Here's why I want SAFECOIN

I was looking at the silver prices on Provident Metals and notice they offered 3 payment options.

  1. Cash (4% discount)
  2. Bitcoin (3% discount)
  3. Credit Card (No discount)

Cheaper prices appeal to people like me. My 1st choice “would have been” cash… But I’m also impatient. I don’t want the hassle of getting money order, or waiting for my personal check to clear in 3 business days after they receive the mail.

So my final choice would be Bitcoin. It transacts faster, and costs less than using a credit card. Imagine a crypto currency that transacts instantly and has NO fees! Oh wait, that will be Safecoin. :wink:

Unfortunately, I cannot spend less than 1 SC worth in fiat value. So paying for something that cost less than $0.02 is tricky, but not a deal breaker.

What is my point?

  • Merchants and Consumers like lower cost transactions.
  • Merchants and Consumers like faster transaction time.
  • Merchants and Consumers like divisibility to make change.

I imagined a Safecoin payment option on that website and realized it has potential to be the preferred payment option. This is truly exciting to see, looking into the future.


It was Safecoin that first got me interested in SAFE, and it seems to be a brilliant innovation in cryptocurrency.

As well as the benefits you mentioned, Safecoin will:

  • have very high transaction capacity (probably thousands per second and up)
  • be secured by a network that consumes far less power per transaction than Bitcoin’s
  • be secured by a network that provides highly useful services (proof of resource; storage, hosting, computing etc)
  • have complete anonymity

As far as I’m aware, it’ll be the first crypto-currency to operate without a blockchain. I’m looking forward to see how it performs and what impact it has.

But yeah, divisability would be a big bonus, so hope it doesn’t take too long to implement :slight_smile:


We’ve got to get the SAFE network version of eBay up and running. That would be spectacular.


@dyamanaka good to see a thread from you on the forum again. You always have very insightful topics.

I wholeheartedly agree that implementing this particular cryptocurrency will be an invaluable asset in both our fight towards critical mass adoption as well as the libertarian dream of a frictionless currency.

However, I have to break down your argument here to understand it a little better.

You are predominately talking about merchants and consumers - P2P transactions are very important - but the economics of Safecoin are based on the fact that it is representative of actual physical space in that it is a reward given to those who contribute their resources to the Network.

Therefore, must the currency supply be both sufficient to facilitate both Network PUTS as well as P2P transactions?

AFAIK there are multiple approaches to do this.

First is divisibility, the way Bitcoin implements it. Also, there is inflation; often a curse word in these circles, due to the mishandling thereof by fiat currencies. Lastly, there is the option of creating the separation of “PUT-only” and “transaction-only” currencies.

I’ve argued that the last option is prone to intermingling and trading manipulation to make one function as the other. Look at M-Pesa, and how “minutes” on cell phones have become the de-facto currency of Kenya(?). They are meant to be used as minutes, but are now valued as currency.

Keep in mind though, that M-Pesa acts as inflation, as there is no set limit to how many “minutes” that one can purchase, or that can be available at any given time. However, inflation has an inherent characteristic that it devalues the currency that it is supposed to support. There are many monetary systems that we can point to that reveal the dangers of inflation.

As an alternative, divisibility really shines compared to the other two. However, there are few monetary systems in modern economies that implement such a system. It is as yet untested at scale. True - Bitcoin does implement this model, but we haven’t gotten to the point where deflation has set in and divisibility has truly become a factor.

So while I don’t have a true “rhetorical” question to this issue, I will ask: of the three options presented, doesn’t divisibility hold the most promise when it comes to scaling SC?


You can use purse to get up to 50% discount on amazon when paying with bitcoin. Hopefully something similar comes to safecoin.

1 Like

@smacz, always happy to engage in discussions. I changed the thread tag to Safecoin instead of Marketing.

Yes, if the currency is primarily used for Network PUTS, it reduces the available supply to be used for other things like P2P transactions. Bitcoin uses a tiny fraction of it’s supply to pay for mining fees, while the rest of the supply is free to be used for whatever. Income from PUTS serves a similar function to mining fees… which is to incentivize the (farmers) to keep the SAFE Network running.

Yes, divisibility would be the most ideal. But I need to explain some things. This may upset some people.

If we strip away all the economic BS and just look at spendabilty. We realize a currency works best when the smallest unit of account is nearly worthless. Here’s why.

If I sold a silver coin for $20 and wanted to buy candy that costs $0.50… The smallest unit of account, which is $0.01, makes it possible.

Technically, Dodgecoin is the best crypto candidate in this example, which is why it does not require divisibility in everyday transactions. Even micro transactions can be accounted down to $0.0003 according to coinmarketcap.

As Safecoin’s value rises it becomes less spendable, unless it is divisible.

If 1 SC goes to $1.00, and you try to buy a $0.50 candy. The merchant would have to give you back something of lesser value, making up for the total value of your 1 SC.

  • If 1 SC remains at or near the lowest unit of account, compared to other currencies, divisibility is not necessary.

  • If 1 SC gains value compared to other currencies, it will require divisibility. Otherwise, people will resort to lesser value currencies… in order to make change.

People rage about inflation when it steals their purchasing power, and rightfully so. But if inflation comes from a growing economy (production) then prices remain relatively stable. And here’s what most don’t realize. The currency’s lowest unit of account remains spendable without the need for divisibility.

When was the last time you had to break a penny in half?

However, it is impossible to make a currency supply keep pace with economic production. It is constantly growing or contracting for a million reasons. So the easiest solution is divisibility and let the free market determine the value (purchasing power) of the currency.


Just to note - the easiest theoretically - because there are technical issues as I know you are well aware :slightly_smiling:


that would be :wink: and Daniel is sharing progress on the safex forum

Given the anonymity, would any ebay-type service not just turn into another silkroad? Not that I’m actually against that, drug laws (or law in general for that matter) don’t work, so meh. But it would mean a lot of bad publicity for safenet wouldn’t it?!

1 Like

The anonymity would be voluntary. One part of SAFE EBAY would be known, one part would be anonymous.

I’m sure I’m being thick, but can you explain a bit further for me please?

If it is voluntary then can’t I just choose to be anonymous and sell weed on safex/safebeay? And can’t my customers also make the same choice to buy and stay anonymous?

Sorry, I’m not questioning that you’re right, just trying to understand :slightly_smiling:

1 Like

Yes the part of safex that is anonymous you could choose to do that.

Is no one else really worried about that then? I mean silkroad was really torn to pieces and poor Ross ended up getting a brutal sentence. I know it is a bit like comparing apples with oranges, but it does worry me to think of safenetwork getting bad press for that…

We’re aware it will happen and it has been discussed quite a bit. Some are very concerned and would wish to find a way to prevent “bad” uses, some are like you worried about people using them to attack the project. Some have said they won’t use it because of some of the bad uses that people will put it to.

My view, MaidSafe’s view (I believe :slightly_smiling:) , and I think most people’s is that we can’t or shouldn’t try to prevent this, that the emphasis is best in: a) making the technology free to use and safe from centralised controls, which of course means policing, and b) emphasising all the benefits that this brings in order to balance the picture.

For example: There is no technology, from roads, to bridges, to phones, to computers that people have not put to bad uses. SAFEnetwork is no different, and we should not allow an elite to control any technology in order to protect us, when the dangers arising from that kind of power are far worse, and there are always other ways to protect people.

It’s amazing how we all managed to survive before the advent of mass surveillance! How our would be overlords managed to protect us with just a handful of telephone taps per year (in UK).

Also, amazing that the world didn’t end when unbreakable encryption technology, having been classed as “munitions” and subjected to export controls, managed to leak out of the USA and be made available around the world, for of all things, enabling secure communications, secure trade, and putting cheap data security in the hands of everyone.


Oh absolutely. I would be horrified to hear that SAFEnetwork wasn’t really a ‘safe and free’ space. I definitely wouldn’t argue with any of the points you make. Laws are not effective ways to limit/discourage damaging behaviour, to hold power accountable, or even to deal with dispute resolution. Laws suck. I have no desire to see a similar system in SAFE.

I’m just worried by what that will inevitably mean… this is a really obvious attack vector for ‘the man’. I’m not technical enough to really understand safenet dependencies and potential vulnerabilities, so I don’t really know how big an issue this is, but if it’s at all vulnerable then I should imagine this would be the perfect excuse to shut it down before it got too big.

Does scare me a little :cold_sweat:

1 Like

Don’t be scared , be excited , Bitcoin , Tor , Encryption , Drug market places, Music pirating , video pirating even cars and electricity all when they first came out were attacked for “what could happen” “what dangers they might pose”

It didn’t really destroy any of those things, it made them be noticed more, be wanted more, be understood and talked about more. They became more popular, stronger and more agile and harder to squash or make go away . the Streisand effect.

1 Like

Yes, I suppose if we want to spread quickly then these things will all help speed up network effect, but you can see why I’m worried no? Are we vulnerable? Could we be shut down? How resilient are we? Are there are any threads or articles about this that I’ve missed and anyone can point me to? ty

I do see how you could be worried about it but i honestly don’t see it as a problem as history has proven time and time again , history practically always repeats it self, human reactions and human behaviors are always repeated.

same argument was used against bitcoin, It still is in some circles .

I don’t know of any specific articles really that get to any point or show anything, this is more a correlation of history and human behavior , how so many times when things have come along that “could threaten life as we know it!!!” have come along that need to be stopped, they are not, they never really are.

Take the UK forcing ISP’s from allowing access to video sharing websites for copy write content , easily solved with simple VPN’s and proxies . They block a singular or bunch of websites, 5 minutes later they are either hosted on a new domain name or just accessed thru VPN’s and proxies , 2 months later…they still ain’t done anything else about it. they move slow as hell in dealing with anything.

The only thing that has happened is that on a large scale the general population is slowly being forced to learn about the very thing they are trying to prevent , making the population smarter and more wise to what they do and how to get around it

Yes ok, but I still don’t really understand how vulnerable safenet is?

I agree ‘their’ attempts to stop things often have the opposite effect. Perhaps this ‘internet neutrality’ issue could do for safe what wikileaks did for btc? Maybe everyone would jump on safenet if we were forced to use lanes on the internet… or would safe also be subject to lane speed limits?

Sorry, I have a lot of questions because there is still I a lot I don’t understand about the mechanics of safenet… wish i’d gotten into coding and the tech world in general when I was young like all the smart people did :frowning:

This said otherwise. I know it isn’t in UK, but the censorship is going crazy in nato zone.

Sweden ISP blocks DNS service, using firewalls, and probably banning VPN service from anybody who is trying to access information.

1 Like