Safecoin features


#1
  • I understand that Safecoin doesn’t have a blockchain, instead it remembers that last owner and current owner. I don’t fully understand the part where coins are destroyed

What would also be nice to have:

  • I assume that Safecoins could get lost if you have lost your password, so instead of the coin remaining in limbo, it should have a mechanisme that after 10year of no use, it returns back into circulation through farming.

  • Builtin lottery wallet, would be nice if people could send a set amount of coin and join the lottery, when the set amount is reach the wallet randomly choose one of the sender to receive the funds

  • Multisignature with hardware integration, IMHO even multisig is weak, because of the signature type, if every signature is just a key (software) all a hacker needs is just the digit and they can empty an account. If you make the signatures hardware based (Nymi, Yubikey, SMS, Trezor), they would also need your hardware.

  • Colorcoin features

  • Reoccuring payments

  • Escrow with purse.io features


#2

@19eddyjohn75 wrote:

What would also be nice to have:

  • I assume that Safecoins could get lost if you have lost your password, so instead of the coin remaining in limbo, it should have a mechanisme that after 10year of no use, it returns back into circulation through farming.

This would be an interesting economic proposal, but ten years is too short and would also undermine adoption. Maybe 100 years, or 200 years? This would handle inheritance, as that should reset the clock when funds are transferred to heirs, unless of course you propose an economic model where all funds are returned and unable to be inherited.

  • Builtin lottery wallet, would be nice if people could send a set amount of coin and join the lottery, when the set amount is reach the wallet randomly choose one of the sender to receive the funds

No need to build this in. It is a simple app.

  • Multisignature with hardware integration, IMHO even multisig is weak, because of the signature type, if every signature is just a key (software) all a hacker needs is just the digit and they can empty an account. If you make the signatures hardware based (Nymi, Yubikey, SMS, Trezor), they would also need your hardware.

This kind of support will definitely come in, though no details yet.

  • Colorcoin features

Ditto.

  • Reoccuring payments

I guess this is an app rather than a SAFE funtction, or is it? I’m not certain. It will depend on whether an app can handle all cases or is sufficiently less scalable to make it worthwhile adding to core code.

Escrow is already built-in. Not sure what you mean by purse.io features.


#3

@happybeing I was not clear about what I mean with the 10YEARS. I mean when a user loose access to their Maidsafe account/Safecoin, they basically loose their coins. To prevent coins to be lost forever like with Bitcoins, Safecoin should have a mechanism that after 10YEARS of no activity, the coins automatically get send to a random farmer. This would simply mean that this is not an deflationary currency.

With the purse.io feature I mean, I would be nice if you could add Order & Tracking number to your product, when you sign that you received it, the sender receive the Safecoins. But I guess this can also be done with an app.


#4

Thanks for clarifying. I had understood what you meant with the 10 year auto-recycling of Safecoin so my comment on that remains that it is a rather short period, and would be a decision which would influence the economics of Safecoin, considerably I think :slight_smile:


#5

So if the user were to lose their password it would have the same effect because the data would be lost forcing them to buy more Safecoins to upload it again.

You do realize it’s still deflationary (even moreso if you give it to the farmers) because that can increase the buying power of the Safecoin token.

So by design Safecoin is going to either encourage technological deflation which is a win, or you’ll have currency deflation which is a win in another direction. Ideally we want resources to be as cheap as possible more than we would want currency to be scarce because you don’t really need scarcity when you have enough demand.

At this point in time though we don’t know how much demand we will get so for now it’s best not to worry about any of this and lets see what happens.


#6

I have to disagree that this is exactly the same wrong attitude that caused Mastercoins problems. I understand how this would be good technically and as a user experience, but it does not seem to satisfy investor needs. If Safecoin is perceived to have been introduced purely to raise funds to get protocol up and running, ie it is/was known to be intrinsically meant to devalue or not have sufficient utility ,(cloud computing costs are reducing by 40% per year btw) then you have exactly the same situation as Mastercoin PR wise.


#7

Very good points. You’ve changed my mind. There should be some internal mechanism for the network to calculate how much storage space is available and then set the rate in Safecoin for farmers perhaps?

You’ve highlighted the problem. It’s time to figure out a solution before it’s too late.


#8

For what it’s worth, my understanding currently is that generation of safecoin is monitored by the abundance/lack of resource margin for the SAFE network as a whole–i.e., the network is flush with resources, getting safecoin as a farmer is harder; if resources are getting tight, safecoin gets easier to farm. So, basically, generation of safecoin is reflected strictly by the needs of the network to stay viable, not the “price” of safecoin. So it is primarily a mechanisn to ensure network viability. It’s the grease that lets the parts move in relationship to each other. This fact tied to the speed and anonymity of safecoin should eventually lead to greatly increased value, but only if the network succeeds…

Those who bought maidsafecoin to get safecoin did so for one of two reasons (or both): a. They wanted the network to succeed and pitched in their resources, or b. They wanted to get safecoin because they saw a great investment potential. The thing about both of these is that for either wish to be fulfilled, the network has to work, as a network, not primarily as a currency. Now we have thousands of people financially and/or philosophically vested in the success of the network. Like bitcoin, without success and adoption for the network, safecoin has no value. The neat thing about safecoin is that if it does have increased value, it will be because a network of fabulous capacity has come into being.

These things are, I believe, pretty solidly built into the code already. I’m not at the dev level by any means, but I follow what they say here and elsewhere pretty closely.

One important thing that I don’t think has been worked out yet is the price discovery mechanism for purchasing resources from the network. This will have to be worked out to establish the system for buying up in resources above whatever the free minimum. (I’m not even sure where the devs are at regarding establishing a free minimum account, etc.) We theorize, they have to make the hard choices in the real world. I have faith in the Maidsafe team, though.


#9

Agreed, we need to be patient and see how it works first.

Once we see the SAFE Network/Safecoin in action, we can work on tweaking it to maximum efficiency. Testnet3 will be a big event for sure. I’m just too excited and wish it was up and running yesterday.


#10

This might not be the best idea either. If resources are flush why not let farmers have even more incentive to farm? Since farming would pay the same amount in Safecoin the farmers would get paid a lot more.

It’s delicate though because if you don’t reduce things then it could flood with Safecoins. So how exactly do we measure this and know when to increase the difficulty? With Bitcoin it’s already mapped out in advance.

I do know if a farmer is providing resources they should at least make a profit. How much is enough of a profit to encourage them all to upgrade and continue farming?


#11

We might end up with 2 kinds of farmers.

Fiat Farmer - calculates total cost vs return in fiat terms.
Usage Farmer - contributes resource to use the Network, cares less about making a fiat profit.

If a farmer is providing more resources, higher bandwith, they should be rewarded accordingly. I remember David saying the Safecoin reward is like a lottery, so this might be the difficulty you’re asking about. Farmers with higher resources have a better chance at gaining more Safecoin.


#12

I’m not sure you have a good picture of the truly distributed/decentralized nature of the SAFE network.

Yeah, maybe it’s delicate, but not that bad I think. That’s why the focus is on balance rather than making it worthwhile. Thenetwork will adjust generation difficulty up or down until it balances, based upon the core propocol. The farmers will decide what they want to do based upon their own motivations.

This is really very unlike bitcoin or any of the other currencies, as safecoin has a very integral function in balancing the network. The network is the real value, not safecoin. The purpose of the Bitcoin network is the blockchain, which most central application is bitcoin, the currency. It’s growth is driven by the currency.

SAFE is driven by the need to have a different sort of facility for mankind to manage data and communication. Safecoin is a truly exciting part of that communication value. That’s why I think safecoin will eventually be very, very valuable. But not unless the other aspects of the network are equally so. The network is the investment, not safecoin.

I also think it won’t ever be a situation that “industrial farmer” will shove others out. It’s designed to be decentralized. The SAFE client everyone will run on their home computer or dedicated rig is a relatively light resource burner and can be a very moderate machine. Most households, in the developed world at least, have machines that will do well on the network. If they run the client, they’ll make some safecoin. Want to make a living out of it? Who knows? But sinking millions into server farms to run SAFE clients probably won’t get you a good return. But who knows, maybe it will come to pass that you can rent supercomputer access in Safespace, and those contributing monster rigs will get compensated for this. Should be arrangeable.

Generally, though, when to make it easier to farm? When the network is getting tight on resources. How does the network know it is low on resources? That’s above my pay grade.


#13

Does a lottery system raise the risk of pools? At first glance, I can’t see how pools would work with this system, but there are some smart cookies out there…


#14

If you talking about pool farming, I don’t think so. There are some smart cookies out there but they will have to figure out the following…

In Bitcoin, everyone races in 1 event every 10 minutes, and winner takes all. Users combine their hashing power into a pool to increase their speed. They are able to monopolize this because there is only 1 event. If they obtain the fastest speed (hashing power) they get the reward and divide it up amongst the pool participants.

In Safecoin, there are 4 vaults racing per 1Mb chunk event. A 10Mb file = 10 events, 100Mb = 100 events, and so on. In order to get the most advantage out of this system, you would need the following… Maybe I shouldn’t tell people how to do this, lol.

10Mb File GET request originated from Nevada USA

  • The farmer need vaults running with (high bandwith) and (closest geographic location) to Nevada to reduce their ping. And that is just to win one event out of 10.
  • Because the data is encrypted before planting in the vault, the farmer has no way of knowing any of the above factors. They could be storing data from China or India. The competition that is closer geographically could get there faster with lower bandwith but faster ping.

In a Nutshell, the grand super node would need a Bandwith and Ping so high that it can beat the fastest localized Vault to any location across the world! And if they have that ability, they would most likely have hundreds of exabyte storage available and not need a pool of users.

Bandwith allows more event participation, higher storage amount servicability
Ping gives faster event speed based on location proximity.