Either way, it undermines bitcoin security compared to Safecoin close group consensus, which gets more secure with scale and scales without favouring centralisation. So a ledger solution running natively on SAFE Network is far superior (assuming we get there, which I do ).
The Paranoid version of Bitcoin is probably more secure than SAFEcoin – You can create addresses that have never touched the internet. SAFE is always only in the network and thus reliant on credentials that as susceptible to keyloggers malware etc.
Perhaps there may be a way to create a “cold wallet” address offline?
I am less reassured than your good self. There have been a few times when single syndicates/pools have held near majority shares of the network. Such a system could be abused by bad actors.
It may never become an issue, but more decentralised full nodes, the better.
There are a lot of people with a lot more resources at risk than I. My investment only needs to be proportional to my risk… The market will insure that those who have a lot at risk take the steps necessary to protect their investment…
I’m new over here and so excited that I got to … ask the question before reading everything you already wrote.
Welcome to the forums @tierce There is plenty to read about the SAFE netowrk and I am sure that you will see that its more about the network features than the coin.
If you have not already done so, have a read of
I would doubt it’s a basic income in the sense that not everyone who uses the network earns coins.
At this point farmers and app devs earn, and end users spend.
Safecoin has a circulation mechanism wherein the network, who is paying these farmers and app devs, is paid for the storage of data. It may be said to be an autonomous bank…although not many like the word “bank” here!
At the basis, it is more of a free market than anything else unless a paradigm shift occurs based on users behaviors. If you would like to find out more, I would highly recommend starting a new thread under the “safecoin” category. Also a bit more information about your assumptions would go a long way in answering your question.
Basic income is flat out impossible unless if it was a co-operative and voluntary. Basic income incentive people to be lazy.
Why work if I get paid in the first place?
You mean Grizmoblust’s?
I propose that you and Tierce run a pilot program with Grizmoblust and Smacz.
I guarantee they’ll ultimately run out of your money.
My own basic needs are on display below.
your basic needs are this forum lol.
Ahh communism. It looks great on paper…until you run out of someone else’s money (credit for that one goes to my step-dad)
Creating a money (the monetary volume and the estimation of its «value» as an exchange tool) through the human lifetime expectency (like proposed in the TRM) instead of scarcity (Gold, Debt,…) is not incompatible with work, exchange, capitalization, and whatever.
And this is not a question about comunism versus capitalism but more a question of «what about the unemployement in an automated technological world» as discussed in this kind of articles.
My own basic needs are to fill my gut with something before being able to pull it out of my ass.
Safecoin is neither based on it’s usability as a medium of exchange nor it’s scarcity. It is based on the tangible ability to store data and is “backed” by the resources that are provided to do so.
This was the main argument against @Anders’ proposal to separate Safecoin from it’s backing (farmers’ contributions to the network) a week or so ago.
As far as the profitability of Safecoin - this is mainly meant to be utilized for network services, not as a strict medium of exchange. With personal revenue from the network (as opposed to other users) being slim to none, this does little to assuage the fears in those types of articles. (However, I would strongly advise you to listen to @dirvine’s view of the autonomous future in this Sovryn Tech podcast) This is another main argument, this time from the discussion of Pay the Producer and APP rewards.
As such, it is mainly to be used as a circulating credit with which to utilize the network. If used as a store of value, it has the chance to lose it’s usability and therefore cripple if not break the networks ability to perform it’s most basic function. (IMO)
lol i don’t think you’re doing it right
Well whatever Safecoin is based on, i’m hoping to get rich of this stuff
Please don’t tell me you’re serious.
And at least say “wealthy”. Being rich is temporary. Being wealthy is persistant. It means that you at least have some financial intelligence. Otherwise, as soon as you’re rich, I’ll charm all of those lovely safecoins right out of your wallet into mine. I’ll be the wealthy one, and you’ll be the one who used to be rich. Hmm.
Lets say a wealthy person wanted to screw with the lube of safenetwork that is safecoin and just for fun purchased every safecoin available on every exchange up to a ridiculous amount like $100 per safecoin and held for few months till the price once again found its equilibrium (the natural market value) then dumped all the coins at once driving the coin to a fraction of market value… rinsed and repeated a few times. How would that affect safenetwork?
Where does this need to be rude & condescending to people come from