FTC's future
-
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.
-
link?
-
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.
Sorry forgot to add link to poll.
if a dev really wants to make a few changes he should just fork his own coin into a new one and initialize it with the blockchain from his original coin. that way his investors can decide which route to follow.
I got butchered for that idea on slack…
In fact, I started with that idea.
That was the dual fork idea. But it was decided that it showed division.
-
I got butchered for that idea on slack…
In fact, I started with that idea.
That was the dual fork idea. But it was decided that it showed division.
As usual, the gears of progress ground to a halt before they can even get turning.
-
I’m just a little miffed that its ok to talk about this stuff now yet I coped so much flack for even bringing this stuff up.
I stand by either ftc leaves its inflation or we stop production. That’s it. Anything in between is just pointless.
-
Actually. I’m annoyed at myself for deleting my own posts and hiding my own opinion.
-
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.
I suggest that, and I’m publicly lambasted, insulted, verbally abused, accused of all sorts of nefarious intent, and made to feel completely unwelcome.
Some asshole on a random post suggests it, and suddenly it’s the best option.
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
-
Embodiment is the key word here. I’m in kevlars boat. I feel like a fool suggesting ideas. Been beaten and shot down. Almost splitting the community down the middle, and now all of a sudden this stuff is ok to talk about.
I’m not angry at the staff/team/community/investors or anything like that. I’m just running out of energy and I have to be up till crazy hours of the morning to be able to discuss things with people. I get tired and say stuff i regret. I start second questioning myself and I’m starting to feel like a great big hypocrit
-
I think we can do it in small steps, first go to hybrid POW + POS phase and give people time.
Our lead developer (Lizhi) is also in favor of this idea.
-
It was fine when you suggested it. I just disagreed at the time. So shoot me.
I’ve read more and listened to more of your ideas and all I’m saying is maybe you were right.
I don’t see how I’m always the bad guy here?
-
At the time I thought the status quo was an option. I now realise that its not.
