Safecoin divisibility

true, the amount of resources in the network have never (been intended to be) bound. The drive is exactly to get the cost of digital technology to zero and accessible for everyone. What I didn’t fully realise is, that if an account would also be expressed in a unit “safecoin” that the total summed value of units of “safecoin” can be bigger than 2^32, which I previously thought was an upper limit; hence the argument that the market would force an increasing price for safecoin.

1 Like

By converting back to SAFEcoin at the then network current rate?

That should not be a real problem and whenever someone’s balance exceeds a SFE coin worth then its converted back (buying SAFEcoin from the network in effect). This prevents hoarding and is really no different in value. Yes some may use it to attempt to play the market, but a very sloppy way to do it and would be better other ways.

Lets face once you allow transfers someone will make an app to collect balances and give back SAFE coins and the other way around

no by erasing your balance to zero under some conditions :smile: - this is a very controversial train of thought, so don’t think this is in anyway the way it will be; I am merely tonight exploring the idea.

probably your suggestion of buying it back is a more conservative approach :slight_smile:

You will not make friends on this one :smile:

I’d say converting back to SAFEcoin once it rises above a certain amount is the best way.

Or introduce the split SAFEcoin and X/2^30 of the split pays for the particular resource and this is controlled by the network. Thus eliminating the need for “balances”

2 Likes

Men were hung from a tree for less…

1 Like

I don’t think it is desirable from a technical and security point of view to allow a balance to be bought back from the network; but an exchange application seems ideal here; where you can make an exchange with someone who want balance and has safecoins on offer

4 Likes

Maybe another possibility is to quarantine the “deleted” SAFEcoin by the network and when a SAFEcoin’s worth of balance has been used it a coin is released from quarantine by the network.

Thus one coin spent produces a balance of one coin’s worth, then when the network sees that much used a coin is released from quarantine. Now how the network determines when that balance is used and how it handles the quarantine may make this idea stupid.

2 Likes

Remember though that this still allows for your concern of inflationary effects where the total of all balances in the network can far exceed 2^32 SAFEcoin’s worth

EDIT: also could mean that in the extreme situation that there is more balance waiting for exchange back to SAFEcoin at the exchange than there is SAFEcoin (>2^32)

Great, nice to see safecoin being treated again, somehow that part is very exciting :smiley:

An exchange application solution for safecoin to balance and vice versa sounds like a good solution with minimal friction. Safecoin being a little bit more valuable than account balance (and otherwise there will be an arbitrage opportunity).

I like this idea too, so a client would instead of deleting it, update the coin to be frozen. It is a bit more involved, but it is a good idea!! The client would effectively need to sign two next versions of the coin version +1 to put the coin in a frozen state giving that to the group of the coin; and a version+2 signed that authorises the deletion of the coin, which is held by the clientManagers until the balance spent, sending on the deletion; and an alternative version +2 to release the coin back to the owner.

it is more involved, but does not sound impossible. The total amount of coins one could hold in an account would be severely restricted though as many more active bits are needed to hold those three SD per safecoin; also more thinking needs to go into how multi-sig coins are then dealt with… this might be a problem, as you’d need coordination between your multi-sig client managers to restore the multi-sig coin; easily enough avoided by only allowing a single owned coin to be frozen into an account balance though

2 Likes

Multi-sig coins stop being multi-sig once they are spent and the account that received the balance is the “owner” while “frozen”

1 Like

Not sure what you are saying with this.

It is actually a really cool idea, in general for StructuredData:

You can hand over control to your StructuredData (SD) to the network; You still are the owner, but you hand over control of the future to a (and Im now thinking more general) to a Computing Group:

Say you owned/controlled SD abc of version x; you can post it be changed to version x+1 which locks it in a network-controlled state, defining both the group that gets to decide the future and an Immutable chunk that holds an enumeration of the possible future versions (all version x+2). The assigned group can then decide which alternative future version is effected based on their computation. In this case for safecoin balance: one future is where you delete the coin and another future where the coin is released back to you

2 Likes

I understand the SD process, just was wondering under what circumstances it is returned to you

Are you suggesting converting enough balance back to a SAFEcoin that you spent previously which has not yet been deleted?

That is a good and open question.

I would be inclined to do it automatically to reduce people’s arbitrage and enforcing the 1-to-1 conversion; but that has a foul taste of weird rules being set that can be circumvented by creating multiple accounts.

So I imagine, when the user sends a signed request. This additionally has the upshot that this signed request from the client offloads the ClientManagers to keep state which safecoins the client has in a frozen state. It is the clients responsibility to keep track and send the needed unlock information to the client managers

1 Like

this is quite nice as we can put in a legitimate profit margin for the network: if you empty out your account [EDIT] with a request to convert your balance back to safecoin, converting the last full integer value on your account back to a [EDIT] safecoin, any fractional remnant is lost and your client account is removed - cleaning out the overhead for the network;

2 Likes

I am getting caught up in some terms here.

unlocked coin == ?? (spent or usable or ??)

Your edits cleared it up thanks

Slightly different train of thought here @BenMS, but is this in the client now or planed?

This would be a responsibility for safe_client, to auto-sign instructions to convert safecoin to account balance when needed, within user set preferences. Actually it also nicely solves the conversion of balance back to safecoin, safe_client could also automatically maintain roughly a balance desired by the user preferences, correcting it whenever he’s online, perhaps prompting the question

1 Like