FTC's future
-
shadowhh32 what litecoin is doing right.
-
has a purpose, both a stated purpose (which people believe), and a useability purpose (which even if not the makers original purpose works for it for now).
-
it doesn’t change core features and core devs aren’t influenced on ltc v USD when making crucial decisions, so it has TRUST (trust from another BIG point even over and above bitcoin especially if cryptos go mainstream).
-
Its not getting into the arms race of adding ‘innovative features’ (which those with the actual cash to invest know is all bs), keeping it simple.
-
-
At the moment there is too many ‘believes’ and arguments around DPoS.
We should try to set up a simulaton or a Sandbox and start to learn how to works, what the sweet spots and what the weak points of it.
A change that big has a lot of risks and needs to be prepared very well
and plenty of none believers in the crowd that actually knows how to code, todate there is not one smoothly working alt that using POS let alone Dpos,
sumary POS is dodgy as
also Dpos is just added compication
-
shadowhh32 what litecoin is doing right.
-
has a purpose, both a stated purpose (which people believe), and a useability purpose (which even if not the makers original purpose works for it for now).
-
it doesn’t change core features and core devs aren’t influenced on ltc v USD when making crucial decisions, so it has TRUST (trust from another BIG point even over and above bitcoin especially if cryptos go mainstream).
-
Its not getting into the arms race of adding ‘innovative features’ (which those with the actual cash to invest know is all bs), keeping it simple.
Neither Litecoin nor Bitcoin are doing anything right. Litecoin has a historical price based on a lie: Being added to MtGox. Bitcoin has a historical lie behind it also: MtGox prices were fake and Silk Road was its real foundation.
Technology is not an arms race. It’s actually serving needs. The interface is not simple, it’s sparse. The elephant in the room: Bitcoin code is ridiculously non-modular.
Anyways, you want a solution. I am doing it this week. Lizhi is onto something.
-
-
zerodrama you are basing you’re whole argument on cryptos vs USD, thinking along those lines and you are seriously in the wrong game.
forget price give me something of value,
“Anyways, you want a solution. I am doing it this week. Lizhi is onto something.”
What is your solution?
More importantly what is the problem you are solving?
-
Stagnation is the problem.
Solution:
1. I am building a method for news to actually be coordinated about cryptocoins.
2. I am working on a modular core for cryptocoins so people can stop debating the difficulty of coding for cryptocoin.
3. Link / Flux is going to get done as my life has gotten less crazy.
4. I am suggesting that a shoutbox be added to the top of the forum cuz this place looks dead.
-
zerodrama on this occasion I both agree with what the problem is and your solutions :)
one of the biggest things to help ftc to is previous height (though I’m sure this round you guys want even higher), was articles everywhere to be found about feathercoin, also those oxford videos on ftc users etc where pretty cool.
now seems very little out there on ftc also yeah bit thin on the core supporters in here…improving on thats are good start.
-
Oh I agree and that’s certainly an issue that needs resolving. I’m working on the new website with an aim at instilling that vibe once again. It was that which got me into feathercoin. We have dug into the forum and people can’t see in the hole and we all know that needs fixing. (BTW if anyone has any spare time and wishes to help contribute towards the website content, please drop me a PM)
But these are two separate issues both can be worked on in tandem.
-
I like the ‘keep it simple’ part :)
-
I like the ‘keep it simple’ part :)
There’s nothing simple about 1,116 GH/s + of screaming hot energy sucking devices in rows and rows in air conditioned warehouses all over the world that we need to secure a blockchain. DPoS is simplified, you’ve simplified the mining down to 101 miners (at any one time) and reduce the difficulty whilst securing the blockchain, incentivising develoment, community participation and making the blockchain faster. :)
-
Just to clarify my point above where I said, “at any one time”; it doesn’t mean 101 miners all competing PoW style. It’s the top 101 delegates based on the democratic “stake vote” who take turns, so each of the delegated miners gets to mine a block at low difficulty in sequence.
-
There’s nothing simple about 1,116 GH/s + of screaming hot energy sucking devices in rows and rows in air conditioned warehouses all over the world that we need to secure a blockchain. DPoS is simplified, you’ve simplified the mining down to 101 miners (at any one time) and reduce the difficulty whilst securing the blockchain, incentivising develoment, community participation and making the blockchain faster. :)
and there’s nothing not centralised about having 101 miners at anyone time whether they are rotated or voted or not. wouldn’t you call the US goverment centralised (voted and rotated, no?)?
-
I just have one question. Who pays for the network construction and development ?
DPoS provides a block chain hire.
No menoy No future
-
and there’s nothing not centralised about having 101 miners at anyone time whether they are rotated or voted or not. wouldn’t you call the US goverment centralised (voted and rotated, no?)?
Small groups doesn’t equal centralised IMO. I’m not hot on US politics, but you have two voting options from what I gather? Surely the choice of hundreds of independent parties to elect 101 independent representatives with no president would much much more decentralised than what you have now? On top of that the fixed term of DPoS in Bitshares is seconds rather than years. If you lose faith in your representative you can retract your vote.
-
I just have one question. Who pays for the network construction and development ?
DPoS provides a block chain hire.
No menoy No future
Exactly. I would vote for Lizhi, he would receive an incentive to continue his development. Who is more deserving of the reward? Some random guy who had enough capital to burn energy (PoW), enough capital to invest in a large stake (PoS) or Lizhi who works tirelessly and gets thrown tips?
Bottom line, we could be funding hundreds of different 3rd party services being built to move feathercoin forward rather than the race to the bottom in the cashing out fiat for hashing race.
-
Credit to poiuty for this dynamic image. 56% of our hashrate is coming from 3 pools. Sure, they are pooling mining resources, but it’s still very very ‘centralised’ too.
-
So what is our purpose again? And these innovative feature you speak of…arent they required now that we have gone Neoscrypt and borked everything up? Change is enevitable.Nobody likes change.I think we need to fix what weve broken.
-
No, I don’t think that’s correct, most of the issues we need to fix with DPoS would be present even if we remained on Scrypt.
- **_Problem 51% attack and the need for ACP: _**DPoS reduces the risk of a 51% attack, removing the need for a 51% prevention system, like ACP.
- **_Problem Incentives are wrong: _**DPoS changes the incentives offering a chance to those who don’t have capital to invest. You could earn FTC under DPoS by devoting your time and getting enough votes as a delegate, for instance.
- _Problem 3rd party providers don’t get enough support. _DPoS could help fund advancements in 3rd party software and tools acting as an almost decentralised crowd funding platform.
- _Problem blockchain is slow. _DPoS could reduce our block time down to a blisteringly fast 10 seconds and have blocks running on time like clockwork. Bitshares already has 10second block time.
- **_Problem network is poorly distributed. _**DPoS changes the pool centralisation, in PoW miners are voting for the pool owner with their hash rate, we could change a handful of ‘pool owners’ into 101 delegates. (See the pie chart above, that could be divided up into 101 slices)
- **_Problem Network is expensive to run. _**DPoS reduces the electricity demands on the people running the network, making it cheaper to run. DPoS is turn-based with no difficulty, the important bit isn’t so much the hash you submit but the fact that you can prove you have the backing of the other holders through ‘stake votes’. There is no need to buy expensive equipment, making a CPU sufficient to submit a hash.
None of these things would be fixed by going back to Scrypt alone.
-
Problem Incentives are wrong: DPoS changes the incentives offering a chance to those who don’t have capital to invest. You could earn FTC under DPoS by devoting your time and getting enough votes as a delegate, for instance.
I think, it will be exactly the same situation as it is today. Even today nearly every PC has a GPU, so mining FTC does not require additional HW invest.
In DPos the little fish has no chance at all to mine, he just can vote for somebody else to mine. What will be the insentive here for the ones voting?At the end we will have 101 miners - and i don’t believe that the elected group will change often, if ever- which is little improvement above the current situation. The 44% ‘other’ in the graph represent smaller pools, p2pool and solo miners, so I say 44% of hashing power is comming from small sources.
Or, if adding give me coins and block factory, more than 50% of the hashpower is distributed.**_Problem 3rd party providers don’t get enough support. _**DPoS could help fund advancements in 3rd party software and tools acting as an almost decentralised crowd funding platform.
Why should/can DPoS help here? A open API to the wallet allowing 3rd parties to click in their applications/services would do the job and is less risky to implement.
**_Problem network is poorly distributed. _**DPoS changes the pool centralisation, in PoW miners are voting for the pool owner with their hash rate, we could change a handful of ‘pool owners’ into 101 delegates. (See the pie chart above, that could be divided up into 101 slices)
If you put ~ 15 p2pool operators in the equation we go from 19 units to 101… not a big increase…
_Problem Network is expensive to run. _
agreed. No coin is really ‘green IT’
What I still don’t stand is the following:
- Will coin generation be stopped with DPoS?
- Do i need my wallet open all time in order to be allowed to vote?
- how can I vote?
- why should I vote?
- what is the incentive for me to vote?
- how will the I as avergage guy -not a miner anymore- decide who’ll get my vote. There is a big risk that the ones shouting loudest getting most votes and not the ones really working for the coin
Summary:
- why should I use/support a coin, where I don’t understand the mechanism of?
footnote: I don’t like to watch explanations on youtube nor do I like to scan through the discussions on bitcointalk
-
I just have one question. Who pays for the network construction and development ?
well if you had plan to create a purpose for ftc, made it something of value…then you’d know the answer to that.
don’t take this as a personal attack, but when have you ever been right about making changes to feathercoin?
one definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting a different outcome.
i’ll tell you straight because i am part of the market that its the constant core changes that are killing ftc. the more you change the less trust you have.
but you’re what we call in my field a techno fiddler, you just gotta keep fiddling with it cause it give you some purpose, some relevence, but take a big step back and look, you’re just repeating the same mistakes thinking changing the code will fix everything.
-
Quote
Problem Incentives are wrong: DPoS changes the incentives offering a chance to those who don’t have capital to invest. You could earn FTC under DPoS by devoting your time and getting enough votes as a delegate, for instance.
I think, it will be exactly the same situation as it is today. Even today nearly every PC has a GPU, so mining FTC does not require additional HW invest.
In DPos the little fish has no chance at all to mine, he just can vote for somebody else to mine. What will be the insentive here for the ones voting?At the end we will have 101 miners - and i don’t believe that the elected group will change often, if ever- which is little improvement above the current situation. The 44% ‘other’ in the graph represent smaller pools, p2pool and solo miners, so I say 44% of hashing power is comming from small sources.
Or, if adding give me coins and block factory, more than 50% of the hashpower is distributed.That Satoshi dream of decentralised network where everyone can contribute using their PC just isn’t realistic. A run of mill, general purpose PC with a bog standard GPU in a home with average electricity costs, would have a hash rate which might produce a trickle of FTC, it would be expensive to run, ties up a PC full time, wouldn’t be profitable and that removes the incentive. At the moment, only a privileged few with access to enough equipment and free electricity get actually net rewarded. The block reward is supposed to be an incentive not a punishment for helping secure the network.
Under DPoS, the challenge isn’t amassing enough wealth and burn enough energy to participate, it’s amassing to votes from the community. The investment barrier to entry is removed and replaced with one where the community and the network benefits.
**_Problem 3rd party providers don’t get enough support. _**DPoS could help fund advancements in 3rd party software and tools acting as an almost decentralised crowd funding platform.
Why should/can DPoS help here? A open API to the wallet allowing 3rd parties to click in their applications/services would do the job and is less risky to implement.
I’ll use the example of UKMark’s SMS wallet, because I believe it was a great concept which wasn’t supported enough to make it worth his effort, but I know there are many others. With PoW profit margins are slim if not nonexistant, most of the block reward actually goes to the shovel sellers and the energy companies leaving little for people to contribute to the development of these 3rd party services that perhaps we don’t need yet, but would like to see developed. Under DPoS, the community could vote for these services as delegates to encourage their development. I’d rather developers had the profit than AMD, Nvidia and the big energy companies.
Quote
**_Problem network is poorly distributed. _**DPoS changes the pool centralisation, in PoW miners are voting for the pool owner with their hash rate, we could change a handful of ‘pool owners’ into 101 delegates. (See the pie chart above, that could be divided up into 101 slices)
If you put ~ 15 p2pool operators in the equation we go from 19 units to 101… not a big increase…
That pie chart doesn’t list coinotron who have 54mh/s + slice of unknown section of the pie. But even still the p2pool operators are dwarfed by the largest pools. The point is there multiple pools who could attain 51% of the network, either by increasing their own hash rates or other pools reducing theirs and that’s before you look at malicious attacks against pools to knock them off to increase the lion’s share.
Quote
_Problem Network is expensive to run. _
agreed. No coin is really ‘green IT’
In DPoS there would only be 101 miners, submitting a simple low dif hash from a CPU. It’s about as green as we are going to get.
What I still don’t stand is the following:
- Will coin generation be stopped with DPoS?
- Do i need my wallet open all time in order to be allowed to vote?
- how can I vote?
- why should I vote?
- what is the incentive for me to vote?
- how will the I as avergage guy -not a miner anymore- decide who’ll get my vote. There is a big risk that the ones shouting loudest getting most votes and not the ones really working for the coin
I’ll answer these on a separate post.
