[Progress] Ideas for the Future
-
Well as we’ve pointed out repeatedly starting a new blockchain isn’t a damaging idea, it’s a highly complimentary one that would provide complimentary services.
EDIT: Kevlar, offensive language/name calling does not belong here, if you want to do that, go do it elsewhere.
-
kevlar stop with this liar liar pants on fire bs, its not the schoolyard and the smae mentality against everyone who dislikes your ideas is geting old.
in fact i gave you the benefit of the doubt and even apologised when i thought you where a “Kevlar-ftc” in irc, and you said you werent, i took your word on it an apologised, even though i find it extremely unlikely that anyone would pretend to be a kevlar from ftc in a dgc irc chat when you are a nobody.
-
kevlar stop with this liar liar pants on fire bs, its not the schoolyard and the smae mentality against everyone who dislikes your ideas is geting old.
in fact i gave you the benefit of the doubt and even apologised when i thought you where a “Kevlar-ftc” in irc, and you said you werent, i took your word on it an apologised, even though i find it extremely unlikely that anyone would pretend to be a kevlar from ftc in a dgc irc chat when you are a nobody.
Kelsey, as I said I’m not on IRC. Perhaps you should ask Kenel? I wasn’t involved in any of that.
It’s not BS if it’s demonstrably untrue. We’ve pointed out all the ways in which a new blockchain can provide entirely complimentary services to an existing one, did you understand what those complimentary services were and how they can enhance the existing offering?
Because if you did, you would know that complimentary services aren’t damaging, they’re… well… complimentary.
Do you understand what those complimentary services are? And why they’re complimentary? And why they would add a lot of value to the existing blockchain?
Can you list them? Can you explain to us why they’re NOT complimentary, and in fact damaging?
Can you explain, for instance, why a way to secure the existing blockchain much more securely while eliminating redundant cost is damaging?
Can you elaborate, please, on what it is exactly that enabling token holders with voting rights will do to damage the existing blockchain?
Can you tell us what is it about a decentralized exchange that would cause harm to the exiting blockchain?
Can you elucidate on the reasons why a blockchain which doesn’t compete for hash power would take hash power away from the existing blockchain?
Can you provide good reasoning for why providing a service the market has very much shown great interest and values VERY much over the existing service would be BAD for the brand?
You see, we’re not interested in your opinions. We want evidence of what you’re saying.
-
I think if you do anything at all, it’s get that ACP issue with Core sorted out so ftc can actually release core… It has stealth transactions, bitmessage, coinnector and shapeshift, plugin capabilities, messages on the blockchain… All this stuff is epic in itself. Yes things need to be polished up, but they can come in incremental updates as its fixed. But just get core out. Don’t worry about anything else right now because it would be to big of a job. Get out core, and get out a roadmap. Grab the website from poor Dave whos done so much work, and take the lead.
-
Do you sure btc38 will add ftc ? I don’t know. I remain cautious.
-
Core Update
- No effect on price
BTC38 listing
- Market dilution
Joining Decentralized Exchange (Qora and Burts)
- Promotes decentralization
- Not really anything to do with Feathercoin as a technology and service provider.
**DPoS **(requires fresh blockchain)
- Creates interest with the incentive to provide services and be rewarded for it.
- Not an available solution with current blockchain.
-
Core Update, hold price. If have not core , all will say “The development team has dissolved.The finder escaped.” Then the price will be 500 sat, or less.
-
Decentralized Exchange, it is my goal. from a technical standpoint,I might need DPoS, It provides a more powerful processing power.for instance 10 seconds to produce a block, easy to upgrade.
The backward is death, live only to have the future.
-
-
Core Update, hold price. If have not core , all will say “The development team has dissolved.The finder escaped.” Then the price will be 500 sat, or less.
-
Decentralized Exchange, it is my goal. from a technical standpoint,I might need DPoS, It provides a more powerful processing power.for instance 10 seconds to produce a block, easy to upgrade.
The backward is death, live only to have the future.
1. Price isn’t determined by the developer. It’s determined by a process called ‘price discovery’, and is fundamentally different than ‘valuation’. Core updates which do not address the inflation problem can do absolutely nothing to help the price long term, they can only give it a quick bump on news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discovery
2. Decentralized exchange. It’s already built, why would you want to reinvent the wheel? In order to have a decentralized exchange, you need the ability to issue new assets on the blockchain. Since you can’t do that on the current blockchain, any talk of this MUST fall under that header. DPoS is NOT required.
-
-
I will remind everyone that this topic is not for attacking others, friendly discussion of ideas, pointing out pros/cons is fine, but no name calling, offensive language, or provoking others please…
I’ll try get some of these ideas and points added to the main post, thanks
Syd
-
btc38 listing should finally provide lost liquidity to the market
Try to buy some FTC on cryptsy, lets say worth 20BTC…imposibble atm…
So this should have tremendous effect on price and price discovery, because right now you can not really sell/buy even modest qtty.
-
Also I dont undesratnd why there is negative mark besides Core updates.
Lizhi is doing awesome work.
Core updates = coin development if you did not realized yet.
-
btc38 listing should finally provide lost liquidity to the market
Try to buy some FTC on cryptsy, lets say worth 20BTC…imposibble atm…
So this should have tremendous effect on price and price discovery, because right now you can not really sell/buy even modest qtty.
A new exchange listing won’t supply liquidity to an liquid market, it will just dilute it further, causing more price deflation.
Yes, it will totally have a tremendous effect on price discovery as the market makers arbitrage the currency down to 1 satoshi.
These trends are well understood and well documented. Quit lying to people.
-
If a new exchange services a different market then the current then it can increase liquidity.
-
@admins can you please delete this person, his level on insults, personal atacks and abusive language are exceeding everybody else by a marathon distance.
If this is not against forum rules than I do not know what.
I was swallowing most of its insults but it has no meaning.
He still continues with attacks.
[Edit: Text deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]
-
I was going to try and stay off the forum for a bit, but its too tempting. Well done for making this thread and keeping it on track, Spartan.
Of all of Kevlar’s ideas discussed in slack, one of the most extreme I think solves the most of the problems. Create the second chain and assimilate the first as either a sidechain or as counter party assets. As a sidechain you could remove miners and use the delegates proof of work as the proof of work for BC1, not in a dissimilar way to litecoin and doge merged mining.
Since delegates would be the only miners, coin tokens would be issued to them. However why stop there? Using Kevlar’s Coin Days Destroyed health metric to regulate inflation, coin production would essentially pause until such a time that the network was displaying traits of a healthy economy. Delegate miners would still have the incentive of the issuance of shares as the reward for mining even if coin production was paused so the cogs would keep turning. Neoscrypt would be redundant in this model (unless for historical sake, the delegates used it at low/zero difficulty)
And important point to add, is that voting shares and coin tokens are very different. If you want to buy a cup of coffee, you wouldn’t really want to use voting shares directly. You are not handing over shares, you are using tokens to simulate money. Both can exist, both have uses.
Because BC2 would be used as the primary chain, BC1 sidechain would benefit from faster transaction times. Decreasing the transaction times down to 10 seconds.
Advantages
BC1 get’s the love it needs.
No need for ACP. Both blockchains secured by the delegates.
Faster Transaction Times.
Inflation could be controlled.
Psychological link between the two chains. Since BC1 is dependant on BC2.Disadvantages
You’d pee off the miners. They would have to become delegates to get any reward.
Not everyone is in favour of changing the inflation model.
BC1 would be hard forked. All clients and exchanges would need to update, else miners could keep PoW going on their own fork.
If there’s no coin reward to issue, you could just use CP assets.
Time and effort put into Neoscrypt would be wasted -
If a new exchange services a different market then the current then it can increase liquidity.
Oh yeah?
Prove it.
I can show you ALL KINDS of times when a new exchange added a pair, and it resulted in a dilution of liquidity, not an increase. My statement is based on verifiable evidence. Would you like to verify it for yourself?
-
[Edit: Text deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]
[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]
Now, can we please get BACK on topic? If you want to flame me, there’s totally a separate topic for that…
-
I was going to try and stay off the forum for a bit, but its too tempting. Well done for making this thread and keeping it on track, Spartan.
Of all of Kevlar’s ideas discussed in slack, one of the most extreme I think solves the most of the problems. Create the second chain and assimilate the first as either a sidechain or as counter party assets. As a sidechain you could remove miners and use the delegates proof of work as the proof of work for BC1, not in a dissimilar way to litecoin and doge merged mining.
Since delegates would be the only miners, coin tokens would be issued to them. However why stop there? Using Kevlar’s Coin Days Destroyed health metric to regulate inflation, coin production would essentially pause until such a time that the network was displaying traits of a healthy economy. Delegate miners would still have the incentive of the issuance of shares as the reward for mining even if coin production was paused so the cogs would keep turning. Neoscrypt would be redundant in this model (unless for historical sake, the delegates used it at low/zero difficulty)
And important point to add, is that voting shares and coin tokens are very different. If you want to buy a cup of coffee, you wouldn’t really want to use voting shares directly. You are not handing over shares, you are using tokens to simulate money. Both can exist, both have uses.
Because BC2 would be used as the primary chain, BC1 sidechain would benefit from faster transaction times. Decreasing the transaction times down to 10 seconds.
Advantages
BC1 get’s the love it needs.
No need for ACP. Both blockchains secured by the delegates.
Faster Transaction Times.
Inflation could be controlled.
Psychological link between the two chains. Since BC1 is dependant on BC2.Disadvantages
You’d pee off the miners. They would have to become delegates to get any reward.
Not everyone is in favour of changing the inflation model.
BC1 would be hard forked. All clients and exchanges would need to update, else miners could keep PoW going on their own fork.
If there’s no coin reward to issue, you could just use CP assets.
Time and effort put into Neoscrypt would be wastedWell you left out all the other advantages. Like asset issuing, asset value pegging, a decentralized exchange, p2p loans… the list is quite extensive.
But good job at the initial pass MrWyrm. I look forward to this list being expanded.
-
sorry hadn’t you left?
-
It’s not about debate. It’s about repeating information that has repeatedly been debunked.
Information designed to mislead people, hurt people, and generally stop them from understanding what it is we’re talking about. That’s what a liar does: They tell lies.
[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated Forum rules section1, rule 3]
It’s really disgusting behavior and I’m sick of having to defend myself from it.
And as usual the trolls can’t not take the discussion off topic. It always has to center around me. Not what’s good for the coin.
Edit: Well kelsey edited his post so he no longer was playing armchair doctor, trying to make me out to be the one with the problem. Now it just says, “sorry hadn’t you left?”. It was another good example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Kelsey, please, stop the trolling. It’s old.
-
Edit: Well kelsey edited his post so he no longer was playing armchair doctor, trying to make me out to be the one with the problem. Now it just says, “sorry hadn’t you left?”. It was another good example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Kelsey, please, stop the trolling. It’s old.
I edited my post purely because after I re read it, I deemed it possibly too harsh, I suggest on occasion you do the same ;)
