Also tired and can’t read the whole thread atm… two thoughts or is it three questions.
Could another coin be used for sub safecoin - like copper to £1?
Also, micropayments very useful - what is the cost of sending a message?.. and an app storing data for its own purposes?
Yes, frozen coins are only a subset of the coins that are owned in wallets.
No further burden on the network in having them exist.
Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to start the network with 48/64 bit safecoins and just hand out more safecoins for every maidsafe token ?
For the western world it’s not a huge problem if a safecoin is $8, but the largest part of the world has to work a week to earn that amount of money.
I think divisibility is a huge piece that needs to be addressed.
If safecoin is not divisible, one of two things will happen
Would be a lot lot longer than a week for most…
That was suggests about a year ago.
Some thought it was a violation of the crowdsale terms for buying maidsafecoin. Personally I thought it was fine by the crowdsale. X SAFE coins per maidsafe, noone losses. But they thought it would be a devaluing of their “investment”
Another is that each coin is a SD object and to maintain the crowdsale terms the farming rewards would have to be adjusted to return the same actual value. So 48/64 means the farming rate has to be some 65K higher in terms of SAFEcoin.
And then the crunch is that now a 100 dollar transaction requires 65K more coins (SD objects) transferred through the secure transfer system. Basically it puts a 65K extra load on the system for each payment that would have been more than one 32/64 SAFEcoin transaction. This allows the relatively new network to be brought down by transferring relatively small amounts (< $1000) continually by a few people.
Then to top it off there would still be a call for division because 48/64 would still not give micro transactions when the equivalent of 1 MAIDSAFEcoin is over 6.5 cents. To reduce further (say 52/64) would make transaction loads a lot worse.
I love the approach proposed by the OP as well as the impressive responses. Reading through them I couldn’t help but think of the Bitcoin community and maybe there is something to learn from.
I share the same thought of many who see the value of Bitcoin remaining simple and dependable. In the early years it seemed Bitcoin would be able to do all things for all people. With lightening channels, segwit, and other features, Bitcoin will gain utility value even though most stuff won’t be done on the chain. Then when one considers the alt coins building up around Bitcoin, the picture of how things could look for SAFEcoin becomes apparent. SC should stay as simple and solid as possible so future micro-solutions have a firm foundation to build on.
Me personally I think taking a flexible system like Bitshares, where we could create stable coins that are backed by SAFEcoin, and run the whole ecosystem (b2b, b2c merchant integration, decentralized asset exchange) on the SAFEnetwork then we get a perfect balance between immutability and fungibility needed to adapt to the unlimited variations found in the world economy.
I think it is dangerous to try and make SC be all things for all people. Allowing me the ability to send a fraction of a SC to the x exponent, back and forth with no cost…us just asking for trouble. By trying out different decentralized platforms already out their that have addressed these issues and see how they run in SAFE should be considered. Heck I could be totally wrong, but if the experiment built on top of SAFE failed then the foundation below stays firm.
With a fixed number of safecoins distributed (4.3 Billion), it would only seem correct to be some sort of credit system to break down safecoins into smaller units (like the solution above)? It seems infeasible to force new users (specifically the late majority) into paying high prices for the transfer and storage of data assuming farmers are abundant/ highly available because the currency is bound by a limit. I like the proposed solution above, but there is a lot to think about in terms of scalability with the safecoin.
Hi,
How is the current CLI wallet handling the test coins? Is it still 2^32 coins?
Take a look at the new vaults thread here: New Release: Vault Phase 1 (real vault) - #132 by Mindphreaker
Short answer: they are highly divisible.