Thank you for sharing. I find the ideas behind Duniter appealing, and I’ll investigate further. But I don’t see (yet) how the ideas and techniques behind SAFEcoin and Duniter can work together, even if maybe the ideal cryptocurrency would be a combination of both concepts.
SAFEcoin’s incentive (as was said) is to ensure and enlarge the SAFE network and its storage space. It rewards ownership of bandwidth (plus a bit of cpu power and storage space) and as such doesn’t try to change capitalism. Duniter’s incentive is a just economy. They’re not competing, but are mostly orthogonal. While SAFEcoin usage will grow, if SAFEnet is attractive, Duniter has the hen-egg problem of every LETS or altcoin – it’s only interesting if I can buy something with it, and therefore it needs a critical mass of users.
I see a problem of Duniter (like most other cryptocurrencies) in its ever growing blockchain. As far as I understand, that’s the biggest technical problem of Bitcoin. That might not become Duniter’s crux, since its network is limited by the WoT factor and its calculations are not that slow. But this seems to be a problem that SAFEcoin avoids if it stores only the last transaction.
The WoT is a problem in becoming a Duniter member – everyone must know (personally?) one or more Duniter members, if I didn’t misunderstand. The threshold to become part of the SAFE network is much lower.
While SAFE focuses on anonymity, Duniter focuses on transparency: Every transaction can be looked up, and all participants are publicly known. If I understood right, SAFE solved the problem of trust (in a technical sense) between anonymous participants.
While Duniter’s basic income (Universal Dividend) is something I support, it needs to rely on unique accounts of real persons to be fair/just. WoT is an answer to that, and I don’t know a better one (that doesn’t mean there is no better one – I don’t know much about cryptography in the first place).
I’d appreciate if Duniter would cut away the blockchain and its transparency and instead would use a system of anonymous transactions that aren’t stored forever, as SAFEcoin will do. I don’t know if that’s technically possible.
So, while I guess it could be interesting to have a UD currency on top of SAFEnet, it can’t replace SAFEcoin, because SAFEcoin is too closely linked with SAFEnet infrastructure. And while a WoT might link to SAFEnet accounts, those are not meant to be unique and/or equivalent to real persons, but more like usual web accounts – everyone can have as many as (s)he can handle.
SAFEnet replaces (some parts of) the internet – Duniter replaces (parts of) capitalism.