Absolutely - if its that cheap yes, I will be paying for people. lubinew is worried that it will cost 1 whole safecoin though.
i saw that - but i don’t see where that number comes from (assuming divisibility will be enabled with launch) …
edit: maybe it would be difficult to implement a new account creation just for itself with a fraction of a coin … but with someone “vouching for you” that might not be necessary … but of course a shot in the blue … because safecoin isn’t implemented yet
I would be only afraid if there was said “1 safecoin = 1 account (Full of upload power)”. Then I assume we could see the price skyrocketing ($200) but not many new users. The “entrance fee” should be rather defined as 50GB or something.
If someone has to “vouch” for you to get new users to join the party, Safe Network is dead before it is alive.
hmhmmm - right - thats why googlemail died before it had a chance to really get the feet of the ground … that invitation-only thing was clearly a mistake
Gmail’s beta started with invitation only, just like many projects in beta state (including this one to some degree) but I don’t think Google actually did. Correct me if I’m wrong. By the time SafeCoin arrives this project will be out of beta state.
don’t know how long they did it - i just thought that this invite-thing made people want to be part of it and created some buzz around those early google accounts … anyway - attaching a certain value to an account doesn’t need to be a bad thing imo … and i just suggested the vouching-thing as an alternative to force everyone to get some coin through an exchange to be able to create an account …
Not good, though, to place unnecessary impediments in the way of mass adoption.
Agreed, it needs to be cheap and easy (click and go) for everyone
i just suggested another option for paying for the storage anyway - like my thought or not - your choice … i’m not the one to decide anyway
…nobody ever suggested to place “unnecessary impediments” afaik…
Exactly. Any impediment placed is necessary to prevent spamming the network. Just because an impediment exists does not mean it’s unnecessary.
I think Safecoin will be introduced much sooner than with final release.
Yes, I think many of us are concerned about how the initial store of Safecoin will be distributed and how one pays for it. When you consider the possibility of Safecoin being priced on the open market at hundreds of dollars it brings up many issues. To me this seems to be of upmost importance to the overall prospect of Safe Network. Maybe when divisibility of Safecoin gets sorted out it will shed some light on possible solutions. The conundrum is that if Safe Network (and Safecoin) turns out to be immensely popular and the price of Safecoin soars, will the initial algorithm of how to provide Safecoins to new users still be valid and, if not, can a workable adjustment be made to the algorithm in a kind of dynamic way? Would be interested in hearing what David has to say.
Oh? I thought until final release it would only be TestSafeCoin.
I’m not talking about preventing one or a few users from spamming the network, there are other, more effective, ways of doing that. I’m talking about limiting the number of users by unnecessary requirements. If all, or most, new users might be good candidates to spam what you suggest might be useful but one shouldn’t cut off his nose to spite his face.
1, As far as I know Safecoin divisibility will be ready from the start
2, People do not need to create an account for reading and using network. They need it only for writing, so they can first try it as long as they want
3, People can farm coins
4, When I first started with bitcoin, there were faucets where you could get 2 BTC for free:) Faucets for Safe coin can be created.
5, What prevents me to create a web page on safenetwork, where people can get like 0.001 SafeCoin for solving some tasks? There can be many ways how to giveaway some coins to friends. There can be official fund in early days where people can send donations and other people could claim their small piece of coin. Such official fund web can be as homepage in browser. The only problem is to prevent someone from claiming his coins with some automatic tool.
Excellent point. Most individuals will connect to SafeNetwork via their phones and farming by phones will be limited to times when they are charging. Someone should be able to farm enough coins overnight for simple puts the next day.
“4, When I first started with bitcoin, there were faucets where you could get 2 BTC for free:) Faucets for Safe coin can be created.”
Back then that only meant two pizzas
“5, What prevents me to create a web page on safenetwork, where people can get like 0.001 SafeCoin for solving some tasks? There can be many ways how to giveaway some coins to friends. There can be official fund in early days where people can send donations and other people could claim their small piece of coin. Such official fund web can be as homepage in browser. The only problem is to prevent someone from claiming his coins with some automatic tool.”
I really hope something like this is planned. Again, appropriate implementation of divisibility is crucial.
What is the point of writing this? We all know that. That is why I wrote multiple options. Attacking on single option out of many is not a disprove of my claim and that sarcasm is rude and inappropriate.
If there is nothing gating new user creation than I can write a bot to create 1M new users per day to spam the system. Obviously 99.9999% of new users are fine. But I’m not. I’m a bad hombre, and I know how to script.
If I’m not mistaken, the bot problem has been addressed in other ways. Surely a different issue.