A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
I see that we’ve revised it from a BTC PoB to a FTC PoB. Which is fine if you don’t care about your economic valuation and you are good with a worthless token on day 1. Then FTC can have it’s own little playground of a blockchain where they can continue to vote for who should get more tokens. Good luck filling up your round.
Or, you could stick with the initial reasoning behind an ICO, which is to create economic value. In your list of reasons you said that this was a solution for funding, but you’re using PoB, so no one gets the funds.
I would suggest you need to pick two of the three, because you can’t get all three:
You can have a PoB and economic value, but not FTC sharedropping.
You can have ICO and funding, but not FTC sharedropping.
Or, you can have FTC share dropping and PoB, but not economic valuation and investor potential.
-
I just read it.
Seriously?
After half year of work you came up with this?Can we just ban him from this topic please?
As usual everyone wants to discuss solutions, and Mirrax wants to troll…
-
There’s more to it then that. That what you see is laymens.
Plus its not everything because ftc wants to continue its stupid inflation model right?
-
In regards to funding under a ftc pob, I was implying that that its basicly just valued members of the community and the ftc team who would end up been delegates mostly and that is where they would get their funding. Although its not great for the economy if the delegates are forcing to dump.
-
i am lost in between the fight you are having and trying to understand
what are the changes you want to make to FTC
try to stop the figthing and construct find a consensus if you beleive in FTC
and after explain it to the rest of us if you consider the
community as an important part of the process
-
i am lost in between the fight you are having and trying to understand
what are the changes you want to make to FTC
try to stop the figthing and construct find a consensus if you beleive in FTC
and after explain it to the rest of us if you consider the
community as an important part of the process
Yes, that’s why we keep asking Mirrax to stop so we can stay on topic.
Let’s be VERY CLEAR about this. We don’t want to make any changes to FTC.
Ok? Everyone got that? Can we never say that again please? Thanks.
Secondly: We’re not interested in a consensus. There has never been a consensus in this community, and there doesn’t ever need to be one.
Third: The community is not NEARLY as important in this process as the market is. The community plays the role of cheerleaders and evangalists, early adopters and supporters. They do NOT play the role of decision makers. What we’re discussing is the idea of how to be successful at targeting a market with a service offering. The community is simply the sounding board and location for that discussion. If they don’t want to have it with us, that’s totally cool, but we’d ask them not to disrupt the conversation with constant insults and derailments. It just makes the community look bad.
-
The problem here is ultimately we have 2 options. Start again under a new model, or try make a transition to a new model.
Problem with starting again means throwing out the coins. Literally bag holders with a dead token. Although theres no reason in this scenario you couldn’t make a partycoin from FT2 using FTC… i didnt think about that…
anyway, problem with the other option, it completely limits Feathercoins ability to gain maximum valuation. Even if it does move to the exact same piece of amazing tech.
This DPoS coin could take on the utility of counterparty and ethereum at the same time.
-
updated again
-
The problem here is ultimately we have 2 options. Start again under a new model, or try make a transition to a new model.
Problem with starting again means throwing out the coins. Literally bag holders with a dead token. Although theres no reason in this scenario you couldn’t make a partycoin from FT2 using FTC… i didnt think about that…
anyway, problem with the other option, it completely limits Feathercoins ability to gain maximum valuation. Even if it does move to the exact same piece of amazing tech.
This DPoS coin could take on the utility of counterparty and ethereum at the same time.
Well yes, I’ve pointed that out a few times. First of all one of the features of the new blockchain is the issuing of new assets. You can just Featherparty the old tokens on over. This makes the existing FTC tokens MORE relevant, since they can now be traded on the decentralized exchange and participate in asset value pegging transactions.
Another feature of a DPoS chain is it becomes a viable candidate for targeting with a PoW chain, so you can eliminate NeoScrypt and switch the FTC network to a pure side-chain, eliminating all the security problems with FTC in the process.
That’s why these services are entirely complimentary to the old blockchain, not competitive, and can even add great value to the old network both in terms of services, support, relevance, market valuation, AND security.
But this is ONLY viable if the chain has economic value to incentivize new delegates to secure the network. The whole thing falls apart the minute you fail to provide economic value.
-
ok i got my answer thank
-
i understand you point Kevlar but the question remain member of the community have invested into the coins they are share older to this coin and what would happen if you star new like Calem say that means holders with a dead bag of coin or what
It’s a blockchain. It doesn’t stop unless miners stop mining it. There’s literally no threat to existing token holders, and lots of additional tricks the old coin gains. See the above post.
In addition, it’s really important to understand that this is fundamentally different.
Yes, it’s a blockchain. And that’s really where the similarities end and the complimentary aspects begin.
For starters, it’s not a token of account, so it’s not a ‘coin’.
It’s not PoW or PoS, so it doesn’t compete for hash rate.
It’s not trying to compete for market share in the same space FTC is: instead it provides complimentary services for FTC.
So this idea that as a result of complimentary services being launched, that existing token holders would become dead bag holders was never on the table, never suggested, and really, never even so much as a possibility. Whoever told you that should be told they are wrong.
What we’re suggesting would add great value to the existing tokens in the form of new services and new solutions for securing the blockchain.
-
Ive updated it, but ftc can become a sidechain of this new coin that is a pure btc PoB.
-
I forgot about the fact that you could still keep the old network close to it’s current form but just way more secure…
Like i said above, i havent gone into the gritty detail of the tech involved but yeah, as kevlar mentioned, and this is one of the idea’s we talked about months ago on slack and we were pitchforked for it, ftc could become an asset on the new network.
The chances are, you will see a more organic valuing of the tokens price because miners are no longer forced to mine and dump it to secure its network!
-
The chances are, you will see a more organic valuing of the tokens price because miners are no longer forced to mine and dump it to secure its network!
Ah, I see we’ve finally come full circle, back to the suggesting I made that started us down this path all those months ago: A solution to the economic crisis.
-
This is no coincidence… I didn’t stick around to help lead the coin to a half baked idea.
It was the best idea at the start of the year, and it still is. I’ve done my best to find more acceptable alternatives but none have been reached.
You can’t take all the credit. ;)
-
thanks for the explanations, and all the best for this project,
-
thanks for the explanations, and all the best for this project,
And thank you for setting the example for the rest of the community and not pitchforking us.
-
This is no coincidence… I didn’t stick around to help lead the coin to a half baked idea.
It was the best idea at the start of the year, and it still is. I’ve done my best to find more acceptable alternatives but none have been reached.
You can’t take all the credit. ;)
I wouldn’t think to! It has been a joint venture of a Bill and Ted scale.
Wayne and Garth?
Bert and Ernie?
Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnette! There we go.
-
We know it is possible and perfectly viable. But with that said. Kevlar and I are just messengers. We can not help make this happen.
It is not something we want to do or are willing to do.
I’m willing to come back and help coordinate if asked and if there’s funding with a dpos structure for the team.
But let this be clear, this isn’t our project. This is for who ever is willing to write the code.
As repeated again and again, we are just sharing information we have gathered.
-
@Kevlar XD lol?!