Safecoin should be easier to buy in principle. You are authenticated on the network, so essentially you should be able to just say ‘send me Safecoin’ and the counter party will easily able to obligue.
Ofc, you still need to get whatever is being traded to the other party, but it shouldn’t need to be a case of quoting long hash addresses and loading special clients. It should be a far more integrated experience.
And what? Also the bitcoin only exit inside its network and its blockchain. The safecoin will have to create their own exchanges and software tools tailored to their characteristics.
Blackhalo already does the decentralized trustless escrow service. It’s been around since July 2014.
Surprised nobody ever talks about blackhalo.
I’m not well versed in this, so maybe that’s why I can’t think of any easy ways for me to exchange, say bitcoin for fiat, which are truly trustless. Can you give some examples for this so I know what you mean by trustless, because the ways I am aware of can easily be implemented on SAFENetwork to give the same level of trust as I use for bitcoin, for on/off network transactions.
And what? And “only … its blockchain” in fact means that one can trustlessly exit to MAID or any of the hundreds of assets from Omni, Counterparty, Colored Coins and all other bitcoin blockchain-based tokens, whatever they are.
All trustlessly, and among them there are those pegged to dollar, gold, silver, etc.
Yes, we heard that 5 times on this page alone. Now we just need someone who actually understands technical stuff to explain about possible ways to do that.
On blackhalo, you double down the payment, then get your half back after you receive the coins.
A wants to buy 1 dollar with btc
B wants to sell .1 btc with dollar.
A deposit .1btc
B deposit 1 dollar
A deposit .1btc (returns to A after B gets btc)
B deposit .1btc (returns to B after A has the dollar.)
Thus, it is called double deposit two-party trustless escrow
Thanks. This is similar to localbitcoins, and involves a small level of trust (in the website/escrow implementation etc) which is as I suggested easily implemented on SAFENetwork. So not a problem for Safecoin or SAFE Network.
@janitior As you pointed out, SafeX is a live project to do just this. So for insight on how this can be implemented you can search for SafeX on the forum, look in the repo, or ask @dallyshalla himself.
But why would you need to? Unless you doubt the closed group consensus model (yes, no?), isn’t it clear this will be possible from earlier discussions (certainly from things David has said - are you wanting him to provide detail on how)?
I’m finding it hard to understand the root of your doubt here, so please can you clarify that.
Sure, I hope anyone who knows, including Dallyshalla, to comment. This topic has received a ton of comments so I was hoping anyone who might have an idea to respond.
To your previous comment, why only bitcoin and not just fiat, Grizmoblust responded well, I only want to add I focused more or less exclusively on bitcoin because the topic was centered around it.
Why would anyone respond when you won’t clarify what it is you have doubts about? It can’t be that hard for you to sum it up clearly in one post, but… you haven’t.
The bitcoin has more than six years and Safecoin not yet exist and its final implementation is undefined.
But possible paths:
.-Use minted option: The safecoin is divided into two files held by different holders. The information is available but only the corresponding signatures can put it together.
.-Show possession: The safecoin contains the signature of the current owner. You can make it public and to show that you own the private key.
.-Freeze Safecoin and turn it into an SD: Next you have multiple possibility like, for example, create your own blockchain.
These possible options could be created regardless, as planned, the smart contracts API.
If these possibilities come to mind to an ignorant like me, real options, especially with the creation of SD, are endless.
Bitcoin as network downloads every transaction to you client wallet.
Safe network distrutes all the data into small pieces all over the world.
each technology is very different at the core and bitcoin is designed for finiancal ledger, where safe coin is used as incentive to supply resources to the network for exchange to be used on the network to provide content.
I would use bitcoin for finiancal transactions on the safe network where ledger is needed, safecoin does not compete with this.
use safe coin if you want to upload content as a token.
The great minds of crypto-world, predict some point in the future everyone will have there own crypto currency, if you are in the uSA, you may want to be paid in wall mart coins, or if you drink cola you may want to be paid with cola coin and use them in wallmart. If I want a plumber and have some extra coin he wants we can have an exchange for the service he provides.
really money only provides an exchange for the things we need, as of the moment I need a tank of fuel and like my service to be exchange for that product.
Safe coin provides me with a product of storing data securely and I would love my employer to pay me a few safe coin as a bonus.
I have some idea’s and I could use a NXT clone on the safe network, So for me it rather why do not alt coins create software that creates your own alt coin for your needs with decentrilized exchanges.
No it does not.
It is optional. It can download only a subset of the blockchain (headers) and other blocks when/if needed.
The pruning in the bitcoin core is not completed. With the Bitcoin core 0.11.0 you can run a node with the pruning option. In this mode your node doesn’t advertise the NODE_NETWORK flag, which means other nodes won’t ask it for blocks, but you can’t run a wallet.
Block pruning is currently incompatible with running a wallet due to the fact
that block data is used for rescanning the wallet and importing keys or
addresses (which require a rescan.) However, running the wallet with block
pruning will be supported in the near future, subject to those limitations.
It depends on how you count, from the moment you’re synced with the network using pruning (only 2 days of blocks on your disc) you still sync the new blocks while the oldest blocks are removed. That way, running a client for 3 days means you get all new blocks and transactions from these 3 days. Using that technology for SAFE would be a disaster because the Bitcoin network only handles 7 Ts/sec. It’s like that good old fax-machine, it served us for some time, we’ll have it around for years but better options are coming.
Block pruning works during initial sync in the same way as during steady state, by deleting block files “as you go” whenever disk space is allocated. Thus, if the user specifies 550MB, once that level is reached the program will begin deleting the oldest block and undo files, while continuing to download the blockchain.
For now, block pruning disables block relay. In the future, nodes with block pruning will at a minimum relay “new” blocks, meaning blocks that extend their active chain.
You can’t do several things, but it depends what you need. Not how he said that the network downloads all transactions to your wallet (!). I don’t even know what the heck that means, so I cannot say what the use case is about.
@anon40790172, using pruning with SAFE may or may not be okay, depending on what you mean by that. Most people use other wallets on desktops - the default wallet is kind of basic.
Don’t worry we haven’t forgotten you . . you are #1 on our list . .
SSNJC
(SAFE Socialists for the Nationalisation of Janitor’s Computers)
The blockchain pruning, so much advertised, is still a half implemented feature. In the last bitcoin core 0.11.0 is disabled by default and, until next versions, is incompatible with the wallet. Also requires download, at first, the whole blockchain.
And don’t blame me, speak with the Bitcoin Devs…
I posted that same link here on the forum 10 days ago, specifically in reference to pruning, so you’re not exactly breaking new horizons of human knowledge with that repost.
Of course the feature is disabled by default - that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
And you’re wrong again. 
I’ll really have to start ignoring technical comments from couple of people here. On that other topic where I posted a link about pruning one commenter’s excuse was that he didn’t read technical bitcoin docs in “recent months”.