RFC: Safecoin Implementation

Same here, the now closed topic of mine:

1 Like

I see the principle, and don’t have strong feelings in the other direction, but given the value of a few Safecoin (50 is what? Less than $1 and would add up to an insignificant amount relative to the issued coin), it seems not worth worrying about. And why not let those helping test the network with a little reward anyway?

I’m not intending to start a debate over this question, I’m challenging what seem to me unnecessarily hard lines regarding something so trivial in impact.

So I’m wondering if I’m missing something here. Is this just principle as I suspect?

Do you think this principle needs to be so sacrosanct?

Is it based in a fear of being duped, or of giving a bad impression, or…?

Or could this be an overly idealistic position?

I’d like to understand this better, thanks.

It is not that the principle is sacrosanct, but if I (as a generalised person :slight_smile: ) can get 50 real safecoin for creating an account, it is almost impossible to assume that it would not be abused. This point has already been made above by @anon81773980


Exact same case happend with Stellar coins. Account creation gave you a few coins and users abused the system and ended up with tons of Stellar coins which they dumped after in the market.


OK, so it’s to protect against possible abuse. Thanks.

I see that side - nobody wants others getting something for nothing!

But this “abuse” is actually beneficial - if it attracts a lot of new accounts that’s good for testing no? It would also attract new users and farmers, to help bootstrapping too. Exactly what we want in fact?

Again, I’m not arguing for this. I’m questioning the basis for rejecting it, and think it is best not to rule it out yet.

There is little reason not to anonymously abuse a gift like that. If the gift is “worth” $1 and can be “earned” by registering for free within 1 minute, then I can “earn” $60/hour (shit, maybe I should make that my full time job?).


Not beneficial when test safecoin will be transferrable to real safecoin later.

I’ll spend one hour automating that based on the poloniex order books; I should earn more than $60 an hour :smile: - making sure that supply matches demand :smile:

1 Like

I was under the impression that its not actual safecoin but the results of spending 50 safecoin on upload resources.


Maybe I should outsource some work to your new SAFE pod!

1 Like

yes, but that then depends on whether account balance is transferrable

1 Like

I do not know of any process being incorporated in the “first version” of SAFE. That is discussed (by you) for divisibility which is later on.

So unless there is something I haven’t seen there is no transferring this resource count to other accounts.

1 Like

Yes nicely spotted @neo

Absolutely as then there would be all the shenanigans :wink: So no unless you could sell an account you have owned the private keys to then I doubt you can make much from it. The attack would be somebody trying to create tones of accounts, not for personal gain, but as an attack to try and kill the network (if we limit the number of accounts etc.) but I think it’s akin to the wee mossies (midges) we have here in Scotland, just a wee nuisance and not much more. However actual real people beyond us believers and early adopters could actually really join the network and that makes a lot of sense to me.

There is a misconception the crowdsale was specifically and only to get people to purchase coins to join the network, but anyone thinking the general public (again beyond early adopters) were buying bitcoin and then safecoin would be pretty hard to defend. The crowsdale was to increase supporters/funds and early adopters and many of those did jump though the hoops to buy. I don’t think it helps forcing newcomers to forcably farm or go through hoops to get on the network. I think removing some of that friction would be better all round.

I hear all the I will script this and that etc. and wonder why it never happened (worth mentioning) to google/paypal etc. So if we start small do this and stay small it would make a difference, if we start small, do this and grow big and fast (i.e. the focus on simple as possible install and run) then it’s a different story al together.

So I feel we need to step a little back from a very early adopter market of hundreds of users and think of a market/project with thousand/millions of users and look at how that was achieved. There is plenty of history to help us with projects that actually did break out of early adopter, so perhaps we should look there.


I thought about and considered all comments so far, the model for giving away accounts, if there is something scripted the best possible outcome for the scripter would be: they can then make tons of accounts, true. Then set up a service selling access so the storage capacity of those accounts, for a lower price.

So if a person can generate the equivalent of some arbitrary amount of space: 50,000 safecoin worth, and sell it off for 5,000 actual safecoins through an app service. And it could be to publish public data for cheaper. It would eventually run out, and the network would have by the end of the running out filled up with plenty of content.

Indeed just downloading and running is a direct approach, and farming probably will involve more commitment than just turning on and off your laptop every few hours.

A thought on giving people access and not jumping around could why not make a promo code unique one each one, and limit its distribution. And distribute that code and the client application that accepts the code. Which opens up the possibility to have some storage allocation, and this way the code was got physically, or communicated somehow and that could be the solution to dos by some scripter.

1 Like

Make it into one of those “i am human” images that reduces the opportunity for automated capture of the promo-code.

1 Like

I’m seeing this in three threads right now, did something go wrong?

I’ve said this 10 times but here’s the 11th: the only way to make this “work” is to ensure that the labor cost used to open an account is higher than value of what you get for free by opening an account.

If I can click thru that BS quiz in 10 seconds and make $5 worth of disk space, I will have a pretty good incentive to open 100 accounts and sell them for $100 (despite any limitations on free accounts that brainstorming on this topic might produce).


Just pick one topic where you’d like to keep your reaction and you can delete the other two. Hope you didn’t fall asleep already :smile:

will safecoin be implemented after rust-5 completing? I hope we can see it asap. MAID will be pumped soon. :smile: :grin:

Very, very cool.


Worth a read whether you can understand all of it or not.

Here’s one quote that many should find interesting (there are others, too).

"Bootstrap with clients

“Although there has been hostility from the community with regard to “something for nothing” approach, there is a necessity for a bootstrap mechanism. As no safecoin can be farmed until data is uploaded there is a cyclic dependency that requires a resolution. To overcome this limitation this RFC will propose that a user account is composed of two parts: safecoin_account and storage_account, every new account created is initialised with safecoin_account holding 0 coins but storage_account holding 50 safecoin equivalent storage allowance. This may be temporary and only used in test-safecoin, but it is likely essential to allow this for the time being. It may be a mechanism to kickstart the network as well.”