The power of DBCs on Safe Network

Would it be possible also, for Maidsafe to HARD FORK the entire existing bitcoin blockchain with say Satoshi-sized unit for each DBC and allow any who create an account on SN who hold the private keys for the existing bitcoin wallets to then access those DBC’s? Furthermore, don’t make a “fix” for the un-mined safe-BTC, just further limit the supply to the existing supply … Effectively “fixing” bitcoin’s mining-energy problem for good.

1 Like

One possible way to acquire such information would be if there was some sort of Dex dealing in the DBC-BTCs. Looking at how much was on offer in the order book or liquidity pool would give a lower bound on the value at stake.


Awesome! Really awesome! :sunglasses:

This really is massive progress. I’ve been busying myself thinking about how cool the data side is, but this would send earth quakes through the crypto and wider space if it all goes to plan!


I’m wondering if @Traktion means multiple different DBC’s being able to be atomically swapped?

So each DBC has a different number and field type and you could swap your bag of varied alt DBC’s for SN in one go.

This DBC stuff has really been blowing minds lately and that’s a good sign of great innovation. With Safe Network acting as the infrastructure DBC’s just seem so powerful, yet simple.


We don’t have that type field yet, but gut tells me that would be troublesome. What I mean is folk create their own types and logic. So merging differing types would require the logic to be in place. So that would perhaps be a much larger question.

Yes, it’s very nice in many ways. It makes our network payments and rewards simpler too.


Right. Makes perfect sense.

That type field will enable amazing things!

1 Like

Yes, I meant different DBCs. The idea would be to have a trade a bit like this:

Side One:

1 x wrapped BTC
2 x wrapped MAID
5 x wrapped Netflix share
3 x wrapped US treasuries

Side Two:

10 x wrapped ETH
5 x wrapped gold


If you can do the whole thing as one swap, you have just made complex trades possible out of the box. This is the sort of stuff CME and company do as core business activities. They have a lot of specialist software, hardware and people to handle this sort of thing. If this can be moved onto a distributed platform, simply, easily and efficiently, that is surely BIG news.


My guess is that this would not be hard to support because the network only acts as a notary. So…

A package of exchange could be created:

  • a list of input DBCs and what portion of each DBCs balance is to be used
  • a list of output DBCs and what amount from various inputs is to go to each
  • this is then signed by the owner of each input DBC

The network checks all inputs have been signed by their owners and that the inputs and outputs balance, runs through the input DBCs and invalidates them, generating the output DBCs.

If any of the inputs fails (e.g. due to being spent) outputs are spent back to new DBCs in the names of their respective input owners.

It may need to be a bit cleverer than that to ensure atomicity, but the geniuses at MaidSafe can probably solve this or explain why it won’t work.


With a DBC standard (logic) like an erc20 standard then I would think it would be or at least don’t see why not. I wonder what kind of requirements the code would need for something like that. I think for stuff like that formal verification is desired?


With completely new tech like safe network, I suspect it would be treated as high risk to start with. Maybe only cheaper assets would be available to trade.

However, it means that exchanges are mostly out of the picture. If gold miners can issue tokens directly, why not buy from them? Why would we need fiat exchanges when there could be any assets used as an on ramp?

If anything from gift vouchers to bonds can be tokenised and sold easily, then swapped for anything else atomically, you don’t need to trust anyone but the issuer (to honour the token). Crypto assets which have value within themselves wouldn’t even have that risk.

So why would we need fiat exchanges? Why would they be the gatekeepers when anyone can tokenise anything and swap it with any other token?

Nevermind the big traders, at the other extreme, selling traktion coding tokens should be as easy as safe network tokens. As long as I am trusted to code when they are redeemed! :sweat_smile:

While tokens are not new, I don’t believe they are simple or accessible. There is too much centralisation too. Maybe this nut can be cracked open with DBCs though?


I feel like there must be a way to capitalize off of Safe Networks PKI and digital identity system in so many aspects. If we leverage our SafeID’s in some way. What’s that thing, keybase? Where people use that to verify themselves. What if you do that with your SafeID and then you mint a token that is signed by your pk (SafeID)? Does that help with trust at all?
Brings up WoT again too possibly.

@Seneca what was your alternative solution to WoT that you were working on or considering for Decorum??


That’s more of a naturally growing WoT with the goal being sybil resistance on a social level, which is necessary in a network where people can make virtually unlimited anonymous accounts. Rather than having to take action to flag other accounts deliberately as (non-)legitimate, this (locally executed) system monitors your account’s interactions with others, scores those “others” based on those interactions and shares those scores either publicly or with a select group of accounts of your choice. That network of shared scores that accounts have for each other can be traversed and used for content filtering. The goal is that (groups of) accounts that don’t produce legitimate content become isolated and ignored.

So it’s a reputation system for (social) accounts/profiles, not strictly speaking for the people behind those, since it doesn’t provide real-life identity verification. That’s a much harder problem to solve at scale while keeping it decentralised, secure and user friendly.


Right but totally fitting for purposes of trust in a social yet decentralized system! Sounds genius to me man, thanks for that.

Something like that would mean a lot for at least some level of trust for things such as ICO’s on Safe Network or verifying whom published this site, info, token. Having that work with SafeID’s could be powerful at most or useful at least IMO.

Accountability of someone not exit scamming or what not would be another story but perhaps something at “stake” in a smart contract could help further boost people’s trust knowing there is verifiably some skin in the game.

1 Like

I think the first level of those swaps would be a (centralized) server operating as the matchmaker, but SAFE doing the notary in the background … e.g. non-custodial, but centralized operations and matchmaking.

The only condition I see is that SAFE has to support hash/timelock transactions (if there is another way to do atomic swaps, I am not sure. But non-custodial servers, even if centralized, are surely most of the way there. And it will work so much faster on SAFE than e.g. BTC (where you may have to wait for confirmations between several of the steps)

With just a few primitives, something like IDEX should be quite feasible on SAFE, but if elders were expected to process lots of logic, it could also weigh down the network quite heavily. As long as an atomic swap process is possible on SAFE, all else will follow.

1 Like

Should be since SNT sending is an atomic swap in effect. Otherwise possible to double spend

Yeah, true that, but the need is one step further than just the DBC transfer we’ve seen so far… yes, double spend is prevented for a simple transaction, but for the complex trade scenario, there is the added complication that you don’t want to expose your signed DBCs until you are sure that you have the counterparty’s signed DBCs and you both can unlock/spend them without a race condition. Your counterparty has the same need.

On BTC, this is done with hash/timelock transactions … both transactions are ‘decrypted’ at the same time, but are already in a hash/timelocked address so there is no possibility of a double spend by either party, and each party can complete the transaction with confidence.

On SAFE, there may or may not be this functionality yet, but the primitives to support it should be there.


1 way convert may not worth to do. There will be fungibility issue. BTC in bitcoin network will be not equal to BTC in maidsafe. (I am afraid that BTC in maidsafe will be treated as inferior) What about Ethereum ? Will it be possible to 2 way pegging with Ethereum? I think maidsafe should 2 way peg with Ethereum because of Tether. If there is no way that farmers convert their earnings with stable coin, I am afraid that there could be not much stable farming rate. I know you are not a big fan of Ethereum and overall smart contract. But Ethereum is getting momentum recently . BTC dominace is losing its territory to Ethereum. so we should focus on Ethereum I think.

1 Like

Are u referring to two way pegging?


The OP handles this because you can unwrap the BTC. I see no reason there would be a significant price differential because of that, and the fact there are pros and cons to both free and wrapped BTC.

The quote referred to the post above it.


I have always considered an atomic swap and exchange of assets between multiple parties, I.e. Party X gives party Y some A in exchange for B. So, 2 or more transactions which can either all succeed or all fail.

Ofc, atomic transactions to prevent double spends etc are awesome too, but the above would be far more powerful if possible.