Using the SAFE network without money

[Anders]

@janitor

In any case, you can brainstorm all you want, the plan won’t happen and if it does, the network will collapse.

Without my model, or something similar, the network will not even get bootstrapped. If ALL data storage costs safecoins, and farmers only earn safecoins for storing data, then that means a Catch 22 situation from the start.

[Artiscience]

@Anders

If I had a lot of computers for farmings, I would consider farming yes.

Oh I´m sure you would, but how much would you provide on a daily basis?

@Anders

This is very important: free data storage = farmers get rewarded the same amount of safecoins as for pay-for storage.

I don´t see why that´s important. This simply means that the more free storage is used, the less everyone earns (see post of @Seneca below). In comparison to the current model where the value of Safecoin tends to an equilibrium between real farming costs and real storage cost the free plan would continuously challenge any storage cost while farming cost remain stable, leading farmers to jump aboard.

Whatever, I think this has explained to you several times. If you don´t want to “believe” it, only empirical proof helps…

[Seneca]

@Anders

free data storage = farmers get rewarded the same amount of safecoins as for pay-for storage.

Same amount, but due to inflation not the same in value.

[Anders]

@Artiscience

This simply means that the more free storage is used, the less everyone earns.

That’s completely false. I wrote that farmers are rewarded the same amount of safecoins for free data storage as for pay-for data storage.

[Artiscience]

@Anders

That’s completely false. I wrote that farmers are rewarded the same amount of safecoins for free data storage as for pay-for data storage.

Gosh…do you read posts till the end before you answer? The amount is IRRELEVANT. What matters is VALUE.

[Seneca]

I wonder why none has started a World Central Bank yet that implements a new currency and that pays every human’s bills on the planet with the new currency. The adoption would be immense, everyone on earth would use that currency and it’s value would skyrocket!

[Anders]

@Seneca

Same amount, but due to inflation not the same in value.

The value of safecoin will be determined by exchange markets. I think the amount farmers earn will be larger with my model in actual value (USD, EUR etc). Because the SAFE network will be used more, become more popular, have a greater network effect which will make the safecoin market cap larger. So the same amount of safecoins and with a higher actual value.

[Anders]

@Seneca

I wonder why none has started a World Central Bank yet that implements a new currency and that pays every human’s bills on the planet with the new currency. The adoption would be immense, everyone on earth would use that currency and it’s value would skyrocket!

Because bitcoins for example, are not just handed out to people. Bitcoins have to be mined. And safecoins have to be farmed. So there is a real backing of cryptocurrencies like that.

[Artiscience]

I leave this excellent point (that was ironic btw) for @happybeing to comment. I´m out.

[Anders]

@Artiscience

Gosh…do you read posts till the end before you answer? The amount is IRRELEVANT. What matters is VALUE.

I have pointed out that the safecoin market cap will be larger with my model. Market cap = total value.

[Seneca]

@Anders

Because bitcoins for example, are not just handed out to people. Bitcoins have to be mined. And safecoins have to be farmed. So there is a real backing of cryptocurrencies like that.

The people to receive the World Central Bank currency also have to sell something first. So it’s “backed” by real resources as well.

[Anders]

@Seneca

The people to receive the World Central Bank currency also have to sell something first. So it’s “backed” by real resources as well.

So people would have to sell stuff to get for example dollars and then exchange the dollars for the new World Central Bank currency?

[happybeing]

@Artiscience

And again: I find it quite ironic that you come along claiming a violation of guidelines and then give an off-topic “hit em in da face” post a “like”. Happens that when you point at someone, three fingers point back at you…

@Artiscience

Which is where we get back to “killing the discussion”, because this precisely what´s called a killer phrase. There is really not a lot of alternatives responding to it other than killing it.

Killing a discussion is never the only response, and it is not your call to make. If you can’t engage with a discussion without trying to kill it, you can ignore it. If you believe it should be stopped, you can flag it and explain why. It is not for you to determine whether a discussion deserves to continue or not, and if you think my like is inappropriate, you can raise that in the same way.

Returning to my moderation comment, if you don’t wish to follow forum guidelines you need to lobby for them to be changed, until then it is necessary for you to respect them while posting on the forum, whatever your opinion of posts from others.