Perfect. That handles the safecoin size beautifully. Another reason to ditch bitcoin, and use safecoin. 
2 Likes
Very cool, actually. Thanks.
2 Likes
All hail Bitcoin, the Preparer, the Plow, Opener of the Way!! Also the organic matter which will fertilize the soil for the next phase of growth. May it grow and grow, so that the soil is well prepared!
3 Likes
You’re right on that, I cannot deny that. Bitcoin is a fantastic first stepping stone into crypto-anarchy.
3 Likes
Some would call the current system, with all its crazy backwards rules and loopholes for the billionaires / corps etc the real anarchy,
And an immutable, uncounterfeitable, and truly secure network a more orderly system 
I think anarchy has a bad connotation.
But I don’t want to take us off topic
2 Likes
Let’s not take it off topic. Opps. Sorry about that. XD I just had to.
Anarchy IS Order.
7 Likes
That is a fabulous video. Thanks for sharing it. I’m grabbing the link and downloading a copy.
4 Likes
Would it be an option to make it work similar to how @fergish described it? Because if so, I can see a very interesting use case in such an alternative system.
If a SafeCoin would always exist and simply be made unowned when made available for farming, we could have a straightforward system for Proofs of Deletion (or ‘Burn’ if you like) of SafeCoins. Proofs of Deletion are ideal to use in a global general endorsement system.
If people want to globally promote a piece of content, they can put the hash of that content in a SafeCoin’s data field, tell the network to “delete” the SafeCoin, and then publish the deleted SafeCoin’s address (append it to that content’s deterministic ‘endorsement chain’). Until that SafeCoin is re-issued to a farmer, anyone can easily confirm that it was deleted as an endorsement for that piece of content. The ‘decay’ (due to re-issuance) of these endorsements I consider a useful feature. It’d work as a general ‘hotness’ metric.
Proofs of Deletion as endorsements benefit the entire network, because when people endorse something they free up additional SafeCoins for farmers, which increases farming rewards and reduces the storage price for everyone. It also can’t be abused as far as I know, unlike using SafeCoin tips to the author as a general endorsement metric (people could tip their own content indefinitely, so you’d need supervision or a web-of-trust to attempt to mitigate this).
Edit:
This is actually not even necessary, the only change to the current system would have to be that on a farming attempt, the SafeCoin should not exist OR it should be unowned. Other than that the core code doesn’t need to change. Seems like a useful rule regardless of my idea, to prevent permanent loss of SafeCoins (a lot of BTC has actually been purposefully and permanently burned already).
2 Likes
The problem with this Proof of Deletion is that it is temporary. The proof will be deleted as soon as the safecoin is farmed. You see this as a feature (general hotness metric) but the life time of the proof seems too hazardous for me.
The real Proof of Deletion is transferring the safecoin to a public id known to have no associated private key while adding the hash of promoted content in the data part. This is standard proof of burn which is forever verifiable.
These safecoins are not farmable anymore but I don’t see this as a drawback because value of other safecoins will increase to compensate for the loss of these safecoins. Anyway there is no need to debate about it because the standard proof of burn doesn’t need any modification on the core, so anyone can use it without asking for permission.
From the perspective of the network this is a drawback, as fewer coins mean that the value is more centralised in particular groups.
3 Likes
I would prefer that SAFEcoin followed the KIS principle. I think your idea is generally good idea, but when it comes to the lifeblood of SAFEnet I think simple and pure is the best way to go.
I read the links posted at the top and listened to the podcast, none of this elucidates how coin is generated or transferred.
Yes coin is generated ‘by the network’ but nothing is given as to how ‘the network’ does this or what keeps people from abusing this function.
And how is coin transferred? So there is a consensus mechanism for confirming alices request to transfer coin to bob, but what exactly is the method by which this transfer takes place?
Implementation is still to be done, but perhaps the following will help:
Sorry for the late reply, but I wasn’t able to check this until now.
You are right, there no such things as sacrificial or backup copies for structured data. SD seems to be stored 8 times, 8 being the current kadmelia group size.
4 Likes
without a blockhain threre is no security, consensus etc
You bet there is. And higher speed/transaction times, 100% data and ID ownership, the foundations for next level Operating Systems, well, please go read the roadmap. If you’re not convinced that SAFE Network is Internet + Bitcoin = bye bye all crypto efforts so far (and the name World Computer should in fact belong to the SAFE project), well, I cannot help you I’m afraid.
The only thing I can agree on with you: It takes time. And it’s a difficult project, with a bumpy road on many levels. Not for the faint of heart, as I said before.
6 Likes
edited 20 chars… to finish the post
Maid is not the only example of chainless consensus. IOTA has also gone that way to overcome the many BIG problems with blockchains. The fact that you think a blockchain is the only consensus mechanism reveals you don’t know much about crypto really. Back to the classroom for you, better to stay silent and be thought stupid than to open your mouth to prove it imo.
3 Likes
it is easily exploitable if the conensus group is working together
Lol somebody please get this guy a “SAFE Network for dummies” intro book Please please lol
2 Likes