Its true. Easy to do. I can make each of my 1000+++ vaults act like they are in a 3rd world environment.
You need to explain since you said “because each of the vault will help the other vault in their group once they reach max.”. I said they won’t and there is no reason why they have to.
And why should the technology fix it? Is it the job of a secure/private/anonymous network to fix the greater economic environment?
Its design will not affect it except to provide a digital currency that make payments easy.
Its not so much you are not understood, more the wondering why its the job of SAFE, a network that rewards in coins, to fix the woes of the human economy. We decide what value we exchange coins for, not the network. Its a human problem that we as humans need to fix if it needs fixing.
Its more a question of fixing the exchange system when we exchange coins for other currencies.
EDIT: your next posts. I repeat any external trading of SAFEcoin does not affect internal network. Only if people decide its not worth it. There have been plenty of threads already that include discussions on that, Do a thread search so we don’t fill up this one.
And the other one has little to do with SAFE even if your assumptions about SAFE working was correct.
I suggest you DETAIL out the process of what you are suggesting taking into account the SAFE workings to achieve each of those very high level thoughts. This way they won’t seem like political/philosophical sound bytes but rather thought out process that can be applied to technology.
I am sorry but I am unable to answer the writings of the last post since its more philosophy than anything that happens in SAFE. SAFE pays for resources/work done, it does not over pay prefer anyone over another apart from resources/work done, content given.
least plausible.
now that you’ve mentioned this, i want to revive an idea from long time ago - proof of unique human. what if when registering a new account (vault), the new user beside a safecoin is asked to engage in a conversation with a randomly chosen node which has a switch on (‘i’m online as a person’) in which the new user is asked by the other person some questions regarding a picture or whatever. if the test is passed, then the new user is registered. like the ants that guard the colony, and can switch places between them. for his trouble, the tester is rewarded something, or not.
also, what would you do with the coins, if you have limits on transactions? how would you manage thousands of vaults? you can’t just dump coins from one to another
Write a program to process them and transfer one at a time through an exchange. Thats an easy one.
That thread still exists, go back and revive it there, from memory there was not any suitable way to do it and keep SAFE SAFE. AND also it was very questionable if it is even desirable to do so since no free storage is given out
Really I have explained that limiting transactions is not practical and to achieve what you suggested before it would have to be a very small limit to technically achieve your previous goal.
And who decides the limit. YOU, or ME, or whoever. Who makes them the decider.
What about charities who run vaults. Are you going to limit how much they can receive and later hand out?
Or maybe a business, how much business they are allowed to do because of soe limit to achieve something else.
Or a medical centre that can no longer accept SAFEcoins for payment because of your arbitrary limit.
There are so many problems that would be caused by a limit that I would seem to be attacking to list them all.
you missed the whole point. i said it is better for safecoins to FUEL the system, and a currency or currencies are yet to come. it is stated in a post above. if safecoin is stable and less disruptable, it’s better.
also, it would be good to see the exchange house position when dealing with limited coins per transaction. this is also good for safecoin stability
Apparently you haven’t watched many documenturies, educational videos or much anime for that matter. A guitar lesson video wouldn’t need to be in their native tougue for example so long as it was properly subtitled but it would need sound to accurately convey notes and the video helps with fingering positioning. And there are many educational videos that just need to be subbed in order to convey the proper information. If I can watch a talk by a russian or icelandic speaker on EMR physics a guy in Africa can get an English video subbed just as easy. Say activism videos or documenturies on GMOs? The phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” comes to mind.
yes, but if we implement strong rules through technology, rules that can’t be implemented for physically objects (i.e. fiat) because i can controll things by physical power (i.e. army), we can achieve good stuff, stuff that was ment to be achived in the first place. but without technology it couldnt
Maybe, but unless we rewrite SAFE into something else its not happening here, but maybe elsewhere.
Controlling how people deal with their rewards, telling them they are providing too much benefit and stop paying them, limiting their ability to deal with their own coins earned, is not freedom, is not SAFE, is not reliable, opens avenues for gaming it and attacking it, opens avenues to cause leakage of privacy/anonymity. The examples of each is easy, I have given many already.
defining a set of rules does not affect privacy, nor anonymity. they enforce them. limiting the ability to deal with one’s earned coins is not what you try to imply. it’s the opposite. it IS freedom, it IS reliable and it IS stable. it is a system, a colony of ants. attacking and gaming comes when the system is weak by default. when it involves big money. when there are conditions in which attacking and gaming can thrive. when limiting the main cause that generates such potencial threats, there would be less likely to occur. even if they occur, the impact on the network is very small. on the other hand, bigger threats awaits something that makes these threats thrive. a healthy colony means no big differences between the individuals of the colony, on the level that empowers the colony. the lowest level. the lowest layer. all we need water and air. nobody needs tons of water more than another. same with air. safecoin is water and air, because without it the network can’t exist. only some people will think water is not for anybody, and they are the bad actors and can’t be called ‘people’. if somebody needs water, by default it should be given to them. not by charity or whatever you imply. as well as nobody has anything better to do with tons and tons of water because he can’t drink it all, and he will trade it for something that only HE needs. eventually the water will arrive to the one in need, but with sacrifices, a lot of middleman, high price, and not when he needs it. so he might die of thirst.
limiting safecoin also enhance anonymity, because everybody evolves the same in the network, in the colony. no kings, no kingpins, no superstars. as a vault. as a worker. as an ant. just a big colony of ants which you cannot distinguish between. all comunicating privately, annonimously and free
A single person who downloads key (text) data either has access to the Internet or doesn’t. I think bandwidth is not an issue if the person needs high value (textual information) data.
How the hell is that a MaidSafe problem?
We’re talking getting people to the level where they can help themselves.
I am absolutely not concerned about how someone can learn to play piano, wherever they may live.
You keep saying this without technical backup or “Process” showing how these things are true. Thoughts are not showing why, but opinion.
Limits are by bypassable by anyone who can use an APP. The APP will appear almost immediately, that is human nature. Simply bypass has been explained already.
You say this but it is not true.
Simple proof of its falseness is that A lot of people will not do any evolving. They will simply use SAFE. No other involvement.
Sorry you keep with the sound bytes, telling me and others they are wrong, without one shred of proof or process to show it.
Bye for now. You want SAFE to solve something it is not designed to achieve, is not part of its objectives and will compromise its goals. Think about how it compromises things, hint, it increases the ability to track. People will leave because they are limited. Really, limiting will lead to reduction in usage. I have not seen any explanation on how limits will actually in reality stop anyone except cause them to multiply the number of vaults they have. Show some process showing how your ideas are better. Until then I am wasting words replying.
i want SAFE to be privacy, security and freedom (like in the motto). i don’t want SAFE to be safecoin, fiat and money. The APP you talk about could be an non-limited currency. since when food is in front of water and air?
the colony has to function as a whole, not for individuals. the core level of SAFE. the nodes will evolve as the network evolves. they form the network as a whole. the resources should be almost evenly distributed. if somebody don’t get a GET it’s not his fault. because he is part of the network. he offered his services. his mobile phone holds chunks of data. why give a lot to only a part, when instead the whole can benefit.
the network is not a market (middleman) to facilitate exchange of values from real-world. the network should facilitate exchange of values from within the network. for that to work, the safecoin should be limited. in my opinion, of course.
the network could be done without safecoin, but the uploads are thought to be bigger than the space provided. so safecoin in it’s definition is a limit. but it’s not enough. we need to design this limit not to be abused, disrupted and gamed