FTC's future
-
Your right MrWyrm The hashrate is pretty low meaning we don’t have the kind of security we should have. And that means a 51% attack is cheap. As kevlar has said a botnet could do it.
But I can see the other side of the argument as this issue would also be resolved if the price was higher as more miners would have the incentive to mine which would secure the blockchain to a much higher degree potentially making a 51% attack unfeasible again.
I like the idea of a 0% PoS to help in the short term to help with the security problem.
Which does have an incentive for stakers in the form tx fees. Which while small (and irrelevant at the moment as we could run PoS just out of the goodness of our own heart as a community) in the long run if we can make the value rise by making it a more valuable Proposition that may be enough coupled with the mining to secure the blockchain.I’m not sold entirely on DPoS as I don’t like the centralisation even if its still a large group. (Unless we could do mining + a 0% DPos or 50% / 50%?)
But I do agree entirely that we should be looking as to at least one use for FTC and I don’t think these need to be in competition as there is a lot of scope for ideas.
We need developers like lizhi and kevlar and others to keep Feathercoin technically viable and up to date with advancements in that area and to push for further advancements.
But there is also a need for a community and for ideas and spreading the word to the non crypto majority. We often forget that only a fraction of the population even know about Bitcoin never mind Feathercoin. And we need to be coming up with new uses and campaigns and keeping us connected with the outside world and the crypto world.
There is space for both here. We just need to be careful not to blur the lines between them too much. If kevlar has taught me anything its that the technical end needs to be completely disconnected from emotions so it can focus on practical and the engineering practices.
-
My 5 cents:
- We focus to much on technology and technical changes.
- We always should ask first:
- 'what is the average users benefit of the change we are planning? What is the benefit ofr the coin? What are the effects on the community?
- We should focus more on the non-technical questions
- what is the use for the coin?
- is the use unique?
- what are the ‘outside worlds’ request for the coin
- how can we adapt to that request
Regarding PoS I think it would be the dead of the coin. 0% Pos and Tx fees only would not give and intensive for anybody to even open a wallet and do PoS mining, as there are -nearly- no transfers except the mining fees paid to the miners and if these diminish, there will be no coin flow.
- no coin flow -> no tx fees
- no coin flow -> no wallet open
- no coin flow -> coin dead
May be I totally misunderstand the principle of PoS so if anybody is able to enlighten me, I appreciate that.
-
But I can see the other side of the argument as this issue would also be resolved if the price was higher as more miners would have the incentive to mine which would secure the blockchain to a much higher degree potentially making a 51% attack unfeasible again.
As long as there is an arms race there will be a transfer of wealth to the shovel sellers. The price will always get dragged down by the transfer to fiat for the need for ROI on new shovels to stay competitive. It can’t end.
-
while I agree that 0% doesnt give incentive to miners and TX fees only disintegrate the trust in miners you have to realize that without blockchain security we are as well as where we were with scrypt. We need to secure the blockchain. Then we can worry about the economy. How is the coin being adopted, etc.Well, look at Bitcoin. If theres no trust or knowledge there then how do you assume that people know about feathercoin? You simply cant. You have to know about cryptocurrencies to begin with or feathercoin is useless to you. As far as market adoption, well, we need something big out there, I agree, to market feathercoin above bitcoin and the rest.Its just that cryptocurrencies as a whole are not being adopted as mainstream as we would like.How do you put feathercoin above bitcoin when cryptocurrencies are being shunned everywhere? Feathercoin needs to live up to its name and be faster and more secure than the rest in my opinion. Then we can worry about market adoption. There are trading platforms which trade in micropayments and that arent as big as BTC-e, maybe we can start there.Of course you have to put your coin where your mouth is and vote.No voting means no feathercoin in the market.
-
I suggest to study more about DPOS, that is very interesting. Lot of team members like the principle.
-
That’s true but the GPU arms race is a lot slower than the ASIC one and there currently is an huge untapped GPU resource pool inside gaming PCs which reduces cost of entry to almost zero.
I think we need to remember that most of the value of Feathercoin is to miners which are holders/investors but the sell orders currently outmatch the buy orders. But that can change overnight as we have seen before. We are on a long slow downward trend but that does not mean its going to continue. I don’t think anyone would have predicted the huge rise last year.
I’m waffling but all I’m saying is we need to be careful in case the only incentive that exists for FTC right now is mining.
-
with dpos it is no problem to keep neo
-
That’s true but the GPU arms race is a lot slower than the ASIC one and there currently is an huge untapped GPU resource pool inside gaming PCs which reduces cost of entry to almost zero.
Then it becomes about how many GPUs you own in your farm that you need ROI on.
-
True but that’s the nature of any incentive. People will try to leverage it to take advantage.
-
-
We need to look at keeping miners not losing them tho. No incentive means no miners. And we crippled the GPU miners with neo. Sure you CAN mine, but is 5 FTC/day worth it? Certainly not going to make you rich anytime soon, thats for sure. We may be a more secure coin, but this security comes at a cost and not even the high end R series Radeon peeps from what Im seeing are having much luck with the low hash rate of neoscrypt.I dont think its a matter of diffuculty, its a matter of hash power each individual has. With bitcoin you have Megahashes, scrypt Kilo hashes, we are lucky to have hases at all with neoscrypt.So how does one distribute the hash enough to make a difference in securing the blockchain if we are having so much hassle hashing out the coin in the first place? Where is the incentive to secure the blockchain? Unless DPos has something hidden up its sleeves Im cluless as to how we are going to keep people interested in a so called “secure” currency. I think the investers are bailing because the miners are bailing.Neoscrypt is just too hard on the hardware. Think miner ROI and Feathercoin isnt in the picture. Scrypt is where its at if you want GPUs involved.
-
No scrypt is pointless with GPUs now asics have made them redundant.
I think all of these problems really stem from one thing and that’s price. Hash is low as the value of the mined coins is low so few miners join in. Price has been dropping so investors can’t see an up side to buying.
-
If I understand DPoS correctly, DPoS miners wouldn’t even need a GPU, the difficulty would be low, they just need to submit a hash and prove they have enough ‘stake vote’ to be one of the X number of delegates.
-
To get that ‘stake vote’ they need the votes from the community (coin holders).
“This guy is doing something good, I’ll vote for him as a delegate to make sure he is rewarded”
“This guy who I’ve been voting for has let me down, I’m no longer voting for him”
It’s not going to create an elite club that the community can’t remove if they went rogue, it’s going to encourage people to do things worth voting for.
-
while some may argue pow leads to centralisations, DPos is centralisation by design. Don’t get me started on POS, but in anycase whatever your poison continually changing on the fly scares investors away.
trust is more important then innovation when we are talking money. whether it be miners or traders few people have trust in feathercoin and thats because of the constant changes and no clear path or direction or even stated purpose.
-
A limited number of miners at any one time doesn’t equal centralisation. In DPoS the delegates are not set in stone, they will shift, be voted in and be voted out. New people without large capital could attract votes for good deeds. Contrast that with Bitcoin where it appears centralised on only a few large pools with a HUGE barrier to entry and therefore almost zero chance of changing without huge capital to compete with any of the largest players.
-
FTC has had and lost killer 3rd party services like SMS wallets, Twitter tipbots, accounting packages and many others largely through lack of support from the community. So whilst I might not need a SMS wallet at the moment since there isn’t a problem to fill, I could still vote for that developer so he receives an incentive to continue.
-
while some may argue pow leads to centralisations, DPos is centralisation by design. Don’t get me started on POS, but in anycase whatever your poison continually changing on the fly scares investors away.
trust is more important then innovation when we are talking money. whether it be miners or traders few people have trust in feathercoin and thats because of the constant changes and no clear path or direction or even stated purpose.
Confidence (an opinion) is necessary, not trust (a dependency). The whole point of cryptocoins is ZERO trust.
We’re not innovating here. We are securing the coin. There is no confidence without security.
-
while some may argue pow leads to centralisations, DPos is centralisation by design. Don’t get me started on POS, but in anycase whatever your poison continually changing on the fly scares investors away.
trust is more important then innovation when we are talking money. whether it be miners or traders few people have trust in feathercoin and thats because of the constant changes and no clear path or direction or even stated purpose.
NO, DPOS is not centralization.
Not at all.
-
It is!
Or at least it can be.
100 or 101 individuals/miners/… are selected and one of them will be drawn to mine the next PosSblock. I doubt, that the selection of delegates will change often, so it will be always the same group.
Stake holders have no interest to change their vote, once given, so after an initial phase of selections the situation will become more static.
Imaginge, that nobody even selects/votes for a delegate.
Then I think the 101 richest Wallets will gain the right to mine PoS Blocks.
May be I totally misunderstood the principle, but that what I get from the descriptions and discussions
I call that centrailzation.
