FTC's future
-
Increasing mining will decrease market price.
There was even a proper study that proved that wrong, 1:43am here I’ll find it some other time.
Any more core changes and you’ll push it so far it won’t return, I know myself as an investor in ftc I’ll bail, as simply you guys aren’t learning, trust is the key, the whole trustless system seems to be lost on most change core on a whim alts.
I’m here cause I can see some hope with feathercoin, its one we can simplify for the masses. it has the heritage so its better to work with then most.
tba I don’t think ur dev team could even pull adding pos off without issues.
-
There was even a proper study that proved that wrong, 1:43am here I’ll find it some other time.
Any more core changes and you’ll push it so far it won’t return, I know myself as an investor in ftc I’ll bail, as simply you guys aren’t learning, trust is the key, the whole trustless system seems to be lost on most change core on a whim alts.
I’m here cause I can see some hope with feathercoin, its one we can simplify for the masses. it has the heritage so its better to work with then most.
tba I don’t think ur dev team could even pull adding pos off without issues.
Mining for fiat destroys pure theory. I know what I see on the exchanges with my own eyes.
Trust in broken code is misplaced. Pain later will be deadly, but the fact is users are not taught the mechanics of the code.
Best way to simplify is to separate from Bitcoin / Litecoin and make integrating updates easy. That’s a challenge.
Our dev team can handle it. What’s in the way is a series of bandages we put on when we were attacked.
-
not everyone mines for fiat, actually much of the opposite problem with btc/ltc, mostly hoarding very few coins ever even move.
sorry whats so broken in the code? you telling me feathercoin is less secure then when it was when it was going relatively well earlier on in its life?
well your hardly survived the most recent attack (the one that happened on market ie the dump).
its your funeral guys, most of what I am reading of future plans is not different approach then past failures…take a step back and look., I am explaining this as an independent observer.
look around join other failed coins and they are all saying the same thing falling into the same trap.
i see 1001 coins all playing the same game all fighting for the same pie and as more coins arrive that pie gets smaller and smaller, why would ftc interest me, because its an early coin that can stand out on that, thats a start thats a seed, but if it plays the same panic core change game to stay relevant it will fail.
-
Sure we can find uses for the tokens, I’m all in favour of that. If people want to push for greater adoption of the tokens, that’s great, but it’s not like we have to have one unified direction to move in.
But lets not forget why we have tokens, the release of tokens is just to incentivise the preservation of the blockchain. The blockchain is the service on which ‘money’ runs as an application.
So as it stands, the incentives are wrong, we are issusing tokens to people who need to dump to fiat to compete in the arms race creating a race to the bottom. The tokens are not suitable for real world usage. The blockchain isn’t secure, the cost to 51% isn’t high enough, meaning that we cannot offer the blockchain as a service. We have problems to fix outside of adoption.
So I support DPoS as we stop the arms race, we incentivise the correct people, the contributors, by voting for them as delagates and make the blockchain more secure in one move. That’s solid foundations on which the rest of the blockchain services can be built.
-
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.
