Disagree. Bitcoin charges a certain amount of sats/byte to make a transaction. This is known as the fee market, and which transactions to accept when producing a block is up to the miners.
This ties into scarcity and the block size debate. Bitcoin is effectively auctioning off it’s block space. If the block space is not limited (aka free) then people are free to include whatever crap data or spam that they want.
4 Likes
You can send btc for free, if your patient.
1 Like
sometimes very patient and its not a method that lends itself to being any part of a serious business proposition except in some very limited edge cases.
But you are correct and I’ve done it myself.
2 Likes
That depends on demand, in late 2017 a transaction with a low fee could get stuck in two weeks before it was rejected and the value was back to the account it came from. So it is not always possible to send bitcoin with low/no fees.
3 Likes
So you have already a computer, you have already an internet connection. If you use them to farm it is really free safecoin for you… Only time…
3 Likes
Yes. But you can just resend, like I said patience.
Admittedly there are not many pools include transactions without fees in their blocks.
I think that should be the answer to the “free put” question. The way is to have a vault and wait to accumulate the safecoin for the puts youbneed to do
2 Likes
Maybe it will be possible for a user to set the price to zero on SAFE too, similar to bitcoin. If you are lucky you will get free space in a similar way as if you are lucky on the Bitcoin blockchain.
1 Like
There is serious (eternal) cost involved for storage so the network needs to charge for it and anything else is not sustainable…
+farming reward would long term decrease to zero without recycling…
+it devalues safecoin because altcoins on safe then would be free to use without any cost… (and this again would destabilize the network itself)
4 Likes
The problem with bitcoin and many alts is that there is no in-built demand for the coin ( a need for it - other than just trading it - tx fees). With no in-built demand the only reason for price appreciation is speculation and hope … which is why bitcoin is so volatile and why it will DIE when something better comes along.
This in-built demand is part of the economic theory of money as well - The “regression theorem of money”
Objective-exchange values of all other goods and services are explained by the subjective theory of value, whereby the values are traced to the ultimate subjective use values of the marginal consumers who value such goods and services for their objective-use values which they expect to consume. This is not true for money because (1) money is not consumed in its use and (2) the subjective and objective use values of money coincide and are equal to its objective-exchange value, the estimated value of the goods and services for which it can be exchanged. Mises explains the origin of the objective-use value of money by tracing it back step by step from the point at which it is being valued to the point where the monetary good served only non-monetary uses, an essential point preceding the first use of anything as money. At this point, its objective-exchange value is explained by the general theory of subjective value and marginal utility.
The emphasis above is mine. If we trace back bitcoin we will find that it doesn’t have any non-monetary use - at every step it is only useable as money and hence violates this fundamental theorem of money. The coin of the SAFE network however can be traced back (in the future obviously as it doesn’t exist yet) to having a non-monetary use as a required exchange for storage. Non-monetary usage means that it can always be used for this no matter any other considerations of value - and this is the case as the network itself demands it to be so. In the same way fiat money has a non-monetary use as governments demand it to be used to pay taxes.
Bitcoin and most other alts do not have this as a consideration in their code. consequently they will not be competitive long term with those that do. I beleive that Ethereum does have this in-built demand as it requires payment for contract creation with Ethereum - and these contracts are not to do with monetary use. However contracts on the Ethereum network are not a super high consumer demanded item at this point in history, so the overall use-case for Ethereum is slim - even so it is the number 2 coin these days and I believe this is due to the regression theorem. Given enough time and a lack of better competitors (SAFE), then Ethereum will eventually overtake bitcoin because of this feature of the Ethereum network.
So, to sum up, if we lose the ‘PUT’ cost, we will lose the in-built non-monetary use of the currency of the SAFE network … which in turn means the currency will not be able to gain real value as a form of money.
And that would be a real shame.
11 Likes
And I thought, like you, that Bitcoin will die, so unfortunately I have very little. What I didn’t understand is that the limited number of bitcoins is what gives it value. There is a huge demand for this as its price indicates…
This is the in-built demand of Bitcoin - his scarcity. I do not believe that Safecoin will ever replace Bitcoin. But I’m 100% sure it will wipe out Ethereum 
6 Likes
Scarcity? Sure it’s a factor in bitcoins continued success … but you must also consider that most alt coins are also scarce right!? Yet few of those alt coins have any substantial value.
Hence your premise that bitcoins scarcity is driving it’s value is in contradiction of the facts. Check your premises.
2 Likes
Of course you’re right logically, but not psychologically. There are rarer metals than gold, but the gold is only one.
What matters in this case is what people believe that the gold is the most valuable. In order for gold to be replaced by another rarer metal, all people must at the same time believe that gold is no longer “gold” and that the other rarer metal is the new gold.
The same applies to bitcoin…
3 Likes
I agree for the most part - being the first significant crypto-currency bitcoin has a much larger reputation among the general public than other crypto-currencies.
In terms of reach however, into the hearts and minds of the general public, the coin that will surpass bitcoin must have some special feature that will drive the general public to want to learn about it and use it.
This is why the coin of the SAFE network will defeat them all IMO. The use case for data storage (and the in-built need for the SAFE network coin because of this use case) is far greater than the use case offered by other crypto-currencies.
So I believe that the advantages of bitcoin will be lost at the point where the SAFE network begins to reach critical mass. And once those advantages are gone, there will be nothing significant to hold up it’s price.
I don’t know if bitcoin itself will ever go to zero in value at least in the next fifty years - it will always have a place in the hearts of collectors, and hence will retain some small value.
This is not investment advice.
3 Likes
This is not a counter argument, but I’m wondering…
Should we, enlightened people, upload a ton of photos and videos on a daily basis to fb and google services instead of deleting our accounts?
Why isn’t it a thing? It could become a mass movement easily.
Or do I miss something?
Would you consider it evil?
Edit: ok, I did some math, I think I answered the question myself.
1 Like
For what reason? Google & fb limit your uploads at some point. Google & FB Terms and conditions would kick in and all your data could be deleted.
They also have more storage than an early SAFE would have.
3 Likes
Your content is not really yours anymore once it hits Facebook.
1 Like
Actually Jaco, in the beginning of Gmail, the only way to get an account was through invites by other members who where already in.
I can see several parallels between the launch and the promises of Gmail vs the launch of the SafeNetwork.
And at the very beginning, when Gmail was being promoted to have infinity storage capacity (and this was a game changer, as other free webmail services were offering about 5MB of storage, and Hotmail was attempting to push a subscription based model by offering storages of 100MB for a fee) and as such users where creating parallel accounts and using scripts to use the “free unlimited storage” of emails as a free cloud service by automatically autosending split files as attachments in thousands of emails.
Some people were uploading tens and hundreds of gigabytes of movies.
Google was clearly upset by this and obviously prohibited it, tracking down and shutting down these accounts that were clearly abusing it.
Back then Google wasn’t the behemoth of today, they were still launching their prototypes of modular datacenters in shipping containers… so they were way more vulnerable to abuse back then.
6 Likes