Safecoin composting/recycling

Autonomi Network Token
21

No actually I used it correctly.

I agree that a passing of time is able to be measured in a form by the events that occur. But this is not anywhere near precise enough for use as timing deciding when to steal and in some cases recover lost coins. ***not precise as in can be many times either way, not just 10 or 20%

If the non-existent T&Cs say 7 years then it had better not be earlier. And the “network event age” cannot give this.

So I still stand by my remarks being absolutely accurate for he purpose of this topic.

2 Likes
22

Which is exactly the behavior we want to deter. Millionaires just sitting on their coins and hoarding them OR someone losing the wealth in the first place. Either way that’s why you want them to decompose in the first place. That’s the whole point.

A bank is a private entity that makes profit. The network is more akin to nature. It has no ego or profit motive. When it reabsorbs the coins that gets redistributed according to the farming rate. You might as well accuse a tree of making profit by soaking up CO2 and pumping out oxygen. You profit just as much as you lose some CO2, sunlight, water or cubic. As my father used to say it’s not theft if you pay back the cost of what you take, which is exactly what the network does. Again bread mold does not steal from you, it just eats your bread.

To put this in perspective: A bank will take the profit from your deposit, skim off it and give some to some rich CEO bank manager to buy a ferrari with. The SAFE network does not buy a ferrari, it just converts the safecoin that has been distributed back into safecoin that CAN be distributed to farmers. That’s IT! Which means for every coin that decomposes that’s a bit more incentive for more farmers to devote resources to the network. Your comparisan between centralized banks and the SAFE network is flawed.

No one is disputing the ownership of the coins. We are disputing the NATURE of the coins. Whether they are perishable or non perishable. If you buy a sandwich no one will be disputing your ownership of that sandwich either but it won’t last forever (unless perhaps if you buy it from McDonalds and it’s one of those freaky things that never ever rots).

We’re not talking about data, your files are fine all tucked away nice and cozy. We’re talking about safecoin. How is safecoin that decomposes against SAFE’s goals if your files stay secure? The whole point of safecoin is the measure resources on the network which safecoin would still do effectively, perhaps even more so because it would be more efficiently circulated. Nor would this decomposition compromise anonymity. So how exactly is anyone’s data insecure?

Just the other day we were talking about freezing safecoin in order to divide it. And the problem being that x number of safecoin would be out of circulation and frozen in order to have y number of divisible coins. Now I ask you what’s the difference between frozen safecoin and hoarded and/or lost safecoin? They’re still out of circulation and inaccessable. You say some people will not like decomposing safecoin because they want to save it. I say tough, build a fridge and otherwise take responsibility for your accounts. We can’t afford to coddle billionaires and old people that forget their account passwords because someone wants a savings account they can file and forget.

Safecoin isn’t DATA. Safecoin isn’t files, videos and pictures. Safecoin is at best a currency that we use to MEASURE data on the SAFE network. You seem to be confusing the two. So yes it very well CAN be compared to food. Or more accurately I’d ask why? Why is it not like food? Why not? If you were talking about the actual DATA I’d be in utter agreement with you. But you’re not. You’re talking about money which is totally different. I don’t have any regard for people that want to hoard money for 20, 50 or 100 years. Use it or lose it. And one of the biggest problems with our society are huge corporations that want to hoard wealth. So yeah why pray tell ISN’T safecoin like food, or wood, or cloth, or anything else that’s perishable? And if it’ll fail every time then prove it.

Now what’s wrong with that idea? It would certainly be an economic stimulus and get people to spend their money rather than hoard it. You haven’t actually proved that’s a bad idea.

Yes SAFE is a preservation network but it’s designed to preserve data, knowledge, files. But you still haven’t proven why safecoin itself shouldn’t decay over time. Safecoin is a measurement but I wouldn’t consider it worthy data in and of itself. It’s a means, not an end.

Okay so I go to buy a TB off the network and what do they price it in? Safecoins of course. Ergo it’s a unit of measure, of price. I don’t care if the network measures for me but safecoin is still the unit of measure.

So use something that is precise. Give it an internal timer. It doesn’t need to know what time it is. It just needs to have a countdown.

23

Sorry, I have no idea what safex is. Just brainstorming.

Added:

Just found this in the other thread, thought it was pertinent here:

When does a breaking point occur where too many coins have been lost. Consider a constant loss of 1% to 2% per year. The only way to handle the deflation is to spawn off a more abundant currency and use the older more valuable one as collateral. Which is essentially what the main alt-coins are. Central banks hold gold but issue paper. Deflation can be just as bad as inflation. But as it has been stated, isn’t the whole point of safecoin to run the network, not be a main store of value, just like cash is not a store of value. The really interesting part of the composting scenario is that it still could be a store of value for a user if managed right, ie. not letting it go stale and be recycled, while also acting as an non-dwindling reservoir for fueling the network.

Furthermore, one can also take the perspective that “once a coin is lost, it is lost forever,” as nothing more than “blockchain bias”. Also, bitcoin doesn’t natively work with bitcoins, it works with satoshis, giving it the equivalent of 2,100,000,000,000,000 currency units approximately equivalent to a straight up 2^51 safecoin address space under the case of naive divisibility, which you don’t like for various reasons that we’ve considered in the divisibility thread.

24

I never put decaying/composting the data on the discussion table, just safecoin ownership. However, this raises a question I’ve had.

How does the safe network delete data?
Let’s say I have a bunch of documents that I don’t want backed up online any more and decided they can go in the trash. How do those chunks get removed from the network, freeing up space for use by others?

Second question: If it cost me some safecoin to store data on the network, do I get some safecoin returned back to me when I delete the data?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found this thread …

25

@fergish
Much to the objection of others in this thread I’ve been thinking more about the concept of how anti-farmers or “composters” could allow for long abandoned safe-coins to be returned to the network while not allowing the network to steal from users who are “savers”. Originally we were discussing a timed interval, which @neo pointed out was not possible since the network has no actual concept of real world time. As food for thought, consider the use of composting nodes that might operate in the following manner:

The Composting Node
These nodes would have a network adjusted composting rate, and an associated cost in safecoin to make a composting attempt (perhaps inversely proportional to the network farming rate). Based on my naive understanding of farming, I could see a composting node operate by calling out to the network for a random safecoin address. If the address is currently not owned, nothing happens and the composting node tries again (which would incur another safecoin cost to the composter). If the safecoin at the next address is owned, then a health counter for that identified safecoin is decremented by 1.

The pseudo structure of the safecoin might look like:

Safecoin = {
current_owner_id : alskdjfsl39rifnsd033edsm,
previous_owner_id: 39ifsljfdw9ekfjsdlafdsfsd,
previous_owner_signature: 23430428erhohofsj92339,
other_signatures: adfjp9sjflsdijflsdifj,
…
health: 4294967278
}

When the health of a safecoin reaches zero, it dies, or is considered abandoned, such that the current_owner_id is awarded to the composter’s id and is reborn with health = health_max. Let’s say the starting health of the coin is stored in a uint32 or uint64 allowing it to be set rather high. Rather than having some scenario where owners need to jump through some hoops to make sure they transfer (ping-pong) their safecoins around in order to periodically reset the age back to health_max, you could just make sure that a client node or farmer with a wallet also resets the safecoin health back to health_max whenever it is connected to the network. This would mean that in addition to farmers/clients searching for new empty addresses, they would also scan over the safecoins which they already obtained/own in order to reset the counter back to health_max automatically. The health counter would subsequently be reset to health_max every time a safecoin was traded between users. This also provides double incentive for users to maintain stable connections to the network and have good proof of resource, since they want to both farm more safecoin and keep what they already have obtained.

Network Theft Protection:
So the many objections and gut reactions mentioned above are that individuals need to have faith that their safecoins aren’t going to magically disappear from their wallet. That deflation is a good thing and its ok for safecoins to be lost forever. I called this “blockchain bias”. Some edge cases to consider would be whether or not an individual’s coins would die if they happen to lose internet access, ie. churn, and can’t connect to the network for a moderate period of time, but not indefinitely. To alleviate this problem, one would need to determine relative farming and composting rates in order to make sure that the real world lifetime was reasonable in order to alleviate fears. For the case of the truly paranoid, wallets could be setup to move between safecoin and some internal blockchain for long-term record keeping (maybe MaidSafeCoin or a “SafeBank/CoinSafe”). That way if the user loses their account information, the internal blockchain absorbs this and not the SAFE network. An analogy to this might be when day traders cash out their trades at the end of the day in order to make sure they are not exposed to uncertain volatility while they are asleep at night. Other traders like to just “let it ride”. I could also see the case where escrow services might allow one to make sure that a users account stays fresh if they lose extended network access, but only as long as they have paid for up front with safecoin. This way, in the case that account credentials to the SAFE network are lost or abandoned due to user error or other various reasons, the flow of fuel to the SAFE network doesn’t diminish. The network rules would need to be set so that odds are always in favor of the current owners, but the incentive for the composters would be that it might be seen like a lottery in the future as the network matures. Small costs, remote chance, but big payout if they happen to find a dead coin. I’m sure that others might have some better ideas on how composters could discriminate between coins that have really been “lost forever”, and those that are have just been put into long term savings.

3 Likes
26

Very thought provoking thread. Much as I don’t support it but this could be a viable way to fix the issue on the deflationary cycle. This aligns with distribution ideology.

Instead of shuffling the coins around. What if the health reaches to certain level, it sends a notification to the user,

Are you still alive?  Click yes.

When clicking yes, the health restores to full condition. No loopholes needed for this scenario.

1 Like
27

Okay recap. Data persists forever because the network CANNOT know who owns what and the network doesn’t know what time is. But safecoin DOES know:

  1. Who owns it.
  2. That it was created at x event point.
  3. When and if it is transferred to someone else.

Is it so difficult to give each safecoin their own internal clock or timer? These do not have to sync with anything. They just have to track time FROM creation over a set period to a decomposition event.

28

Nope. I will be having multiple accounts and some rarely used (think maybe years) and they hold my major portion of coins. So then because I work in a more secure way then my coins are actually less secure?

There are many reasons why people may not use an account with its associated wallet.

  • death and executors take a few yes to sort out things (been through this and its 5 years and counting). So during this time that person’s estate holdings of safecoins decompose (disappear). That is criminal in my view. Not just a bad idea but criminal activity of the network and the ones who implement it.
  • Secure accounts that only are accessed very rarely for security and holding reasons. So they only access those accounts when absolutely necessary and when they can be as sure as anyone can be that they don’t have any malware on the computer. So by keeping to “paper wallet” style of security they actually are not secure ad will have their coins stolen.
  • Go on a world holiday for 2+ years and only access their special account after they have returned and then maybe a few years later since they don’t need the coins till then. But then they find the coins gone
  • Who reads T&Cs even when they exist. This idea of decomposing or ticking boxes is so stupid I don’t know how to be nice in countering it. So all these people using their accounts one day find decompose APPs/People taking their coins from under them.

Oh and who is going to tick boxes on their 1000 coins. That is 1000 ticks they have to do, what if they have 50,000 or more. Even if its move them then they have to move all of them. Remember that each coin is its own entity so anything implemented to be done has to be done on each coin individually.

All this decomposing. expiring of coins really only look at it from the point of view of truly lost coins. But once you look at it from saved coins, coins being kept safe etc the idea becomes STUPID and in my opinion criminal since its stealing valid coins. And who is telling people they have to jump through hoops just to keep their coins and what if they make a mistake???

Oh great. So one of my coins expires in 10 days and another in 5 years. and another in 20 years. All the coins will have their different event timings. Event time is local to the section and changes when sections split or recombine. So its not always linear in relation to a data object, it could go backwards too (or forward 50% or 200%) if sections recombine and the recombined section adopts the younger sections “event time”

Its a shocking idea to think you can take coins from people saving them. Tough luck if some coins are lost, taking even one coin from a person who has not lost the coin is theif and criminal. I will not be a part of a criminal network.

This is serious and and if these ideas were implemented then it will not be good. The network becomes a rouge criminal network and insecure at its heart.

If you want to recover lost coins then the first and formost thing to do is IDENTIFY them. Do not get the cart before the horse and think of ways to delete them or make people jump through hoops before having a foolproof way of identifying the lost coins without making the user jump though hoops playing games that they won’t even know about. You CANNOT assume people will know about the games and jumping through hoops since there is nothing to tell the new uses. People do not read the fine print.

And I was not reply to your post either :slight_smile:

4 Likes
29

If this were in fact a reality (i.e., that property which I earned could be taken/stolen from me), and I was aware of it, I would never have anything more to do with this project and would immediately dispose of my tokens and this community of thieves. This topic does a great disservice to the entire project and the mere subject line appearing at the top of the list makes me sick every time I see it. When some folks eventually learn that this idea was being seriously entertained (since the dialogue continues and will remain on the internet into perputuity), it could do significant damage to the project in the longer term when the words are eventually taken out of context.

9 Likes
30

To address the issue of lost coins

  1. Identify the lost coins without requiring the user to do anything to save their coins.

Until you do the first step then do not even consider how they are deleted/recovered.

  1. Any method of identifying lost coins should allow identification of who lost them.

and then and only then

  1. Determine how coins can be returned to their rightful owner

and then only if they can not be returned should

  1. consider a method to recover the coins (delete them for rewards availability)

Until you can do these steps then talk of jumping through hoops is inappropriate for a network that is supposed to be the LAST WORD ON SECURITY AND PRESERVED DATA

3 Likes
31

Very much in agreement with this.

2 Likes
32

I dunno. Nowt wrong with chucking a few ideas around. It’s how we all learn.

33

And to top it off, after a quick review of the OP’s profile page, he has been a member since Dec 15 (posting this just four days after joining our group). I am not using this as an argument to disparage his opinion, but I’m just sayin’.

34

Nothing wrong with ideas. But having the horse before the cart is always a good idea isn’t it. /sarcasm

Also ideas that go against the nature of the SAFE network deserve a lot of critical thought and pointing out the faults all along the way. And yes people can be sicken by ideas, doesn’t meant the ideas can’t be discussed. The originator also needs to know how their ideas affect people :wink:

In this case the idea needs to correctly identify what it intends to fix. Making people jump through hoops is not a suitable method of identifying lost coins. Its like trying to prove a negative People have to prove the coins are not lost. Mr official arrives at the door. “Sir we need to check your money in case any of it is lost.” If you are not home that day then bye bye since the official just takes the money they find. This is what is being proposed.

1 Like
35

This I agree with - I find it hard to gauge how much of a problem the loss of unused Safecoins is likely to be.

36

If we look at the only examples to date and they are blockchain, as far as value is concerned it will have no effect and often makes the coins worth more since it is more scarce.

For farming rewards, it will have minimal effect for decades till the remaining available coins become scarce. The thing about the way the recycling and farming is done, the network does not need recycled coin for a decade or two and then it only lengthens the period of good amount of reward success.

I estimate that at least 1 billions coins need to be lost before we can notice the effect on farming reward success. And maybe 50% of all possible coins (2 billion) lost before it has any even minimal negative affect.

And I find it difficult to believe there is going to be 1 billion coins lost in the first decade when its estimated there is going to be 2 billion coins at any one time.

2 Likes
37

I’ll second that. I’ve worked hard to invest in this project, and I certainly wouldn’t want any of my coins, which I will own (yes, I paid my money for those coins, and they are my property), to be seized because I forgot to log in or went on holiday at some point. Or my wife to lose out on our investment because, as @neo says, a will resolution takes too long to finalise. And I also don’t want some ideological theorising about ‘nature’, and how the network should somehow mimic it, to destroy the value of the coins, and the network itself, currently have or will have in the future.

All due respect to the OP, but this idea is a very silly one. If people cannot rely on their money to be there when they log back in after some break for some reason, its value would plummet. If the value plummets because the coin is insecure, then farmers wouldn’t bother to farm it, and we’ll end up with a network run only by people ideologically aligned with the network’s goals, here for the project, not for the profit. That’s all well and good if we want to be an echo chamber, but the internet will never be replaced that way, because not enough people would farm it. The very fact that an incentive exists shows a recognition that many people won’t do something unless they get something back, directly. And it wouldn’t even need a significant minority of the coin, let alone a majority, to be targeted. It would simply be because people wouldn’t be able to rely on their coin being safely tucked away.

I can understand the lost coin part of the argument, but without breaking anonymity, which was, well, the entire point of the project in the first place, or breaking the security of holding and owning the coin, which will underpin the incentive to bother to farm said coin, I see no real suggestion for a solution here.

4 Likes
38

Hell yeah

Please delete this or change the name

Or both. Now :slight_smile: if possible thx

2 Likes
39

What have you got against compost?

1 Like
40

Nothing if its in nature. Everything if its in the network. It’ll be like a cancer.

2 Likes