Bitcoin seems to be born in a wrong world, the old world where proposals like the Bitlicense must be accepted when they say so. A difference between Safecoin and Bitcoin will be that Safecoin will live inside a safe environment and will have full anonymity.
If the Bitlicense stays as it is today it may cause a big run to other currencies with more anonymity like Safecoin.
So the question is:
Will the Bitlicense be positive or negative for the SAFE network and Safecoin itself?
I think the bigger question is, will SafeCoin generated be considered income by regulators and co. If so, then even with powerful anonymity, it will put you in an antagonistic situation with regulators and I think that would be a turn off for a lot of general users. Beliefs need to evolve on all levels (users, governments) regarding decentralization.
It’s interesting for sure and I agree with @EmergentBehavior here a lot. I think many kinds of people will really take to safecoin in its ability to transfer wealth etc. but there will potentially be a push back as with bitcoin. The difference is bitcoin can be regulated in many ways as it is aided by public accountability and visibility of transactions. I think we are going to have a really interesting time and my personal opinion we will see an evolution in thinking, especially if there is another collapse like 2008 as that was systemic and not many systems have actually changed. A collapse may force people to just say, enough, let us look at fairer and less gamable (if that is a word) mechanisms .
I see safecoin coming on the back of something bigger, a newer safer privacy enhancing information sharing network. There is a difference in this aspect I bleieve that could prove worthwhile. If we can get great mechanisms to reduce or remove propaganda then I think change will be very fast.
My bottom line, is that if it is right, logical, fair and never exclusive then it’s probably going to overcome any hurdles, the only issue may be how high those hurdles are. We do live in interesting and fascinating times.
Regarding having more adoption to the SAFE Network:
If only it read
“We’re a small non-profit without the costs of other top legacy websites, we run MaidSafe Technology, and therefore do not suffer from the inefficient model of servers. We get allocated the resources necessary by the network’s algorithms and thus you are served the content you desire”
then the ad will no longer be an ad !
I definitely think multiple systemic shocks are in our future and the issues in centralized systems will become more and more apparent (especially with rising, decentralized alternatives). I’m just hoping the shift in beliefs is not too disjointed from the shift in technologies, or else those managing/running/etc. centralized systems can lash out to protect themselves to the detriment of everyone.
No matter how I try and pick holes in SAFE, whether it be via the token/ International Monetary System (IMS) acting as a trojan… or via server farms utilizing the SAFE protocol themselves…the networks utility just stands on it’s own…because it’s the idea of pooling resources that wins out.
Nash’s equilibrium theory falls down according to the discussion in the video ‘Fuk you buddy’ by Adam Curtis ie people do cooperate rather than betray when presented with the dilemma.
For anyone interested, Vitalek from Ethereum seems to be basing an awful lot of stuff on Nash’s equilibrium theory and I found it disturbing.
