Proposal for Encrypted Distributed DBC's (now with poll)

Maidsafe decides that in any case. Deciding that has little to nothing to do with the proposal, excepting that it allows more leeway in the distribution – as regards to dumping of SNT’s onto the market & the network.

That’s fine. Doesn’t impact the proposal. In fact the proposal makes this more viable as one of the major concerns for Maidsafe is that SNT could get dumped and as this limits that, we don’t have to worry so much about theft.

Proposal doesn’t seem complex to me. Not super simple, but certainly not complex. This isn’t really an objective criticism.

why stop there @neo? … the scammers arrive and say, use our custom software for more farming profits … then skim off most farming profits regardless of ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION.

People will always fall for scams, your scammer argument if taken to final conclusion shows that this criticism isn’t limited and hence not an issue of this proposal, but an issue of culture, education, and perception.

Complexity point is very subjective. Where is the risk? --this proposal REDUCES risk? … I debunked the scam idea and energy wastage is also entirely subjective. Security and prevention has a cost, that cost is paid with time/energy.

What “suggestion given” do you think I don’t like? What are you talking about specifically?

I have added variable bit-size encryption idea to the proposal in the OP.

1 Like

I want to address this another way as well. Bitcoiners and the free market came up with a solution for the bitcoin difficulty adjustment really early on - pools. These pools are still very dominant methods for small bitcoin miners today.

There is no reason to think that pools won’t come to exist for cracking rDBC’s and in fact creating the first one could be something that Maidsafe or the foundation might do straight away.

The proposal only has merit if it is done on launch, since it is trying to overcome the 70% being held in one place and by the foundation.

But who has ever implied that any procedure would allow that? This is a made up problem. Theft aside which can be mitigated just as well if the foundation holds it. Just need to do it properly.

@Dimitar already addressed this and showed theft is not an issue since inside theft can be done before locked boxes are set up or if no locked box system used.

Depends on definition of simple & complex.

To me asking MAID holders to do cracking in order to receive a bonus of tokens is asking them to be knowledgable of crypto and/or how to crack, even if guides are given out. And the scammers will love this offering services to crack the boxes for those less knowledgable. Of the few thousand holding MAID now, do you honestly think half of them will not be at least confused at the start and many not have the means to do cracking.

This increases complexity for them, a lot.

Complexity of this amount does become important when considering if we should even do it as opposed to simple human process (that may even be automated before launch, but if we work towards that then it will be quicker. As was said we need to make the human process easy to automate)

That does not say anything really. The RFI does not give opportunity for scamming away the 70% but locked boxes really does because of the computational work needed and not even mentioning the greater complexity.

All I see is hand waving away those points.

The suggestions in the RFI for one. I thought that was obvious.

So we are going to become a crypto project now with mining for real. Mining away these locked boxes, do we need a blockchain now too. Yea that was out of order but that is what it suggests.

While it was a jab, it also is another important point, this mining makes Safe into another crypto project/system which come under the increasing specific crypto mining laws/regulations being implemented by many countries.

Also for pools and the like, you are now suggesting large boxes to be mined, if not then unlikely to have pools.

There is so little detail given by this proposal it is hard to tie you down to actual figures to analyse what the outcome will be. Mining makes us a crypto system to be regulated as such with all the new laws. As a token exchange system there are lesser laws (a lot less) and this increases complexity in yet another area.

Oh and pools defeats giving every MAID holder a locked box for them to crack to get their bonus SNT. Pools means their box is shared with the pool workers, while those mining on their own keep the lot. Unfair if you ask me and Safe was designed to be as fair as possible. Give out the bonuses fairly if at all.

But as I said it turns Safe Network into a crypto coin network.

1 Like

General impression

This idea is definitely worth exploring. It’s a fairly simple alternative.
It has a couple of drawbacks and a couple of attractive features. Like all the alternatives.

This proposal consists of two parts:

Part 1: The underlying idea to have the remaining 70% of supply be given to MAID holders and shareholders.
Part 2: The additional encryption layer to impose a gradual release of these tokens.

I will rudimentary address these two parts, with pros and cons, one at a time.

Part 1: Remaining 70% of supply to MAID holders and shareholders.

This is AFAIK the simplest and most secure way to distribute these tokens.
That’s more or less indisputable I think.
The reason for this simplicity/security is that technically, there is no distribution. It’s a number trick.

The other equally simple and secure way to deal with the 70% is to burn them. That is an alternative in itself, so further comments better for another post.

Suggested downsides

  1. Most of supply in the hands of relatively few holders.
  2. There is no stash to stimulate the network with, in case of unfavorable world conditions with too negative impact on the network ability to survive.
  3. There is no control over when and how these tokens are made available to the market in the form of sell-orders that push the price down.
  4. It allows an attacker to start accumulating before launch, in order to later attack the network via the possibilities of owning a large share of the total available supply.

1. Most of supply in the hands of relatively few holders

These are some months old figures:

15821 MAID addresses

0.06% (10 addresses) account for 33% of all coins
0.31% (49 addresses) account for 50% of all coins
1.99% (314 addresses) account for 75% of all coins
6.55% (1037 addresses) account for 90% of all coins
29.92% (4733 addresses) account for 99% of all coins

The most optimistic view of these numbers is that 1 address == 1 person. We can be fairly sure that is not the case.

At a first glance, this can feel horrendous.
When you think about it though, what will the tokens do sitting in the hands of these few whales?
Are these bags investments, or are they 14 year long sleeper cells, just waiting to bring down the network in some nefarious way? Occam's razor would say these are investments, with the purpose of cashing in at some point in the future.

If the network is not a success, we wouldn’t care.
Otherwise, being a success, the increased price would start to see these whales cashing in on their investment. That there is distribution to the masses, and the rate happens to follow the growth (success) of the network.

So… since we didn’t want to see immediate release on to the market of the 70% supply (putting up a sell order is a release, keeping in a wallet is not), and we did want a gradual distribution… I fail to see how this is such a bad thing.

Whales == bad is simplistic. Dismissing this method because of the concentration to a few whales, is playing at that simplified view.
Rather, it would be better to honestly assess the actual landscape.
What are the incentives and mechanisms of investors? What seems to be the behavior of these specific ones? Would this work in favor of the project.
Here, it looks to me like it is very likely that it would.

2. There is no stash to stimulate the network with

This is the only drawback that I see as easily verified as an actual drawback.
Stimulating the network (preferably autonomously by the network itself) could be very useful.
Although it would mean additional complexity, and the actual results would not be certain, it is a sort of life-insurance that feels nice to think about.
I do wonder, if there actually is a need for it though? Or is it one of those things that sound nice, but in reality is not even needed?
Early on in the network I see use for it. Could that be solved in other ways, as with Bamboo Garden Fund for example?

3. There is no control over the release to the market

This is what Part 2 of the proposal is supposed to solve. Even so, there are reasons to address this point in isolation.

So far, current holders (which are the ones in question) have shown to hold on. If anything is to be expected, it’s more of the same.
As price goes up a lot, some of these would start reaching their limits, and start putting up sell-orders - i.e. releasing to the market. As a collective they would be slowly distributing the tokens, very likely at an increasing rate as price goes up. And price going up would be a reflection of increased demand and interest, a growing network. So, as network grows, distribution increases.

It would almost seem as if this is the decentralized autonomous slow release of the tokens that we are looking for?

I have not seen other scenarios painted out in a convincing way. They all include “if there is an attacker”, “if some holder is malicious”. But they fail to show how this would be feasible or beneficial to them. It’s like the 51% takeover of Bitcoin. Once you hold that much, you are hurting yourself if you take down Bitcoin.
Still though, there is no knowing, and this uncertainty is essential. The “not knowing” is not the same as “other scenarios could be just as likely”. There’s no knowing if someone will takeover Bitcoin either. But reason suggests that it’s not likely.

(NB: The Bitcoin example is an actual takeover of the network, the unwanted effect discussed here would not result in a takeover of the network, merely a temporary pushing down of the price.)

4. It allows an attacker to start accumulating before launch

It would not be a cheap attack, as there is no market to support buying up a large share of current supply. Question is if it would even be possible. The increased price would attract attention and new people who would all compete with the attacker, further raising the price, and on the spiral would go.
It would probably be a lot cheaper to try provide most of new nodes to the early network, as to control it by having most of the elders.
Both of these attacks assume someone willing to spend the resources on something yet so unproven and unknown.
The node control attack I think has been generally deemed not a big concern by now, due to realizing that there will be too low interest in the early network, too low risk posed by it, at the stage when it would actually be feasible to take it over.
For the token control attack, that would be even more so, as it likely requires much larger sums of money invested upfront, with a very uncertain payback. Occam’s razor, assuming rationality over conspiracy, disarms this point I think.

Suggested upsides

  1. The most simple and secure way
  2. Would give a gradual release of tokens as network grows
  3. Would give a distribution to the masses as network grows

As a result of going through the downsides, a couple of additional upsides were found.
They are rudimentarily covered already, so suffices to list them above.

Part 2: The additional encryption layer

I’m actually not so sure this is a necessary addition.
It would seem to me, from the reasoning above, that it’s quite possible that a slow distribution is something we would get for free, simply by the fact that investors will gradually increase selling as network grows.

Even so, I’ll look at what has been said.

Suggested downsides

  1. Additional complexity in dealing with the encryption step.
  2. Risks of mistakes/malice in the process of encrypting the DBCs.
  3. Risks of improper encryption levels used, leading to too fast or too slow release.
  4. Bad PR from introducing something similar to Proof-of-Work.
  5. Scam market for cracking the locks, where people lose their tokens.

1. Additional complexity

It’s a one time thing, so still relatively small compared to the complexity of other alternatives, such as a foundation. Nonetheless, it could prove to be quite tricky, as shown by the next point:

2. Risks of mistakes/malice in the process

The locking up of a DBC means not revealing the details of it. However, as it has been created the details are there, and could be leaked. Setting up a process where the DBCs are generated, without leaking the information, and do so in a verifiable way, can prove to be quite a challenge.

3. Risks of improper encryption levels

Too fast or too slow release would make the whole ordeal done for nothing.
The answer to this is probably, as already suggested, to use a variable difficulty, such as with the Bitcoin mining. I am not able to quite assess the feasibility of this right here and now. Needs more digging.
With a properly functioning variable difficulty, the issue of too slow/fast would be solved.

4. Bad PR from introducing something similar to Proof-of-Work

(to be filled in, need to nip out)

5. Scam market for cracking the locks

It’s hard to say how big of an impact this would be. I can imagine that reputable companies (like Maidsafe) would release software that would be the defacto standard. It would be efficient, verified, free. It would just let people supply their pubkeys, and the software would automatically work along, and notify/take proper actions when results are made.
There would be nothing for scammers to offer.
Nonetheless, some would always fall in to the nets of any potential scammers. I think that would be true anywhere anyhow though. There’s always an angle to fool people, and there’s always some that might fall for it.

Suggested upsides

(Quoted straight from OP)

  1. rDBC’s can’t be dumped onto the network as payment for data storage immediately, they must first be hacked-open. So the price of SNT’s can’t be manipulated if a large theft occurs.

  2. Reduces the honeypot attack vector of sections holding tokens or of a centralized possibly political body (a foundation) holding rDBC’s as they have no value until cracked open and cracking them open takes a lot of work.

  3. Auto-magically (because of free markets) reduces SNT volatility. As the price of SNT’s go up, there is more market incentive to hack open rDBC’s. As the price of SNT’s goes down, the incentive decreases and less rDBC’s are hacked open.

Although these points somewhat conflate with benefits of Part 1, I’ll let them stand as is. Generally I see them as valid.


From this initial walk through, it seems to me as if Part 1 could actually stand perfectly fine on its own, and that the need for Part 2 is mostly based on poor analysis, fears and assumptions.

I consider this walk though fairly rudimentary, and that there is room for more and deeper looks at all alternatives so far discussed (and hopefully more).

A small word on the Foundation alternative

About the alternative to giving the remaining 70% to MAID holders and shareholders; the Foundation:

The biggest risk with giving 70% of the supply to a foundation, is in my mind not a takeover or a hack (although they are definitely there as well).

The biggest risk is bureaucracy, politics, bike-shedding, etc. leading to a bogged down process which sucks resources and accomplishes very little.
Looking at the discussions within Bamboo Garden Fund, which already see some of the troubles of decision making in foundations, and scaling that up a thousand times… we can already get a picture of the difficulties and the complexity.

The complexity involved in managing an arrangement like that is a completely different universe compared to letting the tokens trickle how they may as investors sell off.

One is a colossus with constant pressure from degrading forces. The other is a self-organizing process.


Very helpful post :+1:t2:

You didn’t mention energy use or the bad PR we can expect from introducing something similar to proof-of-work. I think that could be a significant downside which deserves a mention.


Ah, thanks Mark. I updated the post, but need to fill in comments later, I’m just now heading out the door.


From a technical and computer science perspective this is a decent proposal and ticks many boxes.

The idea of locking up SNT for the MAID holders to be rewarded with is a neat idea and gives them a huge bonus and guaranteed to ensure they will gain a lot from that.

Obviously a lot of work has gone into this proposal.

Will comment further as I too have to get going. But yes nice computer science solution/proposal for solving the 70% issue.

Something I’m not sure about but needs some clarification or consideration is what happens to the locked up DBCs that take a long time to crack, and whether it matters.

Let’s say it takes years, say ten is a target though we might go for shorter or longer targets of course. So suppose we aim for almost all to be cracked with ten years of effort.

Some issues arise:

  • energy efficiency I’ve mentioned this above but we’ve not attempted to quantify. We should at some point attempt to estimate the energy cost based on how long we expect cracking to take and the impact of that on environment, project reputation, vulnerability to negative PR attacks, and even regulation that is currently proposed to ban proof of work. Anything I’ve missed?

If the bonus ceases to be worth much more than the cost of unlocking it some DBCs may become worthless (effectively "lost) which feeds into the next point…

  • what happens to locked DBCs over time Maybe this won’t matter, but we should have a think about it before accepting that. As each DBC is assigned to an owner, in theory only the owner can use it once cracked. (There’s a risk that the mechanism for that gets broken but that issue is covered elsewhere so here I assume only the key holder of a MAID/eMAID address can use the unlocked DBC). I think there’s significant uncertainty about what happens to DBCs if they’re hard to crack. Owners die, lose interest or access to keys, or find the process of running cracking code for years too onerous. Or maybe there’s a market in selling them to businesses who specialise in cracking leading to centralisation and other PoW like ills. What happens to these locked DBCs over years seems a complex issue and so might have unintended consequences.

These questions make me think the idea needs more careful examination because it may not function as intended, and may not be worth the risk or benefit compared to the certainty of just burning or distributing everything on day one. For those the downsides and risks are far easier to understand and analyse.

1 Like

What happens to unminted bitcoin before they are unminted in a coinbase?

what happens to them after they are minted and the owner dies?

The lockbox idea is basically just an alternate way of achieving what BTC does with coinbase transactions… minting over time. The difference is only a technical one: instead the coins are all minted at once and then are distributed over time as individual lockboxes are cracked.

In both cases the aim is the same… distribute the tokens over time as fairly and regularly (evenly) as possible.

My concern however is that there is no mechanism here to adjust the difficulty in response to “cracking power”, hence it seems highly unlikely there would be an even distribution over time.


Yes there is simple computer science solution in it.

[EDIT: sorry I used your quote to consider related considerations - yours are good and need to be listened to]

But as i said I will comment further as simple computer science solution is not always good solution in the real world.

To me this is a neat solution to tickle the conceptual mind but lacks good real world implications. For instance the social impact, the economic impact, the legal impact, the government/securities view of running crypto “mining” to release coins, the tax impact.

Lets start with TAX

The tax man in most 1st world countries considers “assets” as owned by you even if you lose the key to your wall safe and its so strong it takes one, two or more years to get into it. If you have share certificates, gold, silver, whatever in your wall safe then the taxman considers you as owning it. The same applies to locked boxes of SNT distributed to you at start.

  • Lets consider a person who has 452K SNT (0.1% of MAID) exchanged from MAID. Yes a lot but point doesn’t really matter how much one owns above say a few thousand MAID.
  • We will ignore any consideration of if your location considers the exchange a tax event. It just adds more complexity to the point being made.
  • Lets say 1 MAID (SNT) is worth $1.00 upon exhcnage for simplicity
  • then the distribution of the 70% is split between MAID holders and investors thus 46.67% SNT for MAID holders and 23.33% SNT for investors (the 10% and 5% ratio) Not so important the split but done for correctness
  • Thus each maid holder gets their MAID holdings/452,000,000 * 46.67% of 4.52 billion given to them in locked box(es)
    • (452 K / 452 M) * (0.46666666667 * 4.52 B) == 0.001 * 2,109,333,333 in their locked box(es)
    • or another way to calc 0.1 % of 46.66666667% of total SNT == 0.0466666666667% of total supply of SNT (4.52 billion)
  • The TAX man sees the person going from 452K MAID worth $452,000 to a new holding of $2,561,333
    • $452,000 from their original MAID
    • $2,109,333 as increase in holdings (IE as profits/income)
  • Thus the person will be taxed that year on a 2.1 million profit.
    • some places will see it as capital gains and taxes accordingly
    • some places will see it as income and taxed accordingly
    • and some will tax according to how long it was held and decide if capital or earned income.
    • and some lucky places only taxed when converted to fiat, these people can ignore this situation as it will not affect them immediately.

This is just one real world implication with giving out the 70% as locked boxes.

And no the tax man does not give a flying whatever if your tax accountant says its not accessible due to being locked. The tax man rightly see you as being given the SNT and as an increase on your holdings.

Reason is that the idea of locked boxes is an attempt to tell the markets there isn’t a sudden dumping on the market. A stated purpose given above. So the MAID price is likely to be the same. If lower, say 50% (50 cents) then the gains is just over 1 million and the point is still made.

And before I am accused of FUD, look up the Australian tax rulings and laws on assets. Its obvious anyhow because that is how any sane tax system would consider increases in assets. And its not a trust account or anything like that trying to hide wealth increases, its straight forward.

Rather than go into the other real world implications (good & bad) now, this I think alone shows how a neat computer science solution does not translate well into the real world. And I didn’t even have to prove anything about it being seen as mining by the governments who do not care about what it really “is”.

The alternative as expressed in the intentions of the RFC is that the 70% will be delivered over a period of time and NOT giving out at launch. Thus the TAX implications will simply be the earnings for each year and no massive impact due to getting locked boxes that cannot be used to pay taxes till unlocked.

Lets say I see this locked box as a simplistic computer science solution.

1 Like

Just to re-iterate to those who didn’t take the time to carefully read the OP.

This proposal doesn’t concern itself with WHO or WHAT receives the rDBC’s … it could be the Foundation, it could be sections on the network, it could be eMaid/Maid holders, it could also be future DAO’s, or it could be combinations of any of those.

So this proposal has nothing do to with the how or when rDBC’s are handed out. Hence tax implications for this proposal are moot.

I think not since it affects whoever receives the funds other than the foundation.

If not the MAID holders or the unlocker, then who seriously will spend their money to unlock them. Electricity costs, cloud computing costs.

And in case you did not read my post, this is what I was responding to as a computer science solution

Which is what your proposal has implied from the beginning so sorry I took this as a given

Regardless of this proposal - whether the tokens are locked or not if they are given to MAID eMaid holders there will be implications for taxes of some sort. The locked tokens have no tradable value though, so I don’t see how they could be taxed until cracked, but you can make up whatever fantasy situation to create FUD that you like.

I’ve never implied that and in fact have gone out of my way in multiple posts here to say that this isn’t part of the proposal. The OP clearly states that all distribution options are on the table - that’s as far away from implying that they should be distributed to Maid/eMaid holders as I can make it.

And when you read my post I say things along the lines. The implications of 70% given over many years to ALL farmers mostly new and old, will be that the amount given to current (e)MAID holders is a lot less, less impact on markets and way less TAX implications since they will be earned very slowly due to farming. No huge bonus in one hit but much smaller amount spread over many many years. (And the markets will grow faster too) It is not a hand wavey away thing.

Always get a tax accountant then, since you clearly do not know how assets are counted.

This is a major issue and trying to hide it means you are not considering the proposals and all the implications.

I guess its no use me addressing other concerns since they will like wise be waved away as FUD.

You do realise each time you wave away with its FUD, or nothing to worry about then you lose the confidence of others considering your proposal or the other one I was addressing.

As I repeat and again I repeat my most recent posts where about the computer science solution proposed a few posts above.

To be honest what is the point of trying to address concerns since they are called FUD. Have fun with with your proposal, it has lost any significance to me since examinations that do not support it are FUD

No, I do … but there is no means of calculating the value of locked tokens like this. Simply put, you don’t know what is in the lockbox until it is opened. And as it’s impossible to open them all at once, there is no means to calculate value.

This is true for bitcoin mining too. You can’t tax a bitcoin miner for all future coins that they mine. Possession of mining equipment does not guarantee you have income or even future capital gains.

rDBC’s have no resale value as there is no means of determining if they are real rDBC’s or if they are fake.

Wow. I’m open to a debate, but you give me nothing to debate expect future projections based on your fantasies.

Seems to me that if you had ANY other legit concerns you would have already put them forth, given how FUD-like your previous concerns have been.

You do realize that each time you dump FUD and not legitimate technical issue with a proposal, but simply imagined ‘scary’ scenario’s … you reputation as a credible community member declines.

You need to look up the definition of FUD and go back and reread your comments. They clearly are just that.

I tried to examine the issues,as you request in the OP, but its FUD to you. If you cannot entertain considerations that unless addressed will bring doubt on the proposal then why make the proposal, just state it.

FUD - Fear Uncertainty and doubt.

Yes any negative response can be classed as that if you are not willing to listen to the points. Or so fearful of acceptance you see everything as that. But it seems my posts are being classed as FUD so the points never have to be seriously addressed and just hand waved away.

Your last post started to actually address the issue, but not in the context of the post I was responding to. I was pointing out issues, and you then apply it strictly to your edited OP which is gaslighting since you changed the context of my post and used a less likely interpretation (who knows where locked boxes are going or size) of the OP to put down my considerations that need to be considered in formulation of anything along the lines of “locked boxes”

Now it seems unfair and unrealistic for locked boxes (in context of responding to a previous post) to be random amounts given to (e)MAID holders since that means one could get 500 million and one gets 1 million in their locked box. But anyhow this must be FUD to bring up this unfair situation if (as in that post) the (e)MAID holders are given the locked boxes. Also the TAX man doesn’t give a flying whatever since they will attribute a value to the locked box. As is done by the Aussie tax man when an actual amount cannot be determined and they will work it out using their rules not yours. But hey this is FUD to you. Yes what you are doing is this crazy that common sense considerations is now FUD. To apply this to your OP the only 2 reasonable situations is the locked boxes are given to the people or given to the foundation (or sections if automation implementation), and I contend where is the motivation to use energy/time/compute power to eventually unlock a box and not get anything for doing so. Where else would the SNT go to?

Anyhow call this FUD again, yes I am being cynical.

One question I have and until addressed then considerations of this proposal is difficult.

Who, what, or ??? are to be the recipients of the SNT in the locked boxes? What are the options?

And the associated question is who, what or ??? will the locked boxes be given to to unlock?

While leaving these as unknowns will be OK for examining this on a computer science level (technical level), it makes it difficult to address on a real life basis. Since the proposal has people doing the unlocking, it is very much a real life proposal that must consider the real life implications. Until then its just a up in the air proposal that cannot be accepted or rejected and any negative response can be called FUD to handwave it away

I can’t speak to the specifics of this RFC, but going back to the lockbox discussions from months back, the general idea was to:

  1. mint the genesis DBC, with all DBC that will ever exist.
  2. break those apart into N pieces.
  3. Encrypt the DBC plus the private key into a “lockbox” stored on the public network. This means that whoever first opens the lockbox can spend it, typically by immediately reissuing to a key that they own.

It thus becomes a race amongst all participants to unlock the boxes, similar to how bitcoin miners compete with eachother.

So the general idea is to:

  1. Keep the core DBC system as simple as possible.
  2. Make a distribution system that is functionally similar to bitcoin’s but is implemented as a 2nd layer outside the DBC core and leveraging Safe Network facilities.

The interesting problem to think about is how to ensure a fair/smooth distribution over time since the lockboxes are statically created at the start. It might be an intractable problem, and thus a showstopper for the lockbox idea, at least insofar as a functionally equivalent alternative to bitcoin’s coinbase minting solution. Perhaps a decryption difficulty adjustment mechanism could be devised, but that would seemingly add a lot of complexity, as consensus would seem to be required.

edit: another interesting problem with the lockbox idea is how to prove that nobody has lockbox keys after the lockboxes are created.


It is certainly an interesting “computer science” style of solution and as such has many positives and some technical negatives which you mention one of.

Another I see is the unfairness of distribution. By this I mean is for those wanting to mine wealth are in opposition to those who want to farm for the network and earn. It creates a situation where those with the compute resources will be busy mining to get the SNT, and those without will be farming for less rewards. Unfair situation in a network that strives to be fair to all and provide access to all.

Another is the similarities with mining concept and the law makers will not distinguish the difference and deem SAFE as a primarily a crypto coin system. Not because it is factually, but because they want to restrict and regulate the crypto system of “something for nothing” concept and the way it undermines the concepts of the economic system. Whereas SAFE without the “mining” (unlocking new coins) will simply be a “in network token” that people earn by doing network work. IE doing things to make the network operate AND the network is just doing operational work of its purpose of storage & retrieval.

Image a person like Craig Wright who is/was using his super computer infrastructure in attempts to mine more than others &/or disrupt, & prove he “is” the creator of BTC. Image he (& others of “super” computers) puts time into unlocking boxes, the lopsidedness it would create would be a danger to the economics of Safe and totally unfair to node operators that a few with compute power can amass wealth. Only used that as example, I expect it would be people with large compute systems doing it.

From my analysis (small as it is) I think that this statement of yours will certainly be difficult to achieve

I even thought perhaps there could be a way to encode the locked boxes with the section ID so that as sections split there will be more locked boxes available to crack. And then the adults in a section work together to unlock the box(es) for that section ID. And the SNT is simply then available for the section to increase rewards over a long time.

  • but how to make it that only the boxes for that section is able to be cracked by the adults in that section?
  • obviously the published code does this slowly to allow as many adults share the work.
    • if modded code expends more compute power then it only speeds up the release of SNT for the section to use without benefiting those adults any more than others. So not as much incentive other than earlier slow release via rewards
  • obvious when a box is unlocked the additional SNT the section has will have to be released to the node operators very slowly to reduce the incentives to game the system and it becomes more academic than economic
  • the tax issue almost dissolves since no one is benefiting from the cracked box other than earnings increase for the nodes and the operators report their earnings as required by the tax office in their country.

The biggest problem is how to encode these boxes so only the section they are for can be worked on by that section’s adults. Also make it so the boxes for a another section ID cannot be worked on till that section exists and only by that section’s adults.

Thank you for interacting rather than calling me a FUDer because there is a lot to discuss and work on if we are to address in seriousness the Tax issue, the legislative issue, the fairness issue, the social issue of why use compute power when SNT is not going directly to worker.

Its these areas where this proposal has to address if it is even going to be worth while working out the technical implementation.

1 Like