I guess those of us who are happy with maidsafes progress, are confident the algo will be witten taking these concerns into account.
Until then its all just hot air.
3 Likes
It is deleted, that is destroyed, becomes non-existent. A bit like pythonâs parrot.
The address that the coin existed at becomes available for a new coin to be created randomly or never again depending on (pseudo) random events with farming.
Farming rewards come from the networkâs own store of ânon-existing coinâ addresses.
There is no direct or closely linked relationship between people spending coins to PUT and farmers being paid. For one, people spend a coin to by a âPUT Balanceâ so the spending of coins does not mean 1 coinâs worth of PUTs is immediately used. For some users who send emails and respond occasionally to forums might take a year or more to use that coinâs worth of PUTs
The relationship is very loose, all it means is that the network has more empty addresses from which to issue coins. For instance the network could go for years without any more coins being spent (assuming data was PUT previously using existing coins)
3 Likes
I was getting at the unsustainable claim of how fast the issuance of the remaining coin will be. Even reinforced by the claim of 50% in the first year. As this is contrary to the design goals of safecoin then I responded to that in blunt terms.
The issue of 20K per coin, well that is a different matter and I donât think its happening anytime soon or ever and some good points were made on both sides of the argument. But as to the rate of issuance of coins, then there has been a lot of discussions and clear goals of the project stated. And so I can clearly refute the claims being made by some individuals.
I am sorry you saw it as a personal attack instead of attacking the points and due to the lack of reading on the matter.
7 Likes
Agree. In the end, the market will value it and Iâm intrigued with what the number will be annually for the next decade
Is it really a ânewâ coin if it has the same address as an âoldâ coin? A coin and an address have 1:1 correspondence. Given that property itâs the same coin placed back into circulation, since it has the same ânameâ or id.
It is new because the ânewâ coin is not being used for anything linked to by the spending of that coin. I.E. its not a coin that is paid to PUT then directly used to pay those farmers that retrieve the data that the coin paid for the PUTing of.
The only relation to the address is that address space is use to limit the total number of coins. They could have an 128bit address space and some method of ensuring only 2^32 coins can exist. And obviously some method of incorporating scarcity would be needed to.
1 Like
The network used/spent that coin to purchase a GET or GETs from a farmer.
NO. The GETs rewarded are not on those chunks that were PUT by the spending of the coin at that address. Its a conceptual thing really and the reuse of an address is a technical method of limiting coins to 2^32 (and see the edit I wrote above)
Yes, I understand the process fully. My comment didnât say that a client spent the coin for some PUTs which the network handed off to a farmer âhand to mouthâ. I was pointing out that from the networkâs perspective it spends its coin(s) on GETs as needed. So your ânewâ coin is being used for something linked to the spending of that coin, ie. spending by the network instead of a client. And if that coin has the same ID as a coin that was previously spent by a client for a PUT at some time in the past, then your definition above proves my point that it is not really a ânewâ coin, but the âsameâ coin.
From this point of view, ânewâ coins would only be those coins distributed to MAID holders at launch to seed the network economics, or those instantiated the very first time an address is used by the network to reward a farmer. These are minor definition/semantic details, but I think itâs important to debate, just like the misuse of the term âburnâ.
EDIT: Not sure if any of this is relevant if Fraserâs alternative method is used.
3 Likes
Its how you define ânewâ
New is one of those words like perfect. You can turn arguments into anything almost.
The coin is new for the purposes of the algorithm.
As I said the algorithm could use a 128 bit address space with a mechanism to both limit number of coins to 2^32 and to incorporate the scarcity element. The algorithm still works the same and for the span of human life time no address is reused.
So I disagree with even your unintended use of the word ânewâ for the purposes of the network workings.
On the other hand its like saying in a program language where you have a âNew Objectâ statement. Now for the purpose of the program the object is new, but in fact it has reused memory that was previously used for something else and that could even have been for the same object in a previous run of the program. So in SAFE it sees each coin created as âNewâ in the true sense, but for technical reasons like the program example the coin resides at the same address as a coin that was destroyed. Now this is made more clear by my example above where a 128 address space could have been used but limit # coins to 2^32
tl;dr And of course this is starting to sound like splitting hairs over termology
1 Like
Misrepresenting what I said is another form of personal attack. But whatever, I will go straight to the cold hard facts:
For this calculation I will use the approximated total supply of 4.3 billion listed in white paper:
âIt is anticipated that 4.3 billion coins will be produced during the life of the networkâ
4.3 billion / 20 years is 215 million coins / year. Current supply is 450 million. Whatâs
450 + 215 million in percent inflation? 47.7%.
I did some more digging and while the safecoin whitepaper does not mention emission rate, the old paper from 2014 does mention something of interest:
âUnlike gold, which only increases at circa 1.5% per annum, the quantity of safecoin will initially burgeon. This is akin to the California gold rush, where the quantity of gold grew quickly with enthusiastic miners. In safecoin this is mirrored by the network building to the stage where it is protecting all of the worldâs data. During that time the mining frequency will be exponentially decreasing.â
âBurgeonâ for those unfamiliar means âbegin to grow or increase rapidly; flourish.â
Itâs established that the coins are to be mostly distributed by the 20 year mark, but let me quote from the paper:
With the proposed mining procedure (and assumptions) it is estimated that half the total volume will issued during the first 5 years, with 95% issued after 10 years
Now sadly this is even worse than I thought. I can do the math for you again:
(4.3 * 0.95) / 10 is 408 million per year on average. Note that current supply is 450 million, and we will be getting 408 million new coins a year on average for 10 years after launch.
Thereâs only estimates in the paper, however itâs clear to me that we are going to see the most heavy inflation in early stages, as this graph confirms:
An estimate is also made that shows this:
While 2% coin supply is only 86 million coins. 19% inflation is still pretty steep. But it gets worse, much worse:
To reward investors and developers involved during the early stages of this project, it is proposed that 30% of all safecoins will be injected into the network on day 1. Up to 10% will be available for purchase via the crowd sale, 5% for the existing MaidSafe investors, 5% for the SAFE core development team and 10% for the general developer pool.
Is these coins going to be available for sales? 5% + 5% ? Thatâs 100% inflation year 1, without counting the coins farmed. Even if only 5% (to devs) thatâs still 50% inflation.
Final remark:
âhalf the total volume will issued during the first 5 yearsâ
Weâre talking 430 million coins per year. This is a massive equity dilution of crowdsale participants and very quickly so.
I rest my case
3 Likes
Yes I am sorry the 50% figure from your very later post was increase in # of coin and not 50% total.
But you did say, which I quoted you earlier where you said most coins will be existing early on and were dismissive of people saying the 90% will take a long time to be issued.
But now by your last post I see you have changed the argument into realistic figures that is much closer to what is expected and I agree that there âcouldâ be an increase of 80 to 250 million coins in the first year.
But there can also be a much smaller increase in the first year since the data has to be first uploaded before any significant gets can be done. Also it costs more to PUT a chunk then the average reward for retrieving a chunk will be. So the net rate could equally be a reduced number of coins for a few months, even 6 or more depending on what people are uploading. For instance people could start uploading their song/movie collections to their private or public files.
So NO, you cannot claim âcase closedâ on a 50% increase in number of coins existing.
A few points you might want to consider in your analysis
- the number of coins existing could (yes could) be decreasing for a while, even many months or a few weeks - who knows, but there is a strong case for a period of decrease.
- the initial coins existing will be 15% so your calculations for so-called inflation, need to be adjusted.
- increase in so-called miners in the graph does not equate to increase in rate of coin issuance. The coin issuance is related to the number of chunks being retrieved and the amount of available space. There is a indirect connection with the number of farmers because more farmers typically mean more space available which drives down the issuance rate. So in fact too many farmers will result in low coin issuance rates.
- I am lost as to what you are actually trying to say this coin increase will do. If its to refute the $20,000 per coin (or other huge figure) then I am in agreement. As to what the price will be I donât know, but not the imaginative figures some say.
- the proposed 30% does not exist anymore and has been mentioned a number of times. There is the 10% from presale and 5% reserved for earlier investors. So a total of 15% of coins existing on day 1. Most here know this and will have factored this into any calculations they have personally done.
- The example of bitcoin shows that even with total coin supply increasing steadily, the overall long term price can also increase by large amounts. (Note its an example and safecoin may or may not be similar)
8 Likes
This is a much better response. Thank you.
The 50% figure was just an example. My argument is related to 430 million coins coming out every year on average for 5 years. If you have 10% inflation first year then you need to have a lot more inflation in the following 4 years. Itâs not that important if the first year has less inflation than the subsequent years, my argument is based on dilution of crowdsale participants and the fact that by the time we reach year 5 we will be massively diluted and by year 10 completely diluted.
Massive inflation as such could have a negative impact on price versus no inflation (or deflation). And since the inflation is very heavy early on, the launch hype may settled down with a long period of depression due to the huge supply coming into the market.
the initial coins existing will be 15% so your calculations for so-called inflation, need to be adjusted.
Thatâs roughly 195 million more coins than currently exists. 195 million coins extra is 43% inflation on day 1, not counting the farming. (again, the first year isnât important in my analysis, just saying)
increase in so-called miners in the graph does not equate to increase in rate of coin issuance. The coin issuance is related to the number of chunks being retrieved and the amount of available space. There is a indirect connection with the number of farmers because more farmers typically mean more space available which drives down the issuance rate. So in fact too many farmers will result in low coin issuance rates.
Good point. But the table with the estimates confirms the rate.
The example of bitcoin shows that even with total coin supply increasing steadily, the overall long term price can also increase by large amounts. (Note its an example and safecoin may or may not be similar)
Itâs not fair to compare a mined coin like bitcoin to a crowdfunded coin like maidsafe. When bitcoin had reached mainstream the inflation was already very low. If inflation had been 12 million every year for 5 years iâm sure the priced would have suffered a lot more.
Year #bitcoins Inflation per annum
--------------------------------------------------
2013 12,199,725 13.7%
2014 13,671,200 12.1%
2015 15,029,525 9.9%
2016 16,075,400 7.0%
2017 16,750,400 4.2% (estimate)
2018 17,425,400 4.0% (estimate)
2019 18,100,400 3.9% (estimate)
3 Likes
I find this discussion interesting. But I think itâs important to use accurate terms and generally be as accurate as possible so as to avoid misunderstandings. Safecoin will be âfarmedâ - not âminedâ. Also, keep your cool, guys. 
2 Likes
If one has not factored this in their personal calculations then there is plenty of time to do that. The 15% on day 1 is better than what ICO people expected from the 30%.
So in fact this is a so called deflation from what people who did their homework in the ICO were expecting.
So are we arguing over terms?
Anyhow the current price of MAID should be factoring in the 15% on day 1 into the price. If they are not then shame on their research, but since it was discussed in Poloniex troll box when it existed then I expect most of the traders knew about it.
Yes but I was referring to the label in the graph supplied by the poster.
Old table and the discussions over potential negative growth of coins existing early on (and at times later on) had not been considered when that table was created. So I would argue it is out of date.
Anyhow at the end of the day you have set your views on this massive so called inflation where some others who have done their own research disagree. So for me I think at this stage we might have to agree to hold differing views on what may or may not happen in the first 3, 6 12 months.
Since the algorithms have not been finalised (actually barely started) then this is only discussions and until we get updated algorithms and test data its really conjecture. I am of the opinion that the so called inflation in year one will not be as you presented, but hey it could be if things change.
Also since safecoin is a utility coin used to actually buy tangible product then the price of the coin will not be like what has been experienced elsewhere. And as I said the bitcoin was only an example of what can happen.
3 Likes
This discussion show that you need to sell maid before launch safecoin
Actually Iâve said in the past that my opinion based on the rumour/news cycle that if you get it right then selling before safecoin exchange starts (or maybe just before safecoin implementation) then buying back during exchange might create a winfall profit for people.
BUT BUT BUT it very well may not do that too. Itâd be a real gamble.
2 Likes
If the algo testing goes well, and all is completed succesfully.
A huge amount of farmed coins would in my eyes only equal a huge success.
Hopefully it would mean a large amount spent on puts / data stored and good adoption.
I just dont see a problem.
2 Likes
Right, so you confirm that inflation will be minimum 43% year 1, correct? In addition to that 43% comes any potential farming rewards.
So in fact this is a so called deflation from what people who did their homework in the ICO were expecting.
So are we arguing over terms?
Anyhow the current price of MAID should be factoring in the 15% on day 1 into the price. If they are not then shame on their research, but since it was discussed in Poloniex troll box when it existed then I expect most of the traders knew about it.
Once again youâre back to personal attacks. You really canât help it, can you? Youâre insinuate that I did not âdo my homeworkâ because I wasnât aware of the distribution. The trollbox shut down years ago by the way. Do you expect people to look up the troll box log? or plow through thousands of forum posts with diffuse answers and guesstimates? Expecting this to be common knowledge without it being readily available in a short concrete paper is naive.
Isnât this supposed to be a friendly atmosphere where we can ask questions, discuss and learn about safe? Or
is it a circle jerk where any criticism is to be shut down with personal attacks until they run of and leave you alone? This project still is very diffuse, most people donât have time to read thousands of forum posts to get answer to their question. I realize there are still many unanswered questions and thatâs fine, but you can be nice about it instead of using this elitist attitude.
More supply is inflation, even if itâs less inflation than originally planned, by the way.
Anyhow at the end of the day you have set your views on this massive so called inflation where some others who have done their own research disagree. So for me I think at this stage we might have to agree to hold differing views on what may or may not happen in the first 3, 6 12 months.
Good to know that âpeople who have done their researchâ disagrees. I guess we can close the case then and never mention this again. Right? Is that what you want? Or can you actually give a solid argument as to why inflation of 430 million coins per year does not negatively impact the price?
(youâre talking about the first 12 months, Iâm talking about the first 5 years)
So you essentially donât know anything yet. Why were you so passionately telling me I was wrong then, if itâs not even decided yet? Which one is it?
3 Likes
No one knows anything but everyone has on opinion over something no one knows. I know why i like reading this 
7 Likes