Implementing Safecoin on a DAG

Has any research been done about implementing Safecoin on a DAG (directed acyclic graph) similar to IOTA? The cryptocurrency IOTA is divisible with zero transaction fees and suitable for the Internet of Things (IoT).

“Instead of being structured as a sequential chain where blocks are added in regular intervals, the Tangle is based on a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph). Through this, IOTA is able to achieve high transaction throughput (by parallelizing validation) and no transaction fees on transactions. As the Tangle grows and more participants make transactions, the overall system becomes more secure and faster, with confirmation times / transaction finality going down.” –

One drawback with IOTA is that the senders of transactions have to do their own proof of work (PoW). Is it possible to implement Safecoin on a DAG without the need for proof of work? That would solve the divisibility problem and without the need for PoW make Safecoin superior to IOTA.

Here recent IOTA transactions are listed showing a wide range of divisibility:

1 Like

IOTAs are just entries on a ledger, not data objects. How would one apply DAG to SafeCoin? Surely that’s a totally different design proposition?

SafeCoin is already vastly superior to IOTA (in theory if it works anyway). I can’t see any advantage to DAG over the current SafeCoin design. We already have a few workable solutions to divisibility.

IOTA is still to prove DAG can function in a decentralised way. They currently run a ‘coordinator’ that they hope to be able to turn off when/if the network gets big enough. As it stands now the core devs can and do decide to shut down the network periodically and no one can transact. I’m not convinced the network will actually get big enough to ever turn it off. It’s a 100% premine that they purposefully kept quiet about in the ICO so they could own and control supply on the market. (i’m not bitter btw, I bought in to that ICO, but I don’t rate their tech compared to SAFE!).


Okay, but will each safecoin still be its own data object? In that case a transaction of say 1,000 safecoins will require writes to at least 1,000 data objects making the transaction slow and non-atomic.

I thought the 1000 writes happen independent of each other in parallel? This would make the tx roughly as fast as an individual write no? :open_mouth:


IOTA is crap. A crazy idea without taking into account the basic problems of any decentralized network.

Normal that its performance is so horrible. And getting worse as the users increase (and I’m tracking the network for more than five months).