FTC's future
-
Great point.
-
Having just read through the entire thread I think one fundamental issue has not been raised or discussed. You are missing the commercialisation piece.
We are cut off from our customers, i.e. the people who are actually going to USE the coin. Correct me if I’m wrong, but transactions have fallen significantly, and no amount of theorising about the economics or inventing new technical solutions is going to change the fact that people aren’t using FTC for anything.
This is what sxtx and multisig is for.
It will allow us to create a ftc replacement for paypal.
More details to come soon we hope.
-
I’ve been burying my head in the code of coin projects for a while now and I have come to some conclusions.
Before we do that I have one question: Who’s doing the Hitler Finds Out Kevlar Is Posting Again video?
Big wave to K and B. I hope you find ways to work together. Calem, looking forward to the FTCpal.
Ahem.
The coin is not the center of the universe.
Coins are going to die soon because:
Conclusion 1: they did not build an internal market.
Conclusion 2: their short term benefits have passed.
Conclusion 3: short term changes undermine planning.
Conclusion 4: they provide the same potential security.
The internal market: Personally, I am not interested in any new changes unless it helps us connect together.
An economy that does not enable people to get on with their daily lives is bad enough. The world economy prevents most people from having any life at all and that’s why many of us want off the train. Our frontend makes it difficult to track what people are talking about or doing. Unfortunately there’s not a lot to track or differentiate.
Solution: replace the market with market communities which share a payment interface. Who’s up for FTC Book Club? FTC Car Parts?
Short term benefits: I wouldn’t call those coins failures, but rather performing to potential.
They served their purpose. Most people in there are big holders and big miners. The rest are nanosecond holders flashtrading to BTC and fiat. We might learn from them, but they won’t be around long.
Solution: generalize their positive aspects and inhale their users into our marketshare. FTC Random Number Generator for people who used to play with Luck Coins.
Long term planning: People want to use money to do something that takes time to set up.
If you want to buy a house, then you need the value to be dependable while you’re saving up. The same goes for loans and votes and smart contracts. If the contract changes while you’ve been saving up, you will lose the value of all that time and effort. Imagine you vote on something and where you needed a few people to secure that vote now you need many.
Solution: do not play games with inflation or deflation, supply and hoarding. People will drop you into the multimining pit where no one actually wants your coin.
Identical Services: The difference in value of the coins is superficial because they do the same thing.
I don’t see anyone rushing to buy drinking straws made of gold. There is no justification for coins having much lower or much greater value. They do the same thing. Also the security they offer is questionable because a larger network could if they wanted to wreck the smaller blockchain.
Solution: don’t try to offer the same services or cover all the features. Instead use a common format for expressing the services but differentiate on the ones that are built in.
-
In summary:
It’s hard to see what people are working on here.
Fly by night coins and changes are generally bad.
Separating the market from the coin improves the market.
Connecting the market to the coin gives value to the coin.
-
This is what sxtx and multisig is for.
It will allow us to create a ftc replacement for paypal.
More details to come soon we hope.
Now this excites me! As for what SxTx and multisig are, I have no idea (but that isn’t important). What are the benefits over Paypal? How will this make our customers lives better/faster/cheaper etc.
-
Now this excites me! As for what SxTx and multisig are, I have no idea (but that isn’t important). What are the benefits over Paypal? How will this make our customers lives better/faster/cheaper etc.
SX and multisig are vital for creating decentralised and uncensorable escrow service
-
SX and multisig are vital for creating decentralised and uncensorable escrow service
Mirrax is correct.
Its the foundation for something bigger.
Sorta the intention of the BC to begin with. Decentralised Trust to the highest degree.
Just needs smart contracts and ftc is complete… well. who knows. tech moves so fast…
-
Viele danke fur ein wundershone video Kevlar, es ist punktlich!
-
I think the argument about no one staking may be incorrect I’d be happy to stake for the good of the community and the coin. Its the good Samaritan PoS. Plus you could have the chance of tx fees.
I dont have much to contribute to this discussion but I agree with this statement. I, as well as others, already keep wallets open 24/7 just to keep then up to date as well as relay transactions for no real benefit.
-
Dear friends,
Let me introduce you to Gridcoin, coin with humanitarian aspect and BOINC utilization (using PC power to contribute science research projects - folding proteins, solving mathematical problems, searching for extraterrestrial life, etc)
Why do I talk about Gridcoin?
1st, Gridcoin is changing emmision model
2nd, Gridcoin is switching from Scrypt Pow to POS
3rd, it is no way dead coin, rising in value as you read this
“Gridcoin-Research is based on the Proof of Stake algorithm, which itself is much more energy efficient. Energy-efficiency was already propagated during the release of Peercoin, the first Proof-of-Stake coin. Proof-of-Stake allows miners to dedicate 95% of their resources on BOINC, while only 5% are needed to secure the chain. In comparison, a profitable setup of Gridcoin-Classic, had only 10-40% of the computing power dedicated to BOINC and the rest towards securing the chain with scrypt algorithm mining.”
http://wiki.gridcoin.us/Reward_calculation
So please do not repeat or listen to this particular lie:
“You can not change emission model, it will damage the trust in the coin.”
As you can see this is not true, it is just baseless lamentation with no solid background.
-
If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s the idea that the coins have to perform a function in ADDITION to transactions. Transactions are a valuable function. They allow us to bypass the whole banking industry. Security is all you need for a coin to have and maintain value.
Changing the emission model causes damage when it’s pure speculation. Proof-of-Stake has elitism baked in because it rewards coin hoarders rather than asset holders. Proof-of-Work has gradual centralization baked in because of pools. I really need to finish FLUX.
-
If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s the idea that the coins have to perform a function in ADDITION to transactions. Transactions are a valuable function. They allow us to bypass the whole banking industry. Security is all you need for a coin to have and maintain value.
Changing the emission model causes damage when it’s pure speculation. Proof-of-Stake has elitism baked in because it rewards coin hoarders rather than asset holders. Proof-of-Work has gradual centralization baked in because of pools. I really need to finish FLUX.
0% reward in POS and elitism is gone
-
So, let’s recap the discussion so far.
Bushstar claims PoS won’t work, and lists a bunch of misconceptions.
I point out those misconceptions and explain to him why he’s wrong.
Bushstar ignores me, and pays a developer to implement ACP for him.
Fast forward to today…
Bushstar claims that PoS won’t work, and lists a bunch of misconceptions.
I point out those misconceptions and explain to him why he’s wrong.
A bunch of non-techies go out and provide a ton of viable models and counter examples.
Bushstar ignores us all, and implements ACP in the core.
We all on the same page here?
-
Changing the emission model causes damage when it’s pure speculation. Proof-of-Stake has elitism baked in because it rewards coin hoarders rather than asset holders. Proof-of-Work has gradual centralization baked in because of pools. I really need to finish FLUX.
Your first statement is itself pure speculation and your second one is irrelevant when PoS is at 0% reward.
-
So, let’s recap the discussion so far.
Bushstar claims PoS won’t work, and lists a bunch of misconceptions.
I point out those misconceptions and explain to him why he’s wrong.
Bushstar ignores me, and pays a developer to implement ACP for him.
Fast forward to today…
Bushstar claims that PoS won’t work, and lists a bunch of misconceptions.
I point out those misconceptions and explain to him why he’s wrong.
A bunch of non-techies go out and provide a ton of viable models and counter examples.
Bushstar ignores us all, and implements ACP in the core.
We all on the same page here?
You lack some info, but is hard to blame you as they restricted your access to team area and do not want you in FTC skype group. Bush agree on ACP elimination and is willing to consider adding POS. Adding ACP to core should be quick and temporaly task (which i kind of see as redundant but still). So It is not exactly as you see it…
-
My first statement has to do with the tendency of individuals to generate hype by flipping the script for some short term gain.
0% for staking does get rid of my main issue, but I’m having trouble understanding how PoS secures the chain better that PoW.
-
My first statement has to do with the tendency of individuals to generate hype by flipping the script for some short term gain.
0% for staking does get rid of my main issue, but I’m having trouble understanding how PoS secures the chain better that PoW.
Are you implying a change to PoS would be done for short term gain? If you are, you’ve misunderstood the reasoning for the change to begin with. Are you suggesting that it will result in hype? If so, then we can expect the typical PnD like always, but that has nothing to do with PoS, the inflation model, or the tendency of individuals.
PoS doesn’t secure the chain “better” than PoW, it does it exactly the same way. The only difference is that it’s distributed among coin holders instead of miners.
-
You lack some info, but is hard to blame you as they restricted your access to team area and do not want you in FTC skype group. Bush agree on ACP elimination and is willing to consider adding POS. Adding ACP to core should be quick and temporaly task (which i kind of see as redundant but still). So It is not exactly as you see it…
Well that’s at least good news.
You’re right, it’s not like Bushstar believes in transparency in development processes so there’s no real way I nor anyone else outside of his little support group could have known that publicly he’s lambasting me and banning me on the boards, while behind the scenes incorporating my suggestions clandestinely into the plan.
But hey, everyone loves hating me and thinks Bushstar is a God, so all is right in the world.
Go Team!
-
Nope, not implying that here. Just that the fear of change is warranted in many coins because of stunts devs pull.
Seems like PoS and PoW are two extremes. PoS: trust the output, PoW: trust the input.
-
Seems like PoS and PoW are two extremes. PoS: trust the output, PoW: trust the input.
You’re close.
In PoW, hardware verifies inputs.
In PoS, hardware verifies inputs with permission granted to it to do so with outputs. This eliminates the need to scale the difficulty based on hardware speeds, as you now want to scale it based on coin availability and staking, and keep the PoW portion of PoS relatively easy so there’s no gain with dedicated hardware.
