If someone has to “vouch” for you to get new users to join the party, Safe Network is dead before it is alive.
2 Likes
hmhmmm - right - thats why googlemail died before it had a chance to really get the feet of the ground 
… that invitation-only thing was clearly a mistake 
2 Likes
Gmail’s beta started with invitation only, just like many projects in beta state (including this one to some degree) but I don’t think Google actually did. Correct me if I’m wrong. By the time SafeCoin arrives this project will be out of beta state.
1 Like
don’t know how long they did it - i just thought that this invite-thing made people want to be part of it and created some buzz around those early google accounts … anyway - attaching a certain value to an account doesn’t need to be a bad thing imo … and i just suggested the vouching-thing as an alternative to force everyone to get some coin through an exchange to be able to create an account …
Not good, though, to place unnecessary impediments in the way of mass adoption.
Agreed, it needs to be cheap and easy (click and go) for everyone
i just suggested another option for paying for the storage 
anyway - like my thought or not - your choice … i’m not the one to decide anyway 
…nobody ever suggested to place “unnecessary impediments” afaik…
Exactly. Any impediment placed is necessary to prevent spamming the network. Just because an impediment exists does not mean it’s unnecessary.
Yes, I think many of us are concerned about how the initial store of Safecoin will be distributed and how one pays for it. When you consider the possibility of Safecoin being priced on the open market at hundreds of dollars it brings up many issues. To me this seems to be of upmost importance to the overall prospect of Safe Network. Maybe when divisibility of Safecoin gets sorted out it will shed some light on possible solutions. The conundrum is that if Safe Network (and Safecoin) turns out to be immensely popular and the price of Safecoin soars, will the initial algorithm of how to provide Safecoins to new users still be valid and, if not, can a workable adjustment be made to the algorithm in a kind of dynamic way? Would be interested in hearing what David has to say.
2 Likes
Oh? I thought until final release it would only be TestSafeCoin.
I’m not talking about preventing one or a few users from spamming the network, there are other, more effective, ways of doing that. I’m talking about limiting the number of users by unnecessary requirements. If all, or most, new users might be good candidates to spam what you suggest might be useful but one shouldn’t cut off his nose to spite his face.
Excellent point. Most individuals will connect to SafeNetwork via their phones and farming by phones will be limited to times when they are charging. Someone should be able to farm enough coins overnight for simple puts the next day.
“4, When I first started with bitcoin, there were faucets where you could get 2 BTC for free:) Faucets for Safe coin can be created.”
Back then that only meant two pizzas 
“5, What prevents me to create a web page on safenetwork, where people can get like 0.001 SafeCoin for solving some tasks? There can be many ways how to giveaway some coins to friends. There can be official fund in early days where people can send donations and other people could claim their small piece of coin. Such official fund web can be as homepage in browser. The only problem is to prevent someone from claiming his coins with some automatic tool.”
I really hope something like this is planned. Again, appropriate implementation of divisibility is crucial.
If there is nothing gating new user creation than I can write a bot to create 1M new users per day to spam the system. Obviously 99.9999% of new users are fine. But I’m not. I’m a bad hombre, and I know how to script.
If I’m not mistaken, the bot problem has been addressed in other ways. Surely a different issue.
Well, look up if that’s true and get back to me. Since the network is distributed, which means different account creation attempts by my bot will be handled by different nodes scattered all over the world, I have no idea how it could have been addressed, other than by demanding safecoin, but I look forward to your reply.
Excuse me? Not attacking anyone, simply engaging in constructive discourse (see what I did there? ). Understand, we do get new users on this forum who are not as informed as you. I’m not speaking at you as much as following up on the points you make with, maybe, a different perspective.
You answered your own question. 
Nonsense. Don’t play games. You started this, so you go fetch the answer or admit that new account creation must use safecoin.
Never said it didn’t. Just trying to consider how the details of distributing SafeCoins for initial uploads would work, given the probability of increasing values of SafeCoin on the open market.
Dead cat bounce or healthy price recovery?
1 Like