It does, but only until such time they get in circulation (e.g. after a theft). If there’s no plan to use them what’s the point in “custodiying” them? It’s only an unnecessary cost (of due diligence, safekeeping, etc.).
1 Like
Burn them and be done with it. They were created in error so delete them. In essence they are worthless as they could potentially destroy the credibility of the whole project. Any doubt of bone fides will be detrimental long term.
6 Likes
Yes I’d add that selling them won’t get us far. We won’t get 50 cents on them if people are anticipating 23 million maidsafecoin hitting the market; “ooo some coins, now everyone on the list wants to proceed, going to sell for bitcoins and get on with their projects, and we’ll get ripped off definitely if we sell to the exchange” and the only time for 50 cents will be in safecoin, or new brewed demand in maidsafecoin; And by the time safecoin is about, I feel like it’d be more advantageous to use newly issued safecoins, but don’t want to go there at this time and mostly stick to the issue of the extra maidsafecoins.
So at the end of the day, if we distributed/used these coins, they would need to be accounted for in relation to the total coin distribution, and if used to fund things anytime soon, it won’t be an advantageous thing to do
1 Like
After 2 years, they still have not burnt them. It probably means they want to keep them. I like your approach though to force them to act; holding SafePod Berlin as hostage 
1 Like
Just read this one (I have temporarily hidden safecoin threads for the moment). There is a lot to consider here and many ways these may be useful. I would caution against haste, for instance what if we used these to test a script to transfer coins and selected a many temp real wallets to run such a script form to xfer coins, or used them to seed the network or many things not considered yet. Or what if we used them all in a pre launch for good network and test burning/messaging etc.
If the core dev team were to be mishandling anything to do with cash it would be pretty obvious, I hope with these it would be very obvious (blockchains are very traceable). Lucky MaidSafe is a company here though and subject to audit and accountancy sign off, would be very bad for directors of a company to be in a position of fraud etc. It’s not a bunch of unregulated folks (perhaps unfortunately in many ways) but a limited company where shareholders and customers are subject to the law and we are not a too big to fail RBS so can be taken out like that easily.
At the moment they lie like a long lost Pharaoh untouched and untarnished, but maybe there will be a way they can create traction in the network. Remember paypal gave out $10 to each new account holder to seed that and it was less difficult than SAFE to buy credit for. So lets get everything running then look at how best these serve the network (or not). I am sure everyone will know exactly what happens though, after all it’s all of our network not MaidSafe’s but as a company with folk we need to feed etc. it’s in our interests to make the best we can of the network and get it launched and functioning well for everyone, not scupper it for what would be a fraction of what it will be worth to us all. We have not spent 10 years to make that kind of mistake and it is very disconcerting if we work under a microscope. I really hope we are as open as we can be and I have no reason to think we have not been.
So lets launch and get everything working for us all and not knee jerk anything at this stage. There is a lot happening just now and we are pushing the in house folks as hard as we can, I would like them to breath and have time to also get involved in launch planning and debates if we possibly can as they will have some ideas and suggestions that may prove valuable as well.
12 Likes
You’re overthinking this. The coins were printed by accident and against the explicit guidance of MaidSafe. People invested real money based on the information available about how many coins would exist initially, and how they’d be allocated. Burn the coins and save yourself the hassle of what will come if you don’t.
8 Likes
It is not my intention to “hold SAFE pod Berlin hostage”, quite on the contrary, but people (myself included) have a limited time and energy budget. So if I am to invest time and energy, and ask other people to do the same, I need to make a judgement call at the very start. All I am asking is for David and Nick to help me make that judgement call by clearing out this issue (in no way do I want money or other goods from MaidSafe - just to be very clear! - other than the remainder of my wages and holiday entitlements 
)
Well actually, I DO need the money, but I don’t feel I’ve done anything of any significance to earn it, so
+1 to
Can you post the addresses so they can be tracked?
I’m okay with delaying a decision, although the “delete mistake to avoid conflict” arguements have a point. It seems there will always be some level of trust with a “Trustless network,” but complete transparency is required.
6 Likes
Thanks!, but i preffer that maidsafecoins destroyed in order to improve the value of the remainings tokens. And because we need to honor the rules that we fix for early investors.
4 Likes
In light of the purpose of the thread: to determine a step to address the existence of the extra maidsafecoins from the crowdsale; I think that there are compelling reasons not to introduce them to the marketplace, and also good logical reasons. I think that “trustless” does not properly describe the adequate environment that is, maximum trust: therefore, the statements in description and intention are exactly how things get carried out. In a safe network crowdsale, there wouldnt be any chance of making extra coins, and the ability to cryptographically sign ownership so easily and let people manage consensus voting using proof of stake within Safe Network is something to emulate.
I am mentioning that our systems should be set to work as defined, that way it can be most trusted to at least do exactly as it says, and I speak of describing software that anyone can read and see that it carries out logical steps as it was written, and likewise with the terms of sales and distribution algorithms, etc. So, logically it makes sense based on the docs that the coins not be used surpassing 4294967295 based on its existence issuance.
This will have great impact on markets, and the coins of future distributions could take place in safecoins;
2 Likes
Mastercoin works with multidignature??. That’s a easy way to destroy that maidsafecoins. we build a wallet starting from differents pieces and nobody can uses without concensus. I suggest uses the maximum number of firms available in the bip.
it is possible??
2 Likes
Multisig addresses just store unspent outputs, they don’t destroy shit.
We already asked for the extra coins to be burned.
3 Likes
Can you post the addresses so they can be tracked?
Absolutely I think that it’s very important for the credibility of the project.
6 Likes
@dirvine and @nicklambert, thanks for both of your statements that the coins are securely held and untouched by the Foundation. Can either of you, please though, make the small effort of providing these wallet addresses of where they are held on the blockchain. As a simple first step of boosting confidence this would mean a great deal. MaidSafeCoins are very clearly defined as part of the community and the community has a very clear right to be assured of MaidSafe’s good custody.
7 Likes
+1 here for making the addresses the coins are stored on public ASAP. There’s huge paranoia in crypto (for good reason) so it pays to vaccine against any potential misconceptions in the most timely way.
1 Like
Hi Everyone,
Here are the addresses:
1NpScs5QhqmSeV6FZUdGUFvVVfQGbuBV3Y - 918,046
167PEWFSQe4mkGbghzHbgi5MYLQic18PF4 - 3,055,683
1vA1bWVQhXHhv6TQ6BX2av2UgvjsZ5976 - 5,000,000
1CduoEx49uroCsc5ncHzi1Yss8AZF6MYoS - 5,000,000
18TbX9MNM1Acj89CxtSGJ3y9sjeZf9JjjA - 5,000,000
12i8B7P2BWT4zywCMyqmN7HpMj1RnDDhDk - 5,000,000
Regards what we do with these excess coins, many of you will now have seen the safecoin RFC, in particular the following paragraph:
Bootstrap with clients
Although there has been hostility from the community with regard to “something for nothing” approach, there is a necessity for a bootstrap mechanism. As no safecoin can be farmed until data is uploaded there is a cyclic dependency that requires a resolution. To overcome this limitation this RFC will propose that every new account created is initialised with 50 safecoins. This may be temporary and only used in test-safecoin, but it is likely essential to allow this for the time being. It may be a mechanism to kickstart the network as well.
My feeling is that we need to be very careful about how we proceed, quick reactive decisions often fail to consider longer term impact and it would be unwise to narrow our options needlessly at this early stage. We all want this network to be used by as many people as possible and using safecoin as outlined above could play an important part in this.
15 Likes
thank you very much!
4 Likes
I did a quick query with Omnichest.info and those coins have not moved since (latest mid-may 2014). Adding these up 23.973.729 we find more than the needed number ( 452552412 (coinmarketcap) - 2^32 / 10 (10% of all safecoin) = 23055682,4 ). So that is very comforting news. Thanks again @nicklambert
8 Likes