Changing the hashing algorithm
-
That’s fantastic news ghostlander! I think everyone would agree that the quality is the highest priority. Don’t be pressured by any false “completion” dates things are done when they are done.
-
Why don’t we change total supply of coins to 100M with this hard fork?
mirrax, It can not save prices .Whether the result is the same as 10M or 100M or 330M, Because we block output per minute, the speed is constant.
The most important things for money . How to find money ? This requires marketing. How to marketing ? The rise in price is the best.
-
mirrax, It can not save prices .Whether the result is the same as 10M or 100M or 330M, Because we block output per minute, the speed is constant.
The most important things for money . How to find money ? This requires marketing. How to marketing ? The rise in price is the best.
Still 336M seems unreasonably high IMO.
Just my point of view.
-
I guess it depends on how big a market you hope for the coin to use, for 336M works out to only around 5.4ftc per person in the UK, or another way to look at it, if you managed to get a 5% penetration in the UK, USA and Australia that still works out only to 16.8ftc per person, or even just a 1% penetration is only 84 per person.
Based on stats from Google UK population 63.23 million, USA population 313.9 million, Australia 22.68 million.
The trick I guess is for the supply of coins to not grow faster than the uptake of it by people, which is where most alt coins are struggling.
I’m sure people smarter than me have worked on the modelling of coin supply, but I do wonder if the model should be a short burst of high issue to meet initial demand, followed by a longer period of slow issue, slowly ramping up as more people adopt usage of the coin.
But I guess this model would turn away a lot of miners or investors worried that as supply ramps up their coins will devalue.
-
I think the issue is the slow but constant release of coins via mining the block Chain can be a reliable. If you start to change the way that happens then maybe you get more stability but you are also replicating what the banks do. They increase and decrease supply to make sure the value stays stable. But this is artificial. If demand drops then the price should drop and the market itself should determine the price not some central authority.
-
I think the issue is the slow but constant release of coins via mining the block Chain can be a reliable. If you start to change the way that happens then maybe you get more stability but you are also replicating what the banks do. They increase and decrease supply to make sure the value stays stable. But this is artificial. If demand drops then the price should drop and the market itself should determine the price not some central authority.
that’s all. If you want to smooth the price, you will need to create a pool of funds. I have mentioned, we need to establish a stabilization fund.
-
that’s all. If you want to smooth the price, you will need to create a pool of funds. I have mentioned, we need to establish a stabilization fund.
I like this idea a lot. you could if we were inclined, have the transaction fee vary based on pool value. If the coins relative value goes down to much the pool pays for the fee and transactions become cheaper. if the price is increasing too much a higher transaction fee is levied and it feeds the pool. The pool would have to be smart though. It would have to allow for adjustments based on overall currency traded as a portion of all coins in the market. in essence if someone hordes coins to drive up the price the transaction fee shouldn’t vary much because of that.
regardless it’s a discussion that deserves its own thread. It might not turn out to be wise to buffer the system in any real capacity (as i just described). currency stabilization is not something you can really force, just encourage.
*edit* and it might be possible to remove the market itself from the system. As long as you can make the direct correlation between volume of transactions and currency on the market to the effective price. If the ratio is lower (fewer transactions) the transaction fees are reduced (and the pool picks up the slack so miners still get paid), it is higher they are increased (and we feed the pool). The pool of course only ever cover up to the total cost of the transaction and only if the payment didnt exceed some percentage of the pools overall funds. The effect should be minimal but short of having the pool buy and sell funds (which i dont think you should ever do) its the best you might hope for, for some sort of auto correcting price.
As for the total coins in the market, this should remain fixed for this currency. For 2 reasons i can think of, you need to build trust in the currency, changing the overall amount of the currency after launch destroys trust. It would really upset some people who thought they could count on a fixed coin size. the relative amount of currency 336m or 100m or whatever doesn’t matter, it just moves decimal points.(dividing everyone’s coins or multiplying them by some number serves no purpose.) The other reason to keep it fixed is because the whole idea of the algorithm governing release of currency is that is fixed. Otherwise the entire system would have to be rethought.
-
The trick I guess is for the supply of coins to not grow faster than the uptake of it by people, which is where most alt coins are struggling.
+1
-
+1
+1
it is to fast now
-
it’s a shame rate of release can’t be tied to some form of community health indicator. But I guess there isn’t one that would be suitable or reliable.
-
Yes that would be good, but I’m guess something very technically hard to do.
I did think you could tie that into coin spend, but that wouldn’t work as a healthy cyrpto economey would have a raesonable amount of coin spend, but then a crashing one would have an even bigger spend as everyone tried to cash out.
Another indicator would be the number of wallets online.
In a declining coin economy there would not be many wallets online as most people would transfer it all to exchanges, but a healthy one would have a lot of wallets online as people made transactions.
The big downside of having coin production dropping though is it would turn away miners, lowering the hashing power and so lower security of the network.
I think trying to teak it all to keep everything working would be like balancing a ball on your noise, whilst riding a unicycle on a tight rope though. This makes all for good discussion, but not sure if it would be possible to implement.
-
You wouldn’t want something that could be tampered with. if it was number of active wallets, you could inflate it by having your 1000 FTC kept in 1000 addresses or smaller decimals, at least until your transaction fees ate your money.
-
Yes that was something I wasn’t even thinking about, couldn’t use a system that could be abused, and just about all of them can be…
-
Maybe you need a centralised organisation, to help control the release of money, encourage spending by inflating and devaluing your money and discourage/encourage saving using a controllable rate to stimulate the economy. Oh wait…
Sorry :-X ^-^ ^-^
-
+1
it is to fast now
But isn’t the whole point of changing the algorythm to slow that down V’s the asics for a while?
Finish the job and wait, sounding impatient there Mirrax ;)
-
Maybe you need a centralised organisation, to help control the release of money, encourage spending by inflating and devaluing your money and discourage/encourage saving using a controllable rate to stimulate the economy. Oh wait…
Sorry :-X ^-^ ^-^
LOL,
Can you hear that sound?
That’s mob coming up the hill to flay you for even suggesting it in jest.
-
I felt dirty just writing it. :)
-
But isn’t the whole point of changing the algorythm to slow that down V’s the asics for a while?
The pace of the coins release was set when ftc launched. The algo change isn’t to try control the rate of the coins release as much as it’s to control the distribution of mining power.
-
So, would it be an idea to start a competition based around P2p nodes and spreading hash rates?
Obviously when everything settles down a little after switch
Thanks for clarification Calem
-
But isn’t the whole point of changing the algorythm to slow that down V’s the asics for a while?
Finish the job and wait, sounding impatient there Mirrax ;)
yes impatient and overexcited at the same time :)
Just can’t stop it with so much great development here…
