RFC 57: Safecoin Revised

[Mendrit]

That is was IOTA had to deal with.

IOTA = MIOTA x 10(6)

So at current price one IOTA is way bellow one satoshi.

IOTA is not divisible and current max supply is 2 779 530 283 000 000 IOTA.

So nanoSafeCoin would have 2 000x bigger max supply.

[neo]

@Mendrit

So nanoSafeCoin would have 2 000x bigger max supply.

Yep, if you wanted to sell safecoin on an exchange then at this time you would need to be dealing in milli safecoin at a minimum

At a few hundred dollars per coin then you might be able to use micro safecoin and at a few thousand dollars per coin you could be in 10s to 100s of nano at a minimum depending on the exchange.

Obviously not the exchanges that have a minimum trade value of 0.001 btc for any trade since at this time is around 30 safecoin (MAID actually) minimum for a trade order.

[Mendrit]

And to compare with Nano (currency) one NANO is one raw x10(30) and Max. supply is 133 248 290 NANO.

All kind of units are possible and have own issue if price spike to 10x or 100x…

I found KIN market with units on exchange smaller than one satoshi and if Bitcoin price will go up like 10 times, there will be more coins bellow 1 satoshi.

[neo]

I think its a good idea to remain with safecoin and nano-safecoin rather than try and call safecoin a billionth of that

[riddim]

It’s easier to talk about nano, micro, milli, safecoin, thousand, million, billion than […] Trillion, quadrillion, quintillion… (at least for me)

[draw]

I think there will be a certain impact if you ‘say’ (via the api or another way) to the end user: call 10-9 safecoin for example 1 billionth of a coin instead of 1 nano safecoin. But if people want to call it something else, certainly if the name isn’t chosen well, they will.
About the maximum given precision: for me it is similar as the binary/decimal issue. More human behavior related. That is in some ways more difficult to predict. Decimal is ‘only’ used because humans have ten fingers. In some ways the time measurement with 60 seconds in a minute makes more sense: divisible by 2, 5, but also 3. And why is the USA still not using the metric system as official units? The reason is human tendency to habit/tradition I guess.

[Traktion]

@neo

I’d be possible but setting the lowest division now makes sense since it determines the data structures used and to get lower means expanding the structures and that requires upgrading every coin balance existing in the network by some method. But they are encrypted so this process has to be done as the coin balance is used

This is also key for farming rewards. The smaller the reward, the less effort is needed to be eligible for it. If we want lots of small devices contributing to the network, we need small rewards.

[zeroflaw]

This is all just random thoughts.

Do we also need to consider the algorithm that will be ‘generating’ Safecoin in the design on Safecoin itself? I know that will be done by farming but the will the total available supply ‘available/generated’ take into consideration GETs/PUTs, transactions & (unique users) ? as a way to keep the Safecoin supply healthy/priced reasonably.

The safe network will have no way of tracking the “FIAT” value of a PUT, and I’m not saying it needs to, its obvious to me it doesn’t. I still think monetary policy is important. For example:

• If Safecoin becomes too expensive can we assume the transaction rate of the safe network will decrease?
• If Safecoin becomes too cheap, farmers might leave the network, should the network stop generating as many Safecoin?

No matter what questions you ask, the network will need a goal to be able to balance the supply of Safecoin in relation to some metrics GETs/PUTs/(Safecoin distribution?) etc. and how much Safecoin buys 1MB of space.

Will our goal be 1MB = 1 nano Safecoin? if so would Safecoin not need to be robust enough to survive peaks and troughs in the market. Therefore if 1MB = 1 nano, will Safecoin need to support a pico incase of all safecoin exist and the demand is still high and 1 pico = 1MB?

Or will the safe network version of a “bitcoin halving” be the goal of 1MB changes e.g

• 1 Safecoin = 1MB (first 12 months)
• 1 deci Safecoin = 1MB (next 2 years)
• 1 centi Safecoin = 1MB (next 5 years)
• 1 milli Safecoin = 1MB (next 10 years)
• 1 micro Safecoin = 1MB (next 25 years)
• 1 nano Safecoin = 1MB (next 50 years)
• 1 pico Safecoin = 1MB (next 100 years)
• 1 femto Safecoin = 1MB (next 250 years)
• 1 atto Safecoin = 1MB (next 1000 years)
• 1 zepto Safecoin = 1MB (next 5000 years)
• 1 yocto Safecoin = 1MB (next 25000 years)

The Safecoin halving won’t happen based on a preset time but from calculations on the metrics and health of the safe network. This means APIs will provide the “scale” to the GUI therefore displaying less decimal places (before they become unmanageable) and notify all users of the “halving”.

The safe network should become the cockroach of the universe, and we should consider the idea that in 25000 years there could be 7 quadrillion humans using the network. How will the supply of Safecoin work then, and should Safecoin be designed to work in that timeframe now, or be versioned? I don’t like the idea of the Safecoin data type changing via versions.

---

More detail:

So in the first 12 months the goal will be 1MB = 1 Safecoin.
Max 1 Safecoin value = 1GB
Min 1 Safecoin value = 1MB (the aim of the network)

The network will adjust the PUT value between 1GB and 1MB for a Safecoin to maintain the health of the network. It will do this by controlling the farm rate / max supply.

2^6 = 64 (levels of halving)
2^10 = 1024 (max peices)

---

16 bit

(6bit) level = 0
(10bit) amount = 1

= 0.001 safecoin
safecoin 0.001 = 1MB

(6bit) level = 0
(10bit) amount = 10
= 0.01 safecoin
safecoin 0.01 = 10MB

(6bit) level = 0
(10bit) amount = 100
= 0.1 safecoin
safecoin 0.1 = 100MB

(6bit) level = 0
(10bit) amount = 1000
= 1 safecoin
safecoin 1 = 1GB

struct {
u16 safecoin
first 6 bits = level
final 10 bits = amount
}

network accepts different levels as “halving” occurs.
this stops people spamming worthless amounts of Safecoin.

---

The total space Safecoin will be able to use on the network before a “halving” should be around 9GB
on the next “halving” 18GB
all the way to a maximum of 576GB

---

This keeps Safecoin inline with the idea that “hard space” will always become cheaper and more abundant in the universe as time progresses.

[drehb]

@riddim

It’s easier to talk about nano, micro, milli

@draw

why is the USA still not using the metric system

That’s what I was thinking too…these prefixes are very familiar to people who use the metric system, but I’m not sure if Americans grasp them as intuitively given that they probably don’t interact with them on a daily basis.
“Can’t the world just agree on one system of measurements!?” - an exasperated American

[19eddyjohn75]

@drehb

Can’t the world just agree on one system of measurements

Why the World's Measuring Systems Just Changed—and What It Means

[wydileie]

@Antifragile

Once again, forget this idea. Do not even think about creating this hell. If you create 1 coin equal to 1 nanocoin, than you will kill trading this coin on all the markets imediatelly. All exchanges have minimal value of 1 satoshi. If you create a coin, which has value less than 1 satoshi it will be dead end. This proposal will create a coin with price much much lower than 1 satoshi. All exchanges will delist safecoin and it will be game over. Your best hope would be to ask exchanges to trade it in groups like 1 billion. Exchanges would have to change their GUI, and lot of code to be able to support this. Just forget it. There are more behavioral reasons to avoid this but just this simple fact should be enough to stop it.

Two thoughts here. You are correct, that is a valid reason. However, I have two counters to it.

1. This is already being done, as mentioned, with IOTA.
2. This forever ties every crypto currency to Bitcoin in the way they plan for their infrastructure. I’m not so sure that is something that should be aimed for simply to make trading easier.

Again, look at the psychological perspective of the current structure. Many of us on this board have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and a few, even millions of (future) Safecoins. Yet, half the world could never even hope to get 1 full Safecoin once it proliferates, and that’s probably a lot closer to 95% of the world based on likely distribution. It is a known fact that people really stop grasping the sheer magnitude of numbers after a certain point. So, someone having 1T Safecoin while they have 500,000 is not a huge deal. However, someone having 1M Safecoin while they only have .5 is quite obvious to the user the sheer hopelessness of their situation.

I, personally, do not care. I am used to trading in small units, and deal with maths in my day to day life. But again, this is for the people, this isn’t for us.

[wydileie]

@Antifragile

I think exactly opposite. People are getting used to millis, micros and expensive single coins thank to BTC and other alts. So they teach them terminology and make it easier for us this way. Never ever try to fight again humans natural behavior patterns if it is not absolutely necessary.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. People trading in crypto right now are not your run of the mill every man. A huge majority are financial players, or heavy maths players (specifically computer science minds). What % of the population of the world do you think owns any cryptocurrency that they personally went out and bought, not from some portfolio manager that just threw a few coins in because their customers were curious? Just throwing out a guess, here, but I’d say it is likely in the neighborhood of 0.001-0.01% of the world population.

Yes, what we have now works for those interested, because it is mostly just a money game right now that everyone is playing. Very little real world use for the every day crypto trader has manifested from any of these projects. Most of the players are intelligent, highly technical people. That is not the reality of the world.

@Antifragile

People have no problem with BTC, where it is much worse than you describe. But using your terminology, right now If I want to buy a bread I will have to pay like 5 MAID, but in your terminology it would be 5000000000 = 5 billion MAID. What is more user friendly? You are trying to solve some hypothetical future problem with some argument and this argument is heavily against you now, and probably will be for few decades.

This is a valid point, but I think it makes more sense to have early adopters who understand the technology involved and can deal with it in whatever way makes the most sense, then to have the every man wrap their head around this when this proliferates.

Familiarity with the metric system or not, most people do not deal with 10 decimal place numbers in their lives. You are also thinking of the Western world, and the developed Eastern world where education is good. What about many of those across the world who only have the most basic of education?

I am fully aware my idea is not going to win out in the long run. I don’t expect this to happen. I just want to make sure people are at least thinking about the wider world outside our little bubble here and how this affects everyone, not just us.

[wydileie]

It doesn’t have to be no decimals, per se, but I think limiting them is in the best interest in a way that makes sense. I don’t think having 10+ decimals is the optimum answer, that’s really my point.

The current world GDP is in the neighborhood of $80T USD. With two decimal places, we would get 40T coins, which gets us a lot closer to the matching real world dollar values right now, as we understand them, if and when it proliferates worldwide like we all hope it will. We could leave future decimals unused, to be consumed if necessary in the future, to allow for growth within the deflationary nature of the currency.

[wydileie]

I don’t want to take over this thread with conversation. My last point will be, at 40T coins, that would equate to 5000 coins per person at equal distribution. That seems like a reasonable sum. Much more reasonable than 0.5 coins. The amount of printed money really means nothing because fiat currency is ethereal, anyway. It is all digits in a database somewhere.

If Safecoin became a primary source for daily transactions in the same vein as Visa, or Mastercard, than 40T coins holding any amount of significant value is not out of the realm of possibility. I’m planning for the future rather than the right now.

[bridge]

The safecoin can divide much down the decimal point.

Is there any reason why the total number should increase?

[andyypants]

@Antifragile

DOGE

Jackson Palmer sure got lucky with his basically random guess how many DOGE to create. one more factor of 10 and like you say it would be messed up with like 33% minimal spreads on the market.

I would say start with larger units and as we come to need the smaller units then put out forks. If we get trigger happy and make it too small right off the bat there are going to be problems getting it to take off on the markets. If we approach from the other direction it’s much safer.

[wydileie]

@bridge

The safecoin can divide much down the decimal point.

Is there any reason why the total number should increase?

I realize that decimal reductions of safecoin, such that we have a microSafe or nanoSafe can be done, as is discussed throughout this thread. I’m not arguing that, and fully understand that.

My hangup comes from the psychological side and how the every day person will come into the network. Let’s speak about a non-technical person for a moment. I don’t know anything about you so these are just generalized statements. Let’s say your mother is an aging 65 year old, and not really tech savvy. She emails and Facebooks, but digital currency is wholly outside of her experience and understanding. She is recruited by you to open a Safe account as you extol its virtues. At the time, Safe is $100 a coin, but is still in its infancy in worldwide adoption. You give her 0.5 Safecoins to get started so she can upload some pictures and email you.

She sees she now has 0.5 Safecoins and is discouraged because that seems so low as there is 2B in circulation at that time. The disparity is so clear, and she loses interest in wanting to invest money in only a piece of a coin to continue her account usage because she can’t afford even a whole coin. Every single picture she uploads just ticks away at that 0.5 coins, grinding on her.

Alternatively, you could give her 500,000,000 if we go with ~4.3 Quintilian mentioned by Fraser, to completely eliminate all decimals, 5,000,000 coins if we go with ~43 Quadrillion to give us our standard 2 decimal monetary system we have now, or 500 if we went with ~4.3T, etc. Sure the fiat amount is the same, but people FEEL much better knowing they have more of something, even if the relative value to the total is the same. People don’t understand numbers like Quintilian, or Quadrillion. While we know what those numbers are, no one can put it into a tangible thought. So, while people may know there are ~4.3 Quintilian coins out there, they don’t really care, all they know is they have 500,000,000 which makes them feel like they have a lot.

People should not so easily dismiss psychology in the development of their applications. The fundamental understanding of human behavior can be a huge predictor in the success or failure of a product. How a person perceives their overall value (or wealth if you will) is an important part of success in maintaining a network centered around such a coin. If people feel like they have more, than that positive momentum can carry them forward to proselytize and further the aim of the network.

I understand the arguments against this around trading. I’m not trying to suggest we have 4.3 Quintilian, or any specific number. All I am saying is that I think 4.3B is too low from a psychological perspective. When you are starting off guaranteeing that 50% of the world can never have a full Safecoin, and likely that number is closer to 95-99% based on likely distribution, you seem to have already took a big hit.

One can argue, well we can just say we gave them 500,000 microSafe, or 500,000,000 nanoSafe instead of 0.5 Safe. Sure, but why? Again, these aren’t people dealing with a lot of decimal places daily. I’m quite confident most people could write out 1B Safe is 1,000,000,000 Safe. How many could write out 1 nanoSafe is 0.000000001 Safe?

[Toivo]

@neo

I’d be possible but setting the lowest division now makes sense since it determines the data structures used and to get lower means expanding the structures and that requires upgrading every coin balance existing in the network by some method. But they are encrypted so this process has to be done as the coin balance is used

Ok, thanks for explaining. I have no true objections to any design as I don’t have true understanding.

I’m more interested from a theoretical point of view: Can we in practice do without any magic numbers, or does there have to be some? And if so, is it because we have the “magic numbers” of 1 and 0, that underlies the whole thing? Or, could we have divisibility so that it can be potentially infinite. But this is bit off topic for the whole thread, that is already swollen, so no need to discuss it any further here.

[draw]

@wydileie

Sure the fiat amount is the same, but people FEEL much better knowing they have more of something, even if the relative value to the total is the same.

I remember a study from a year or so ago that cryptocurrencies with a high supply, like Ripple, were relative more popular because of what you’re describing.
But I’m not so sure that feeling will remain if you’re effectively going to use the coin to buy stuff. Think on some poor countries where you could need a wheelbarrow of money to buy a bread… That sounds like a very expensive bread to me.

[wydileie]

@lubinew

I have finally read this very interesting thread since the beginning till now.

First of all, big thanks to all the contributors in this long thread! Even though many of you have done more than a fair share of the community work, please let me give a special thanks to just one, @neo!

He really speaks very racially and he changed my mind in some areas by explaining and reasoning.

Anyway, what I am sure of since the beginning - we need more than micro-safecoin folks, 10^-6 it not enough! Of course, we can make it with micros through the test-safecoin phase, but you will need to implement a deeper level of granularity later anyway. Since implementing nano-safecoin right away is probably not much bigger effort to do, why delaying it? If I’m thinking about the future of IOT, I am getting thoughts maybe even 10^-9 will not be enough.

Also, sorry to be rude, but forgetting decimal points and going the IOTA (MIOTA) way just to pretend cents are fortune is pure garbage from my perspective.

No hard feelings. There is definitely a psychological component of it, and the problem is many rational thinkers clearly see there is no difference, but many people do not think rationally like that. So many technical people can be so very right from a technical perspective, but miss the mark when it comes to how that translates to the every day people. I’m just trying to raise a little awareness that people should be thinking beyond just the technical solution they prefer. I do not expect or intend to change the way this has been planned.

I do agree that nano should be implemented over micro to begin with, though. I think limiting granularity would be a big mistake.