FTC's future
-
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.
-
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.
when it comes to any currency trust is necessary, bitcoin claims to create a trustless system ie no need for trust as the code don’t lie (whereby fiat u need to trust the money printers, gov or some other party etc).
though you could argue bitcoin isn’t trustless, you could accept bitcoin code the way it is today yet it only needs like 5 people to change it (irony that the too big to fail banks needed more peoples approval for the bail out)…but thats all another story.
is feathercoin trustless? changing the code on a whim well you see where I am going with this…
-
From what Ive read Feathercoin is to be a “stable” coin.Theres not much stability with a broken blockchain.But were not changing it on a whim, were changing it to accompany a failing market.If you cant trust the blockchain, what can you trust? The forums? The coin itself? The market? Neoscrpyt is a big hit on miners.Even people with R7 are barely pushing 97KH/sec which equates to about 10 FTC/day.The more people that own Feathercoin the better but were not going to get those people unless the money is secure.Nobody wants to invest in a failing economy. So what is Litecoin doing right to still be a $2/coin? Theyre on Scrypt and thier making it. We should be too.
