The massive deflation of year 2025, rise in value of Safecoin, how to cope with it?

Even failing transactions puts work on the node/groups doing the “failing”. The disincentives should always if possible be visited on the attacker. Maybe my understanding of the topology is off but if I am the one attacking from say 10,000-100,000 accounts (virtual instances or botnet) it would seem to be the “fail” list/filter would grow rapidly (process time to lookup) while I (attacker) just reduce the attack cycle time till these transactions pass the window, or on board more bots/instances.

Some hardening in login, account creation will be needed quickly. The division issue doesn’t create an attack vector at all if its SD just like regular Safecoin, but as an alt or an exchange I see a strong attack vector.

Having a node/group get the power of a traffic cop by increasing costs on any launcher in its space/group with this “ratchet/work” can help a group mitigate attacks and congestion, slow login DDOS potential. I strongly believe these problems should be solved before Beta launch.

just realized, whats stopping ppl from sending regular safecoin to themselves over and over forever to try to harm the network?

why is this only an issue with divisible safecoin?

1 Like

Perhaps just charging a small fee to split coins would suffice? If it is a cost to the network, it should probably be reflected. It only needs to be big enough to prevent abuse.

The node should be able to “fail transactions” that are going back and forth between 2 wallets, but maybe not 6 wallets since it could appear “new” on 4th user coin send. But if the group is smart enough to know how many are in its close group a certain amount of sends of coin should for those “accounts” possibly cause those spends/sends to fail it seems to have been implied. My suggestion was just in putting some of the costs to the launcher/user if that groups traffic is excessive (spammy). Keeps the spends “free” if its POW in the launcher app that responds to the groups traffic signaling. Has nothing to do with “mining” but only to do with rate-limiting abusive account creation or sends/spends. It seems with regular “safecoin” you cannot easily target a group to attack so sends would be “diffuse” due to network topology. Still requiring work of potential bad actors in the launch client could eliminate this as an attack vector altogether. No appearance of spammy acting clients in group, POW would never be requested.

sounds bad, limits

makes me worry honest people will have trouble sending safecoin at some point with these blocking limits

In the actual implementation exist a quite hard Scrypt password hashing.

About the safecoin spam, the idea is that the computational work for the sender will be high enough to be inefficient as attack. Remember that, unlike bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, the sender must sign and send the order of each safecoin or each division. If the attacker wants to really bother the network with thousands or millions of transaction must made an enormous computational work.


Already “in there” like Ragu sauce. Thank you for the reference.

1 Like

@mvanzyl shared this back in march.

"The Safecoin Whitepaper states each coin is divisible something like 4.3 billion times.
I think they have addressed the issues very well there."
The link to that PDF is 404. Not sure it this is still accurate. If it is then there will be a possible total of 4.3 billion squared total coins or 18,490,000,000,000,000,000 units. So thats something like 18.49 quintillion units where 2^32 units equals 1 safecoin. This would allow for sub nano payments even if 1 safecoin were 1,850 usd each. wow

1 Like

wow, safecoin is the best thing ever

free, spam-proof, 100% annonymous and the fastest confirming cryptocurrency ever created.

this is crazy. People will FREAK when TestSafeCoin is available to use and try out :slight_smile:

gonna have to get used to super cutting edge currency like btc looking like caveman drawings on stone :slight_smile:


I don’t think that is a set goal at the moment. More of what can be done since there is 64 bits. The issue with creating upto 2^64 SDs to handle division is what @bellyfat hints at, the transaction load if one is to send 1/2 a SAFEcoin worth, that would be 2 billion transactions if the coin was divided that much.

There are other ways and I am thinking in terms of division upto 10^18 times. But also to help mitigate issues with people sending the smallest amount over and over, is to have a “minimum transaction amount” which the network can handle taking into account

And not have individual SDs for each division part of a coin. And the minimum transaction amount is set in code which can be reduced on a new version to reflect the greater network size.


irvine did state before he had ideas to create 3 to four different splits for different amounts iirc.

I’m not sure farming would work with that many coins. Remember, awarding a coin depends on if its address is already in use. If it’s virtually never used (which would be the case with 64 bits) then “all” farming attempts would result in getting a coin, and that’s not how it’s designed to work.

1 Like

Very true and very important. Without it there is no reducing rewards when the coins available is low.

I have thought of a solution which is part of my idea coin division/wallets discussions coming soon

1 Like

Do you know what the stance on this solution (from another thread) currently is?

@dirvine “liked” it but he didn’t weight in, so idk if it’s canon

By the way, this idea seems analogous to having an altcoin, pegged to Safecoin, for smaller denominations.

Isn’t that just the PUT balance talked about in the safecoin rfc

Maybe I should’ve quoted more from @DavidMtl; he went on saying:

This means that while it may have been meant for farming, it can also be used for exchanging small payments.

Its been suggested but using this balance means you are transacting a variable amount against safecoin because farming rate varies. Anyhow I bring this up in the discussion post in a couple of weeks.

I’m not sure I understand you. I mean, it’s obvious that the “value” (buying power or idk) of the same amount of Safecoin or change will be likely different between two points in time, but that isn’t a problem. I’m trying to understand what else could you mean.

As I understand, the fractional wallet would be something like a fixed point number, with a maximum value of 1.0. Small transactions would be different from Safecoin transactions (where you over-sign an SD block to somebody else), and they would be more like BTC transaction, where you send an “amount” from one address to another (though a BTC tx is not from an address but from an output, but that doesn’t matter here.)

I’m really curious about your idea for solving small payments, by the way.

Does anyone know how fast maidsafe coins will be distributed ?

We will have a total of around the 4,3 bn starting with 450 mil now.
How many years are the prediction to get to this 4,3 bn ?

I don’t believe there is a prediction; it works differently than BTC, where distribution is part of how the thing works. Safecoins are distributed randomly as well, but your chances of being rewarded depends on how many are already in circulation, and I think it is also tied to how full the network currently is (I should read up on it, I’m unsure about that part.)

So, unlike it is with many other cryptocurrencies, where the rate of distribution is regulated by a feedback loop, here it depends on demand alone, but in a complex enough way that prediction is impossible.