Only a few days after my post on the desperate ideas to solve some of the issues that make Safecoin at best impractical, but likely impossible, by investing crapcoins that run on top of the main crapcoin (Safecoin), one of the community thinker have come up with a new proposal on Safecoin divisibility.
His proposal can be found here, and is a follow up on the silly proposals from 2016 which were created by other community members (I blogged about those as well, but don’t waste your time on the old stuff when you can read about the latest and improved nonsense right here).
So how is Safecoin divisibility supposed to work? It’s “very simple” (as one might expect with all things Safecoin).
When a SAFEcoin is divided, it is “frozen” and the parts will be stored in a balance field located in one or more “Wallet master MD”. Please refer to my suggestion for the SAFEnetwork “Wallet” data structure topic.
In essence when sending part of a SAFEcoin the partcoin amount will be sent to the receiving wallet and added to the balance field. The sending wallet will have its balance reduced by the amount sent.
See, it’s that easy!
But wait, who is supposed to controls partcoins? Right, now comes the sensitive part.
The network will have to have “wallets” to hold a balance of a divided coin for the purpose of paying out rewards.
On top of all the other problems that Safecoin will have (I wouldn’t even call that a “design”, because it’s just an idea at this point), now we have “the network” controlling all pocket change.
In reality it’s even worse: the network would control it overall, but each wallet wouldn’t be controlled by the network, but rather by a group of nodes (which is a sensitive area when it comes to security and other areas which are still work-in-progress (or simply, a mess).)
If you’ve read other pages on this blog or what others have said about Safecoin, you know that group splitting and merging could be problematic (which side’s data win?). Well, this proposal adds more data, namely structured data which holds these damn wallets.
If a “wallet” does not currently exist for the ID, then the reward payment will use the payment to pay for the “wallet” Master MD creation.
If you wonder what happens if two groups with inconsistent wallet states merge, you’re not the only one. It may be difficult on a network which has no concept of time.
Remember that there is no transaction cost on the SAFE network, so the old problem of back-and-forth sending to bloat wallets remains.
For example one could use a simple script to create if not millions of partcoin wallets (one per each MAID available on the market today) then one wallet with millions of entries per each node group, so it’s only a matter of time before “war on cash” becomes another problem-solving feature of the SAFE network.
Safecoin is a joke and adding more stupid “features” to an already unworkable design won’t help.