Question about PARSEC and Safecoin

Just something I was pondering last night.

If PARSEC is ready, and we are maybe at least a year or two from full launch, is it achievable to now create Safecoin using PARSEC, which will allow there to be a decentralised Safecoin network?

As I’m writing this I’m thinking it would probably not be fair to release such a thing as Safecoin was always supposed to be launched with the safe network. But I’d like to know at least would it be achievable if we wanted it to be? Because a coin that is private, scalable and fast would turn a lot of heads on its own and would start adoption before the rest of the network was launched.

Anyway, it was just a thought, and there are maybe some things I’m not considering that need to be achieved before that is possible. Of course the code for Safecoin hasn’t really been started yet, and we will see test Safecoin in the release after Fleming. But if it is theoretically possible i’m wondering if it’s worth releasing something. Also I suppose there is nothing stopping someone else releasing a coin with PARSEC if it is possible.

Thoughts?

3 Likes

It’s simply not possible without having MVP launch. There has to be a network for the coins to live in for them to exist and function.

It would be like saying “let’s release Bitcoin without finishing the consensus algorithm code”. They both require each other to work.

I thought PARSEC is the consensus mechanism?

It is, more clarification or a better example should have been used. PARSEC is the consensus algo, but the coins must live in a live working network. That live working network (many vaults storing data distributed around, without losing or mutating data) is a core requirement for SAFE. So core it could be compared to bitcoins consensus algo.

1 Like

Ok, that makes sense.

But if push came to shove would it be theoretical possible to do now if we used PARSEC with another kind of system like one of the many DAGS like IOTA and Nano? I remember when PARSEC was announced there was mention of it helping them projects achieve full decentralisation. Is this still true?

Also for security I think you need a network with vaults before adding a coin. If alot of people secure the network with vaults it prevents attacks when the coin is released.

2 Likes

I’m not sure exactly which bits are required, but for secure concensus you need node aging, which means you need farming, so PARSEC is part of the security needed, but its purpose is to secure voting not just on transactions, but things like section merge and split, accepting and rejecting nodes, promoting and demoting nodes, all of which are required for a secure network and to secure Safecoin.

So as has been stated, I don’t think we can have Safecoin without most of the core completed. We could do without the new data types in theory, but things like that are not going to take long and will add a lot of value, and it will save testing and time to do these features all at once rather than add later and have to test again after adding new parts.

If you use PARSEC with IOTA etc to create a coin, it may or may not make sense (I’m not sure) but it won’t be Safecoin.

7 Likes

Exactly. PARSEC can give you consensus in the face of up to 1/3 bad actors, but it alone doesn’t provide any means of limiting the number of bad actors in the pool of validators.

4 Likes

Edited to avoid misleading or confusion.

2 Likes

Uhm. I think there is some confusion here. PARSEC needs for a supermajority (>=2/3) of nodes to be collaborating at all times. The malicious nodes are always assumed to be <1/3 of the participants in one PARSEC instance (in our case, the section elders).
With the BLS RFC, we are saying that 1/3 co-signatories is enough to prove that one honest node signed the message, so it’s enough to require 1/3 of nodes to form a section signature. As far as PARSEC itself is concerned, there isn’t really a change in how we reach consensus (expect the common coin, when we code that)

7 Likes

I think you could look at it this way, PARSEC is to the consensus algorithm underlying Bitcoin’s POW as a live SAFE Network is to the bitcoin blockchain that allows POW to operate. The SAFE Network is the rails on which PARSEC will run. Without a live Network, PARSEC is like a train car with no rails to run on. (And now to extend the metaphor even further…), without a live Network, Safecoin would just “sit” in a stationary PARSEC train car unable to effectively go anywhere/do anything.

4 Likes

I think by maxwell they will have all the moving parts working together required to have a test-safecoin at least. I believe I even got a “maybe” out of David on that question once :wink:

2 Likes

I doubt that original plan with fleming, maxwell, beta will be met. It seems to me more like there is a hurry to finish MVP, before next funding round. I think they plan to have test coin this year to increase chances for better funding.

3 Likes

Thanks for all your comments guys!

I knew there was more to it than just having PARSEC, but I really wanted to understand if having PARSEC officially ready for Fleming meant in theory there was a way to create a scalable coin from that, which could be considered if there were significant delays in Safenet (fingers crossed there isn’t).

Of course Vaults, Node ageing, etc are critical to the network in keeping a well maintained decentralised system. I was just wondering if a more basic DAG / blockchain style system could run with PARSEC now and how that would be achieved? Still lots of learning needed on my part on how all these elements work on a deeper level and how they work together. Hopefully I’ll get there before launch day so I can successfully pass on the knowledge for those asking.

Thanks again. You guys are great and help me learn more with every post.

Have a good week.

8 Likes