RFC 57: Safecoin Revised

[neo]

@JoeSmithJr

Not as much as denying it as a possibility, what would the point be? Suddenly, there would be a need to store a bitmap for no other reasons than something that could be done much easier in another way, just as you described later on. Coins as network objects was a great idea, I love it, but there’s no point to retrofit its remnants into a fundamentally different concept.

Which is why I moved onto the progression of the idea and removed the need for a bitmap

EDIT: and I agree there is no need for the notion of the previous implementation. Maybe we could go to the max of u64 and have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 nanos == just over 18,446,744,073 coins and then issue 4,294,967,296 nanos (approx 4.3 coins) per MAID. No inflation and no loss for anyone. But increases total supply for the future and allows @anon86652309 to realise full use of all bits. Only downside is people’s perception of imaginary inflation.

@JoeSmithJr

If we had nanos, there may be no need for probabilistic rewards even. They would be a useful fallback for when safecoins are expensive though.

The idea though was to account for coin scarcity in the section to be used for payment. So as more is issued the %age of the amount determined paid is slashed by that %age.

So if the reward payment is determined to be 22 milli safecoin then

• 10% issued already then payment is 19800 micro safecoin
• 50% issued already then payment is 11 milli safecoin
• 90% issued already then payment is 2 milli safecoin
• 99% already issued then payment is 220 micro safecoin

So as the issued coin approaches the 2^32 safecoin then actual payment is reduced more and more from the calculated reward amount. In the end almost impossible to ever issue all coins.