FTC's future
-
ZD. Is flux like Automated Tx’s / Smart contracts?
I was looking at Factom possibly but it would be really neat if we had our own decentralised escrow platform.
-
When we start talking about elitism, how much ftc has been released and how much remains to be released and by when. I think thats the main concern here.
If the bulk of the coins are out, I see no issue in moving to PoS and also keeping the inflation model at the same time.
-
Flux is effectively coin neutral. It uses low hashes to generate tokens for passive exchange. Instead of sending FTC to get BTC, you send FTC into a temporary sidechain stream (block cloud might be a better term) that everyone can see and the tokens capture BTC from the stream. It’s impossible to steal coins by this scheme.
-
That’s right. Decentralised cross crypto exchange on the BC tech.
It would make ShapeShift and Coinnector etc redundant but for now were still leading the way for in wallet cross crypto exchange.
Maybe we could use Flux to help with the Escrow. In fact, it might be necessary now I think about it.
If the escrow we create can also use any coin in and any coin out. Well, that’s just truly mind blowing.
-
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!
I do lambast you as you have upset me greatly with your very personal attacks, every time I see something you have written it is about me. If only you could have contributed with your skills instead of beating down those below you. You have an amazing track record and seem well acclaimed but all you do is bully those who might aspire to be like you.
You have made my life miserable and I’m no longer happy to be your victim and am not going to occupy the same space as you. There are many friends for you here who know you are skilled and see you as a source of interesting ideas. I hope you do well by them.
-
-
-
Mining suck, no matter with what hardware.
It was fun in 2013 but those days are over.
I sold my GPUs.
Mining is waste.
Unnecessary waste.
With proposed POS solution all we nees is few rPI nodes to maintain healthly and eco-friendly network.
Well… isnt it necessary to secure the blockchain and keep transactions verified? Define me a rPI node that does Neoscrypt. It hasnt been done.
-
Mining suck, no matter with what hardware.
It was fun in 2013 but those days are over.
I sold my GPUs.
Mining is waste.
Unnecessary waste.
With proposed POS solution all we nees is few rPI nodes to maintain healthly and eco-friendly network.
Well… isnt it necessary to secure the blockchain and keep transactions verified? Define me a rPI node that does Neoscrypt. It hasnt been done.
I believe the general consensus is yes. The only people who disagree are the ASIC manufacturers and the Cloud Mining companies.
But you absolutely hit the nail on the head: What’s more important? Blockchain security? Or ASIC resistance? I would argue it’s Blockchain security that should win out in the decision making process every time, although I understand that’s not exactly the most popular opinion around here.
-
Actually, autonomy is the priority. I only need my money to be secure until I spend it. Giving any group more access or control than the people using the currency is ridiculous and careless.
-
Actually, autonomy is the priority. I only need my money to be secure until I spend it. Giving any group more access or control than the people using the currency is ridiculous and careless.
Autonomy is a side effect of a secure blockchain. You can make things autonomous (the Internet is autonomous), and still not solve the security problem (SSL still requires trust in an authority). Your personal priority might be autonomy, but the blockchain’s primary function is to provide security while acting autonomously, and any technology decision should be made with that in mind (An argument against NeoScrypt as it has, predictably enough, centralized mining which eliminates security).
-
…
…
Define me a rPI node that does Neoscrypt. It hasnt been done.rPI runs a vairant of Debian, so it is possible to compile the cpuminer supporting Neoscrypt.
Speed of hashing is another topic.
-
rPI runs a vairant of Debian, so it is possible to compile the cpuminer supporting Neoscrypt.
Speed of hashing is another topic.
That… entirely misses the point of what he was saying. How disappointing. :(
-
rPi DPoS nodes…
Is that a thing?
Is it possible to incorporate the BC into an rPi node?
-
rPi DPoS nodes…
Is that a thing?
Is it possible to incorporate the BC into an rPi node?
Yes, it’s rather trivial to do, and has been done many times in the past for point of sale terminal projects and the like.
It’s fine for broadcasting transactions. It’s beyond stupid for mining.
-
So if ftc went to DPoS, that means the delegates will be the ones given the authority to be the only PoW miners on the network.
Ultimately, the rPi nodes would be used for distributing the BC I presume.
There would no reason a delegate couldn’t setup a rPi node to maintain a physical miner such as an external CPU or GPU etc.
-
So if ftc went to DPoS, that means the delegates will be the ones given the authority to be the only PoW miners on the network.
Ultimately, the rPi nodes would be used for distributing the BC I presume.
There would no reason a delegate couldn’t setup a rPi node to maintain a physical miner such as an external CPU or GPU etc.
That’s correct. But it’s even easier than that: Since the number of delegates is tiny, there’s no need to compete with hashrates, so difficulty can remain so low that specialized hardware isn’t required any more and a rPi could be used for mining.
That’s WHY DPoS solves the distributed consensus in a much more efficent way than PoW: Because you get maximum security with maximum decentralization using a trustless voting system with no need for waste product (heat).
-
I like the sound of dpos. Its looked at what’s happened with centralisation due to ASIC’s and decided to bake centralisation in from the very start but at a fixed scale of 101 delegates.
I do have a couple of questions tho if anyone knows the answer it would help me a lot.
What makes these 101 delegates any more trusted than any other? They have to pay a fee but its still quite small.
What is stopping someone creating a botnet of voters for their own 51/101 delegates. Is this the equivalent of a 51% attack.
I’m surprised that the pow solution was trying to eliminate the need for trust and the Byzantine generals problem.
This solution does however seem to fit perfectly into the banking sector.
-
I like the sound of dpos. Its looked at what’s happened with centralisation due to ASIC’s and decided to bake centralisation in from the very start but at a fixed scale of 101 delegates.
I do have a couple of questions tho if anyone knows the answer it would help me a lot.
What makes these 101 delegates any more trusted than any other? They have to pay a fee but its still quite small.
What is stopping someone creating a botnet of voters for their own 51/101 delegates. Is this the equivalent of a 51% attack.
I’m surprised that the pow solution was trying to eliminate the need for trust and the Byzantine generals problem.
This solution does however seem to fit perfectly into the banking sector.
What makes the delegates “more” trusted? The fact that they’re delegates means that they’re the ONLY ones who are trusted. The question then becomes: Who do you trust? This works because your trust can be revoked and redistributed at any moment.
What is stopping someone from creating a botnet of voters? Coin ownership. You must own coins to vote. That’s why it’s called DPoS, because you still have to have a stake to vote. Yes, this would be the equivalent of a 51% attack if you owned 51% of the coins. This is no different than a PoS 51% attack.
The distributed consensus problem which was solved by the PoW solution IS a solution for the Byzantine general’s problem, a problem thought unsolvable with less than 2/3rds trusted actors prior to HashCash, where the PoW solution was first seen. Prior to that the best known solution was a 66% solution, or two thirds trusted actors. With the PoW solution, they dropped that number of 51% instead of 66%. You can’t eliminate trust, you still have to trust that 51% of the network is uncompromised, but this is a improvement over the previous solution which required 66% of the network to be uncompromised. There’s even whitepapers detailing in great detail why you can’t solve the Byzantine general’s problem with less than 2/3rds actors… apparently Satoshi never read that one, or at least if he did he went, “Ok, but what if THIS assumption was wrong…” and the result is Bitcoin.
-
I’ve done a little straw poll over at Bitcointalk and general consensus seems to disagree with changing hashing algo, coin supply and pow/pos switch.
I must say I agree but the last commenter has a point. Why don’t we just fork the coin and see if these new algo/supply choices work out better than Feathercoins.
I think this is actually the best option.
Sorry forgot to add link to poll.
