Would it be correct to say that there’s a reduction in capability here in terms of the potential to handle assets other than SNT?
I understand that having DBCs meant that the network allowed transfers of DBCs with other assets, including but not limited to self issued tokens or even locked bitcoin etc. So now SN only handles SNT?
Not as far as I’m aware, no.
I agree it’s not an impediment to launch, but it would be very helpful if, prior to launch, there is clarity on how the 70% will be distributed over time so that markets are able to figure out SNT value without massive uncertainty about how a 70% available supply increase may come about.
Sure, I get that.
Thanks Jim but I’m confused.
Your quoted reply seems to say “no loss of capability” but if the network is only tracking balances that implies (hopefully incorrectly) only balances of SNT.
Maybe balances of other tokens could be supported at some point, but I’m not sure how this could be done without something that looks, walks and talks like a DBC.
I should probably wait for more detail but would like to know what it remains truthful to say as I explain SN to others.
So if no capability is lost that would be ideal, just to confirm that’s what you meant.
Thanks 4 the update Maidsafe devs
Really amazing work is being done here, keep up the good job.
I’m a sucker for bug fixes so @loziniak 
Keep hacking & testing super ants 
This was seen as ideal for a true safe network token and applauded on the forum. The migration back to wallet balances is a step backward it would seem.
I wonder though - it should be possible I think to implement DBC’s as an independent service sub-network. The code exists and if nodes decide to run that code then we can implement it as a parallel system to add alt tokens to the network.
@JimCollinson When the time is appropriate it’d be nice to get a topic that has a run down on how SNT/transfers now work.
I think we will try and get a post to describe this in detail. There are internal detailed posts (thanks to @Anselme ), but the nomenclature is not agreed, so we don’t want to put that out until @JimCollinson has done the magic dust thing there to make it clear.
I am concerned about the removal of the DBC, we will look forward to the update in the hope that it will be for the better
I expect that they are trying to KISS as much as possible and new implementation will be easier to manage and possibly faster and more secure. This is good as the base layer of the network should be as simple and effective as possible.
There are many additions that can be built atop the base-layer by anyone - and that’s really important to keep in mind.
This is spot on. I think we won’t lose anything from dbc to transfers, but actually gain. We will get a report out to show this.
I will certainly miss DBC’s offline transaction capabilities. I can’t imagine how could balances/transactions keep that promise.
Hopefully I’m not being dense but bitcoin and other blockchain centric accounting systems can do offline transfers and also use UTXO. Besides that, they have said that only partial replacement of DBC’s, meaning they have diverged from the design/definition of a DBC enough to no longer justifying calling the newest approach a DBC.
Much like they had kept small bits of AT2 earlier on and melded that with DBC. The way they innovated on the mint and spentbook with DBC’s as it was, was quite the departure and the nomenclature was beginning to be the only semblance. Which I think is cool.
I don’t know how much there is to worry about without knowing more but I do understand the concern.
Safe DBCs had so many great properties as well as the potential to handle the 70% network issuance concerns. We definitely need a topic on this change. I’m not opposed to innovation but network managed wallet balances are just plain awful. Hoping to get more details of the planned implementation.
To be clear, what we are looking at and what we had as DBCs are pretty much the same thing, the naming was incorrect and the ability to transfer to people was not easy and required out of band transfers.
So we will have in band transfers that would be via a wallet/inbox you hold the key for. It may make sense that you don’t want that and prefer out of band transfers (although they are only valid when network published).
Lets see what we have in detail and then marry that up with expectations and desires and see where it gets us. It’s super simple and the value is still in publishing makes the transfer valid, what happens outside publishing is still up to folks if they want that. It’s just any offline transfers do need to be published in either case.
Honestly I think everyone just wants to see network launch and that it doesn’t matter if we still use DBC or other type of transaction. 
Does it mean, that Simplex is also no more relevant?