Safecoin Cap at 4.3 Billion?

“We discussed these issues for a long time on the dev list. safecoins will always be farmed. Initially the cap is 4.3Billion, it is not likely to increase, but that is not impossible in ten years or so. The community will decide to perhaps increase supply by the population growth or similar (1.5-2%). I cannot call that one”

@dirvine say it isn’t so. This can be solved with divisibility. I hope the value of my Safecoin’s and the Safecoin’s of others are not stolen through inflation?

What he’s referring to is that this is all software defined. The community might change the software one day.

What exactly is the mechanism for the community adopting changes such as these? In BTC I guess 50% of miners need to accept a software upgrade. What happens on Safe?


Yeah all he’s saying its that it’s open source, and therefore nothing is set in stone forever.

If the majority of people on the planet agree on something, any part of it can be subject to change.

Perks of freedom :smiley:

1 Like

So, and I hate to compare it to Bitcoin. But, it’s like Bitcoin in that it is open source. Bitcoin has a cap, but it could theoretically be changed if the community decided to change the cap.


Changing a cap has a huge consequence. Taking bitcoin into example, if there is a rate of release of bitcoins, then in the future the cap is increased. Then an activity that takes place would be obliterated. Similar to how when countries default on their debts and the currency is reformed.

I’m sure that crypto networks and crypto currencies should avoid this as much as possible. I’m recalling the bitcoin fork, it’s like changing to fiat from the gold standard, or probably also resembles when tribes start using seashells and switching to some other object. It sounds and seems ominous to changing the cap, because then behavior needs to adapt. I think it would take a substantial enhancement to reach a conclusion where a change needs to occur. And if the behavior around the event of currency modification would favor it and lead to a more optimal network.


The only reason I can think to increase the cap is because at some point the network will grow to x amount of users and Safecoin will have to either dived or inflate in order to remain usable. I vote for the one that does not steal value.

Key points:
Inflation is theft.
Divisibility is the only way to maintain value.


I’m no economics expert, but I agree with you man.

1 Like

One of the points made in the thread where divisibility was discussed, was that if the cap was increased then everyone would have to have the number of coin they hold increased by the corresponding amount. Especially if done now, due to the crowdsale conditions.

Of course doing this means it has to be done when the total issuance of coin is under say half of cap, otherwise it would not have the desired benefit.

Divisibility is the better way since the value of coinage does not have to change. The threads on that issue floated more than one reasonable solution to the problem. The major issue to overcome is the point that each coin is a physical SD object in the network. But the devs left me with the impression that divisibility was to be considered when the time approached to it being needed and that it would be possible to do. Just they wanted to focus on getting the network running and actually get safecoin programmed, before worrying about dividing it.

1 Like

The idea was that instead of dividing the physical SD of a Safecoin, it would instead be divided by exchanging Safecoin’s for smaller value units of physical SD. For example, one dollar is exchanged for one hundred cents. This way the cap would stay at 4.3 billion and Safecoin could be divided infinitely as long as new units of physical SD of smaller value are introduced. Of course there could only be 4.3 billion Safecoin’s worth of any coin at any given time.

I hope I got this right. Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

That was my understanding and the suggestion was that when a safecoin is split up it could be frozen by the system and returned to the network when 1 sc worth of the split coinage was returned to the network.

That way there could only be the 2^32 worth of safecoin at any one time.

And that as the network grew it could handle the increased workload created.

Also that initially maybe “cents” or "milli"s could be introduced until further subdivision was needed and by then the network would be even larger to handle the increase in work to handle the even smaller divisions.

Could be milli-sc and micro-sc. This was suggested as being easier for the average person to grasp than .0000121124 of a sc


Yes indeed, or safecoin v2 comes out, it is 2^64 and existing safecoin holders get 4.3 billion safecon II for each safecoin. Or safecoin just divides etc. my point in the blog was, as people have spotted, not to close any doors. I see may folks saying a currency must divide or it dies and so on, but here in the UK we removed the lowest division (0.5 pence) to improved the currency and then started talking of millions and billions (inflation), so there are many options AFAIK.

I am not an economist and do not get involved in economics to any great degree as I feel experts should all be rich already and not care. It’s a bit like racing pundits, I wonder why they are not all already rich or professional advisor’s in many areas. My feeling is the complexity becomes too much too fast for people, so stay simple is good.

With safecoin, to me there is no doubt if the network got into the hundreds of millions/several billion users then there is an issue in quantity and I see many ways to solve that easily, division/new currency etc. all play a part in that debate, when it comes and the network is large enough to cope with the extra work. It’s all more straight forward in my mind, not to say it does not require a lot of deeper understanding technically and lots of listening, but not too much :wink:


It is very important to understand economics when it comes to Safecoin or any currency. I hope the community does not make the same mistakes the world central banks have made. Because maths dictate when using inflation that it’s not a question of if the inflation system will collapse but when will it collapse. History and maths tells us that it will always collapse.


So basically you’re saying it’s very important to understand mathematics. :wink:


Yes! It always comes down to mathematics. :slight_smile: that’s all economics is logic and maths.

i don’t like maths -____-

That’s OK maths likes you :wink:


It’s the logic part that seems debatable as there are too many variables in a society after a certain size to effect a logical conclusion that’s not a wild guess. I recall Bertrand Russell and Whitehead I think it was who tried to logically prove maths, after 380pages they still could not prove 1+1=2.

Than along came Heisenberg and showed the uncertainty principle which proved via not proving that there was not a local conclusion to a ridiculous amount of simple logic puzzles. So I fail to grasp how a hugely complex logic puzzle like economics does not fall square in the lap of the uncertainty principle.

this is what I mean by listen but not too loudly :slight_smile: I prefer to stick to simplicity and value echange mechanism and let stuff happen on top, but make transfer simple transparent and easy. then inflation/deflation/all curves etc. etc. be argued by folks searching for the certainty principle in a complex area :smiley:


Yeah…but what does it mean to “understand economics”. I think @dirvine is right when he questions the reliability of such statements given that most of those who claim to “understand economics” are not filthy rich (and it is easy to show that those who are filthy rich often owe their wealth to political factors). “Economics” as a science exists in the same way theoretical physics exist. So while I agree that there are things that are likely to happen and others that are unlikely to happen, it is impossibile to calculate the necessary end of a system - it plainly depends on too many factors.

It is obvious that on this forum there are some advocates against inflation, but that´s really an ideological question, certainly not a question of math. The amount of a token MAY be interrelated with the value, however essentially we are dealing with two very different entities. Counting coins alone is not going to make it.

You hit the nail on the head. Both divisibility and inflation will solve the problem. It boils down to ideology. Should the network spread the value of Safecoin through inflation or maintain its value with divisibility.

Nope, that’s not what I was saying. I said that people have different understandings of what the “probem” is about. There is not “one” problem…