@Bogard The point of my comment was NOT to bash the great progress that has been made in the latest implementation. Instead, it was a nostalgic reference back to the promise of @dirvine’s Safecoin classic. In a broader context, I think there are some interesting opportunities here for a more robust ecosystem if both approaches work together in combination… ring-ct dbc as a secure foundation, with a classic safe coin as a second “safer” layer.
In an abstract sense, the dbc + ringCT work is analogous to a federated banking/mint system using checks, balance transfers, and facilitates the possibility to split DBCs to any level of divisibility. The classic safecoin approach was representative of physical coins or hard currency that exist as discrete units that simply have ownership transfered p2p just like any other network datatype without the need of a bank/mint.
In the traditional banking/financial system, both of these representations of the underlying currency exist as mechanisms to transfer value and offer different pros/cons. It would appear that permissioned CRDTs at a fixed xor address could allow for simple denominations (1 SNT, 10 SNT, 0.01 SNT) that can be simply traded like Safecoin classic without the need to return to the ringCT mint, unless you wanted to “cash” it in for use as a normal spentbook entry, or “make change” to create other simple denominations. For some transactions is can be preferable to “write a check” whereas for others, to just “drop a coin”.
Rather than go further off-topic, these ideas can be brainstormed here.