Just to clarify, you have no problem with safecoins dissappearing over time?
What happens if 50% of the safecoins get burnt? Hypothetically the remaining coins would double in value, but now you’ve lost half of the “fuel” to run the system. It just makes paying for little things more difficult…
Definitely 100x less of a problem with that then anyone losing their money if they forget to shuffle it around
3 Likes
I don’t like this. I played with similar idea. Could be used for smallest coin with denominations. Then no real damage. But I don’t like it because people don’t like uncertainty. Interesting, but no go for me.
1 Like
@norimi
Since we started to get off topic I made a new thread where people can hate the whole resurrection concept. Sounds like it is not considered worthy in any case which surprises me, but oh well…
https://forum.autonomi.community/t/safecoin-resurrection/19308
By the way, what did you think of 10 denominations scenario posted above? Enough divisibility? Bogus?
I like your snowflake s 
(slightly off topic)
1 Like
Don’t worry. My idea started as separate thread. Because it’s not about divisibility. But it was merged here. Maybe this thread is for anything similar.
I like it from technical point. It wouldn’t cause real damage if used for small denomination. But people don’t like pennies disappear. It increases uncertainty. One more thing to worry for. People don’t like that. “I put it there, I’ll find it there.” This is what they want.
If I make cryptocurrency, because I have an idea, it will have this. I know I contradict myself (:
Girlfriend is visiting. Had better things to do. I looked at it now.
- Only 10 denominations. I don’t like it. Sorry for honesty. 1-2-5 is good because:
- Binary is Yes/No choice for each denominations to give any amount. 1-2-5: “Close enough.” 1-10-100: Needs lots more coins to give an amount.
- Used everywhere. No need to explain. Computers can compute anything. But people are weird. They like to understand. (This is 1-2-5 against binary, not against your’s.)
- Why skip -4, -5, -7, -8? Not regular. I made not regular versions too. Threw them out. Adds complexity, adds points of failure. What happens when the coin value change? How will an irregular system react? Too much to worry about.
You work to keep investors happy. Keeping investors happy is important. Not compulsory. Staying within law is compulsory. Nobody said real information: is my idea or your idea within the law?
My opinion: Investors get equal value is enough. Am I right? Nobody said any real information about the ICO. If it is within the law then they can whine. Sorry for my rudeness. But if the system becomes better in the end, and I think it does, then everybody wins. The whiners too.
Too tired. Sorry for bad English.
1 Like
I don’t know why either. Sometimes mistakes are made by a mod when it sounds similar to other things. It gets hard to follow a forum when new topics are made repetitively about same or very similar topics. Prob a bit late now since it has gone so far. The topic here is not just divisibility but how to solve safecoin costing too much fiat and the need to have smaller amounts.
I suggest next time you PM @moderators and either ask why or request it remains its own topic. That is the quickest way to have it rectified.
1 Like
Lurked for a year, new account, first post. Moderator decides. Will I complain? (:
Then it was a good choice for the mod.
I really like some aspects of both of these ideas. Credit to you @jlpell and @norimi for the interesting approaches to this problem.
I still think @neo’s seems like it has the most advantages, but I love seeing ideas flying about because it might be useful for MaidSafe when they come to making their final decisions on it. 
6 Likes
@neo You realized I didn’t misunderstood farming but you said I didn’t follow it. Then I explained I followed. It needs only one more step, very easy. I explained step by step. Maybe you didn’t see because you didn’t respond. Instead, you wrote there are fundamental reasons it is bad. Can you list those reasons? I answered your points to my best. What is still against fundamentals?
My idea in two points:
- Coin address determines value. No additional storage necessary. Transactions are as before: Change of ownership. (Escrow service to help giving change could be useful. Simple to implement. I explained before. I can copy paste.)
- Small range of coins farmed at a time. (Borrowed from @jlpell) Fixes inequality. Rewards average out after handful of farming. (Shown simulation results before. Should I copy paste?)
This is the whole idea. Very simple. Can you point out fundamental flaws with those two?
Always feel free to PM mods. There is more than one and a mistake can be corrected.
1 Like
I think they have a lot of merit for coins/currency being used for other purposes and built using the safe network. They sound great if the purpose suits that kind of coin.
1 Like
Honesty is fine. I usually don’t get emotionally attached to ideas while brainstorming, and I really do like the 1-2-5 progression. The exercise was mostly to show a case of fewer denominations where you have at least (2^32)/10 units at a 1X denomination and a total market cap for 2^32 to keep the investors happy. You could do the same (2^32) market cap with your 40 levels by fiddling with the quantities of each denomination too, rather than having a nice geometric progression as you showed. Its a lot easier if the investors would accept 1 SC based on denomination, rather than network object. But you could still match that by fiddling with the levels and making sure that at least 10% of the objects were denominated 1SC. When I was thinking about the user experience I figured that one would show how many of each coin the user had in a wallet, so no more than 10 denominations might be nice. But I will readily acknowledge that 40 denominations would be find in the case where denominations are internally tracked/managed by the wallet and only a simple single decimal quantity reported like in bitcoin. I suppose you could have as many denominations as you want. Although unless their is some kind of automatic exchange there might need to be some manual rounding on the part of the user to lack of divisibility. For example, if someone needed to send 1.015 SC to a neighbor, but only had enough denominations to make 1.0152 or 1.0147, they would need to pick one or find a way to split their last 0.0005 to make the trade. I think this might be easy for the system to automate at first because any request to make change would just query the system hard in a small targeted part of the address space.
After reading more about farming, I was thinking there might also be another means for stopping “the lottery effect” where a farmer gets a 10,000 SC note for providing no more proof of resource than a farmer getting 1SC, which is a bad idea as @neo pointed out.
Correct me if I am wrong: currently the system is set up so that a farmer will reach out to the network at a certain farming rate in a random fashion requesting whether or not a safecoin at a particular address is free to claim for the resource they are providing. If it is already claimed then they are out of luck and need to try again. The network knows this farming rate, because it is constantly adjusting it based on proof-of-resource.
Hypothesis: This mechanism could be modified by using the farming rate to also decide whether or not a free coin of a certain denomination was accessible to the farmer. If I am a little guy and have a low farming rate and I randomly request an address that happens to be a 10000SC denomination, the system will not let me claim it because my farming rate is too low. Likewise, if I am a big farming rig with a high rate and I randomly select a small SC with a 1E-6 denomination, I will not be allowed to claim it because my farming rate is too high for such a small denomination. The only time I would be allowed to claim the SC is if A) I was allowed to do so because it is currently unclaimed, and B) my farming rate was not too high or too low for the denomination at the chosen address. This configuration would naturally supply small farmers with denominations in the smaller ranges and large farmers with the upper ranges.
On the use of ranging:
The original idea to restrict the address range for farmed denominations was to eliminate “the lottery effect”. The first thought that came to mind was that this would be a global network restriction much like when the bitcoin network sets difficulty. Thus as the lower denomination coins were found, addresses to larger coins would be opened up. As an alternative one might decide the SC returned based on the proof-of-resource farming rate for a single farmer. To improve efficiency of the method of claiming coins based on a farmer’s current farming rate ( hypothesised above ), one could just restrict a farmers address search space to a range of acceptable denominations based on their current farming rate. This would put the entire set of denominations into play on day one rather than controlling the rate at which higher or lower denominations would come into play as the network grew. Locally, a farmer’s rate would act to mask the addresses that are currently accessible. Under this scenario, the network would need to check to make sure the that a farmer’s rate was compatible with the address selected prior to allowing them to claim the SC.
Almost. They don’t provide the coin address. It’s determined by a group for them.
Geometric progression is important. It makes it scale free. The number doesn’t matter, only the ratio. If coin value goes up, nothing changes. 1-2-5 isn’t “pure” because multiplier is 2, 2.5, 2. But close enough.
I correct myself. Breaking geometric progression for coins reserved for denominations is a good idea. It could correct for the “error” with the 2, 2.5, 2 progression.
Nobody worries when they can’t pay $0.003 because there is no $0.001 coin. It becomes a problem when smallest coin becomes valuable too.
A simple escrow service is necessary anyway. Payer puts coins in escrow block, says “send this to the other if they send back this much change”. The other makes change block with reference to escrow block. Group responsible for the transaction sees escrow block criteria is met, approves transfer of all coins involved.
If farming is restricted to range of coins, lottery effect is solved. Range of coins could be determined from current PUT price. For example, PUT is 4.78 safecoins, then farmed coins can be 20, 50, or 100. If PUT is 47.8 safecoins, then farmed coins can be 200, 500, or 1000. If PUT is 0.478 coins, then 2, 5, or 10. Numbers are just example, ratio between PUT vs farmed needs consideration. But that is the idea.
1 Like
I recovered a couple comments about divisibility from the compost…
riddim:
Okay @jlpell - did you do a calculation with neos suggestion with the micro ledger system where one coin can be split into 10^18 parts?
No matter if 99.9 percent of coin are lost i would expect this divisibility to be enough to fuel the earth Oo
jlpell:
@riddim
Is this what you are talking about?
No, I don’t like it. Deflation in the system will mean that eventually the only thing that people will have is a single promissory in their wallet with stating .00000000000001 SC. @neo has essentially proposed an infant deflationary reserve banking system using the SC as a gold standard, while issuing paper notes against that standard. Is this not safecoin blasphemy?
By using bitmask ranging to manage farming rates combined with the denomination system @norimi gave a 1-2-5 progression for, you get what I consider to be ideal. In his example I think you had the smallest denomination of 10^-10. It is a superior system in my opinion. To keep the investors happy, just adjust the denomination distribution so that the total SC market cap is 2^32 in addition to the fact that the total quantity of denominations is 2^32. Now they will be doubly happy because the project will be in doubly compliance, right? 
Anyhow, shouldn’t talk like this be in the Safecoin divisibility thread?
norimi:
“Smallest” is just a number. It can be 1 or 1e-4 or 5e-7. It doesn’t matter. It’s a geometric series so it is scale free.
Because the biggest denominations are at beginning, it is possible to add more bits to the address space to make smaller denominations. Naturally extensible. If necessary. Example: Smallest current denomination is worth $100 now. It will happen!
norimi:
[…]
Denominations. When restricts denomination range, scarcity is lower than classic safecoin. May cause problem. Needs simulation. If allow extending with bits, loss can be corrected when necessary. Can also add smaller and smaller denomination if coin value grows too much. Adding bits?! That drives the value of existing coins down, right? Yes. Because we have more coins and less scarcity. But not much down! They would be very low value coins. Yes, more chance to farm a coin, but the coin is less value! Those two balance each other. But needs simulation.
Note about “restricting range to eliminate lottery effect”: I don’t mean to restrict by node’s farming rate. I mean by restricting by current PUT price. Farmable coin denomination is always fixed distance from current PUT price. For example, 10x the current price, plus and minus a denomination. I think the monster post didn’t mention that. Maybe I didn’t adopt your idea perfectly (:
[…]
jlpell:
@norimi
No, I like your idea. I think my version would be very easy to implement in a p2p fashion because it wouldn’t require much change to what they do now, just a bitmask based on the farming rate of an individual node. Yours might indeed work way better and be even easier to implement. I have no idea, needs simulation as you would say. The summary was trying to just point out that the “the lottery effect” criticism against using denominations can be side-stepped by different means.
You can end up saying anything when you get things out of context. That note system idea (only a very old idea) was scraped for a much better balance system. And that note idea did not do as you claimed - oh well.
So carry on you seem to really be getting away from the SAFE network into a new network. So should I put this topic into related projects?
1 Like
Yes, we are in full agreement on this point. I think that much of the discussion and/or disagreement on recent topics between ourselves has stemmed from certain things taken out of context at one point or another. Perhaps such is the difficulty with using a forum as the primary means of communication.
For example, consider the criticism and attack on rudimentary reasoning skills I received from @riddim and @oetyng for not presenting some basic “maths” about divisibility, reason, and scale before tossing ideas around of other more complicated or contrarian methods in the safecoin compo-cannibalism thread. What they perhaps failed to realize and took out of context was the whole premise which that thread had started from. The line of reasoning was based on what I thought was your criteria (perhaps again something inferred out of context) that scale and divisibility were rather limited resources due to network constraints; that it was a firm requirement to stay within 2^32 network objects to represent all safecoin currency regardless of the degree of divisibility chosen. It was this same criteria that led to my support for @norimi’s denominations concept since it is essentially a compression mechanism that allows one to have divisibility of similar limiting magnitude as that of 64bit addressing (meaning fixed point integers with 32bits for fractional part) but via a standard set of 2^32 objects. I was of the opinion that this fit rather elegantly with Mr. Irvine’s original description of having a total number of safecoin being no greater than 2^32, with divisibility being 1/(2^32), while also providing some additional flexibility as to the incrementation through the use of a scale factor in order to allow for rounded units such as 10^-6 SC instead of 1/(2^20) SC. This is just one possible concept in addition to the ones you have proposed, and others. The recent discussion in this forum just prior to my joining indicated that divisibility was still an open topic. I understood that to mean that your detailed proposal from nearly a year ago must have been long disregarded for some reason and the floor was open to toss some other ideas around.
As a newcomer to a project like SAFE, one attempts to digest as much information (some of which is constantly evolving) as one is able to link together from varied sources in order to “get up to speed”. In general I’ve always seen project forums as a place to try and bounce some ideas around, see what sticks, and what doesn’t. This allows for others who are more experienced to step in and help guide the knowledge transfer and identify a project’s communication styles in order to be productive, while also minimizing the echo chamber effect. It is not my intention to go off on unproductive tangents, nor do I want to, nor do I desire to try and steer the ship in any other direction than where it is already going. I can only ask that you forgive my ignorance on certain SAFE details and share links or references to information that might help me climb aboard the ship and help it move faster. Sincerely, if this is not the communication protocol for this thread/forum please let me know what is so that we can eliminate further friction and be more productive.
5 Likes
@riddim has certainly not attacked your reasoning skills. He has previously just asked you to respond to the specific figures. (Which you still seem to have avoided). And now he seemed to wonder why you, in the representation of the discussion made here above, leave out perfectly good reasoning which suggested that the idea for solution was unnecessary, since there was no problem to start with. And I agree, why would you do that? Either you confirm or refute it, but you don’t just ignore it. IMO. But hey, you go about it however you want 
I on the other hand, have said that the problem was handled backwards, and in a later post that I was surprised by how you approached the problem. But that is not exactly attacking your reasoning skills. That is basically stating facts about how you went about it at this particular time, and then expressing that it surprised me (considering your profession, or learning).
The criteria you mention doesn’t really change neither how it was approached, nor the benefits of approaching it that way.
Ah well, all that aside. Keep on solving problems, I’m glad to see you here and giving it a go
4 Likes
Same here - didn’t want to attack you - just thought when doing the calculation it would be obvious very fast that it might be a non-problem depending on the implementation
I’m glad you are here and helping to tackle topics from different angles @jlpell 
4 Likes