Safecoin Divisibility vs Inflation "Ideology"

You could increase the space for Safecoins to 64 bit ints like Bitcoin does and still maintain the 4 billion SafeCoin limit just by placing the decimal point appropriately.

I’m not 100% certain about this, but I believe that one Safecoin is a singular piece of Structured Data, and as such cannot itself be split up like Bitcoin (as it is designed at the moment). There will certainly be some complex engineering involved to enable the divisibility of Safecoins, but I believe it is more feasible to follow that route than to change the core premise of the network (see @dyamanaka’s post on recycling and supply/demand incentives).

If safe dev decides to increase to 64 bit, then it will be 2.1 quadrillion coins. But, that still won’t solve the micropayment like smacz stated. micro payments works wonder if there is a decimal in place. Even more so, safecoin cannot be divided since it is a data entity. How does one split up datastructure?

I dived into rust documenation. It states that it could borrow data from that insistence, and manipulate it. However, it cannot be borrowed again. It has to return into the rightful owner. It cannot be destroyed unless it returns to rightful owner. It cannot transfer to another owner, until it returns to the rightful owner.

So it is theoretically possible to transform safecoin into divisibility coins. 1sc into 99999999 altcoins. Altcoin could be used for specific things. But all of the coins must return so that 1sc can transfer to new owner.

OT: This mean safecoin itself is not just a coin. It is fuel to create co-operatives organizations. @Seneca explained this very well to me in bitlaw part 1 and part 2 thread.

If safecoin cannot be divided then we need another coin for micro payments. And it means more work for transaction manager.

1 Like

Not really complex engineering, simply define 1 Safecoin is equal to X “datastructure objects”. Choosing the X to maintain 4 billion Safecoin if that is desired. Now your Safecoin is divisible, this is how Bitcoin approaches it. The reason this method is not first choice by the designers is because you then have to transfer X structured data objects for every Safecoin, and this may be too burdomsome for the network.

Dyamanaka’s solution is very innovative and may work well. My main concern is usability as it is decent departure from how most currency functions and that may make or break Safecoin for normal non technical people. Also we may possibly be just trading the burdensome transaction problem for a more complex exchange-as-a-division mechanism, but there is a lot more about that over on the Safecoin Divisibility and Rabbits VS Turtles threads.