What a kludgy, convoluted mess.
Not only does it resemble the NAUT swap fiasco, the "burned" supply goofiness smells like the Counterpary and VIA failures. These Rube Goldberg ICO and shell game IPO schemes never turn out well for anyone except the guy that took everyone else's Bitcoins.
As for "basic math," I'd love to have some explanation of the cryptography behind Safecoin's alleged private/untraceable/unlinkable properties.
But every time I ask, I get a different answer. I'm not seeing an advantage over SIA or Storj here, to put it nicely in an understatement.
You will get different answers from different people over here on bitcointalk, where non of the dev's hang out, only people who have an interest in it, It is it hella complex in how everything comes together so that adds to the difference in understanding people have of the technology and their own explainations
SIA and Storj are blockchain based storage , they are great examples of blockchain based decentralized storage solutions .
there are plenty of sources of information straight from the horses mouth as it were on the forum and on the blog :
http://blog.maidsafe.net/ https://forum.safenetwork.io/ these are the places you will get the most accurate information, if you cannot find anything specific to your question you can create a post, most likely someone will either link you to the topic that has already been created or even david himself regularly replies and helps explain things for the most accurate details regarding it.
Safecoins exist on the network, the only data fields they have are previous and current owner, This is also why transactions are near instant an can handle many thousands a second very easily , because it is literally filing in the hash for the new owner and thats it.
a similar cryptography to a bitcoins wallet address is how the hash for the ownership of the coin is secured.
Now you would ask , well couldn't a node just fake a hash and change ownership of the coin?
this would require consensus of almost all the nodes in a group, 32 nodes per "group" 28 out of 32 need to agree on a specific decision and confirm it.
the next question would be, what if i controlled 28 nodes in a single group? could i then forces decisions on the network?
Firstly it would be incredibly hard to do, No one knows or can choose where and which group they will be placed in, It is all decided randomly in XOR space . The only way really to be able to control 28 nodes out of a single group would be the attack the network buy creating thousands of new vaults, you would need to be creating 7/8ths of the new vaults being created, requiring a 87.5% attack instead of a 51% on a blockchain
Even if you successfully manage to do a successful 87.5% attack and manage to get control of a single node group or 28 of the 32 nodes in a group, no single node group decides on the decisions of changing a coins ownership, it would be decided by either 2 or 3 groups i think(maybe more(, so the 87.5% attack would have to be sustained for even longer costing huge amounts of money as you try to create many thousands of vaults. I don't know the mathematically numbers off by heart but they are written down and have been regularly talked about on the forum in several different threads
Just like blockchain consensus you cannot make it mathematically 100% secure but you can make it mathematically unfeasible to attack the network successfully or statistically improbable .
This doesn't even begin to get into the reputation system that each individual node has and the time that you must have the node running to be trusted more and more as time goes and you function correctly as a node delivering chunks of data