If I split 1 coin into credit, sent the credit to someone else and destroyed my password? Wouldn’t there be credit and a Frozen coin for eternity?
So nobody thinks this is a serious attack vector?
Buy safecoin, split it to credit, sell the credit (at no loss, if done right), destroy your Key → freeze the coin address for eternity. Rinse and repeat.
What am I Missing?
This happens in bitcoin, and is not an attack, or at least would be so expensive to the attacker that it would be unsustainable before the attack did any damage.
Unspendable coins simply make all the remaining spendable coins slightly more valuable.
You can do this with safecoin as well, simply set the recipient to a bogus public key with no matching private key, now the safecoins are unspendable.
Unless I’m missing something…
I think you’re missing that the credit would still exist. And that this attack would cost next to nothing, because of that fact. Unless, I’m missing something 
Lol
Yes, a “frezze attack” is “free”…
1: Frezze 100 Safecoin and get 10 000 credits…
2: Transfere 10 000 credits to new acount
3: Trade 10 000 credits for 100 new safecoin
4: Freeze the new 100 safecoin and get 10 000 credits…
5: Repete…
In the end you have only credits no safecoin…
/Nimos
If you mean that someone would trade you credit for coins, or would sell you btc (e.g.) for credit and you would buy new safecoin for that btc, I agree. But merely having credit doesn’t mean that it can always be converted back to safecoin. Only if the new account had 100 frozen coins, then you could convert it back.
Just saying cause I’m not entirely sure how you meant it 
Yes it was what I meant…
Your missing that it is the group that looks after the frozen coin, not the account that had it before freezing the coin. So by all means lose your account info the coin will still be unfrozen by the group when needed and given to the account that the group unfroze it for.
Ohh, what a relieve. Thanks, i did indeed miss that. 
That is not how @anon40790172’s proposal would work.
Yes, this could be done. I would prefer 100 Safecoins become 100 credit but okay…
No problem
No this can’t be done. Only people that have a frozen Safecoin address can merge credit back to coins. So if you have new addresses you no longer have frozen coins.
Trade =
1: Go to exchange and trade 10 000 credits for x BTC
2: Use X BTC to buy 100 safecoin
If the new account is in another Group the old Group (and my old account) have still 100 Safecoin froozen…
I thought the group held the frozen coins.
If it is the user that has the frozen coins then this could be a problem in usability. Say a shop selling items gets mostly part coin amounts, then they have problems getting back safecoin and their balance will be maybe 1000’s of safecoin’s worth of part coins.
Is it possible to make frozen coins belong to no one specific but the network as a whole? Then the network could easily take a frozen coin and grant ownership of it to any wallet in exchange for the destruction (merging) of credit.
Yes, this is probably a better solution. I was thinking about allowing each group to poke several close groups to see if they have frozen coins. So not all is thought out.
If it works like that, then the type of attack that I described does work, problem solved.
If you want to reduce the number of transactions on the network, you can create a larger denomination of SafeCoin. 1 “Large SafeCoin” = 100 SafeCoin AND 1 SafeCoin = 100 “Small Safecoin”. then it becomes just like to pay with physical Money.
Nead to send 400 Safecoin = Send 4 Large_SafeCoin ( 4 messages insted of 400 messages)
Send 0.04 safecoin = Send 4 Smal_SafeCoin
What needs to be resolved is how the exchange shall be carried smoothly
/ Nimos
But if polpolrenes idea works, I think we already have low numbers. I dont see any benefit in trying to make digital money like physical money.
That it would cost you dearly, you would be throwing away money @rand_om (pun intended)
The big problem of this idea, in a successful network, is the tendency to an increasing number of frozen Safecoin.
Less safecoin available increases the difficulty to win a safecoin in farming.
More difficulty tends to centralization via large farmers or pools and that’s, as we see with the bitcoin, is something we must avoid.
It is something that has not been emphasized, but the possibility of division should also anticipate the possibility of diminish the reward if the number of farmers grows enough. In my opinion all farmers, regardless the network size, should have a real chance to win the reward and, of course, this will only be possible if the prize is adapted to the number of farmers.
Although I’m not a big fan of the original concept of binary division, a progressive implementation of something akin (better if not binary but decimal) could fit better to both, utility and farming adaptability.
I thought this when reading the point made above - it seemed a bit like disk fragmentation to me
But then it was answered - pointed out that the “frozen safecoin” are just like Safecoin being held in a wallet. So the issue of scarcity already exists as the coin are issued and more and more are held in wallets. So yes difficulty rises, but only in the same way as will happen normally, and the network already has mechanisms designed to cope with this… and I don’t believe centralisation is encouraged when farming gets harder.
This isn’t proof of work like bitcoin, so we mustn’t assume centralisation will happen without considering what happens, and we’ve already thought about this.
Not wanting to go off topic (I suggest we take this elsewhere if you want to continue), as farming becomes harder, it needs to be lower cost or higher rewarded to be worthwhile.
The network addresses the rewards side of this by increasing them if resources are lowered. When there is pressure on costs - it is non-professional farmers who gain advantage because they have lower costs and are less cost sensitive. Key reason is that they don’t have to pay for providing spare already paid for resources.
This is the key factor that works against centralisation of farming, and remains valid whether farming is harder or not, so I don’t think having more Safecoin locked is a problem in this respect.
The question still remains whether or not the number frozen can reach a point that the network can no longer function because too few Safecoin can be farmed by anyone to make farming worthwhile, rather than because it causes centralisation (because I don’t believe it would). In this event we’d see the farming rewards increasing, but I’m not clear if there’s a stabilisation point or if some incentive would be needed to limit this. The same applies to hoarding should that begin to create a shortage of Safecoin, pushing up its value and causing more hoarding.
I’ll leave the question open - my brain is too tired after staring at javascript all day