FTC's future
-
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.
-
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)Frustratingly we have haemorrhaged developers because the incentives are wrong. If you can’t offer a single incentive to your developers that will continue.
-
Which I guess leads on to your other point, if you want us to stop following and start leading with unique tech, you need developers. To get and retain developers we need to give them the valuable tokens rather than cashing out to give to the shovel sellers and the energy companies fiat.
-
It is a shame but most people commenting here have no idea what dpos in fact is and how it works.
its a shame people judge before they know the person just because they have an opposite view.
I’ve been on the dev team, an alpha, beta and security tester behind quiet a few cryptos, (i just mostly keep that part behind the scenes due to my outspokeness on btt) including hacking ripple at the time when all those millions went missing (for which if you check github you’ll see I received the bounty for)., also been part of the dev team on 3 pos coins, a few coins i wont even mention here, also alpha on blockchain voting and a beta tester on gemini.
Dpos yeah I do get it.
think about it, it aint going to save ftc, it IS centralisation no matter how bullshit you paint it (just like the US gov as explained earlier), no one will trust ftc, about 0.0002% of those in crypto actually believe the old innovation bullshit.
ITS MONEY CURRENCY not colonistion of MARS.
HOW LOUD DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO SCREAM AT YOU GUYS STOP YOU ARE THE GUYS KILLING FEATHERCOIN. its why i came here hoping after you guys burnt yourselves last time that this time you’d see sense (cause there was no hope of explaining it to you before the last failure).
-
just like the US gov as explained earlier
I’ve stated previously why I think it’s nothing like your analogy for the US government and you didn’t reply. I’m always willing to learn why my views are wrong. :)
-
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.
small groups in control of a larger population is the very definition of centralisation. in my country we don’t have a president or similar yet this gov (which is voted from hundreds of independent parties) is still centralisation.
the whole ideal behind cryptos is to offer an alternatives to the central authority controlled fiat not to replicate it.
being in this thread and get the sense that I am wasting my breath, looks like, by those in control of the code, the deals been done, plan set in motion, a course you guys are hell bent on following and willing to ignore any opposition too (just like most government representatives once they get an idea),
you’ll only get defensive to any arguments put forward against your plan.
-
small groups in control of a larger population is the very definition of centralisation. in my country we don’t have a president or similar yet this gov (which is voted from hundreds of independent parties) is still centralisation.
DPoS doesn’t vote for absolute control it votes on distribution of the incentives. You are only voting for who gets the tokens and the incentive. Centralisation is having a core development team who get to choose and impose their say on everyone by maintaining the git and releasing official binaries on the official website. In this respect DPoS could help us become more autonomous.
being in this thread and get the sense that I am wasting my breath, looks like, by those in control of the code, the deals been done, plan set in motion, a course you guys are hell bent on following and willing to ignore any opposition too (just like most government representatives once they get an idea),
I can assure you that’s certainly not the case in this instance, quite the opposite. This is a discussion board, where ideas can be discussed and I’m not a core developer. I’m laying out what I believe to be a strong case for DPoS to fix multiple issues in the hope to help others understand why I’m excited by it. Believe me, I have a monumental task ahead of me if this is likely to come to fruition.
you’ll only get defensive to any arguments put forward against your plan.
Please don’t presume my future actions, I’m not one to get defensive, it’s no reason not to put forward your argument.
-
Vote on money is fundamentally daft.
That’s not even what money is about.
Voting turns people into idle zombies.
Code is centralized because it’s crap.
-
Also, having sound tech doesn’t bring customers… sure bad tech sends them packing, but we need to focus on value adding features. What does the crypo community want in an altcoin? What does a potential customer want? Seamless transactions which they can use for anything; the visa/mastercard of the crypto world? Current users are simply speculative traders which is a destructive niche and one that is already a totally saturated market. So where then can FTC provide value? That is the question we need to be answering; all the awesome tech in the world won’t make people necessarily use it, and then its still a gold plated poop.
Minimum Viable Product, and go from there. I had high hopes for the Hull City trial… how is that going and who is in touch with them?
-
…
being in this thread and get the sense that I am wasting my breath, looks like, by those in control of the code, the deals been done, plan set in motion, a course you guys are hell bent on following and willing to ignore any opposition too (just like most government representatives once they get an idea),
…
There are thoughs to implement DPoS, ys, but there are discussions about the pro and cons on many levels, so please use your presence here to help finding the best way to go for the coin.
Also all code is open source, so there is only limited control of the code possible. I’d name it more ‘coordination and testing’ rather than control.
