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
At least CryptoKitties seems to be a success. It will also be available in China, although it is now the year of the Dog.
I hope it will be something like this (but then mainly for MaidSafeCoin): Bitcoin Doesn't Give a Fuck - Embed
Feels pretty healthy, I thought we had the dead cat already and now we’re just seeing some steady gradual recovery.
I dunno. Everything is so dependant on Bitcoin and turnover is nothing flash
Foe crypto in general it is rarely “different this time”, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see new lows and a prolonged flat line for a couple of years.
However, Maidsafecoin has been walking to a different beat since the crowd sale. Looking at Maidsafecoin charts looks like we are due a bounce, especially relative to Bitcoin.
Who knows though? The current Bitcoin price is still way more than I expected this bubble to spike at, never mind form a floor.
True, but this time it actually is a bit different given we haven’t seen the full impact of institutions getting involved yet
Is there much evidence of institutional money actually coming in? I heard a lot of people hyping that idea, but suspect the derivatives/futures markets would be more appealing to institutions, which don’t actually buy/sell any actual Bitcoin’s (it is just a tracket index).
1 Like
All the hype said that futures heralded the massive entrance of institutional investors, but, so far, that just isn’t the case.
“…the much-anticipated Bitcoin futures contracts are also being dominated by individual investors.”
3 Likes
In Davos, the credit card companies seemed to have gotten together to collectively interfere with Crypto. I don’t know that to be true, but right after Davos, two major CC companies announced they would be forcing any transaction to a known crypto exchange to be treated as a cash advance rather than a normal transaction.
For myself, right about that same time, Coinbase is no longer able to charge to a (completely paid off and often used) card that has been on file with them for years, claiming the transaction is rejected by the cc issuer. (citibank visa) This is a card I used monthly for crypto purchases for years, as it was my main payment method in my coinbase account.
I don’t know how much effect this new escalation by the credit card companies will have, but I bet we notice it.
3 Likes
Well, if it goes all the way and the gates between the IMS and newer systems is sealed off, it has big ramifications for the inherent ‘value’ of Safecoin.
If you cant purchase Safecoin for fiat and you cant cash out, the only practical way to ownership is Farming, Development, Core Dev or ‘Pay the producer’ (which puts that scheme in a different light for the naysayers)
The Safenetwork would have been perfect (no omni scammers) if there was no ICO (wealthy benefactors instead) and everything would be ground zero. Instead we have a big chunk of coins already in existence…and those coins (given network success) become immensely valuable within the Safenetwork economy if the IMS gates are shut.
1 Like
after 4 years ICO, safecoin is nowhere~，what is a joke!
1 Like