FTC's future
-
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.
-
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.
Notice at the moment as an investor you have a voice but no actual power*? Under DPoS, you could use your stake to vote for a delegated dev who supports your views, or even run yourself, giving you a proactive way to have your voice heard.
*other than selling your coins.
-
Will coin generation be stopped with DPoS?
I think that’s up to us and open for debate. If I understand bitshares correctly the delegates don’t need to take the full reward, which creates healthy competition. Another delegate could provide the same service for less reward and encourage votes for him by undercutting. A less labour intensive service could be rewarded less than a very intensive service offering value for money. To do this that way, would make it difficult to retain the current inflation model. If there is a real desire to keep the inflation model, perhaps this could be targeted with a maximum reward?
Do i need my wallet open all time in order to be allowed to vote?
No, your vote is recorded on the blockchain and costs you a TX fee. You vote stays on the blockchain until you change you mind requiring another TX fee.
how can I vote?
In bitshares there is a delegate tab in the wallet which ranks delegates by their current position. It’s as simple as clicking the thumb against as many of your chosen delegate as you wish. I’ve also noticed the bitshares forum has a button, so you can easily vote for the forum maintainer. It’s really simple to vote, the harder part would be making up your mind and promoting yourself as a delegate to the voters.
why should I vote?
what is the incentive for me to vote?
Because you want your say on the future direction or because you want to make sure someone gets fairly rewarded. The incentive is that you get to have a democratic say on the future direction and because you get to help people get fairly rewarded. Voters wouldn’t get a direct coin reward, unless they voted for someone who offered them that, which I guess is possible? Pooled voting?
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
That’s going to be part of the fun of democracy and will rejuvenate the community. Surely that’s better than the guy who spends the most on hardware and burns the most energy gets the vote/reward?
*edit* If your vote isn’t offering enough clout, you could always invest more to increase your weight.
-
Because you want your say on the future direction or because you want to make sure someone gets fairly rewarded. The incentive is that you get to have a democratic say on the future direction and because you get to help people get fairly rewarded.
[/quote
That is a philosophical or ethical reason to vote. I doubt, that it will work.
[quote]
Voters wouldn’t get a direct coin reward, unless they voted for someone who offered them that, which I guess is possible? Pooled voting?
Worst thing democracy has: Pay for votes. That is the dead of any democratic system.
-
It’s not so much paying for votes. Kevlar’s example of a hypothetical huge FTC holder who had 20% of the total available coins could only guarantee the appointment of two delegates without any opposition, essentially splitting his stake between two delegates 10% each. 20% of the wealth giving you a guaranteed
-
oops, sorry, I missed this bit. :)
That is a philosophical or ethical reason to vote. I doubt, that it will work.
The people that don’t vote don’t matter providing the people that do vote vote fairly.
What happens if the people that do vote don’t vote fairly, well, I guarantee many people will get off the fence if there’s something they don’t like or something they are enthusiastic about. We are on page 14 of a future thread, there is no shortage of voices.
-
Notice at the moment as an investor you have a voice but no actual power*? Under DPoS, you could use your stake to vote for a delegated dev who supports your views, or even run yourself, giving you a proactive way to have your voice heard.
*other than selling your coins.
As an investor/major holder I already have plenty of power (yes selling my holdings), major holders selling their coins price pummets, miners stay away, security drops, tech type dudes then panic dump, coin gets nowhere until you again make investors happy which again is the whole point of me being here.
You say “other than selling my coins” but that a huge thing, and in any coin, as a pretty good trader I could do more then just sell. (and thats a major flaw in just straight pos which many tech types like sunny king don’t get).
It hasn’t always been the case but current cryptos have reach the point where the market players control everything, and more then you realise.
-
There seems to be a lot of talk about DPoS here at the moment. Have we got any idea who would actually implement this? As it changes a fundamental aspect of the coin I can imagine its going to take a large amount of development. And we would have to be backwards compatible with Scrypt and Neoscrypt for the blockchain history.
Right now we have the benefit of the Bitcoin core development stream which we can take new features from. If we change to DPoS would this mean it would be much more work every time we want to upgrade to a newer core wallet? If so that’s long term additional work.
Like I say I’m not really against the idea just thinking of the practicalities.
-
There seems to be a lot of talk about DPoS here at the moment. Have we got any idea who would actually implement this?
well it best be never, or you’ll lose a few of your core investors without much hope of gaining new ones.
surely you guys arent that ignornant to put yet another nail in ftc’s coffin.
so in summary at this rate of blind ignorance to past mistakes i have no faith at all in ftc future.
i see a miner weighing in his prespective, a coder, etc all with very narrow views from their perspective, but no one steps back and look at a purpose for ftc or even how they got in this mess.
tis a ship without a rudder.
-
surely you guys arent that ignornant to put yet another nail in ftc’s coffin.
I’m anything but ignorant of what lays in front of us. We have a potential perfect storm of technology and the arguments for retaining beta software full of inherited issues for the sake of consistency as not to scare the inverters seems very limiting. We should be an open source technology start-up rather than an investment opportunity, anything else will just stifle what we can do with the technology. I’m excited about the technology, if the technology is sound, we will have success.
-
It is a shame but most people commenting here have no idea what dpos in fact is and how it works.
Thats why we see so many redundant and completely off topic posts here.
I suggest to educate yourself first so you dont look like a complete idiot.
- Dont forget to thank Dave for doing this for you.
-
Have we got any idea who would actually implement this?
Indeed. The conversation of DPoS originally came up because Lizhi was looking at it, as much as I would love to see this happen, with any open source project, it’s at the mercy of the dooers dooing.
I’m just excited by what I’m learning about the technology and I hope that others get excited too.
-
The difficulty is we are still followers here. We are following someone else’s lead if we go DPoS not that there is anything wrong with that. But if we simply follow and copy where is the part where we actually add some USP.
Neoscrypt however it is now viewed was us forging our own path something distinct and different.
I think we are putting a lot of faith/pressure on lizhi if he is the only deveper we have on this open source project.
(I know that’s rich coming from a developer who is unable to contribute to the c/c++ stuff) -
As for making changes at all. I think we always need to look at new things and see what benefit we could get from them and not be too scared to change or we will end up as a legacy coin.
But we also don’t need to jump on every new technology that’s comes along. Its a balance between benefits / capacity / overdose of change.
