Supported Feathercoin client versions: Current production Version: 0.9.6.1.

Info: If you have problems to post, create one post in the ‘newbies’ category and try again. If you have further problems, Find Support under Guides or use the shoutbox

A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.



  • This will be an evolving idea and is by no means set in stone. It doesn’t go into dpos but as mentioned, this will grow as i edit it more.

    Alternate Version 1

    Feathercoin should launch a new coin under the same brand “Feathercoin” to fund development and maintenance of the Feathercoin brand and network.

    The new chain will simply continue the current inflation model. This chain will be born into existence via a FTC proof of burn initial coin offering where every holder can make a 1:1 transition to the new token FT2.
    Feather Two will be identical to FTC in most ways but it will use a form of DPoS to secure the network. Delegates sequentially take turns to sign a block for the block reward and in turn help direct the future of Feathercoin as a whole.


    Alternate Version 2

    Feathercoin should launch a new coin under the same brand “Feathercoin” to fund development and maintenance of the Feathercoin brand and network.

    The new chain will simply continue the current inflation model. This chain will be born into existence via a BTC/FTC proof of burn initial coin offering where FTC holders can make a current market value of BTC/FTC transition to the new token FT2.
    Feather Two will be identical to FTC in most ways but it will use a form of DPoS to secure the network. Delegates sequentially take turns to sign a block for the block reward and in turn help direct the future of Feathercoin as a whole.


    Alternate Version 3 - Least popular I’m guessing

    Feathercoin should launch a new coin under the same brand “Feathercoin” to fund development and maintenance of the Feathercoin brand and network.

    The new chain will use the diffusion of innovations as the inflation model. This chain will be born into existence via a BTC proof of burn initial coin offering for the new token FT2.
    Feather Two will be identical to FTC by brand and team only using a form of DPoS to secure the network. The original token FTC will then become a counterparty asset on the FT2 chain.


    Alternate Version 4

    Feathercoin should Talk about options until the sun goes down whilst completely forgetting the fact that we don’t have anyone who’s able to take the time to code any of this?


    Alternate Version 5

    Feathercoin should fix Core/ACP bug and polish up the Qt UI for core.


    Yes this makes NeoScrypt and ACP redundant.
    It also means loosing ShapeShift and Coinnector until they add a ft2 api.
    It also makes ftc ASIC resistant forever without the need to modify the code.
    It secures the network and funds the team.
    Yes there would be an incredible amount of work but it will keep Feathercoin in the game.


  • administrators

    Personally, and I know others will disagree, I don’t like the idea of Proof of Burn. It’s signalling that we are looking to superceed Blockchain 1 (BC1) and that coins need to be destroyed. There are people who still believe in the current model, who are supporters of PoW. There are people who have invested in that model. That model should remain untouched and IMO burning coins to move them between chains breaks that. I’m more in favour of Fuzzy’s from Bitshares proposal of ‘share dropping’ a fixed package of shares to both existing active feathercoin BC1 addresses and other networks, like bitshares. This would mean, no loss of any FTC1 tokens and nobody would be foreced into choosing a path. You’d have your current tokens on BC1 and be gifted with a bundle of shares for BC2.

    I must point out, everything is open for discussion. I would love to hear everyone’s views on the subject. What would you prefer?



  • I don’t 100% understand share dropping correctly so ill have to find out more about that.

    In regards to what can be burnt, how about we leave ftc out of the equation then and lets use a btc PoB.


  • Regular Member

    I fully support sharedropping, thats the way how to do it elegantly.



  • Well, I have something to offer here.

    I’m planning on launching a new coin at the end of the year, but considering the fact people are warming up to a sistercoin project, I might not have to do it separately from the ftc brand and team etc.

    I have a number of ideas that all need to be together. One of them is a particular coin distribution schedule / inflation model. It also requires starting from scratch with a new coin.

    So, i suppose It could include a certain amount created specifically for sharedropping i suppose…

    But anyway, the release schedule is the diffusion of innovations.




  • administrators

    @Mirrax. I think so. There is a fundamental difference between “voting shares” and “coin tokens”. Coin Tokens allow people to transfer value over the blockchain. The use of tokens as speculative asset has made money for some people and lost money for others. People who bought “coin tokens” looking to increase their influence on the direction of open source development have not understood what they were buying. Buying tokens off some guy on the exchanges hasn’t funded development. I think it’s only fair and healthy however to drop some shares on the existing community, to finally give them a stake in this thing, to finally give them a voice that ‘coins’ never did.

    The community should be at the centre of everything we do, it’s the reason I joined and stuck around, it was also I believe, the reason the coin was created? I’d like to empower the community and provide better services for the community but do so in egalitarian way and have the community in the driving seat, rather than the shovel sellers.


  • administrators

    I’m planning on launching a new coin at the end of the year,

    I support your move to create you own coin. But it only muddies the water on this debate. There’s a lot to take in, lets not complicate it for now.


  • administrators

    @calem sorry, I misread what you were saying. I’m still hoping you won’t need to create another coin. If you have ideas you believe in, I would hope you can bring them to the FTC table :) :)


  • administrators

    For anyone who hasn’t caught it yet, Kevlar’s excellent webinar made some very interesting suggestions for assessing market health using ‘coin days destroyed’ metric and using it to regulate the inflation mode. That’s right isn’t Kevlar?


  • Spammer Banned

    That’s absolutely correct. It was one solution of several mentioned to combat the problem of relevance in a highly competitive market.

    There’s a lie that keeps getting spread around when it comes to these disucssions and I’d like to clear it up once and for all.

    Mirrax would like you to believe that in a PoW blockchain, token holders and investors are one in the same.

    This is drastically untrue at best, and dangerous thinking at worst. Token holders are just that: token holders. They have no inherent rights besides the right to send that token on the blockchain.

    Investors in a PoW blockchain are miners. They choose to dedicate their hardware to securing the network, often at a price. They ARE empowered to make decisions for the network… namely if they want to follow the protocol, or follow a different one. That is the power you are granted as a miner: The power to reach distributed consensus on the state of the network.

    Token holders do NOT have any rights besides the right to those tokens, they are not investors in the blockchain, and they are not special in any way when it comes to the decision making process with regards to the direction of the technology: Miners are empowered to make those decisions, NOT token holders.

    If you want decision making powers over a PoW blockchain, run a miner. Holding a token does not and will not make you an investor in the blockchain, and it does not grant you any special rights with regards to what people do with the brand or the technology.

    When a company releases a new product, it is not oblidged in any way, shape, or form, to replace the old product with the new one. Customers are expected that they will pay to puchase the new iPhone, and simply owning a Newton doesn’t give you any special say over what the next generation of iPhones will look like. The same is true of blockchains: When you make a new one, you are not obligated to do anything for token holders of the old one. Period.


  • Spammer Banned

    To really drive this point home, I’ve made this infographic depicting the ownership heirchacy of blockchains.

    CS3ZFwA.png

    You see, you are at the bottom of the list. Your abilities as token holders are limited to spending tokens. You are not representative of the market as a whole, so you cannot determine the value of an offering. You are not someone else’s miner, so you can’t control them. And unless you’re writing the code, you have absolutely no say over what the technology does or how it operates unless the coder solicits your advice and includes it in the offering.

    @Mirrax: Someone needs to relieve you of your sense of entitlement. This diagram should demonstrate to you why.



  • @Mirrax: Someone needs to relieve you of your sense of entitlement. This diagram should demonstrate to you why.

    Let’s play nice Kevlar!

    I’d love to weigh in to the discussion, but sadly I’m not up to speed on what the proposed changes really mean. That being said, I think it’d be great to keep the discussion civil and try to refrain from getting personal. High fives all around!



  • I take my previous statement back - got some questions:

    1. Has anyone actually looked at what possibly will happen with a switchover to a new blockchain, and if we go the burn route, how that will affect the current ecosystem?

    2. Do we have the manpower to enable a switchover without losing the little traction we have?

    3. Anyone figure out what the likelihood is that miners will switch to the new BC, and not simply stick to the old one? [I’m assuming it will be adoption by consensus, and the new BC will be a fork].

    I will weigh in on this from a completely non-technical point of view - as I really still don’t understand all of the implications of the proposed changes, although I get the idea that this will be something rather disruptive. My feeling is that there is a high possibility of a major loss of traction due to the disruption of the hard fork. Our community on here is really tiny, and the vast majority of FTC users out there will not be aware of the changes and I feel might simply continue to either mine or continue to function on the old blockchain. Additionally, I can foresee a huge drop in price and users with a disruptive change that is not done properly [from a simple PR/Community point of view].

    We need to be careful to ensure that whatever change occurs, it happens in a way which will seem open and beneficial - this means getting some published posts on good sites and trying to reach out to as many people as possible. From a PR point of view [this is what I do for a living] - I think it might be a bad idea to change things again so shortly after the NeoScrypt implementation as it lowers confidence in people. It very well may seem merely a desperate attempt at trying to revive a coin that many may feel is dead. Finally, I really believe most people [from a PR point of view again] will not give a shit about what’s being done and either sell or drop the coin altogether [Cryptsy included].

    There’s a lot of coin holders out there who are not on these forums and may feel burned. We need to tread carefully and make sure to reach out to as many people as possible about any changes that may be happening.

    EDITED TO ADD:

    Another thing to consider, how will this change affect our current lifeline, Cryptsy? Will the required resources to make the change be worth it to them financially, based on volume? Or are they likely to simply drop the coin?

    My two, red, Canadian cents. And please forgive me for not looking at this from a technical point of view - just throwing in my perspective.


  • Regular Member

    To really drive this point home, I’ve made this infographic depicting the ownership heirchacy of blockchains.

    CS3ZFwA.png

    You see, you are at the bottom of the list. Your abilities as token holders are limited to spending tokens. You are not representative of the market as a whole, so you cannot determine the value of an offering. You are not someone else’s miner, so you can’t control them. And unless you’re writing the code, you have absolutely no say over what the technology does or how it operates unless the coder solicits your advice and includes it in the offering.

    @Mirrax: Someone needs to relieve you of your sense of entitlement. This diagram should demonstrate to you why.

    That is exactly the problem.

    Right now all people who mine FTC, or hold/use coins are backbone of FTC.

    We should value every investor and loyal member.

    You are proposing to bend them over.

    I am all for DPOS, but do not screw the loyal people here ATM.

    Do a sharedropping.


  • Spammer Banned

    That is exactly the problem.

    Right now all people who mine FTC, or hold/use coins are backbone of FTC.

    We should value every investor and loyal member.

    You are proposing to bend them over.

    I am all for DPOS, but do not screw the loyal people here ATM.

    Do a sharedropping.

    *sigh*

    Why do I have to keep explaining this?

    No, token holders are not the backbone. The market is not the backbone. Miners are not the backbone.

    Coders are the backbone. They decide how the offering should work.

    Miners support the coders by adopting and running the code.

    The market supports the miners by giving the token a price and trading it.

    And token holders speculate on that market.

    You, as a token holder, are FAR far removed from the ‘backbone’ of this movement. You represent a drop in a very large bucket. Your weight is only measured in market share.

    As a miner, you are less removed from the decision making process. You can vote with your CPU power on if code is valuable or not.

    As a coder, you are empowered to make decisions on what code gets written. This is what the miners support, this is what the market values, and this is what the token holders rely upon for their security.

    Without coders, you have no miners. Without miners, you have no market. And without a market, you have no value for your token. Coders ARE the backbone.

    Then… well below all of those people in terms of ownership… are the community members. The fanbois who have cheered on the coders, who have supported the miners, who have evangelized the market, and who have personally speculated on those markets, those miners, and those coders.

    They are not loyal. They are not investors in the technology, they’re evangelists of a movement. They are not owners of anything, and they are not owed anything by anyone no matter how loyal they may have been.

    As for ‘bending them over’, we’re proposing the exact opposite: We’re proposing giving them an offering that the market values. Something that they can get excited about, speculate on, mine, build a market over, and derive real value from. We are doing the EXACT opposite of what you are suggesting.


  • Spammer Banned

    Let’s play nice Kevlar!

    No, I’m done ‘playing nice’ when no one else will. If you’re going to use dirty tactics, I’m going to call you out on them and say, “Look! That’s below the belt!”

    Please don’t expect otherwise from me.


  • Spammer Banned

    I take my previous statement back - got some questions:

    1. Has anyone actually looked at what possibly will happen with a switchover to a new blockchain, and if we go the burn route, how that will affect the current ecosystem?

    Yes, and nothing good comes of any of the models I’ve tried to make work. I’m happy to discuss them at length with anyone interested. Come join the discussion on Slack, Dave and I were just going over the reasons why that won’t work.

    2. Do we have the manpower to enable a switchover without losing the little traction we have?

    I’m not aware of any ‘traction’ as such, but we have plenty of people who are very interested in perusing the idea, both in and separate from the FTC community. And to be clear, no one has suggested a ‘switchover’. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how a new product’s services is entirely complimentary and can even add great value to the existing one.

    3. Anyone figure out what the likelihood is that miners will switch to the new BC, and not simply stick to the old one? [I’m assuming it will be adoption by consensus, and the new BC will be a fork].

    The new distributed consensus model being pursued is not exclusionary like the old one was. You no longer have to chose, and mining doesn’t come at a cost. You should join the Slack and learn more about it.

    I will weigh in on this from a completely non-technical point of view - as I really still don’t understand all of the implications of the proposed changes, although I get the idea that this will be something rather disruptive. My feeling is that there is a high possibility of a major loss of traction due to the disruption of the hard fork. Our community on here is really tiny, and the vast majority of FTC users out there will not be aware of the changes and I feel might simply continue to either mine or continue to function on the old blockchain. Additionally, I can foresee a huge drop in price and users with a disruptive change that is not done properly [from a simple PR/Community point of view].

    It’s disruptive only in that is provides more choices to the market. You should really join the Slack and learn more about those new services and offerings and why they’re being valued by the market.

    There’s no traction to speak of, there’s just a lone coder in China who merged someone else’s code. I don’t call that ‘traction’. What we’re talking about is a solution to that problem and a way to gain it by changing to a model which supports the rewarding of the contributors. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how a meritocracy distribution scheme can reward the community members.

    Our community here is the least of our concerns. We’re trying to reach a market that can compete with Bitcoin’s market share. You should really join the discussion on Slack and learn more about how the ICO model is designed to provide a stable valuation from the start.

    I forsee no danger that anyone will confuse a v1 Blockchain, or crypto-currency, with a v2 blockchain which offers a completely different set of services. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how decentralized autonomous corporations are eliminating the need for third party service providers.

    If a price drop occurs, we call that price discovery, and it’s very much a healthy part of any economy. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how asset value pegging works in the new blockchain to mitigate the volatility of the price in new assets, and how you can use it to peg old tokens to new value which can help to stabilize the price of the old FTC.

    We need to be careful to ensure that whatever change occurs, it happens in a way which will seem open and beneficial - this means getting some published posts on good sites and trying to reach out to as many people as possible. From a PR point of view [this is what I do for a living] - I think it might be a bad idea to change things again so shortly after the NeoScrypt implementation as it lowers confidence in people. It very well may seem merely a desperate attempt at trying to revive a coin that many may feel is dead. Finally, I really believe most people [from a PR point of view again] will not give a shit about what’s being done and either sell or drop the coin altogether [Cryptsy included].

    We’ve rejected that model as being overly conservative. The cost of experimentation is zero, but the cost of getting it wrong is the cost of infinite missed opportunities. We’re no longer interested in being careful, cautious, or moving slow. We’re going to innovate ahead of the market, not lag behind it. You should really join the Slack and find out more about what we’ve learned about the market and it’s goals.

    We’re not interested in PR in the slightest. Viral technology markets itself. If an offering has value, the market will value it without anyone getting involved. Blockchains don’t need public relations, they need services that the market will value. If those services have value, the market will value it without you having to tell it to do so. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how these new services present themselves as ready solutions to a market desperate for alternatives.

    We’re not suggesting anyone change FTC off NeoScrypt. NeoScrypt caused the already stiff corpse to fall over and hit the ground, and no one even batted an eye. We’re moving well beyond such antiquated thinking. You should really join the Slack and learn more about how PoW and PoS is a dead end as a method for creating a stable economy, and what alternatives are being considered.

    As for people not giving a shit about ‘yet another coin’, I couldn’t agree more. No one here has suggested we launch another coin. You should really join the Slack and learn about how the new blockchain services are vastly different from the old ones.

    There’s a lot of coin holders out there who are not on these forums and may feel burned. We need to tread carefully and make sure to reach out to as many people as possible about any changes that may be happening.

    I’m sure they do by the lack of decentralization, the backdoor that is ACP, the absolute brain-dead solution that is NeoScrypt, and the utter lack of innovation with regards to the offering. You should really join the Slack and find out how the new offering addresses each and every one of those points with a holistic approach that includes a meritocracy distribution scheme that creates incentives for as many developers as possible to work on the project and be paid for it at no cost to existing coin holders.

    Another thing to consider, how will this change affect our current lifeline, Cryptsy? Will the required resources to make the change be worth it to them financially, based on volume? Or are they likely to simply drop the coin?

    Absolutely. What we’re describing is a competitor for market cap with Bitcoin. You should really join the Slack and find out more about how these types of services are actively competing for that market cap, and how we think we can improve upon those models.


  • Regular Member

    In order to get a future, no need to destroy everything or create another block chain. Fix those broken or abandoned services. Post updates to Twitter, Facebook and Bitcointalk. Get listed on btc38.com finally (who do you think is pumping the markets now?). Start with simple things, not rocket science.


  • Regular Member

    In order to get a future, no need to destroy everything or create another block chain. Fix those broken or abandoned services. Post updates to Twitter, Facebook and Bitcointalk. Get listed on btc38.com finally (who do you think is pumping the markets now?). Start with simple things, not rocket science.

    finaly the voice of wisdom and common sence


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Feathercoin Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.