Once Bittrex delists, where do the Safex coin held on there actually go?

There is no fork. Its an omni protocol token ending and a coin on a totally new blockchain that is not a fork of the btc blockchain. So no it cannot be handled that way.

For an exchange its real easy, they simply disallow deposits and withdrawals at a set time and do the transfer them selves and then deposits and withdrawals can only happen on the new blockchain.

Well, yeah, there is. Safex today already lives on the BTC blockchain. You can’t just delete that. You can’t even stop future transactions.

After it “moves”, people could still use the old wallet application to send and receive Safex on the BTC blockchain, hypothetically. So it really is a fork – there will be the “old” Safex that lives on the BTC blockchain, and the “new” one that lives on the new one.

A fork is IMPOSSIBLE that is the point. It would be like saying I am going to fork btc into a either erc20? token. They are (will be) totally different beasts.

Thus the use of a burn address to remove coins from circulation. The burn address will basically accumulate all the coin over time.

lol yeah ok. Let me send you that address to send your coins to.

I know how omni works. If a new blockchain gets created, great, but the original omni will still live on BTC forever. Hell, if Dan gets hit by a bus tomorrow, Safex will still live there.

We need a permanent way to move it from BTC chain to new chain, hence my original question

Obviously this would be an address advertised by the safex team and verified. Sigh.

Yep and all the safex on the new blockchain wil have the old omni safex token living at a dead address. This address could even be one that no one knows the private key for.

It would not matter what you try, the project would have to be picked by another person or die and the coin is worthless then anyhow if noone continues the project.

BUT in any case forking omni to get safex on a new blockchain is simply not possible. If a fork was done to do this then none of the new features and new method of mining could be implemented. Be like putting a cart on the back of a F18 Jet and expecting good results. No its a completely new blockchain with new methods of doing this and new data structures.

Do not even know if the address structure will be the same.

And the burn address method would be a permanent way. Pretty simple really.

Anyhow if you don’t believe me then fine. You can disagre and I’ll stop now anyhow as it silly for us to continue a back and forth over this. Dan will be telling us anyhow and could use another method anyhow.

1 Like

So according to you, we need that central authority. Doesn’t that completely defeat the purpose of cryptocurrency in the first place?

Actually, they’ll exist in both places as different entities, hence the fork.

No matter WHAT the Safex team does, the current Safex chain will continue to exist on the omni blockchain. If it were even possible to “destroy” the current Safex chain on omni, then that would completely defeat the purpose.

It doesn’t have to be the same, it just has to link to the proof-of-stake we currently have with our own private keys, and to a specific BTC block for the split.

This is not a “silly” conversation, these are important questions.

Come on you know that is not what this would be about. Safex on omni protocol is not what the project is about. So any central control for the omni token is nothing to do with the project.

You know this we know this.

Fork is IMPOSSIBLE. A fork is copying the blockchain and modifying the code. This is a completely new blockchain with brand new datastructures to handle the market place. The omni is on the horse and cart blockchain and the new blockchain is like a city when comparing datastructures.

How could you fork btc to get the new. Its not a fork, a fork is impossible.

You are not destroying it. I have never said it is destroyed. A burn address concept is not destroying.

Then its not a fork is it. Its a fork or it isn’t. A fork keeps the old address and balances. That is the WHOLE point of a fork.

1 Like

So what good is the Safex I have now then?

Its what we have now. We will get 1 coin on the new blockchain for every safex coin we have. Plus we get a “airdrop” of the chillie coin according to our holding of safex

1 Like

Okay… but in order to know what Safex coins live in what wallet the current Safex chain will have to be copied, right?


A simple dump of the address balance of all coins would give you this. Its a function that can be issued to the omni-node. Address;balance csv file can be extracted from the omni node easy enough.

1 Like

So basically we’re all just trusting Dan to create us all new wallets on the new blockchain and load them with our coins… that I assume we’ll have to prove that we own somehow?

That seems completely unnecessary. Why not just start from zero again? I guess we’re all just supposed to trust the Safex team to give us our handouts?

So again, what’s the point of the Safex I’ve got now? Faith that the Safex team will just hand over the new coins?

1 Like

And that is where the burn address can (note I say could) be used to do such a thing. It could be programmed into the wallet to do this automatically.

You say “trust Dan” as if that should not be done. But I ask you that we are trusting Dan to do the right thing with all the programming he is doing. If he wanted to cheat us he could program in malware or a system that skims off us within the blockchain itself.

So at some point we have to trust him and what better way then have that trust being in a blockchain ledger that we can verify for ourselves without being programmers or code debuggers. No need for faith. Either it is done right or it isn’t. If not done right then there would be some people paying a visit to him.

1 Like

I am a programmer, and I’m sure Dan’s a great guy. Trust in cryptocurrency is not built on personal character though, it’s built on mathematics.

The “burn wallet” idea sounds exploitable to me.

I really wish Dan had more answers for us on this.

1 Like

I’ve been programming since the early 70’s so I too know that so much is exploitable.

Unfortunately we have to have a level of trust in Dan otherwise its useless hold the coin. Even trust to complete the project is needed.

So as you say we need a way that requires the least amount of trust and the most provable way.

But the burn address is a way that can be used with reasonable low levels of trust.

Just think about a process like.

  • The exchanges are notified of the burning of the coin and that it no longer is to be a coin of value. They are told that there is to be a new coin issued 1:1 for the omni safex token and it is to be on the new blockchain.
  • The exchanges are given a date when the omni safex token is to be considered dead. The exchanges would disable withdrawals and deposits at the appointed time and never accept the omni safex token for deposit from that time forward.
  • The exchanges do whats necessary to receive 1:1 the new coin for their omni safex token.
  • The users of the exchange can continue trading safex and can only withdraw onto the new blockchain thereafter.
  • At the same time the exchanges are initially informed of the upcoming “burning” of the omni safex token the community is told of this too. Through this forum and others.
  • People then verify that the news is genuine
  • After the appointed start time of conversion people will follow the procedure as set out to exchange their omni safex token for the new coin on the new blockchain
  • this exchange process can last for as long as it is deemed necessary (maybe 1 year maybe 2 or 5 years)

NOTE: this is very important.
This is one simple process that requires minimal (but still a reasonable amount) of trust in Dan. But a I said before we have to have a lot of trust in Dan to believe the project will complete and safex coin (omni token and the new one) will be worth anything at all longer term. If Dan cannot be trusted then short term trading is the only worth the coin has.

So yes a portion of trust is already required and we need no additional trust to do the exchange than what we already are putting in Dan. (unless you are short term trading only)

One way of the exchange is to send the coin to a burn address that has no private key and then a corresponding transaction is done on the new blockchain to give us the new coin.

While this is not the only way it is a viable way.

I have no issue in that it can and will be done in a suitable manner. I just know that an actual fork is not possible for this project due to the nature of the new blockchain. If just a fork could be done then it takes days to program a forked blockchain and only takes time to decide what that program is. But since this is a unique new blockchain then a fork is not possible if we want the new non-compatible features that the new blockchain will incorporate.

1 Like

Of course we can trust dan, he’s probably got more at stake than anyone. I doubt he would do anything to ruin safex.

Give it time. Be patient. A solution will arrive


I sent my safex to the wallet a few days ago and it is showing “reserved” on bittrex. It has not done anything with the safex wallet!! :frowning:

Maybe someone has a friends in bittrex?

Curious if any update on your transfer? I am preparing to send from bittrex to desktop wallet, perhaps I will send a partial amount to the SAFEX wallet to test. I understand you need to have some btc in the SAFEX wallet for transfers, but will bittrex’s withdrawal fee of 100 SAFEX adequately compensate for the btc needed to get the SAFEX moved from their exchange to the SAFEX wallet?

I think payment taken on departure, not destination. Won’t matter what is in your wallet until you send from there.