Yes, I’m constantly amazed at the depth of thinking that has gone into this…not just that but the ethics, vision etc is just stunning. I have not been so impressed/engaged in anything since discovering Richard Feynman…truly touching too.
I think I get the coin thing now - it’s not that a new coin will represent 1/10th of a Safecoin, but that the new coin IS 1/10th of a Safecoin…brilliant…A Rose by any other name…
If I don’t normally compliment the team, it is purely that my mouth is still usually agape at what I’ve just learnt and my mind churning things over.
Just stunning…
2 Likes
I’m personally very much against changing the maidsafecoin to safecoin ratio, I think it would be morally wrong (and marketing suicide) to go back on what we stated during the crowd sale. I also think that we will need to make safecoin divisible if it is to reach its full potential, but as David says, by how much will be a decision reached by much discussion and analysis.
7 Likes
Presumably, 2^64 is the only alternative, should coins be divided as planned. that would be a lot more coins - about 4,000,000,000 more per Safecoin at 2^32.
If Safecoin were to be as successful as Bitcoin currently is, a Safecoin would be worth $10 at current 2^32. That is big, but manageable. However, $0.0000000002 (give or take) at 2^64 is not.
Therefore, I think we should go with the current plan and enable divisions of coins at earliest convenience around launch time.
I don’t really see how this proposal would be morally wrong. If the cap would be multiplied by 16, you’d get 16 SafeCoin for every MaidSafeCoin you have. There’s no value loss for anyone involved, no shift in balance whatsoever, not now and not in the future. In essence it’d be just a different denomination. The supply cap has no influence on the actual market capital value, and everyone would still get the same percentage of the total value of SafeCoin.
It being bad for marketing I can understand, given the confusion on the meaning of this proposal.
It’s possible to use 36 bits. Variables/data fields don’t need to be a power of 2.
I think this bit is the going back on a promise of 1:1 and is separate from the fact that essentially nothing would really change, as you rightly point out.
What are your remaining main concerns with the proposed way forward?
Thanks
Ofc, but halving is the issue. 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2 works. 36, 18, 9, - doesn’t.
IIRC, the algorithm requires halving to get smaller denominations. I could well be wrong to though.
We made a commitment during the crowd sale to exchange on a 1:1 basis, to do anything else is going back on a promise and wrong on so many levels. IMO making safecoin divisible looks like a better solution, but as per the posts higher up the thread we need to run through the tests and see what falls out.
2 Likes
Nick, I agree with your statement. Besides David Irvine, just answered the concerns raised in this discussion where he “says new coins do not appear, old coins split”.
If that is possible, I believe the issue of decimals and micropayments can be resolved in time when it becomes a problem, long enough to gain Global traction.
So you’re saying it’s like “proof of burn” - 100 safecents come into existence, but 1 safecoin dies? Would it be possible to create other kinds of coins, like someappcoin this way, so people could create altcoins based on safecoin?
I think that’s a workable idea and functionally better, however I think it’s considerably more complicated than merely increasing the supply and I also think it may make things more complicated to work with - now instead of a wallet with one coin (to rule them all 
) we now have two, three, four coins that are exchangeable and anyone putting out a product has to decide which coin to offer their product in…the complications go deeper. One coin to deal with most all things seems the better way.
Perhaps if only one new coin was created that was well and truly divided - say 1/1,000,000th of a safecoin - then people could use that for solely trading
But what then of the safe network itself? Would it automatically switch to using this new coin if the value of one safecoin goes too far out of whack?
1 Like
When a single SAFEcoin hits $6000 and all other currencies especially the fiats have been extinguished (a lot of problems with states in the lead up to this) then the SAFEcoin gets split but in a non decimal way? Won’t SAFE economy be built up from microscopic transactions? It would be interesting if the increment for a single coin is $300, a bit too granular perhaps even at $10.
I would agree with @nicklambert that this is not a good marketing decision and at launch having a 1:1 re maidsafcoin → safecoin is the way to go as promised.
This should be the approach and any naming conventions for subunits based on analysis and further discussion.
If the subunit is an integral power of 10 as mentioned before by @dyamanaka this should not weigh heavily in regards to the psychological impact on users coming post Beta. User prior will have little problems dealing with the math of breaking down safecoin into decimals. Relating it back to traditional denominations currently used with fiat is best approach as this requires less thinking for the user and connects to familiarity with currencies used for value exchange. Considering we are about to enter testnet3 there is still time to solve this and the dev crew have their hands and brains very full solving the myriad problems Im sure they have leading up to Beta and Safecoin 1.0. The microtransactions necessary for much of the proposed applications and uses can be handled with subunits of SafeCoin (base). How many decimal places and the naming conventions used will come with time and I trust the capable devs working on this project along with the enthusiastic community will solve this problem.
Predictions of the future with exchange rates and the value of Safecoin at launch are futile IMO. Currency markets are volatile, transitions are taking place, petro dollar is undergoing significant challenge, banks are heavily leveraged and derivatives trading is rampant more than pre “credit crisis”, intergovernmental bodies are scrambling, it is all very tricky to accurately predict and the current value of maidsafecoin in relation to fiat is likely to swing.
It is all very exciting to see the enthusiasm and passion from people on this forum and each thread I go through I get more inspired. Thanks 
Not really. Let’s look at this in real life terms. If the “currency” of the SAFE Network were adopted for all manner of things, it makes sense to use different denominations.
In the US, we use different terms for different tier items. For example…
Tier 1 Denomination
My grocery store price tag says 57 cents for a stick of gum.
Tier 2 Denomination
My grocery store price tag says 12 dollars for a shirt.
Tier 3 Denomination
My car dealership says 28k for a new car.
Tier 4 Denomination
A 10-bedroom Mansion cost about 5 Million.
Why aren’t everything in cents?
Because it’s humanly easier to go up or down the next tier. The same effect is done in MMO games as @dallyshalla mentioned. Millions of players have no problem understanding the different tier levels of gold to silver to copper.
To answer your question. Depending on the tier of the item, the merchant will make the appropriate denomination choice, just like they do in real life.
5 Likes
as I said…more complicated than having one coin that is 100% functional in all circumstances. I’m not against this approach however, but I think if a new coin is created it ought to be of such a large magnitude (as in the example I gave 1/1,000,000th) that a new subdivision will not be needed for a long long time.
Thinking about it more, I don’t see why we can’t both have our way - and I reckon we will. I’ll just choose to display prices in the smallest denomination available.
What!!? you won’t take my nanoMAID’s? you want milliMAIDS!!? fine, I’ll take my money somewhere else then.
To have a functioning subdivision system, if you had enough of the pieces could you put them back together, through a consensus group by doing a transaction? So if you set your price in Millimaids, and they have enough in the relevant wallet to meet the price (in nanomaids) then the transaction works, and the consensus group issues them the value in whatever denomination they prefer.
So if I have so many nanoMaids I could recycle them through a consensus group, simply by doing a transaction with myself. If these subdivisions are locked in terms of relative value, there should be no problem with doing this.
1 Like
Well said David, I like how you let us duke it out before you come in with the facts
3 Likes
I agree with you, too many tiers should not be used. Perhaps 3 at most.
Coming from an MMO virtual currency background, I am most comfortable with 3 tiers: gold silver copper.
It seems simple yet granular enough to work successfully.
So my initial proposal is to have the the following.
Safecoin 1/1 … used for anything larger
Centimaid 1/100 … used for sub safecoin transactions
Micromaid 1/1,000,000 … used for micro safecoin transactions
What do you all think?
2 Likes
As long as the subdivisions can all automatically convert between each other and we don’t have to ‘think’ about it and we can choose to ‘see’ our store of value in as few or as many ways as we like and we can choose to ‘see’ prices in whatever subdivision(s) we like, then it’s all good to me. Likely some of that will be up to app developers…but that’s okay.
2 Likes
No names…it’s SafeCoin
We don’t need to increase the supply and we don’t need any other names, …it’s SafeCoin and it has numbers, either side of the unit.
KISS
Are we getting cabin fever in here…anticipating launch.
4 Likes
As long as we can come up with other names than Centimaid and Micromaid I agree 