Just replace Dogecoin with safecoin in the article.
When transaction fees rise, people don’t pay more. They simply go to the next altcoin down the line. Eventually, someone else you want to pay will also be doing this, and what reason would you have to turn back to bitcoins at all?
safecoin = no transaction fees
Interesting, but not quite a s/Dogecoin/Safecoin/ because of the different API (non-blockchain etc.). If he’s right, we are going to see some interesting times for bitcoin, and even more mainstream media coverage than last time there was a major debacle.
Still, timing could favour Safecoin if we’re in the same timescale which looks feasible. Especially if blockchains in general lose favour and people start looking for alternatives.
As Safecoins just lives on the safenetwork,
I don’t know yet how people would hold it on their wallets or exchanges,
will everybody need a safe account to hold safecoins?
- coins are just a number held on a block chain. address has xxx BTC associated with it
- bitcoin wallet holds the private keys to your public address, but doesn’t actually have any thing that is a bit coin.
- coins are SD types stored in the network, with an owner SAFE address
- client keeps track of those coins with you as the owner.
They are similar in usage in that neither “wallet” actually holds coins
They are different in presence. Bitcoin is a number in a ledger (blockchain) and SAFE coin is actual data type (SD) stored on the network and the name/address of the data store is the coin number.
You think when SAFE launches we’ll get a flood of bitcoin users buying safecoin just to relieve the preasure on the blockchain? I mean it would be an effective way to transfer coins if nothing else. Buy safecoin, send it from A to B, convert it back to bitcoin wherever it’s needed to buy something. With enough people doing this merchants will catch on it’s more cost effective (and lucrative) to get vaults of their own and start supporting the SAFE network and safecoin.
It’s simple. Right now there are so many people using bitcoin that the blockchain is overloaded and is slowing down because it can’t handle the stress. It’s like a computer processor that’s being overtaxed, which given the nature of the blockchain isn’t surprising. So if LESS people use bitcoin that will relieve preasure on the blockchain which will speed up productivity. While you can produce so many coins over x number of years with y cap I don’t really think the fact that there was a cpu and computer processing limit taken into account that would gum up the network and make it lag horrendously in order to reach consensus every time someone wanted to carry out a transaction when the community reached a certain population point. Basically did they take into account that technology (hardware) would not nessesarily advance fast enough to support the network they were coding?
So you are saying buy safecoin, do all their transacting on safecoin instead of bitcoin. And only back to bitcoin if they need bitcoin. Thus reduce the transactions on the blockchain.
If you mean park it on safecoin until they need bitcoin to buy something, then its actually more load since parking on bitcoin generates no load on the blockchain and transfers to/from safecoin generates transactions on the blockchain.
Pretty much this yeah. If I’ve got a friend in timbuktu or something and I want to send him crypto so he can buy a cup of coffee do I want it to appear in his wallet now or tomorrow afternoon? Now of course so I’d send it via safecoin and he can buy it on his end. Or if you’re going to do a bunch of transactions between a bunch of accounts better to do them on safe and just do the last one with bitcoin if needed. Kind of like how it’s easier to deal in cash and only use money orders for large payments.