Except why would you want to introduce the possibility for a third Party involvement? There shouldnt be a Market here, imo.
That would mean I would need to complete 2 separate transactions to 2 separate wallets to send yout 1.5 safecoins? 3 for 1.75?
Or the full amount in the smallest denomination but it’s cumbersome and a PIA
What does it mean to devide a Safecoin? Because a Safecoin is not like a bitcoin. A bitcoin is a number on a ledger and a Safecoin is a digital file on the Safenetwork.
Thats why it has not been “done” yet. No RFCs yet.
There are basically two ways to have a network owned “divisibility” and that is
- to introduce something like “SAFEcents” which are SDs themselves but worth for example 1/100th of a SAFEcoin and the network operates them like SAFEcoin. The APPs/wallets work with them.
- to introduce a form of ledger that the network operates with
The problems with SAFEcents is you potentially multiply the network work load of any transaction by upto 100 times. If a user has 1000 SAFEcents only and sends 10 SAFEcoin the network would send the 1000 “SAFEcents” which is 100 times the transaction workload as if 10 coins were sent.
The problem with ledger is how.
I estimate we have at least 4 months to introduce a divisibility RFC and see it in the beta with test SAFEcoin, and then only if the dev team deem divisibility a necessity. Really divisibility is only required towards the end of beta testing and only if the price keeps rising.
I’m very interested to see your discussion points on divisibility. I think there’s not much harm from discussing it sooner rather than later, regardless of whether devs are in a position to focus on it or not. I understand the motive for delay, but think a discussion sooner wouldn’t hurt.
Having read the epic Safecoin Divisibility thread I feel unsatisfied of possible solutions to divisibility, and have continued to think about the need for it and how it may work.
yeah, tell us @neo !
It can only help your RFC, to openly discuss and get ideas / criticism on its points, rather than keep it closed
another little idea to fix the need for divisibility is for apps to come along and subsidize costs to users, allowing them cheaper / easier / divided up PUTS of files (!! ), videos (youtubes) etc, while the app handles / pays the entire high-worth full safecoins at once on their behalf.
I want it to be readable. And at the moment its only thoughts placed in a draft post. When I get my arse into gear I will clean it up and present it.
Really I am waiting for the devs to have some breathing space before showing it as a lot of discussions will be over something that would be answered in one second by the dev team and its crucial points. So rather than have a lot of wasted discussions I plan to post it sometime in November when we can have a better quality discussions.[quote=“whiteoutmashups, post:22, topic:11444”]
It can only help your RFC, to openly discuss and get ideas / criticism on its points
Thats the point of the pre-RFC discussion post. I am not presenting a RFC, but rather a discussion of what I think will work and form a RFC from that. But if I present something that is hard to follow then the discussions will not be anywhere as good as most of them will be clearing up what I trying to say.
The network itself currently is to have the coin handled in such a way that divisibility is not needed for system operation. The network actually has its own method for PUTs/GETs payments.
And another way someone else mentioned is that an ALTcoin is developed and tie it to SAFEcoin. This would work because divisibility is only really needed for payments to/from other “users”. Then one simply pays SAFEcoin and the fractional part in the ALTcoin. The ALTcoin is a ledger system. There would be exchanges around and they could exchange between the ALTcoin and SAFEcoin when needed.
oh ok is that your RFC?
Yeah? So? Much like I have money in my bank account, then I have 2 types of cash money in my wallet: paper bills and coins. People convert larger bills into smaller denominations and vice versa all the time. So you’d have a “larger bills” wallet and a “coin purse” wallet. It’s not that different from physical cash.
No, and it is quite inferior to any real divisibility of the coin. Great if we can be paid for each GET, even if its 0.000000000001 ( or 0.001 depending on farming rate) of a coin, rather than the effective lottery system.
Paying 200 dollar for a safecoin just to respond to a decorum post trows op a huge entry barrier.
But you use only 1 chunk of structured data and might get a million.
What if you can just transfer unused put balance between accounts as a form of payment?
If a user does not have any safecoin and tries to create an account the network can give a nonce to the user and whenever a few puts are send to that nonce the account is created.
Yes it will be gamed but that gives an incentive to recycle coins.
Interesting thought. Like Empesa, except basis on PUTs rather than cell phone minutes.
That has some interesting aspects.
How workable do you think that might be @neo?
While great in theory it wouldn’t work because you are giving them something that may or may not have much value the next day.
If you sent them the balance when one coin can buy 10,000 PUTs but space added over night means the cost of PUTs is one coin buys 10,000,000,000 PUTs then what you sent is now worth 1 millionth. So if you sent 100$ worth of PUTs today then tomorrow it might be worth less than 1 cent
Also some people do not want balance because the PUT cost is dynamic and can and will change quickly as disk space is added or removed. Framers watching the Farming rate may add/remove disk storage very quickly and multiply that over the network and large changes can/will occur at times.
Do you really think that the resource will be changing that rapidly? I don’t think so, especially with vault rankings building to accomplish better farming.
I think it may fluctuate a fair bit at first, but then should stabilize pretty well. Definitely not orders of magnitude shifts in any case.
That was an extreme example that could happen. But over days/weeks the value will change and becomes an unreliable unit of exchange. 10x change is definitely on the cards because realistically that is the sort of changes that entice enough farmers when space starts becoming short. While there is a stabilisation it will still of necessity change significantly to attract or discourage farmers in large enough numbers.
tl;dr A unit of exchange that is unstable against the unit of exchange that it acts as the divisibility unit will never gain suitable acceptance as the divisibility unit. It maybe somewhat usable but not desirable.
Good points. Thanks for the clarification.
An enticing idea, but you’re right. It could put weird incentives into the mix, too.
Trying to solve a problem with a solution that might create a lot of additional problems is risky.
Still it takes time + bandwith to transfer sacrificial chunks to new nodes.
Which is directly related to the spare upload capacity of the network.
The bigger the network the harder it will be to create waves.
The arbitrage opportunities it creates might stabilize the value of safecoin.
When wolves protect sheep from other wolves the sheep eventually win.