FTC's future
-
Feathercoin
-
Inflation model is badly set up, there is enough coins in circulation already.
There will be enough time to anybody stack up as many FTC as they want, like half year maybe, before we cut it.
Kevlar is right, you can leave your head in the sand and die or do something.
I see plenty of people to support this idea. Mining suck, no matter with what hardware.
It was fun in 2013 but those days are over.
I sold my GPUs.
Mining is waste.
Unnecessary waste.
With proposed POS solution all we nees is few rPI nodes to maintain healthly and eco-friendly network.
-
-
Inflation model is badly set up, there is enough coins in circulation already.
There will be enough time to anybody stack up as many FTC as they want, like half year maybe, before we cut it.
Kevlar is right, you can leave your head in the sand and die or do something.I see plenty of people to support this idea. Mining suck, no matter with what hardware.
It was fun in 2013 but those days are over.
I sold my GPUs.
Mining is waste.
Unnecessary waste.With proposed POS solution all we nees is few rPI nodes to maintain healthly and eco-friendly network.
You will not find anyone to buy into a coin that has tried to force scarcity, many have tried this and ultimately it has marked the end. Communities do jump on to ideas like reducing the block reward as they perceive financial reward when in reality the long term market position gets worse as no one will buy into this. Why would you buy into a coin that desperately is trying to increase its value for existing holders and force future buyers to pay more.
-
You will not find anyone to buy into a coin that has tried to force scarcity, many have tried this and ultimately it has marked the end. Communities do jump on to ideas like reducing the block reward as they perceive financial reward when in reality the long term market position gets worse as no one will buy into this. Why would you buy into a coin that desperately is trying to increase its value for existing holders and force future buyers to pay more.
Your assumptions are wrong, there is nothing more desperate than sticking with failed model.
-
Your assumptions are wrong, there is nothing more desperate than sticking with failed model.
What is wrong with the model all of a sudden?
The only reason people support this move is to see scarcity introduced to push the price up. This is greed and is a bad motivation for people.
0% PoS gives no incentive to mint stake blocks. Exchanges and services will remove PoS from their systems and the only people generating those blocks will be those unlocking their wallets to send some coins. The result will be that they lose access to some of their coins while the block is being confirmed. Ghostlander tried 0% PoS with Orb and got bad results.
Stopping coin production on Feathercoin will ultimately see a decline in market value as people dump on such a desperate move. Any gain will be short term, this has happened to other coins. Such a move is not unprecedented so you can do some research and find the results of such efforts before. We need to find some smarter solutions still.
-
I was suggesting to reduce market cap from 300M to 100M half year back, I just think 300M is unnecessary many coins.
-
Well. Lets think about all this for a few days and see what we come up with.
I think everyone should go out and do as much research as possible cause right now we all have a lot of ideas and opinions.
The most important thing of all though is getting in that core first and foremost. That has a ton of features and needs to be in.
So, Lizhi’s core and the ACP issue. What shall we do? Lets tackle that, then move on to the next latest and greatest thing.
Go team.
-
No, never touch the inflation model or you are in breech of an unspoken contract. Can you not see how unfair that is on those who did and did not buy in? Many other coins changed their inflation model to make the coin more scarce and they did that out of greed. I though you would understand the importance of this.
You’re in breach of the ‘unspoken contract’ every time you make any change. Yet many have been made. You obviously don’t understand the importance of being able to make changes, or how little your opinion matters when doing so. Your argument is completely invalid when drug out into the light of reality and examined closely, and matters not at all to the change being made. You are not in control of what the community does with the coin. You can have your opinion like everyone else can, but no one is going to tolerate you telling us what we can and cannot do, especially when you provide no justification for your decisions.
I have put more time and money into this project than anyone else, what you said above is very unfair to me. I’m a nice guy honestly and try not to upset people which is why I think that I clash with you.
Putting a change of inflation model to the community is an easy win if the coin is going to become more scarce. I have seen many communities vote for this and their motives are in the wrong place. The hope is that the value will go up but what you lose is trust. You can never trust developers who change the inflation model with your money. Who knows what they will do in future. Bitcoin could not double the mint rate, this would make coins worth less, it is equally unfair to go the other way.
Changing the inflation model will lose trust and make us a joke. If people want to do this then I am out.
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
Your time and money mean nothing to anyone when what you do goes against what the market is demanding. They don’t entitle you to a position of power, and they don’t make you any more important than anyone else here, and you lose your status as decision maker when you fail to make decisions, or repeatedly make poor ones, as you have demonstrated a track record of doing.
You’ve made a bunch of assertions with nothing to back them up, assertions which do not align with standard economic models, nor do they play out in the real world.
Time and time again we’ve believed that you had a clue you know what you’re talking about with regards to this, but now I’m calling you out: Prove what you’re saying. Quit spouting unfounded opinion and back what you’re saying with some evidence.
People want this, so I guess you’re out, which is just personal incredulity.
You will not find anyone to buy into a coin that has tried to force scarcity, many have tried this and ultimately it has marked the end. Communities do jump on to ideas like reducing the block reward as they perceive financial reward when in reality the long term market position gets worse as no one will buy into this. Why would you buy into a coin that desperately is trying to increase its value for existing holders and force future buyers to pay more.
I cannot believe anyone would believe a lie as obvious as this one when we have countless counter-examples.
I mean obvious logical fallacies aside (the counter example of ‘no one will’ is ‘just one person who did’), nothing in what you just said is actually coherent. So what if communities do jump on ideas? This isn’t about making communities jump, it’s about blockchain security and economic solutions. Your question is addressed by the laws of supply and demand, which you seem to have no understanding of. “Why would someone pay more for something that is in increasing demand but decreasing supply?” The answer is because the market will bear the price.
Now if your argument is that demand is going down, then you’re actually arguing against inflation anyway. So either way, you’ve made an argument for decreasing inflation. This is basic economics dude. It’s also an example of a ‘false cause’ logical fallacy, because it presumes that relationship between two things means that one is the cause of the other’.
What is wrong with the model all of a sudden?
The only reason people support this move is to see scarcity introduced to push the price up. This is greed and is a bad motivation for people.
0% PoS gives no incentive to mint stake blocks. Exchanges and services will remove PoS from their systems and the only people generating those blocks will be those unlocking their wallets to send some coins. The result will be that they lose access to some of their coins while the block is being confirmed. Ghostlander tried 0% PoS with Orb and got bad results.
Stopping coin production on Feathercoin will ultimately see a decline in market value as people dump on such a desperate move. Any gain will be short term, this has happened to other coins. Such a move is not unprecedented so you can do some research and find the results of such efforts before. We need to find some smarter solutions still.
All of the sudden? Nothing. As far as I can tell the model has been sick since the start of 2014. Why are we just now finally deciding to do something about it in 2015? Because we kept thinking you knew what you were doing, and you were going to do something about it. We’ve now lost that believe due to lack of evidence and a continued push for bad decisions. Like NeoScrypt. You just made a ‘loaded question’ logical fallacy.
You assert greed is a bad motivator for people, yet it motivates people to get up and do their jobs every day. This is an example of a ‘black or white’ logical fallacy, because there are more options besides greed being the motivation, and that greed is always a bad motivator. Neither has been demonstrated to be true.
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
Neither of the two assertions made are true, I’ve spent much time dispelling the myth that no one will stake, and that they have to lose access to their coins. Neither of these things are true, nor is it true that you have to leave your wallet unencrypted or even open, and if you had been participating in the team discussions we’ve been having you would know exactly why these things aren’t true because their actual mechanics have been discussed in great depth.
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
And if Ghostlander did it and screwed it up, then we should learn from his mistakes and solve the problems found. I know other coins have, and your and his failure to merge their changes has only demonstrated your inability to adapt the coin to a constantly changing market. This is an example of a ‘texan sharpshooter’ logical fallacy, because you cherry picked data points to make your point which are not representative of the overall sample size. It’s also an ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy, for those who are keeping score.
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
-
Thanks for that. I presume you know that reducing the coin reward and going 0% PoS will not work in the long run and barely in the short term. Do some research to find out the fate of other coins that have tried to drastically reduce their coin reward to gain market value. Yes, other coins can be seen as an example of trying this even if they are not exactly the same as us.
I can have my two cents and debate the practicality of your suggestions can I not?
My experience is that changing the inflation model can have effects opposite of the intentions. I am a practical person and look for practical solutions and your solution is not practical.
Ghostlander did an excellent job with Orb and greatly improved upon Sunny’s work. It did not work for him as it is not a practical solution, especially in the long run. I discussed this with SunnyKing the creator of Peercoin who also said that 0% PoS was not a good solution. I do not dismiss your ideas by the way, I do pass them to others who are better and know more than me to get feedback and I’m getting very bad feedback on this except for those that seem only interested in monetary reward.
-
Well my opinion is that changing the coin minting rate or stopping coin minting entirely is a bad idea.
The model we have is exactly the same structure as litecoin and bitcoin and they have not decided to change the release schedule even though they would potentially benefit even more via decreased availability of coins.
Obviously if the entire community disagrees with me then I’m happy to follow the pack but I don’t think that’s what we have seen so far.
Just to clarify kevlar does not speak for me here and I’m not sure who specifically he is speaking for other than himself and calem. Which is fine I’m just clarifying.
Also as kevlar has said one person does not have the right to make decisions for the entire community but that works both ways.
I’m expecting a barrage of abuse for this post as is kevlars style but I agree with the bitcoin community that keeping the coin release the same is the very bedrock on which the entire blockchain is built. It is about trust.
Also on the fork idea there is no way that I know of to make coins only be available in one fork as they share a common history so any coins I have would be in all forks.
Although two active forks of Feathercoin would confuse users and exchanges and mining pools (obviously only if each fork kept mining).
As a side note I would be interested to explore 0%PoS as an addition to the current PoW as a replacement for ACP.
Anyway those are my thoughts just to show other opinions also exist. I’m not going to get into some drawn out slogging match again as we have done this many times in the team chat and it changes nothing other than piss me off.
-
I’m expecting a barrage of abuse for this post as is kevlars style but I agree with the bitcoin community that keeping the coin release the same is the very bedrock on which the entire blockchain is built. It is about trust.
As a side note I would be interested to explore 0%PoS as an addition to the current PoW as a replacement for ACP.
Expecting the micro analysis of your chosen words :)
Peercoin destroys the mining fees in PoS blocks, an incentive to 0% PoS is if we keep those fees. Ghostlander does this for Orb now. I do not think that it would be incentive enough but lets discuss.
-
Thanks for that. I presume you know that reducing the coin reward and going 0% PoS will not work in the long run and barely in the short term. Do some research to find out the fate of other coins that have tried to drastically reduce their coin reward to gain market value. Yes, other coins can be seen as an example of trying this even if they are not exactly the same as us.
I can have my two cents and debate the practicality of your suggestions can I not?
My experience is that changing the inflation model can have effects opposite of the intentions. I am a practical person and look for practical solutions and your solution is not practical.
Ghostlander did an excellent job with Orb and greatly improved upon Sunny’s work. It did not work for him as it is not a practical solution, especially in the long run. I discussed this with SunnyKing the creator of Peercoin who also said that 0% PoS was not a good solution. I do not dismiss your ideas by the way, I do pass them to others who are better and know more than me to get feedback and I’m getting very bad feedback on this except for those that seem only interested in monetary reward.
I know no such thing, and you shouldn’t presume my opinion when I’ve not given it.
I have done the research, and I’ve found no comparable situations to draw parallels to. Every other coin that did it did something entirely different than what I’m suggesting.
Of course you can have your two cents. It’s when you go stating your opinion as a foregone conclusion and making assertions that are obviously false that I take objection.
You have no experience changing the inflation model of FTC, nor of other coins, so you cannot possibly make that statement. Nor is what I’m suggesting merely an inflation model change. You can’t just dismiss one part of the solution as being ‘bad’ without considering the whole and how it addresses the problems being faced.
We’re all practical people, and you’ve not made any argument for why this isn’t practical. It will seem perfectly practical when it’s done.
I don’t agree that Ghostlander did a fantastic job with Orb, and the market has an entirely different opinion from you. Just because it didn’t work for him doesn’t make it NOT a practical solution. That’s easily demonstrably false
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
And just because you misrepresented the idea to Sunny King doesn’t mean that it’s an unworkable idea. Nothing about what you just said offers any new insight into the topic.
-
Well my opinion is that changing the coin minting rate or stopping coin minting entirely is a bad idea.
The model we have is exactly the same structure as litecoin and bitcoin and they have not decided to change the release schedule even though they would potentially benefit even more via decreased availability of coins.
Obviously if the entire community disagrees with me then I’m happy to follow the pack but I don’t think that’s what we have seen so far.
Just to clarify kevlar does not speak for me here and I’m not sure who specifically he is speaking for other than himself and calem. Which is fine I’m just clarifying.
Also as kevlar has said one person does not have the right to make decisions for the entire community but that works both ways.
I’m expecting a barrage of abuse for this post as is kevlars style but I agree with the bitcoin community that keeping the coin release the same is the very bedrock on which the entire blockchain is built. It is about trust.
Also on the fork idea there is no way that I know of to make coins only be available in one fork as they share a common history so any coins I have would be in all forks.
Although two active forks of Feathercoin would confuse users and exchanges and mining pools (obviously only if each fork kept mining).
As a side note I would be interested to explore 0%PoS as an addition to the current PoW as a replacement for ACP.
Anyway those are my thoughts just to show other opinions also exist. I’m not going to get into some drawn out slogging match again as we have done this many times in the team chat and it changes nothing other than piss me off.
Your opinion is duely noted. Do you have any facts to back up that opinion, or arguments to support it?
The model we have is not the same as bitcoin or litecoin, it’s greatly accelerated. Nor is our market adoption comparable. But if you want to make that comparison, Bitcoin is inflating at a rate that is keeping up with demand. Litecoin doesn’t have nearly the demand, and is inflating much faster, and and FTC is in worse shape. So your argument is only valid when you consider the rates of adoption vs the rate of inflation, which you didn’t do.
We don’t need pack followers, we need free thinkers who are willing to experiment in the face of adversity and go against the established grain. That’s how Bitcoin was created to begin with.
I’m not speaking for anyone except myself.
If being told you’re wrong is abusive, then expect abuse when you’re wrong, because I’m going to tell you when you’re wrong. I’ll also call out and highlight when you’re right. It goes both ways. But we all know you’re very sensitive to being told you’re wrong, Kris, and that you consider it abusive. We accept you for who you are, and even love you for it. *hugs*
-
I have a very special meeting with a very important person tomorrow.
I’ll settle this dispute so can everyone just chill it for 24 hours and we can get back to killing each other then hrm?
-
I think all the ideas are bad… we must do more research
Lets get core in
then we make our next ground breaking move ok?
-
End of argument
-
Try to do that research again. There were so many coins that when losing market share they tried to reduce coin reward.
You have no experience changing the inflation model of FTC, nor of other coins, so you cannot possibly make that statement.
Correct. We have never changed the FTC inflation model :D At most we changed the reward to 80 when moving to 60 second blocks while maintaining the overall inflation model. I have seen other coins change their inflation model and have designed other inflation models for other coins before launching. I would say that I am qualified to talk about such thing.
We’re all practical people, and you’ve not made any argument for WHY this ISN’T PRACTICAL. It will seem perfectly practical when it’s done.
Yes I have.
Let me ask you a question then, what incentive is there for anyone to mint a 0% PoS block?
I’ll answer, none. It is a pain to users to lose their coins during stake generation for no gain. So in the long run it if FTC gained massive adoption you might expect people to work around PoS as you cannot force people to mint PoS blocks.
Also what is so wrong with ACP, it is not a long term solution but it saved us from some pretty brutal 51% attacks. It was no use suggesting 0% PoS then and it is still no use now. You would rather have seen FTC sink than lose your integrity? I’m not going to put my personal pride above the well being of Feathercoin nor am I happy to see you mislead the community.
Imma gonna have to say it again. You know that 0% PoS is a bad idea that will not work. Either that or go do some actual research on coins that have reduced their block reward.
I remember WorldCoin started reducing their block reward by 1% a week until they get to 1 coin a block. I do not believe it had the desired effect. Justabitoftime asked me to do the same to Feathercoin but at 2% a week. It was only then that I realised what an idiot I had been for trusting that guy. His next idea was to fork Feathercoin to create Feathercoin2 with more bells and whistles. Kevlar, are you sure you are not Justabitoftime in disguise?
-
Let me ask you a question then, what incentive is there for anyone to mint a 0% PoS block?
I’ll answer, none. It is a pain to users to lose their coins during stake generation for no gain. So in the long run it if FTC gained massive adoption you might expect people to work around PoS as you cannot force people to mint PoS blocks.
Wrong on every single account.
First of all incentive: Blockchain security. Transaction confirmations. You missed the most obvious reasons of them all. And, of course, mining rewards.
Secondly, you’re still repeating the same lie about users losing their coins during stake generation, while claiming no gain, both of which have been addressed. So nothing about what you’re saying is true or relevant.
Third, you’ve not considered the ramifications of this model when considered with the rest of the solution. These solutions offer little to nothing when considered on their own, as you insist on doing.
Also what is so wrong with ACP, it is not a long term solution but it saved us from some pretty brutal 51% attacks. It was no use suggesting 0% PoS then and it is still no use now. You would rather have seen FTC sink than lose your integrity? I’m not going to put my personal pride above the well being of Feathercoin nor am I happy to see you mislead the community.
Where do I start? Centralization of authority? The fact that it’s identical to a simple client rule? That it subverts the majority ownership? That it offers no actual security whatsoever as anyone with the resources to perform a 51% attack ALSO has the resources to DDoS the ACP node right off the internet? The fact that the problem can be addressed SOOOO many better ways? PoS was a great suggestion then and it remains one now,
[Edit: Text partially removed as it violated forum rule: Section 1, Rule 3]
Imma gonna have to say it again. You know that 0% PoS is a bad idea that will not work. Either that or go do some actual research on coins that have reduced their block reward.
Not only do I know the opposite to be true, I HAVE done the research and I have told you already that there isn’t a coin that is in this position that has tried anything like what I’m suggesting. If you can find one, please point it out! I’m not suggesting we reduce our block reward, I’m sure other coins have tried that, and without a holistic approach to the entirety of the problem I’m sure they failed. No surprise there!
I remember WorldCoin started reducing their block reward by 1% a week until they get to 1 coin a block. I do not believe it had the desired effect.
I’m sure you’re right, and if what I was suggesting was even REMOTELY comparable to the position Worldcoin is in, or the suggestions I’m making bared even the slightest resemblance to Worldcoin’s solution we would have a comparable model. But it’s not. It’s not even close. It’s not even a little bit similar. You’ve once again committed a straw man logical fallacy.
Justabitoftime asked me to do the same to Feathercoin but at 2% a week. It was only then that I realised what an idiot I had been for trusting that guy. His next idea was to fork Feathercoin to create Feathercoin2 with more bells and whistles. Kevlar, are you sure you are not Justabitoftime in disguise?
Really? Ad hominem attacks? Seriously? I point out logical fallacy after logical fallacy with your arguments, and you resort to name calling?
Are you kidding me???
-
Kevlar, are you sure you are not Justabitoftime in disguise?
Take note everyone, this is the level of maturity we’re dealing with here.
Bushstar knows without any doubt that we are different people, but he can’t find an argument that doesn’t rely on misinformation and outright lies to stand on, so he resorts to a personal attack on my character as a way to discredit my opinion by trying to draw parallels between a well reasoned argument and some idiot’s half-baked suggestion… as if what I was saying relied on opinion or my character to be demonstrable.
That’s just playground tactics, Bushstar, and you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such obviously bad argument tactics. Grow up.
