impression two simultaneous transfers (e.g. A to B, A to C) would be handled in parallel by two completely different sections (e.g. S1, S2), which don’t have any knowledge of the other – and therefore both believe each transaction is valid because ownership of the coin still belongs to A (i.e. hasn’t been updated by S1 or S2 yet).


Unlike Bitcoins which are numbers on a blockchain, Safecoins are actual files called MutableData (MD) entities (see Chapter 9). When a Safecoin changes hands the transaction is recorded as an entry in the MD. The full history of the coin is not recorded, unlike with blockchain-based currencies, just the previous and current owner, making Safecoin more like cash

@akumadevil you can see the SAFE network Primer here:


You can not give cash to two people at once, and SafeCoin is a digital cash :slight_smile:


SAFENetwork can be considered as a network of networks. Each section being its own small network which maintains data assigned to it. Sections can change in shape and size, splitting and merging as needed, but they always have authority over the data they maintain.

As the section is relatively small in size, it means consensus can be gained quickly without having to wait for the request to propagate around the entire network before a decision can be made (like a blockchain does).

The security model is more weighted to not knowing which section has any specific data combined with them being invite only to prevent people targeting the section to join. It is rather elegant compared to the brute force approaches of blockchains.

1 Like

Also the coin is an actual data object and as such there is only ever one coin. So no matter what happens there can only be one owner. So even if it was done in parallel the owner is still only one because it is only one physical data object stored on the network at a specific address (the coin address)