Hardfork bitcoin to the SafeNetwork

bitcoin

#1

With all the bitcoin hardforks happening, it’s come to my mind that it would be great PR if we could hardfork bitcoin to run on the SAFENetwork.

It would likely be a major rewrite of the code and would require moving the blockchain data onto the SAFENetwork (datachains?) … So it’s not a simple fork.

maybe bitcoin mining on this fork could be replaced with PoS? Not sure.

I am sure that it would bring a lot of bitcoiners into the SAFEnet ecosystem - if only temporarily for some, so that they could claim whatever value their holdings in the fork creates. And getting people onto the network in the early stages after launch would help promote the network a lot I reckon.

Another interesting advantage of bitcoin on SafeNet is speed - transaction speeds on SafeNet would likely blow away the speeds available on existing bitcoin technology.

Anyway, thought I’d put this idea out there for discussion.

I’m categorizing this under marketing and not other projects as IMO this could potentially become a little MAIDSAFE sideproject ‘app’ which could become a use-case for moving or creating alt-coins in the SAFENetwork ecosystem.


Blockchains on SAFE
#2

Bold! I like it, would have to be alpha 4 though wouldn’t it so the data persisted into beta and beyond or just to prove a point and get the PR? Which is also a cool idea


#3

Yeah wouldn’t work until the network has most features implemented. But many of these could come in 2018 and development of a bitcoin hardfork for safenet would take some time to do anyway, so I reckon start thinking about it now.


#4

As I see it, this would be on a strictly-PR-caper basis.

The nuts and bolts underlying Bitcoin are not compatible with the SAFE network structure, and vice-a-versa.

Not that both might not benefit from interfacing what the other offers, but I don’t see the angle of “importing” bitcoin to SAFE.

Now using SAFE as a layer for transacting bitcoin value, like Lightning network, etc., might have advantages, wherein bitcoins are tied up in a SAFEBTC token that can later be settled back to the blockchain. But the value of Bitcoin is largely the blockchain itself and Proof Of Work is what keeps it secure. That’s not something we would even want to port into the SAFE Network, I think.


#5

Safe net will be so much more user friendly than the btc and his blockchain. Therefore I don’t think that safe net will even have to do such actions as moving blockchains to safe net for having ostensibly higher value as it will be faster, better and as I mentioned before user friendly.


#6

The angle is manifold. When a new hardfork is created, particularly with something as valuable as bitcoin, people research it and learn about Safenet. Owners of BTC will want to extract value from their copied accounts on the new hardfork coin so they will have to install and use Safenet. General publicity will also result from doing this that could really benefit Safenet.

A hardfork does not need to have a blockchain at all if we can maintain the all the core features of bicoin in safenet - in fact we could completely rewite bitcoin. To be clear – blockchains are not features, they are tools that enable features, like immutability and transparency. And those features can be duplicated in Safenet without a blockchain.


#7

Agree, but this idea isn’t about what is the ‘best’ option for monetary use-cases blockchain versus Safenet, it’s about marketing, publicity, and attracting wealth into the network.


#8

If I’m tracking your thoughts, you’re not actually talking about a “hardfork” but taking a snapshot of the major BTC blockchain as a point in time to represent value in a SAFEBTC token, redeemable using BTC private keys, and then existing on SAFE only. Correct?

I do see value in that, amongst many other ways to give value to a SAFE token. Not sure what the technical complexities would be but interesting, and it would give bitcoiners a reason to get interested in and using the SAFE Network.


#9

In the marketing way the idea is very insightful. :slight_smile:


#10

from a software standpoint, yes it would mostly be a complete rewrite … but for most purposes it would still be referred to as a hardfork because the network is the key component being hard-forked, not the software in general.


#11

The term you’re looking for is airdrop, not hardfork.


#12

no, I don’t think so. In an airdrop, it’s new funds being given to some set of people. In this case, we would also recreate the history in the blockchain, so it would be an actual network hardfork.


#13

In an airdrop, it’s new funds being given to some set of people

Typically funds reserved to holders of an older coin, who can claim a corresponding amount in the new coin, by proving they hold the old coin. Pretty much what you described.

There are other types of airdrops, but what you describe is the most common type.

In this context, the history of previous transactions of the old coin would be irrelevant, unless you want to keep it for archival/historical reasons. Like you said, the actual blockchain can be ditched, since you only care about the balances at the time of the snapshot.


#14

Doubt you could call it a hard fork since its a totally new system.

SAFE will do most of the functionality for you. You store the data in MDs and simply have one MD per address and an APP that does transfers. You keep history in the MD itself. Transfers are then “instantaneous” with no need to verify the transaction since the security is built into SAFE.

So the APP simply allows you to display “BTC address” MDs and also to do a transfer which is adding a field to the 2 MDs involved in the transfer. To make it irreversible the fields cannot be modified. The fields are verified by the signing.


#15

Different rewrites of BTC have/are coming into existence that duplicate existing blockchain with many changes to the code … they are all called hardforks - not, I suspect because the code is being forked, but because the blockchain is being forked.

As such, IMO and in the opinion of many marketers I suspect … this would still be considered a BTC blockchain hardfork by marketers.


#16

I don’t want to keep the blockchain architecture, I would want to keep the blockchain features - e.g. the immutable historical data. To ditch the features of the blockchain would remove people’s ability to see past transactions in their wallets - while that information might not be useful to someone who is just coming in to sell out their SafeBits? (possible name?), it would still be useful and helpful to those who wanted to continue to use this new fork.


#17

Actually, if I want to start using my “safebit” coin, I don’t want my bitcoin transaction history (which dates back to 2011) to show up in my “safebit wallet”. I didn’t trade “safebits” in 2011, and showing otherwise would be confusing.

A hard-fork is typically based on the same code base, with some adjustments that break away from the consensus of the main chain from a certain block onwards. Everyone who had coins in the main chain will have the exact same amount in the new chain.

A totally new code base cannot fork the entirety of an existing blockchain because the old blocks would not be valid under the new code rules. If you want the old blocks to be a part of the history, you need at least to have the old code somewhere in the client too so that it can independently validate history since the genesis block of the old chain.

What you might want is history from the point in time of the snapshot onwards, in which case you call bitcoin block #XXXXXX the genesis state of your new coin, hard code all the bitcoin UTXOs at that point into the client, and start the new coin’s history from there.

There might be a case to call that a hard-fork, since all the old funds are allocated in the new coin, regardless if the old coin users claim them or not. But like I mentioned, it’s not typically what we call a hard-fork. Definitions do change over time though.


#18

The great thing about software is that we can code in options. :grin:

So I’m imagining three options now - Allow SafeBitCoin (SBC) users set up/import their new or existing wallet and

  • keep no public history - pure cash (like SafeCoin will be) with only a privately recorded history for personal use

  • or keep a public history from the point of import onward (recognizing that this is a new coin and hence not confusing BTC records with SBC records)

  • or keep all public history (for people leaving the old BTC ecosystem and transferring all value to new SBC ecosystem and desiring to retain all history from BTC as a permanent record)

Any other useful options?


#19

@fergish

Hey, you mention a safe token here. I’ve been out of the loop on safe network gossip and the like for a while. Has the network progressed to a point where a token can be implemented?

And…How would one go about making a safe token?


#20

Take a look here: Introducing SAFE Wallet app