Forks with safe coin switched off?

If I’ve understood, safe coin amounts to a couple lines of code and the forks are free to be modified in almost any way including having it switched off.

This interests me because while I understand a fork without a mechanism like safe coin to support its growth may be limited or specialized in its application, my interest in seeing such versions comes from the sense that money, much more than it is a convenience, is actually something we use to control each other. My senses is that while such a mechanism can be improved greatly it ultimately would amount to improving some aspect of coercion or politics e.g. in the spirit of vouchers.

There may be a sense in which crypto currency or currency in general goes against the spirit of GPL.

1 Like

Exactly. This can work in a controlled centralized solution, like current alpha 2 network. But we need safecoins in a decentralized solution to prevent data spamming and to incentivize farmers to provide resources.


I don’t think it will be like this.

It’s uncharted territory.


David has mentioned a few times in the past that certain aspects like PtP, PtD are just a few lines, I agree that SAFEcoin implementation is not just a few lines.

But really to disable the need for SAFEcoin will be a small number of lines needing to be changed. These lines are of course the function calls to the safecoin code. So in a sense @warren is right but he also is wrong in a overall sense. Like the put charge call can be replaced by setting the success to true. and commenting out the farming, PtP, PtD rewards. You could even leave in the send coins since it will be redundant or coin objects used for another purpose.

True. One such application is a large company that does not wish for any data, no matter how well sliced, diced and encrypted it is, to leave the company’s network. But they also wish to remove the need for large file/application servers which are becoming a major cost to have and maintain. The company uses, in general, desktops that have significant disk space spare. So they install SAFE and downsize their servers to the one or two needed for whatever reason.

I have seen floors of servers and the staff to maintain them for some companies and government departments. (yes I’ve been around). Imagine they could reduce that back to a room for the couple of servers needed and a desk outside for the staff member who is responsible to keep them operational (part time).

Maybe true, but SAFEcoin is not money in the traditional sense. There is no one person able to control its issuance or redemption. The network is simply paying for resource and charging for resource usage. There is no control unless you consider being paid to provide resource or being charged for resource is control. The network does not try to profit or subsidise. It is rather neutral by design. Sorry there is one aspect of persuasion and that is to discourage or encourage resource supply or usage by the price charged/rewarded at any particular time.

Money on the other hand is very much a control mechanism used by authorities (see Australian government latest attempt to control the population to submit to laws), but SAFEcoin has to be the least by far controlling form of wealth by an entity. And for the SAFEnetwork it is the network itself that is that entity


Hypothetically, lets say there is the original Safe network with economic intensives, and a gratis fork of the network. This would mean there is a opportunity to store Safe network data on the gratis fork, exploiting the resources there for profit in Safecoin. Therefore some other form of restrictions on the gratis network would be required to prevent network saturation, which likely leads to a permissioned network audited by some central authority.

1 Like

About as neutral as it gets SAFE is. Can’t get away from the sense that both written language and money came out of tax. In essence money reduces to a tax is a function of tax, tax or forced demand creation is the force or fiat in currency.
So in the end it seems money came out of the state or proto state but now we try to go to money systems stripped of the state like the EU’s mometary only union. So PTP is a tax, is money but a possibly more refined or less invasive version. But still in my mind in mind it has a bit of “phone home” about it. It may be blinded phone home but still safe allows the non metered situation too.

We’ve been through this. It is not a tax since its a payment. No one pays for it, only the network. unless you are saying the receivers are taxing the network. lol Everyone gets the same rewards if PtP exists or it does not exist. It is the network paying for things and it does not change the costs for puts if it exists or does not exist. There is nothing there to be able to call it a tax. The network is the closest thing to a real non-profit business that I know of. And they cannot tax obviously.

On all fronts it cannot be called tax.