WW3 / climate change

In the absence of action to combat climate change, it is projected that by 2050, around 1.2 billion individuals will be displaced. As early as 2030, it is estimated that 100 million to 300 million people may face displacement due to climate change alone, not taking into account the impact of wars.

Between the years 1914 to 1945, World War I and World War II claimed the lives of 17.611 million and 73 million individuals, respectively. These wars occurred within a span of just 21 years. Since then, there has been no major war due to America’s intervention for the past 78 years.

However, the number of casualties from World War I to World War II increased by 4.1 times, and the potential death toll from a hypothetical World War III, combined with climate change, new communication methods and ongoing wars, could exceed 300 million.

While some may dispute the necessity of addressing climate change, it is essential to acknowledge the facts. History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes, as Kendrick Lamar pointed out, “I’m dressed in all black, this is not for the fan of Elvis.” During times of war, laws and order tend to be disregarded, and desperation can drive people to unthinkable actions to protect themselves and their families.

As a community, we must brainstorm and generate more ideas to protect individuals’ currency during such difficult times. One proposal is to create an offline function that enables two parties to use Grin without an internet connection

Don’t be scared be prepared,

What do you mean ‘use grin’? Its trivial to sign a transaction offline: just pass slatepack messages back and forth with USB sticks. But the blockchain itself cannot run without internet. There is no practical way for computers around the world to pass messages and stay in consensus without the internet.

So… you could sign a transaction without using internet, but that transaction is no good unless at least some portion of the world has internet AND you can get your transaction to a computer in that portion of the world. That would be a weird scenario to design for.

Many currency users are not used to offline transactions, and trading using USB can be a hassle. Personally, I’ve tried it with Bitcoin and didn’t like it.

As Steve Jobs once said, “People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” We should create a way to make seed phase transferable offline, or something similar.

It’s important to note that offline transfers are necessary. Imagine Larry hanging out with his friend Steve in the backyard. Steve’s phone has no connection, but Larry owes him 20 coins. Larry can easily open his wallet and send the coins to Steve, making the transaction seamless and preparing people for uncertain situations.

Steve can then hold the offline coins and transfer them to another person, and so on. This is especially helpful in situations where confirmation of receipt is crucial, such as walking around a city or during a bombing. While receiving something offline still requires blind faith, the reassurance is much better than relying on a USB that may or may not have the necessary information

You’re missing a very important fact: No transaction is done until it lands on the internet. So there is no “offline transaction”, there’s only “offline signing” of a transaction.

1 Like

Okay, I agree with you. What are the possible solutions we can implement to optimize the use of currency offline?

well since there’s no internet then digital currency probably won’t work, so use a physical currency like cash or smth

As someone who went to college to study “climate change” you should really do more research before making crazy assumptions. People who say these kinds of things generally do not want the best for “the planet” they want the best for themselves, and there is no scientist who knows the fate of the earth they are trying to scare you. Its really sad.

Hear it from the founder of green peace, they were one of the most effective environmental protection organizations ever Dr. Patrick Moore-- Carbon and Climate Catastrophe - YouTube

I understand that this may seem like fear-mongering, but sometimes fate has a way of being ironic. However, I am simply presenting the facts. Grin, as a currency, may be the only true means of salvation for people in dire situations.

During times of uncertainty and fear, having a reliable currency like Grin becomes necessary. Given the potential for 1.2 billion people to be displaced by 2050, I cannot help but wonder if my assumptions are incorrect.

If such displacement were to occur, people would need a way to easily carry their most valuable assets. Cryptocurrency, such as Grin, offers individuals the opportunity to help those who are less fortunate

You need to think facts only, Grin doesn’t exist because a bunch of people made theories about the idea that it might exist. It is a proven thing, it is implemented, you literally cannot prove something like “climate change” because it is catch-all term used to obfuscate scientific matters. Climate will change, everything will change, people will live, people will die. You cannot plan for the whole world only for you and your family and friends. If you want to think bigger than that you need to have facts and reasoning not just fears and anxiety because that will only hurt you in the process. Trust me I spent years wasting my life thinking I cared about climate change and I learned nothing in the process and nearly became homeless. Now I know how to program, I can verify and prove things about cryptography because I have the research available to me and I am able to discuss individual matters with granularity and NO ONE tells me not to ask about X or Y when I research this field. On the contrast I DARE YOU to get a degree in “climate science” and base your FRESHMAN research paper on the IDEA that the world IS NOT ENDING. They will fail you as they threatened to do to me before I dropped out sophomore year. The path of anxiety is not worth it.

The DCEP, a digital currency issued by the Chinese central bank, implements a dual offline transaction function. I am not technically savvy and I don’t know if Grin can implement such a feature.

1 Like

I’m simply suggesting that there may be some individuals who are likely to be unproductive in a bartering system that relies on currency. What measures can we take to address this issue?

I’m not sure if the world will experience WW3 or climate change, but I also cannot guarantee that they won’t occur.

While I don’t want to discredit your argument, personally, I don’t believe that climate change is a real phenomenon.

However, I am certain that in the coming decades, there will be a massive displacement of citizens, as we have already seen in Ukraine.

In times of war, the value of currency diminishes, and it becomes difficult to sell property or hold onto stocks. In such situations, people often turn to assets like gold or cryptocurrency.

As a community, we could benefit from helping those who may find themselves in such difficult circumstances. By taking action and creating solutions for the vulnerable, we can empower them to become strong.

Thank will look into it

In a general use scenario, if the two parties are meeting for a transaction, it is very convenient and quick to just scan each other’s QR codes using Grin mobile wallets to complete the transaction smoothly. Of course, this requires both parties’ wallets to be connected to the Internet.

Not true in the case of payment channel transactions…

I haven’t looked at payment channels yet, but let’s say i open one with you. Then we do an offline tx where i pay you. Then i do a request to close the channel (hiding our tx). There’s surely a time-limit of when you can act and deny my channel close tx right? If yes, then that offline tx is still not done in theory

That one is done instantly and off-line.

Publishing an obsoleted transaction is cheating. Which of course requires a timely response, e.g. within a week. Possibly punishing you by taking all your channel funds.

On-line transactions can also be re-orged in theory. But in practice, where attacks are assumed to fail, payment channel transactions are considered to have instant finality. In some sense they are more final than on-chain transactions with a few confirmations as they are harder to double spend.

1 Like

I don’t like solutions where if i kidnap someone i can scam that person. On-chain that’s generally not possible if there’s enough work done (if it’s not then the chain becomes pretty useless in practice). It’s true though that one could use this for smaller payments though

Ok, I will bite since I like hypothetical discussions to broaden our horizon. I do not believe Grin needs to ‘save’ anyone, it is just a system that will compete with all other systems out there and like all systems, even Grin is not perfect (although very beautiful and elegant IMO). I do like thinking how a coin system can be mixed online and offline. So lets brainstorm :brain:.

  1. One idea that is already going around where you do not need to interact via internet to transfer funds, until claimed is Grin vouchers, basically just giving someone the private key-as QR code:
    MW/Grin Workshop+Hackaton in Istanbul - #17 by Anynomous
    The problem is that you would not have a payment proof, and to claim it, you would still need an internet connection since any transaction in the end need to happen on-chain. Most importantly, since the data for a grin-voucher is not protected, there is no-way to prove no double spend is happened since a user could simply give/trade/cell the voucher to multiple people. A grin voucher without protection cannot provide the qualities for offline money because of these weaknesses.

  2. Let’s try again. What if we would transfer Grin vouchers, as QR code, or via NFC-chip. We would still have the problem of double spend and multiple users claiming the funds, unless we can somehow restrict access to the privat-key to the last user who holds the coin/chip at a certain time/block-height.
    Meaning we should make each coin a small hardware-wallet chip. First, anyone should be able to verify the coins are there, by giving free access to the Public-key on the hardware wallet, anyone with a copy of the blockchain from a time after creation (just a static copy of the block chain of 2-3 GB, no internet needed) could prove the funds are there and such recognize the value of the coins. Secondly, by using a relative-lock height, we can prove the funds linked to the private key are locked for a couple of years until they can be claimed back.
    Thirdly, we would need to restrict access to the private-key by having the pin/password to access the private-key to only be release at a certain block-height after a couple of years. We can make sure only the holder of the chip/key at the time the relative-time lock has access to the private-keys and as such ability to claim the funds. I am not certain about this one, it should be something like a pin/password that is only revealed at a certain block height, yet it should be known at the time of creating these hardware coins. Maybe some sort of stealth transaction with a time-lock? Any ideas?
    One last remaining issue is that it should be proven the creators of these coins are not evil since they had access to all factors when they created these coins. I think this last problem of having to trust a central authority is the hardest to solve. In the end we would want the system to be proven and decentralized and not bound to a central authority who could claim all funds themselves when the lock height has been met.


Sadly, no… while payment channels can happen offline, the only way to resolve the dispute is by channel closure on-chain. If the chain is not available to you, bad actors could double-spend your channel and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

In an offline only world, people would scam payment channels, knowing their counterparty could never dispute the scam. Payment channels would become effectively useless.