So this is BTC:
And SafeCoin is instant, free, infinitely scalable, and limitless 
5 Likes
Keep in mind though that the more people that obtain and become familiar with Bitcoin, the easier it will be to convince them and instruct them on how to convert to Safecoin.
Blockchains are a very useful piece of technology, and it benefits us all when problems which are inherant to that particular system are brought to the surface - regardless of the context.
I for one am excited to see how Vitalik Buterinâs Blockchain Scalability Protocols flesh out. (Whitepaper PDF)
1 Like
The reason why I switch from blockchain to safe is because I dislike the idea that everybody must store same chuck of data, and get nothing in return except for miners. It then leads to centralization mining, and centralization blockchain that is controlled by miners.
I begun to understand why bitcoin skeptics are not particular happy with the idea. It is still innovating technology but it has itâs flaws. Everything has itâs flaws so thereâs that.
4 Likes
safecoin is not free. if it is please send me 10 million.
1 Like
Lolol plz tell me you understand the sentence
(tx fees vs BTC, as in âfree to useâ)
Grizmoblust what you get by downloading the blockchain is additional security, i.e. direct access to the latest condition upon which all agree. You could probably take it easier on BTC if you donât quite understand these subtleties (which is fine).
Full nodes donât necessarily mine and the need to download the blockchain (and not prune it) isnât related to whether one wants to mine or not. Most full nodes that do not mine also have a copy of the blockchain.
IPFS should fix the blockchain problem, more or less.
SAFE could too.
In short if you name your files according to their content, there is not a big reason to need millions of copies of them. The client can just store the hashes and access them at will on demand.
1 Like
What âblockchain problemâ are you talking about?
Wallets like Multibit do not require a copy of the blockchain.
Just brainstorming a bit. Deduplication â Having common files available to anyone on demand is a technology in IPFS and eventually SAFE. So you donât nessarily need to store the blockchain locally to use itâŚ
Yes, I know a lot of clients donât need the full blockchain.
I said âa copyâ (full copy).
Multibit is SPV client, it runs safely without any blockchain data (it obtains all info from API servers).
With SPV wallets and Web wallets at home, one doesnât need to deal with the blockchain at all.
My point is that IPFS could mount the blockchain as a file on your drive, yet all the data could be stored in the âcloudâ and you would only need the hashes stored locally, while retraining full access to the data on demand.
Pretty cool stuff. SAFE will do that -but IPFS has it already. (Although I am not sure about the blockchain specifically)
But then I have to:
- Run IPFS
- Trust the anonymous person(s) who saved those blocks that theyâre not the NSA or some East European hackers
There is no problem that needs to be solved, thatâs my point here.
1 Like
Well that means you have to trust the miners for holding the full blockchain.
Well, with the nature of the state, they could enforce the miners to comply with the state. Or have a statist who loves cryptos but want to comply with the state. aka Crypto-Statist. Like for an example, Bitcoin Alliance. Haha, yup, that just happened.
We have 3 miners with: 20%, 18%, 15% (BitFury). BitFury is about to invest $100 million USD into a new mining farm. RIP mining decentralization?
For context, BW recently made their 14nm miners available to the public, at the rate of $77,000 for 1 PH. $100 million divided by $77,000 for 1 PH, as a very back of the envelope calculation, gives ~1,300 PH. The current Bitcoin hashrate is 450 PH. BitFury currently has about 70 PH. Including the 1,300 PH, BitFury would then control ~78% of hashrate. Even if, for whatever reason, we cut the estimate in half, that would still mean BitFury controls ~40% of Bitcoin hashrate.
Bitfury support the Bitcoin Alliance. Think about that for a second.
Even if they supply the security, you still have to comply.
For the 2nd time, no, do you not.
You trust the miners for validating the transactions.
A full or pruned copy of the blockchain (i.e. running a full node) serves to tell you the state of concensus.
I donât give a shit about Bitcoin Alliance. I can run my full node on Tor and use tumblers to operate without any interference from the state.
Letâs see if theyâre willing to lose their source of income and take a 50% hit (if not more) on all the money invested in their mining equipment and/or have their customers move to another PoW coin.
I do not have to comply with anything.
Right⌠But you have to understand that in near future, there will be a 250+gb blockchain bloat? Only miners will be operate full blockchain. Pruning is bad, and incentive censorship.
1 Like
If they increase it and if the maximum block size increases several times, not just once or twice.
Then the number of full nodes will drop.
Would would pruning be bad? The number of full nodes is not really important and the same goes for pruning (whether non-miners prune or not their nodes. At any given time you can get access to any blocks you donât have from nodes you connect to. Bitcoin can function just fine with 10% of the current full node count. The main purpose of full nodes is to give you the state of consensus and secondly, access to blocks. Thatâs why pruning is not harmful.
As I see it, the main problems with Bitcoin are related to the blockchain. It is too large. Weâre barely at 7 tx/sec and the blockchain is already over a gig. There are not that many users of bitcoin. The reasons bitcoin has not seen wide adoption despite its promise are: because it not scalable yet, I do not think it ever will be, and it does nothing replace the current system. Bitcoin seems to me to be a limited hangout, designed to keep you waiting and waiting. Like Christians youâre forced to wait for your savior to come, to reach scalability, to have enough users and venders. Maidsafe gets around this. The more the network grows the better it gets. Stroke of genius using/incentivizing use of existing computing power to fuel it. Thatâs one thing that really hamstrings bitcoin, mining requires power the average joe just canât compete with. The free space you need to earn safecoin is already on your phone or laptop.
All major religions are Ponziâs in that respect. You always pay now and supposedly cash out later. No one has lived to tell.
I hate to repeat this (for the third time this week!) but it seems posters simply prefer to ignore the news so here we go again: Lighting Network is in testing now and there will be other implementations of sidechains in 2016.
1 Like
Interesting solution. The âsoft-forkâ stuck out at me, especially in light of recent troubles with the block size increase fork.
Still, even if scalability does turn out to be solved by the lightning network, I didnât see that it would address some of bitcoins other flaws. Bitcoin is not âprivateâ like MaidSafe is. It is by necessity open, public. The inspiration for things like âdarkcoinâ was this very flaw/design feature. Iâm a fan of bitcoin, but I think that it was cryptocoin 1.0. Building on a flawed forerunner instead of rewriting it better (like Maidsafe) from scratch leads to problems down the line eventually. Look at us now with current internet infrastructure!
Itâs not ideal (Liquid), but itâs okay for small payments like coffee and whatnot. The risk is currently pooled (among exchanges that participate in the network), so itâs what the name says - a (pegged) side chain that maps to the main blockchain 1:1. If the thing falls apart and youâre using it for trivial shit, you may lose a trivial amount of money. And transactions take several seconds.
Privacy is constantly being enhanced. Currently there is a range of modifications that need to be done for Bitcoin Core on Tor, but theyâll happen in 2016.
1 Like