There are a lot of ideas on this forum when it comes to Alt-coins, PUT Balance, divisible Safecoins (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) so it’s time to add another one . The idea I propose is quite in line with other ideas about coins/alts/balance etc.
What is TransferValue?
TransferValue is an idea for a protocol on SAFE inspired by blockchain protocols like: Omni Layer and Counterparty. It allows for the creation, transfer and ownership of value on the SAFE Network. This value could be anything from altcoins, vote coins, likes, loyalty credits to vault_rank, PUT Balance and more. With this idea there’s no need for so called “frozen” or “locked” coin where 1 coin is stored in a piece of structured data (SD). TransferValue is more about a value stored in SD and is controlled by certain managers (could be client_managers for example).
How does it work?
Every user on the network is able to create a value/coin. There is a little cost involved to prevent abuse. Let’s say the cost for creation of a coin is 10X the price of a piece of SD. So here we go:
Alice wants to create 10 million “Alice coins” on the SAFE Network to be used on her “Alice App”. She goes to the “TransferValue App” and gives her coin a name (Alice coin) and number (10 million). She also set the coin to “locked” so no new coin can ever be created. This is what the “TransferValue App” does:
It takes the tagtype (let’s say it’s 44575) and identifier (the name “Alice coin”) to decide which group of data_managers to connect to based on the hash. So based on the hash of the name “Alice coin” a certain group becomes responsible. This group get’s a request from Alice her close nodes with the request to create a new coin for tagtype 47587. If this name isn’t in use yet on this protocol, the group will ask for the payment in PUTs. Alice will make this payment.
The group will create a TransferValue-wallet for Alice and fills it with the requested 10 million coin. These coins are just a “balance” controlled by the datamanagers and owned by Alice.
Bob would like to get 0.001 “Alice coin” so he creates a TransferValue-wallet with his datamanagers. This wallet is owned by Bob and controlled by his datamanagers. Alice makes the 0.001 payment and this transaction goes to her datamanagers_group responsible for her wallet. This group contacts Bob’s datamanagers to see if there’s a wallet on the 44575 protocol and if this is returned true Alice her group will group_sign a message to Bob’s group to increase his value “Alice coin” with 0.001. Alice her balance will be group_signed to decrease with 0.001 “Alice coin”.
These types of transactions could be done over and over again all over the network.
Pros
Easy to create altcoins, values, etc. No need to lock coins with their own piece of SD. It’s “just value”.
Coins are divisible to the max, denomination depends on the number of bits used.
A coin with a certain name can only be created with 1 certain group. Picking the name “Alice coin” will always point to the datamanagers responsible for the hash-address of this name. So after Alice created the coin, no one else can create it again.
Wallets are spread over different groups. This allows for fast transactions.
Cons:
Only 1 group responsible when a coin/value is created. Might want to add more close groups for more security.
When Alice creates the 10 million Alice coins how much would she have to pay to create that amount? I guess the appropriate question is how much would one structured or mutable data cost? As you say the cost of a coin would be 10x that cost. Also I think this will be a reality soon @anon40790172 thanks to the upcoming Mutable Data!!
Yeah, that’s the question. There are over 63000 assets on Counterparty. Maybe we want to be a bit curious by making things to cheap? Once created it needs to be held in wallets.
I hope so, but I don’t think that this can be done without adding features to certain data_managers. The manager_groups need to transfer the value without change of ownership of addresses. That’s the big difference with other solutions where a coin is an address and can be exchanged.
I think that Mutable Data will have the ability to change ownership, so as far as creating an alt coin with MD you can send it via data managers just like you would with a safecoin. (I think I have that right) I’ll have to find the twitter post but in it, it said that MD will be able to transfer ownership, create alt coins, be used for e-voting, and allow for forum applications. And since Structured Data as well as pub/priv Appendable Data have all coalesced into Mutable Data I’m assuming Safecoin will be a Mutable Data type rather than the original plan of Structured Data type.
I would like to see crowdfunding and ICO’s (initial coin offering) on the Safe Network in the near future. Free idea somebody!! Made transparent and secured by Data Chains. I like how you’re really digging in and contemplating features @anon40790172. This and all your effort in the community testnets are really appreciated!
I wonder if it’s actually a good idea not to lock an amount (certain price) of maid to create other assets. I see this as the only opportunity to keep the value of safecoin itself.
If the price is low then you get situations like bitshares , Omni,…
10 million SD x 4 copies. 40 million SD. Yikes. Great idea, but cost greatly. Not only that, the decimals are still not solved, even though there are multiple threads about it.
Think assets as “company shares.” That is really the essence of the whole system. But yes, the liquidity will be terrible; hard to move around since nobody wants it, and they all have one. The key here is making asset into a useful commodity that is highly tradable, like safecoin, or bitcoin.
It’s more like: 1 piece of mutable data for Alice her wallet and a group of datamanagers holding account of her balance. So it could be 10 million coins, 1 trillion coins, still just one piece of SD needed . That’s the idea, the transfer of value without creating a SD piece for each coin.
I thought @anon81773980 ment me with the greatly cost involved using colored coins … This makes sense and is absurd todo… I forgot about the 1sd=1safecoin principle…
You are using bookkeeping nodes in your proposal then. Looks cool
What is your idea on keeping value of safecoin @anon40790172
Ah okay. That does make sense now. It is a pure integer number, with one basic functionality that increment or decrement a value, using json or toml format. De/serialize it every time it is called to the data manager.
Hmm actually, this might be a much better idea than other proposals. It removes the complexity, and heavy resources.
That’s the right word for it! You should trademark that term .
I don’t know, this is apart from Safecoin. On systems like Omni and Counterparty they just use the blockchain tech to release their own coins. This is quite the same but without a blockchain.
Yes, the (client) managers already hold information on nodes about number of PUTs done etc. This is indeed just another value but with the option to move it from 1 person’s wallet to the other. Although, that’s the idea.
Yes, so far that is correct. I have a proposal (and coded it but since removed fro now) to allow a ledger bit to be set in data chains. So this means do not delete the older MD but keep it and create a new version. This would cost a tiny amount but as the network would keep an extra copy (i.e. the older version) then it would cost.
The idea for a ledger bit is for 2 things:
Ledger data (so blockchain type capability if required) i.e. a data type that every update is recorded
Individual ledger items, so even safecoin you could record and keep a transaction on the network. so for large payments, like buy a house or car then you can keep a receipt of payment and the network would always make this available.
Sounds great! And just so I understand, that ledger / receipt system would be optional, and by default SafeCoin is still free to send (receipt-less)? Thanks!
I can see lots of use cases for both public and private ledgers of this kind. Private ones would basically be ledgers that you could share to someone else and they could be certain that you hadn’t manipulated it, but you wouldn’t need to share it to the public. This would be necessary for many kinds of business transactions for example.
This is a Metaquestion that could do with a blog post from @dirvine as it may well be a thing before some of the other futuristic use cases. It plays into the questions of what is possible in a SAFEeconomy.
What would seem to be the obvious answer though is that it will have basically the same permission as the MD has.
That would at least bring up many new interesting applications. You could set a ledger to either completely public, like Bitcoin, or to be readable only by a certain group of people, a company etc.
The ledger type can relate to Private or Public data. So a full public ledger and public transactions, or private ledgers and private transactions. So just like the data types we have, the ledger can apply to any and give people the ability for public and private ledgers.
Hope that helps.
[edit, you can also use the ledger flag on a data type for a single transaction, so for instance to keep a “receipt” of a safecoin payment etc. ]
. The idea I propose is quite in line with other ideas about coins/alts/balance etc.
.
. That’s the idea, the transfer of value without creating a SD piece for each coin.
.