I think it’s the hash is 0 means that it is provably unspendable…
That is the reason why some folks contact @SwissPrivateBanker or know already how to pay less.
Because it would be the way everyone does business for months since everyone else is using it.
Its the reverse situation, who is going develop or what exchange is going to trade safecoin when everyone is using the erc20 proxy. From the start it is the only way to do anything and it becomes standard for exchanges etc
To stay native only means that exchanges will prepare a month or 2 before the network is declared live and thus the market will be there to purchase safecoin with fiat and to trade it natively. The interface to safe network is simple with just a CLI script running if they want, or more complex depending on other factors.
How about copying the Wrapped BTC (wbtc) code and model?
A federation of issuers mutually custody the omni tokens, and back the ERC20. Conversion is a two way process.
KYC only happens for those who trade with issuers (primary market), everyone else can trade on secondary markets.
MaidSafe stay out of the process.
1 Like
I am for this proposal. Do you know how we can do it?
1 Like
I’m not endorsing this as an idea, just it seems like one way to solve the different points of view in the discussion. It introduces a new counterparty risk (on top of the existing MaidSafe Ltd risk) but at least mitigated against of group of custodians.
The code is available here:
And blurb here:
It is possible there are many projects who want issued assets proxied across to Ethereum, in which case there may be cases where WBTC has already been cloned.
3 Likes
Just like OMNI, I don’t see a purpose for ERC20 once the Network is live and SAFE is in existence. At this time, ERC20 can help to facilitate easier exchange of MAID. However, I’d posit that SAFE should ultimately rival/render redundant ERC20, as SAFE would be a protocol by which a token ecosystem could develop.
6 Likes
Tax issues aside, my thinking on snapshot vs burn is that burns require SAFE network to have continuous knowledge of the state of the Bitcoin blockchain (ie which Omni coins have been burned). The simplest and most probable solution to that is having Maidsafe act as an oracle and custodian of the unclaimed SAFE coins. This means that conversion to SAFE is only possible while the central oracle/custodian is operating. A decentralized oracle solution may be possible, but would be quite complicated (understatement!).
I see snapshot as superior because the SAFE network has all of the info it needs on the MAID balances right from the start of the network. If the network is able to verify BTC (or ETH) signatures for SAFE redemption, redemption can be done trustlessly at any point in the lifetime of the network.
I need to reread mav’s airdrop idea to understand how the network tracks status of redemptions in that scenario.
4 Likes
but that is just a API to any BTC node running which can sum the balance on the burn address to make those visible.
Once validated then the network can manage a transfer or creation of coin relative to that. Obviously needs a watertight code doing that and likely then the coin would be created on a safecoin address in network and portioned out as BTC burn was evidenced… less obvious ETH as requirement atm is that MAID are Omni on conversion.
I can’t see that you’ve put a reason to that statement. What followed is valid for burn too “the network is able to verify BTC (or ETH) signatures for SAFE redemption”.
and the sum of burn could act as a snapshot too if ever there was a reboot… burn is just a rolling snapshot…
curl -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" -H "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded" -d "addr=1FoWyxwPXuj4C6abqwhjDWdz6D4PZgYRjA&addr=1KYiKJEfdJtap9QX2v9BXJMpz2SfU4pgZw" "https://api.omniwallet.org/v2/address/addr/"
from https://api.omniexplorer.info/
Let’s not jump to conclusions… devs might have better insight than us jumping to conclusions and forcing paths without considering all options.
Edit: Also, I wonder hosting the BTC blockchain on the SAFE network, would be a fun way to stick two finger up at the past…
1 Like
In your opinion, is a snapshot the only secure option?
Depends entirely on how the burn process works… it could be some add on to network function that compare multiple sources of known BTC APIs… or indeed Maidsafe could run their own BTC node… Bitcoin is not rocket science, it’s just compressed text files … everything boils down to who you trust to action the change from MAID to safecoin. A burn process could be a managed process over a time or it could be automated, obviously Maidsafe as custodian is a simple consensus.
1 Like
I believe community members who are proposing ERC20 conversion DO have their heart in the right place. They are attempting to help a project that they care deeply about and know to be the answer to so many problems in the decentralized ecosystem yet keeps sinking further into obscurity. Without many other options to help, this is a more obvious lever they can reach for.
However, an ERC20 isn’t going to solve the visibility or low price problem or reputable exchange risk problems, which are collectively an issue of demand. If there was demand, the limited access to the token would actually have led to dramatic price increase. That isn’t the case. Increasing access/convenience factor would certainly help but only if there is demand. So the demand question should be resolved first. Demand may come from greater visibility. Price increase is one factor that can contribute to greater visibility (most people respond far more to that factor than to anything else). Utility is another one. Great engineering, though critical, is visible to a very small crowd. A working network MVP is a pre-requisite to the utility factor, which may then influence price, all contributing to greater visibility and thus to greater demand.
Therefore, focusing on completing the network should take priority. Still, I believe @maidsafe can do a better job communicating their tremendous progress (it should take no substantial additional effort, just a little more risk). From GitHub, I’d say they are really tantalizing close to an MVP release, but you don’t get that sense from the website or from the forum because most people don’t know or believe it. All of the items on the roadmap are now essentially complete (someone should update that @frabrunelle? a community member?). You might be thinking that you’d surprise the community with a great release out of nowhere. But it’s such a small crowd now, the better approach may be to tell everyone point blank what is coming and when you think it’s coming. @dirvine shared the what recently on the forum anyway (a dedicated post for that message would help for visibility). As to the when, it is the risky part, and I know there are past reasons why you shy from that, but the times are different.
With the release of a working MVP so close and considering the many other projects taking people’s mindshare, you should consider it to shore up excitement in a community that has been tremendously resilient and supportive but might need a pick-me-up so they don’t give up on the threshold of victory. In any event, an estimate of when (that has huge caveats that it can be delayed) would be far better than “soon”, “around the corner”, or “home straightaway”. **Note that I personally don’t care about this when, but suggesting a potential solution to the visibility issue. Another alternative to the when that could also achieve the same end goal may be to modify the dev update’s format slightly (or do a special post) and start with the what followed by the pieces left to complete it (again, this is mostly on GitHub, but if you want to maintain the community’s excitement, somebody needs to translate; and this can be done in just one special post that the community can then spread far and wide).
@maidsafe, you guys are working extremely hard. Some of you are burning the midnight oil consistently (e.g., @bochaco, @oetyng) @dirvine seemingly never sleeps. It is amazing the progress you’ve made with so little resource. Don’t be so quiet about it. There needs to be a lead time to when you reveal your creation to the world. They, we need to know it’s coming.
This may be a useful solution to the problem that the ERC20 proposal aim to solve but I don’t think can. The ultimate solution being release of the working network.
23 Likes
Agreed. For better or worse, life requires a bit of theater. We’ve lost a lot of active participants on the forum, and we’re also losing followers on Twitter. I think we need to start speaking more broadly about an imminent release.
Also have to agree with this too. I know the team is thin, but there are a number of us in the community who are more than happy to stand in as marketers for the project. We just need to know the talking points (e.g.) parameters on what we can/can’t say. We—the community—can take care of the rest (placement, positioning, etc.).
Exactly. People haven’t turned their backs on Ethereum, for example, even though there have been more than a few missed dates. People want to know that there’s a clear plan, so that when there’s a deviation from that plan it can be explained.
Also, agreed. I think anyone who is still hanging around has learnt to live without timelines, but we need to reach a much broader audience now.
This is also a great idea.
Yes! We need time to build the enthusiasm.
15 Likes
Well now you’ve got me all excited.
I had to look back on the road map Safe Network
I remember when we only had a couple of green ticks.
I think the next release, which is only 2 ticks away, may change minds on ERC20 - we may not need it, demand may suddenly appear for the omni token…
I’ve asked my recent newbies to put in as much cash as possible (if they want to invest more) sooner than later, i’m not sure we will be below 0.00001 BTC for much longer.
If Fleming doesn’t spike the price, then a community effort (or even just the talk of) sorting out ERC20 may move the price up.
9 Likes
2 Likes
Why would it stop any real progress for safecoin?
You just give a time limit for how long the proxy token holders have to swap for safecoin. After that date they have missed their chance, making the proxy token void.
again that word “just”…
Deadlines create volatility… markets if they have any sense, do not like uncertainty; and where there is opportunity to provide stability and choice for those holding coin, that had to be preferred.
There has to be a deadline at some point. You can’t have a never ending timeline for the token swap. Yes, make the time generous, and shout about it as much as possible to make everyone aware of what is going to happen.
The only way it could have no timeline is if there was a way to automate it.
Yes, there’s no reason not to draw a line at some point but no rush for bouncing the majority into a panic either.
The point perhaps is where the market for Omni.MAID stalls… and perhaps then a snapshot for the dregs that remain, which could be an automated, sign a proof of ownership of the private key to the address, actions one time transfer of safecoin.