How we might market a DBC’s (Digital Bearer Certificate) Unique/Cash-like features

Unless you can think of an easier way?? :joy:

2 Likes

Digital Baby Certifocates :baby:

2 Likes

I’m partial to keeping it simple and instantly like the sound of ‘Note’ as it implies a physical quality while also being a technically proper term. I don’t care for the others, although Physical Token might be one I would consider.

7 Likes

I had that on my list too. I liked that it can be seen as something physical (offline) or not, contains a message or data like passing a ‘note’, or as is described as a currency, etc but then I fell more in favor personally with Pact because it is similar to contract and implies it’s a promise not to be broken and it feels very general as if it could apply to anything.

My list was pretty short.

  • Digital vehicle
  • Transport
  • Personal Storage
  • Smart Wallet
  • Note
  • Pact

Note is a good one though.
@happybeing I quite like Stash too.

2 Likes

I don’t 100% understand how they will work.

Can you make a DBC that anyone can “use” to claim the tokens?

Can you make a DBC that can only be redeemed by a specific account?

Can you make a DBC that contains more than just tokens? Like information?

Can a DBC have ONLY information and no tokens?

I think it makes sense to call all these different things. If we want one word for all of them, then I guess that exists already and it’s DBC. If the application really doesn’t know the use case then I think it doesn’t make sense to call it anything other than what it really is. The reason is that since it’s such a generic thing, the word to be used would also be very generic and so it might not help the user to know what it does without further explanation.

If there has to be one “new” word for DBC, then I think letter or package makes sense. It can have tokens in it, it can have information in it, it can be addressed to someone specific, or not. But again, it’s kind of generic, if I hear “Safe Letter” I don’t know if it’s like an email or probably at least just has text in it? Wouldn’t expect tokens.

If I hear “Safe Package” I would expect it to have like a file or something, wouldn’t expect tokens. If I’m handed a note with a QR code and/or a hash on it, I would be surprised if it was called a “letter” or “package” as it’s clearly just a note with a QR code and not a letter or a package. I think these types of issues are almost inevitable when trying to find some generic already-existing word to represent a generic technology that isn’t like anything that already exists.

A word for the kind of DBC anyone can use that only contains tokens, I think I like the word voucher, probably “Safe Voucher” or Safe Token Voucher. To me it implies:

  • Some inherent value
  • Can be both digital and physical
  • Can be redeemed
  • Can be used by anyone
  • Does not indicate any specific intended usage

I think it’s pretty clear.

I think I like the word Voucher in general. Maybe Safe Data Voucher if it’s with data? Addressed Safe Token Voucher if it’s for a specific address? To me the word voucher is intuitive because it implies that this thing I have is something that has value or gives access to something.

Anyway, been going on about vouchers long enough, probably only makes sense to me either way. :stuck_out_tongue:

8 Likes

Voucher sounds good to me. Great post @lukas . I have been struggling with DBC’s and what the are. I read - digital money and dbcs very interesting article. The last paragraph about Black Box Computing blew my mind.

4 Likes

We avoid the requirement for absolute synchronising the spendbook. That’s a PITA and is a total order. Instead, we do what I believe is a neat trick. So each Dbc has a parent Dbc hash within it. So a minted Dbc is only valid when the spendbook is updated. So we use AT2 type negotiation and the client must aggregate the signatures (keeps the network nimble). So each Elder holds the awaiting signature field. When that is supplied the spendbook is updated (no order).

So we add this small check. If the parent Dbc is in the spendbook, then this Dbc is valid (unless of course this one exists in the spendbook :wink: )

This removes the “The spendbook is the only element of a Mint that has to be tightly synchronized and access to it has to be strictly serialized” from the mint.

10 Likes

@dirvine isn’t that an innovation from the current state of the art regarding DBC’s? Trying to grasp it fully but damn that sounds good.

5 Likes

I think it probably is and it’s a simple wee trick really. Until the client actually gives the Elders the sig the Dbc is not spent so any child Dbc’s are not valid. Much better than requiring all the sync/serialisation etc. of the whole spendbook. It’s like CRDT partial order as opposed to full order.

7 Likes

Here is another name @JimCollinson

Instead of Promissory Note I suggested then what about

Safe Note

8 Likes

Sorry guys I’m still a little confused about what a dbc is. :confused: :crazy_face:

Is SNT a dbc? Or will SNT be linked to a dbc to give it cash like/ offline qualities?

And can SNT be used without a dbc?

Explain it like I’m 5 :joy:

9 Likes

SNT is the temporary name for a safe network token (used to be safecoin).

Dbc is a type of money. A cryptocurrency but not a blockchain. So think of Dbc as a mechanism for handling tokens like SNT. i.e. SNT will exist in the form of Dbc. (similar to if we printed SNT bank notes they exist as paper notes)

12 Likes

Great explanation @Antifragile

And If a nasty man broke into your bank and stole that envelope could they spend the check or would they need my friends signature?

Wanting to know more, I googled “digital bearer certificates”. This topic comes out in the top 3 :smiley:
Let’s keep it there to get some exposure !

8 Likes

We do this. So this is the process

  • You present bank (Safe) 100SNT as a dbc (Note1 say)
  • You sign it over to somebody else Note2 (another unknown key) Safe also signs this along with a SpentToken

When you then give the bank (Safe) the signed SpentToken then immediately Note1 is spent and Note2 is valid.

It’s that simple, so you can hold Note1 and Note2 but ONLY the Note who has
The parent spent token existing AND no spent token for itself is valid.

This wee trick ensures atomic swap from Note1 to Note2 i.e. if given Note2, you check “is it spent already” and is the parent (Note1) spent. That tells you everything. Also though if Note 2 contains the public key you control, then you know it’s not spent. So you only need to check Note1 is!.

14 Likes

How did I miss temporary.

Is this 100% certain as in you have another name in the bag?

3 Likes

Any name we publish before release will be snaffled by a simple copy cat, even blockchain or erc20 scam. They are too easy to create. The idea is we have some names and we will launch with one but hopefully snaffle it ourselves. So it will have to be simple unique and not able to be scammed as easily.

19 Likes

It’s ok. I’d be lying if I said I fully understood how they work. But I’m totally tantalised by the possibilities presented so far.

Yes

By a specific person or entity behind a SafeID or address, yes.

Yes, I believe so.

Yes, I believe this is true also. Although creating one might incur a small token cost, especially if you are putting some additional data in the DBC.

Yeah, there may well be a good case for different names for discreet use-cases. Especially if there is a fundamentally different purpose, i.e. one financial, one pure information, or contractual.

Voucher. Yes, this is an excellent and useful word. Banked!

One quality of DBCs that came up with the when we were talking about metaphors—after initially comparing them to cheques—is that they can be divided and sent to different people, and they can also be merged, or combined to make one larger one.

In this regard, they are not like cheques, or notes. In my mind they are much more akin to Gift Cards, in the way they work.

My wife always ends up getting these gift cards for a local chain store, and keeps them in her purse in a stack. She’ll use them online, or in several shops that accept them. She can go into one of those stores and check the balance on each (or scan the code to take a look on her phone) and often asks them to be combined into a single larger card. Or combines some, and gives one to me, and if I’ve signed it, only I can spend it. Sometimes I’ll take that card, and buy an Amazon gift card from the store, so I can spend it there!

Could those types of qualities also be applied to voucher?

8 Likes

This is nice and simple.

Yeah, it did feel nice and simple.

However, it might be too narrow, and fail to capture the qualities fully.

I.e. a DBC might never be on paper (I might just email it), and it doesn’t just represent a token. And it might get weird… “how many tokens does that paper token have on it?”

1 Like