A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
Acknowledged. This thread has nothing to do with FTC, so may we have it renamed to something without Feathercoin / FTC in the title and move it to the Technical Discussion subforum? Although I see nothing technical in this discussion anyway, so Off-Topic may be a better choice.
We may focus instead on real issues such as getting v0.9.3 released finally and fixing the broken web site. What a joke it is now with no wallet download links and no detailed information on Feathercoin and its history.
+1
yes i’m lost at why we now have a forum full of dribble about a new ICO coin that supposedly (stated by its constant pusher) has nothing to do with feathercoin,
on most forums this would be labelled as spam and those who continually publish it get banned.
-
Move it. I tried a discussion but I’m I really can’t spend any more time on this.
-
+1
yes i’m lost at why we now have a forum full of dribble about a new ICO coin that supposedly (stated by its constant pusher) has nothing to do with feathercoin,
on most forums this would be labelled as spam and those who continually publish it get banned.
Well as is typical, you have failed to picked up on what the majority has already understood.
Which is just fine. Kill the thread, win the misinformation war, and continue on as if it never happened. I’m sure you’ll all be better off for it.
The majority has already joined up, and we are WAY better off without you 3 [removed insult]. We’re done here.
-
You was not listening a single line of what I said.
Instead you try to gain power and polish your ego with every post made.
Unfortunately for you more people are observing your psychopatic diarhea and making they own conclusion.
Yet I am not calling you an idiot because you do not fit the definition of idiot.
So no, I am not an idiot. Do you even know what term idiot reffers to?
If not, than please educate yourself and try not to tear part of information I am providing to you out of context as always.
Read the whole article and make a public appology for start.
Yes Mirrax, you’re an [removed insult]
[removed insult] or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
That PERFECTLY describes this behavior of yours.
Do you understand why?
Because with every post I made, I was giving away my power, not collecting more of it. And yet you’re too dull to see that.
Because my ego is battered, bruised, and laying on the ground, beaten. You see, I thought I could show this crowd something interesting. Something amazing. Something really incredible. And for the most part? For all but 4 people? I totally succeeded.
But on those three people, I spent 90% of my energy, trying to show them something they would never open their eyes to see.
I do not fit the definition of an idiot. A[ ]hole? Sure. Evil? Maybe. Driven and passionate? Absolutely.
But you, Mirrax, are the very textbook case study for a person who constantly acts counterproductively. I’ve documented a small stream of this constant behavior on your part here: [link removed]
And so I will take my ideas and ride off into the sunset, because the team of 20 or so we built and the friends we made are SO much bigger than 4 [profanity] who want only to stifle any innovation which does not have their name attached to it.
Goodbye, good luck, and [removed profanity] Mirrax. You are the reason Feathercoin will never go anywhere. I hope you sleep ok at night knowing that.
-
Well as is typical, you have failed to picked up on what the majority has already understood.
Which is just fine. Kill the thread, win the misinformation war, and continue on as if it never happened. I’m sure you’ll all be better off for it.
The majority has already joined up, and we are WAY better off without you 3 [removed insult]. We’re done here.
Yes Mirrax, you’re an idiot.
[removed insult] or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
That PERFECTLY describes this behavior of yours.
Do you understand why?
Because with every post I made, I was giving away my power, not collecting more of it. And yet you’re too dull to see that.
Because my ego is battered, bruised, and laying on the ground, beaten. You see, I thought I could show this crowd something interesting. Something amazing. Something really incredible. And for the most part? For all but 4 people? I totally succeeded.
But on those three people, I spent 90% of my energy, trying to show them something they would never open their eyes to see.
I do not fit the definition of an idiot. A[ ]hole? Sure. Evil? Maybe. Driven and passionate? Absolutely.
But you, Mirrax, are the very textbook case study for a person who constantly acts counterproductively. I’ve documented a small stream of this constant behavior on your part here: [link removed]
And so I will take my ideas and ride off into the sunset, because the team of 20 or so we built and the friends we made are SO much bigger than 4 [profanity] who want only to stifle any innovation which does not have their name attached to it.
Goodbye, good luck, and fuck off Mirrax. You are the reason Feathercoin will never go anywhere. I hope you sleep ok at night knowing that.
No comment.
-
so time to close this thread :-X
-
“The Future of Feathercoin - FTC v2 (FT2)”
Can anyone tell me why FT2 is discussed in this thread as the future of FTC if it has absolutely nothing to share with it?
Kevlar says he isn’t interested to write code for FTC, doesn’t want its current block chain or anything else related. FT2 seems to emerge as a completely independent coin, DPoS based, ICO and/or PoB started, etc. I also see Kevlar’s reluctance to accept FTC for PoB on his new coin’s launch. Hence the whole point of this debate seems to seize the Feathercoin brand and a part of the community for this new project.
You couldnt have said it better. - Said nearly the same on slack a few times. Just sad.
-
You might agree with ghostlander, but nowhere has what he said been proposed. There is a reluctance to accept FTC, that’s true, and there are also well debated reasons why. There is reasoning behind not accepting FTC in a hypothetical initial share offering. Our current FTC tokens are hard to value as there’s little to prevent manipulation, a small whale could move the price for his/her gain, there’s no volume. If you want fair delegates, the net needs casting a little wider, as the gene pool here is ever shrinking and hasn’t seen a replacement in it’s numbers, we need fresh blood, coders and service providers , else the delegate system just won’t work. You can’t exchange and value all coins, but all coins are valued against BTC. BTC is still the mother currency. Pegging a (currently hypothetical) ICO against BTC makes sense if you look at from the point of view of hitting the largest possible market. You got doge? Convert to BTC. Got fiat? Convert to BTC.
Are you are hoping that by accepting FTC there will be a rush to buy up FTC to burn to shares and you can profit from the whales manipulating the market? How will that help to establish a fair value for the newly created shares? The very same shares that are to be the incentive to attract new coders et al to run as delegates and help us move Feathercoin forward. It’s critical to the whole delegate system! You’d be running as a delegate right? Since mining isn’t profitable, only the shovel sellers and the energy companies are benefiting from the teams hard work.
We’ve lost great people in the past, people who could now run as delegates and be fairly rewarded for their time sacrifice. No more begging for tips. We won’t have to lose another ChrisJ or see services dry up. We could even look to speed up and secure (no 51% attacks and ACP!) BC1 using the PoW done by the delegates. That’s also a possibility. But you need a strong and healthy delegate system for that to work.
Or are you are saying is that you deserve an upgrade path? But that only makes sense if BC1 is being replaced, there is no way to provide the extra features we need to become relevant again without a complimentary blockchain. FTC is very good at providing cash like tokens, you won’t be using ‘shares’ to buy goods online, they are two different things.
I’m not against the idea of a really small percentage welcome share bundle dropping on FTC addresses, I think that’s something we could debate the merits of. I am against 1-1 swapping of FTC/FTCShares, as it runs the risk for devaluing and breaking the delegates reward system, making it all pointless.
Or is the argument that you want your tokens all on one blockchain? Feathercoin must only have one BC? You could do that to, that’s a possibility, you could have FTC destroyed on BC1 and recreated as counter party tokens and again enjoy the benefits of the faster blockchain and the stronger security models without ACP and the risk of 51% attacks.
What’s the argument for not doing it?
So please quit pretending that the proposed ideas are not for the greater future of Feathercoin, because quite honestly, without this sort of crazy idea, we will just fade into insignificance and lose more members to a wasteful and broken incentive scheme. :'(
-
You might agree with ghostlander, but nowhere has what he said been proposed. There is a reluctance to accept FTC, that’s true, and there are also well debated reasons why. There is reasoning behind not accepting FTC in a hypothetical initial share offering. Our current FTC tokens are hard to value as there’s little to prevent manipulation, a small whale could move the price for his/her gain, there’s no volume. If you want fair delegates, the net needs casting a little wider, as the gene pool here is ever shrinking and hasn’t seen a replacement in it’s numbers, we need fresh blood, coders and service providers , else the delegate system just won’t work. You can’t exchange and value all coins, but all coins are valued against BTC. BTC is still the mother currency. Pegging a (currently hypothetical) ICO against BTC makes sense if you look at from the point of view of hitting the largest possible market. You got doge? Convert to BTC. Got fiat? Convert to BTC.
Are you are hoping that by accepting FTC there will be a rush to buy up FTC to burn to shares and you can profit from the whales manipulating the market? How will that help value the newly created shares? The very same shares that are to be the incentive to attract new coders et al to run as delegates and help us move Feathercoin forward. It’s critical to the whole delegate system! You’d be running as a delegate right? Since mining isn’t profitable, only the shovel sellers and the energy companies are benefiting from the teams hard work.
We’ve lost great people in the past, people who could now run as delegates and be fairly rewarded for their time sacrifice. No more begging for tips. We won’t have to lose another ChrisJ or see services dry up. We could even look to secure and speed up and secure (no 51% attacks and ACP!) BC1 using the PoW done by the delegates. That’s also a possibility. But you need a strong and healthy delegate system for that to work.
Or are you are saying is that you deserve an upgrade path? But that only makes sense if BC1 is being replaced, there is no way to provide the extra features we need to become relevant again without a complimentary blockchain.
I’m not against the idea of a really small percentage welcome share bundle dropping on FTC addresses, I think that’s something we could debate the merits of. I am against 1-1 swapping of FTC/FTCShares, as it runs the risk for devaluing and breaking the delegates reward system, making it all pointless.
Or is the argument that you want your tokens all on one blockchain? Feathercoin must only have one BC? You could do that to, that’s a possibility, you could have FTC destroyed on BC1 and recreated as counter party tokens and again enjoy the benefits of the faster blockchain and the stronger security models without ACP and the risk of 51% attacks.
What’s the argument for not doing it?
So please quit pretending that the proposed ideas are not for the greater future of Feathercoin, because quite honestly, without this sort of crazy idea, we will just fade into insignificance and lose more members to a wasteful and broken incentive scheme. :'(
Well I can summarize that for you MrWyrm.
Kelsey, Mirrax, Chekaz, and Ghostlander don’t want it.
They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones.
They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation.
They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack.
They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones.
They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back.
They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money.
They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave.
They don’t want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening.
And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money.
…
That’s the argument.
Not that it won’t work (it does). Not that it can’t be done (it has been done). Not that it won’t provide security and value to the existing blockchain (it would). Not that these services are not useful or complimentary (they are). Not that the market isn’t hungry for these services (they are).
The argument is as simple as “I do not want it, therefore you will not do it.”
-
You might agree with ghostlander, but nowhere has what he said been proposed. There is a reluctance to accept FTC, that’s true, and there are also well debated reasons why. There is reasoning behind not accepting FTC in a hypothetical initial share offering. Our current FTC tokens are hard to value as there’s little to prevent manipulation, a small whale could move the price for his/her gain, there’s no volume. If you want fair delegates, the net needs casting a little wider, as the gene pool here is ever shrinking and hasn’t seen a replacement in it’s numbers, we need fresh blood, coders and service providers , else the delegate system just won’t work. You can’t exchange and value all coins, but all coins are valued against BTC. BTC is still the mother currency. Pegging a (currently hypothetical) ICO against BTC makes sense if you look at from the point of view of hitting the largest possible market. You got doge? Convert to BTC. Got fiat? Convert to BTC.
Are you are hoping that by accepting FTC there will be a rush to buy up FTC to burn to shares and you can profit from the whales manipulating the market? How will that help to establish a fair value for the newly created shares? The very same shares that are to be the incentive to attract new coders et al to run as delegates and help us move Feathercoin forward. It’s critical to the whole delegate system! You’d be running as a delegate right? Since mining isn’t profitable, only the shovel sellers and the energy companies are benefiting from the teams hard work.
We’ve lost great people in the past, people who could now run as delegates and be fairly rewarded for their time sacrifice. No more begging for tips. We won’t have to lose another ChrisJ or see services dry up. We could even look to speed up and secure (no 51% attacks and ACP!) BC1 using the PoW done by the delegates. That’s also a possibility. But you need a strong and healthy delegate system for that to work.
Or are you are saying is that you deserve an upgrade path? But that only makes sense if BC1 is being replaced, there is no way to provide the extra features we need to become relevant again without a complimentary blockchain. FTC is very good at providing cash like tokens, you won’t be using ‘shares’ to buy goods online, they are two different things.
I’m not against the idea of a really small percentage welcome share bundle dropping on FTC addresses, I think that’s something we could debate the merits of. I am against 1-1 swapping of FTC/FTCShares, as it runs the risk for devaluing and breaking the delegates reward system, making it all pointless.
Or is the argument that you want your tokens all on one blockchain? Feathercoin must only have one BC? You could do that to, that’s a possibility, you could have FTC destroyed on BC1 and recreated as counter party tokens and again enjoy the benefits of the faster blockchain and the stronger security models without ACP and the risk of 51% attacks.
What’s the argument for not doing it?
So please quit pretending that the proposed ideas are not for the greater future of Feathercoin, because quite honestly, without this sort of crazy idea, we will just fade into insignificance and lose more members to a wasteful and broken incentive scheme. :'(
well said
-
Well I can summarize that for you MrWyrm.
Kelsey, Mirrax, Chekaz, and Ghostlander don’t want it.
They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones.
They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation.
They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack.
They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones.
They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back.
They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money.
They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave.
They don’t want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening.
And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money.
…
That’s the argument.
Not that it won’t work (it does). Not that it can’t be done (it has been done). Not that it won’t provide security and value to the existing blockchain (it would). Not that these services are not useful or complimentary (they are). Not that the market isn’t hungry for these services (they are).
The argument is as simple as “I do not want it, therefore you will not do it.”
They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones. Why shouldnt we want this? Ofc we want that, no doubt.
They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation. Even Bitcoin is manipulated by whales, but thats how markets work if they are that small. - Why should we take any advantage there, just a lie.
They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack. We also want to have that. Feathercoin took the challenge and went over to NeoScrypt to secure the blockchain and NOT to leave them in the hands of a few ASIC Farms.
They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones. Also open for that, no prove that we are against that.
They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back. Sounds good, never actually heard of it, so why would you know that we are against that?
They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money. Thats also not true, but its not that the price/value is in our hands, neither do we want to control it completely?
They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave. Ideas which arent related in any way to our system we are running since 2013 and screw up all who invested into the current one?
They _don’t _want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening. We are aware and understand what you are willing to do. But its not false to have an own opinion on all this? Why is that wrong?
And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money. I have to turn this around. You want to do a project which hasnt to do anything with our current system. And saying its a “FTC Community Project” just to use the Brand for your idea that it gains faster traction?
Stop to speak for others please.
Ive spoken in this post as “WE” but this is my OWN OPINION, Ive not talked to anyone mentioned above about this. Dont take this as their opinion/view on these points.
Regards,
ChekaZ
-
They don’t want decentralized services, they want third-party centralized ones. Why shouldnt we want this? Ofc we want that, no doubt.
No, you don’t. You’ve fought against me, and it, tooth and nail.
They don’t want asset value pegging, they want their token value to float to take advantage of whale manipulation. Even Bitcoin is manipulated by whales, but thats how markets work if they are that small. - Why should we take any advantage there, just a lie.
You SHOULD take advantage there if there’s advantage to be taken. There’s much advantage in a stable currency.
They don’t want a secure blockchain, they want one that’s compomised by a backdoor that anyone with a bot-net can hack. We also want to have that. Feathercoin took the challenge and went over to NeoScrypt to secure the blockchain and NOT to leave them in the hands of a few ASIC Farms.
No you don’t, you’ve fought against it, and me, with whatever resource you could bear to muster.
They don’t want a distributed exchange, they want to keep using the existing ones. Also open for that, no prove that we are against that.
The proof is in every reply in the “Future of FTC” topic.
They don’t want p2p loans that they can default on, they want tips on this forums that they don’t have to give back. Sounds good, never actually heard of it, so why would you know that we are against that?
Because you’ve fought against me, and it, like I was taking your baby away.
They don’t want stable value for the currency, they just want more money. Thats also not true, but its not that the price/value is in our hands, neither do we want to control it completely?
The price isn’t, but what if it told you the decision making power COULD be? I guess you don’t want that, because you’ve fought against it, and me with great vim and vigor.
They don’t want great people coming up with great ideas. They LITERALLY hate that, and will hate on anyone who has any until they leave. Ideas which arent related in any way to our system we are running since 2013 and screw up all who invested into the current one?
Wait a cycle…
Are you trying to tell me that everything I just described is ‘unrelated’? Are we even speaking the same language here?
They _don’t _want anyone to understand that this is what we’re discussing. They will cloud the waters and poison the well until everyone grows tired and stops listening. We are aware and understand what you are willing to do. But its not false to have an own opinion on all this? Why is that wrong?
You’re not. I can prove it because you CONSTANTLY misrepresent it. There’s no problem with having your own opinion, it’s the constant lies and misinformation campaign that we’re collectively struggling against.
And probablly most importantly, they don’t want anyone doing anything with the FTC brand unless it’s them who will get all the credit, fortune, and money. I have to turn this around. You want to do a project which hasnt to do anything with our current system. And saying its a “FTC Community Project” just to use the Brand for your idea that it gains faster traction?
See what I mean about totally misrepresenting it? There’s your perfect example.
I don’t want to do a project. I’m discussing ideas for a project that has EVERYTHING to do with the current system. It would be a **MAJOR **upgrade for it. No one said it’s a “FTC Community Project”. No one EVER said that. You just invented that. And no, the idea of the use of the brand is NOT just to gain faster traction, it’s to provide complimentary services FOR the brand and FOR the brand’s existing product.
Now do you see what I mean about constantly misrepresenting it?
