That way, we can still look at what percentages constitute consensus algorithmically to add validity built in, at least in final vote. We would also have to look at who qualifies as part of the electorate; if this can be reduced to whoever downloads the software or runs a vault (however small), then the whole process can be decentralised/automated can it not - not a techie so don’t know if thats what’s planned anyway?
How can you stop people accepting other forms of payment anyway? Not that I think they should be.
I think farming and other network resources would have to be in Safecoin, due to the safecoin recycling process, though.
Good point, how do we? If we can’t, then no point having vote…lol. I’d say we can at least dissuade it or stop it in the main somehow even if we couldn’t prevent a black market How do we stop anything within the network though and if we offer a fair exchange rate then what is the incentive to carry out trade off market/network to worry us on any large scale? It would be more hassle eventually for people than it was worth.
1 Like
We can’t stop a merchant from posting a Bitcoin address on their Safe Website. But we can make it clear if we are supporting alternative forms of payment or not. This actually does make a difference for mass adoption. This community should to let others know if we are “friendly” or “non-friendly” to other alt coins.
The vote is also important to determine the “will” of this community.
Also, consider the rate at which alt coins are being created. Imagine if Amazon started making their own coins and other companies started backing up their coins with real products/services. We still have a platform for them to operate on top of because the fuel for the SAFE Network is storage space. Websites on the SAFE Network cost storage, Apps cost storage. It is the foundation which others can operate in a S.A.F.E. and FREE manner.
If they choose to use Safecoin, great! If they choose to use their own alt coin? Will we support it?
I’m not sure what your question is: should safecoin only exist on the safe network (yes, by technical necessity), or should other alt-safecoins NOT be allowed on the network (No, I believe the network should welcome innovations)
1 Like
The question originated when we were discussing the idea of allowing users to create their own coins/tokens on the SAFE Network. It was then complicated when we included the idea of how Ethereum plans to accept alt coins into their network, requiring ethers to pay for transaction fees.
So I posed the question, should Safecoin be the only currency supported by the Network, or should we allow other alt coins to be created and use Safecoin to charge transaction fees for those creations. This is in addition to the main services provided by the Network itself.
Then we are back to the same circular argument about resources becoming less valuable aren’t we? Why would everyone not just use bitcoin then and Safecoin would be an irrelevance as the storage value is heading towards zero.
I posted something similar as an argument against exactly this situation.
[quote=“AlKafir, post:21, topic:311”]
Hi, just a thought about a possible scenario, which may suggest we shouldn’t accept all crypto. Let’s imagine Safenet has become quite popular and quite likely to subsume current internet services. A large corporation, (say Amazon) wants to operate within this new eco system, however does not fancy paying the 1% back into the system. Some corporate arse-hole thinks, hmmmm……we can make substantially more profit if we accept payment in crypto, rather than cash. They further reason that with exchange fees etc, they’d be better off just accepting their own crypto which would work in exactly the same way as an Amazon voucher effectively. They could do exactly as Maidsafe did with Mastercoin protocol or similar, the only difference being that they keep the full issue amount. These are now Amazon vouchers, only redeemable at Amazon and not traded (as little incentive as can only use at one outlet). These vouchers can be purchased from the old-fangled internet Amazon site for cash, for use on Safenet – Amazon wallet etc provided. This way Amazon hedges it’s bets, as to which internet will become dominant and can sell on both, without incurring the 1% fee. You may question what a customer’s incentive is to buy the Amazon crypto, but the same question can be asked of any voucher/gift card/token system… I’ve only just thought of this 10 mins ago as I got in from work and sat having a brew and fag, so I’m probably missing something glaringly obvious - so can somebody please point out either why this is not possible, or why it is not a problem, even if it happens.
[/quote]So it’s not technically possible to prevent other alts from operating on Safenet anyway - is that the bottom line?
We cannot stop any merchant or builder from accepting whatever alt coin they desire. They can and probably will make their own anyway.
BUT… in order to upload any kind of data on the SAFE Network, they MUST pay Safecoin or provide resources. This is the one advantage Safecoin has over the other alt coins. Just like the dollar has the reserve status, Safecoin is the reserve currency on the SAFE Network.
Imagine a public market with merchants and consumers of all types. They all have different currencies to barter with. Each one still has to setup a booth and display their wares. Each has to pay in Safecoin/Resources for that booth. Thereafter, they are free to conduct commerce in any form they desire.
Some people will use Safecoin. Some people will use Bitcoin. Some people will make their own alt coins. All are good for the Network, because it adds more activity and trade, which means more demand for farmers. More than likely, Safecoin will have a very high liquidity.
Because I don’t have crystal ball. I cannot assure you Safecoin’s fiat value will rise. We have gone over the technology deflation argument several times already. We’ll see what happens.
3 Likes
Fabulous summation.
There shouldn’t be any software restrictions on the network, this includes cryptocoins.
There is better advantages to using safecoins over bitcoins; no need to download blockchains, no need to wait for confirmations, no double spending, no transaction fees and all payments are anonymous. Safecoins should be the obvious choice on the network.
Encourage every merchant to use their own coin and if not then Safecoin. But I don’t see why anyone would have to use Bitcoin if Safecoin is valuable and more stable.
They wouldn’t have to but they would choose to, because btc is more valuable and stable and merchant adoption would kill any value for Safecoin. Same old circular argument.
Bitcoin’s value is meaningless though. It’s about purchasing power. Can’t buy storage with bitcoin. Then you’re in the system with safecoins. Easier to accept that. And if the currency works as smoothly as it’s claimed to, that’s what people will stick with.
Also, @Al_Kafir, people will use other cryptocurrencies and will definitely develop new cryptocurrencies to work on the safe network. It’s impossible to limit. So I would say don’t even worry about it. It’s 100% inevitable.
No, its fine, its just that I’m totally unconvinced that Safecoin will gain value despite all the reasons given
Safecoin’s use to buy resources is an ever decreasing value because resources are 30% cheaper each year (resource cost is same whatever currency you buy it in.) Limiting/linking buying resource to Safecoin is the problem in my view. You can’t say Safecoin derives value from being the only coin able to buy resource because it just doesn’t. Its like saying because the only way to pay an ever decreasing peppercorn rent is by using “peppercoin” - its a very limited use.
It is further said that builders, app developers etc will further increase value, when in fact it is highly likely they will choose to be paid in BTC rather than “peppercoin” for obvious reasons.
I am also still, despite it being explained many times unable to see how Safecoin is even related to resources in any meaningful way. I’m left with the feeling that square pegs are trying to be fitted into round holes to be honest. Resource price and Safecoin price are unrelated and both prices have to be arrived at by human trading, not network algorithms in my opinion. Here is where the square pegs come in as 2 separate coins are needed to provide 2 separate functions. It is true that “resource coin” would have value, whereas “Safecoin” would have very little value as little incentive to use it.
Anyway if I still don’t grasp the value aspect, then others won’t either, so it either needs clearly explaining, or value will definitely disappear. I still don’t understand the objection to making Safecoin exclusive either, as this is one thing that investors can grasp would give value to Safecoin.
Could you explain how the network could be made to exclude other cryptos? I feel like I’m pretty confident in my understanding as to why it can’t stop it.
There are online games that use their own internal currency, such as Second Life. Nothing stops anybody posting their own BTC wallet addresses or arranging off network deals etc - but the overall effect is minimal. Currencies are exchanged for the internal currency for operating commerce etc within the virtual world ( or network). This model works well and the virtual currency "linden Dollars has gained real world value. Imagine the potential to truly create a Safecoin, fair fee free global currency - why give this opportunity away? If Maidsafe can re- invent the internet, then why is it unfeasible to do what any online game does? Safecoin would then also be classed as virtual tokens which may have other financial benefits (not sure yet). What are the technical difficulties involved that are so insurmountable, given that posting btc addresses etc will have little impact and this system will give value to Safecoin?
This would also reduce all resource/farmer/safecoin issues being discussed and the network complexity. I think two coins should be issued at launch for every Msafe, 1 resource coin along with 1 Safecoin per msafe. The values of both would be determined by market forces in a decentralised exchange, which also acts as a bureau de change for Safecoins. It would be possible I think to algorithmically reward farmers etc via the exchange resource price and Safecoin would have value from its true exclusivity.
Just my thoughts, please pick all the holes in it as it will help me understand why all I say is unfeasible twaddle…lol
Games are centralized and no one is developing software inside a game. In-game currencies are linked directly to the interface, the lens through which the player sees the virtual world. Game developers have full control over every aspect of the game experience. Maidsafe is supposed to be a networking protocol, not a software package, I believe. The team will have very little influence of the front-end experience (apart from a first mover advantage) users will have.
My understanding of this whole project is that I can write my own web browser, or chat engine, or game, or video streaming service, etc. Like if Microsoft built a Bitcoin wallet into Internet Explorer, and Google built a Litecoin wallet into Chrome. Safecoin will have first mover advantage, but there’s no way to stop people from developing things for it that devalue Safecoin.
Just Brainstorming…
Given the complicated and messy nature of selling storage through the Network. Maybe there is an easier way to make the SAFE Network semi-exclusive via user access and solve our pricing situation.
For example. When any user logs into their account, they pay a micro transaction fee as they access the network. If they are taking up a lot of bandwith, their daily cost goes up. I’m not 100% sure if access can be restricted in this way.
I imagine it would work like this. When you are browsing the Network, using apps or retrieving your own files, you are sending out GET requests. If you do not pay your micro transaction fees, your GET requests will be rejected by the Network. This continual payment is necessary to let farmers know you want them to keep looking after your data as well as service your Network needs. This accurately reflects bandwith usage compared to PUT requests. I’ll get to PUT requests and storage after this part.
Example GET Payment plans.
1,000Mb GETS per day = FREE (This is like watching 1 HD movie online!)
+1Mb GET per day = $0.001 = Safecoin equivalent based on market exchange rate.
Unlimited Mb per month = $20 = Safecoin equivalent based on market exchange rate.
The starting fiat price can be voted by the community, farmers, builders, etc. Thereafter, algorithm.
Storage and PUTS.
We don’t want someone to DOS the Network so a Minimum Free Amount should be set and should cover mobile users. If they want to store additional data, they have to provide their own resources.
Summary:
STORAGE: I’m free to upload/store data up to the Minimum Free Amount. Thereafter, I can provide my own resources to increase my cap. We want an ever increasing amount of farmers anyway.
USAGE: Depending on my usage, I will probably have some moments when I need more than 1,000Mb of GETS per day. During those times of high usage, I would pay micro transaction amounts per 1Mb, or wait 24hrs. This helps reduce bandwith burden on farmers.
Because of this new payment method, ANY usage on the SAFE Network will require Safecoin. The only way to gain extra storage is to provide your own. Merchants can still sell their products/services using other currencies but Safecoin is now semi-exclusive to the Network.
1 Like
Hmm, I need to think about this more, but I’m into it. Because I feel like if farmers don’t monetize sent data, then the system is going to become bloated with data that just sits there an is never accessed again. I can tell you right now I’ve got maybe 20TB+ of shit I’d dump on the network just off the top of my head. Most of it I’ll never need again, but in case clients come back requesting things, it’s gotta live somewhere.
1 Like