A Possible Future with DPoS, etc.
-
It doesn’t matter much what I think of ICO personally. It matters what the most people think of it. They think exactly what I’ve said. Are you sure you can convince them all to think the opposite?
Except. as I keep pointing out, the market DOES NOT think that. They think these coins are valued in the top 10 of the market cap presently.
Do you understand what that means? That these ICO coins are in the top 10 market cap?
-
+1 Lizhi on voice of wisdom.
btcx.org was also talking about btc38.com
One think is sure, Kevlar, Calem and Dave do not lead the coin.
Nobody does at the moment.
I will gladly vote for you or Ghost.
You two contributed the most and seems your opinions are based or real world perception.
As I keep pointing out, you don’t lead a coin by voting. You don’t lead a coin by electing someone into power.
You lead by writing code. And that’s all it takes. Anyone can do it. Even Peter Bushnell.
-
Also, my opinion and understanding on ICO’s and PoB. (Initial Coin Offering) ( Proof of Burn)
A PoB ICO is where people send btc to an unspendable address. This entitles them to a portion of the first lot of coins to come into existence.
It can be done in the worst of ways for the worst of coins. But It has been extremely successful in bringing awesome new projects that are pushing the limits of the technology.
Essentially, if done right when launching “a coin”, it is valuing the network the same way a company is valued for seed investing.
One important aspect is the relationship between Supply, Demand and Utility.
Get those right and there’s a world of investors willing to give you a shot.
-
Kevlar, you confuse ability and relevance. I’m all for a research chain.
Let me give you a different analogy:
The coder has a hammer.
The miners have a blueprint.
The market wants the house built quick.
The holders want to add a swimming pool.
The coder has a tool. The miners say whether the swimming pool will fit without renovating. The holders have a goal. If the miners screw up the blueprint, the holders are very much entitled to moan about it.
The power each one has effectively is an accident of the madness that we call software development. The attention each deserves is more fluid than that.
I’ve not confused ability with relevance, and this analogy bears absolutely no resemblance to the reality of the situtation, since nothing about what you’re saying is true.
Coders have a tool, yes.
Miners do not get to say if the swimming pool will be built or not, and have no choices over renovation decisions. They only get to say if they will swim in it, or if they want to swim in a different pool.
The market wants the house built quick, but it ALSO wants many houses, big and small, with lots of different options available.
The holders want to own the house. But they don’t. They’re simply being provided shelter at the cost of the miners.
Please, can we keep the analogies grounded in reality?
-
Time is cash after all. The past two weeks are gold.
We should make something valuable for feathercoin. After stop squabbling, a great man stand up and say “follow me”. Who is he possibly ? mirrax ? never be Bushnell.
What’s wrong with following the people who are offering to do just that? It sure as hell isn’t Mirrax…
-
What’s wrong with following the people who are offering to do just that? It sure as hell isn’t Mirrax…
You are not listening.
Calem is at least willing to discuss.
I explained him what sharedropp is and now he is talking with me about sharedropping 20% of new coin to BTS and FTC holders and keeping 80% for ICO.
Thats the way how not to fuck with current investors.
I will gladly continue disscussion with him.
Unlike you or Dave he is open to talk. Not repeating the same monologue over and over again.
But actually discussing in the manner where you think about what your oponent said.
Such discussion is beneficial for both sides.
-
I’m with Ghostlander on the ICO being bad for the FTC “brand”. It’s not the right move, in my opinion.
I only really see three possibilities in this situation:
1. Community consensus is not reached, but the changes are implemented - although not adopted, essentially killing the new fork, causing FTC to split into new and old blockchain, with the old blockchain continuing as is.
2. Lots of discussion and arguments lead to nothing actually happening.
3. Community consensus is reached somewhere in the middle, the changes are rolled out and miraculously don’t kill the coin.
Coders are great, because they can make things become a reality.
But without miners, speculators and holders, they are essentially nothing.
Anyone can write a book. But without publishers, stores to sell them in and readers, they’re pointless.
I am not sure why you guys aren’t releasing this as a new coin? I don’t see any positives with utilizing the FTC brand.
-
Kevlar and I are still launching our coin irregardless of feathercoins actions. There’s certain things that we want to try that we could never do under Feathercoins economy or its brand.
-
Publishers are a dime a dozen. Obsolete.
Miners are a peculiarity of protecting the bridge everyone’s crossing over so as to preserve the value of the transferred item.
Mess with the bridge and you mess with the people who trusted you to do the job.
I’m interested in a new coin erryday, but I can’t even stomach ever getting into the mining game again.
-
You are not listening.
Calem is at least willing to discuss.
I explained him what sharedropp is and now he is talking with me about sharedropping 20% of new coin to BTS and FTC holders and keeping 80% for ICO.
Thats the way how not to fuck with current investors.
I will gladly continue disscussion with him.
Unlike you or Dave he is open to talk. Not repeating the same monologue over and over again.
But actually discussing in the manner where you think about what your oponent said.
Such discussion is beneficial for both sides.
Not only have I listened, I’ve explained in great detail the reasons why that would not benefit the economy, the market, the product, or the brand.
Have you listened to those reasons? Can you enumerate them in detail? Do you understand what the ramifications of doing that are? Would you like to have a discussion about it? Because I’ve been trying to, and you’ve been shouting lies as loud as you can. Perhaps you should just join the conversation, because then you would learn that I’ve been discussing THIS VERY SOLUTION AT LENGTH for some time now. It’s been an open discussion, and you’ve refused to participate.
I’m not the one who won’t think about what you’ve said, you’ve not listened to a word I’ve said or else you would know that I proposed this and have debated it’s merits at length with the group MONTHS AGO! And suddenly you come up with the idea, and now I’m not listening to you? What the hell?!?!
-
I’m interested in a new coin erryday, but I can’t even stomach ever getting into the mining game again.
DPoS essentially doesn’t use mining to secure the network
It uses a ton of known trusted nodes (delegates) to each take a turn to sign a block.
The network is still distributed, but the equipment to quickly and efficiently sign a block need not be more then an rPi.
-
Also, just to be clear. I’m considering sharedropping.
I’m not 100% sold on it. The best way for the holders to be rewarded is by them been delegates in the new system.
If theres a person who is holding still or not who made great contributions to ftc no matter how long ago comes along and they are known for their actions, they would most likely become a delegate.
Now, by bringing in major outside investors, you can’t really dilute to much of there investment to those who simply just hold the coin.
-
I’m with Ghostlander on the ICO being bad for the FTC “brand”. It’s not the right move, in my opinion.
Since you’re not providing anything more than opinion I’ll assume that this is based on a poor understanding of what the move being discussed is. What I did was provide the reasons why you would do something like an ICO. Perhaps you could elaborate on why ICO’s fail to do the things I specified, and what a better solution for accomplishing those things are?
I only really see three possibilities in this situation:
1. Community consensus is not reached, but the changes are implemented - although not adopted, essentially killing the new fork, causing FTC to split into new and old blockchain, with the old blockchain continuing as is.
2. Lots of discussion and arguments lead to nothing actually happening.
3. Community consensus is reached somewhere in the middle, the changes are rolled out and miraculously don’t kill the coin.
You left off 4: Community consensus has never been reached, the changes are implemented regardless, and adopted by the market regardless of what the whiners on some troll forum say because they provide value in ways that v1 blockchains don’t because they’re NOT tokens of account so they’re not competitive, they’re complimentary. The market responds favorably or unfavorably to a new breed of decentralized services, and everyone who said it was a bad idea has to face the reality of the situation which is that they don’t get to make these decisions for the market, or for the brand, and all of this talk is a bunch of wasted breath.
Coders are great, because they can make things become a reality.
But without miners, speculators and holders, they are essentially nothing.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Our model targets NONE of these markets with it’s primary service offering. Perhaps you should pay more attention to that fact?
Anyone can write a book. But without publishers, stores to sell them in and readers, they’re pointless.
I am not sure why you guys aren’t releasing this as a new coin? I don’t see any positives with utilizing the FTC brand.
That’s because you’ve not bothered to understand what it is that we’re talking about doing. It’s NOT a new coin. I keep trying to say that, but no one is interested in hearing it.
-
Publishers are a dime a dozen. Obsolete.
Miners are a peculiarity of protecting the bridge everyone’s crossing over so as to preserve the value of the transferred item.
Mess with the bridge and you mess with the people who trusted you to do the job.
I’m interested in a new coin erryday, but I can’t even stomach ever getting into the mining game again.
We’re not messing with it, we’re eliminating them from the model entirely and targeting people who contribute to the network with innovation, NOT with heat-waste, with the block reward instead. Your argument is irrelevant in a world where miners don’t get to decide and token holders do. That’s why the model is potent, and why FTC stands to gain so much from it: because it DOES turn token holders into decision makers… something they presently ARE NOT.
-
The otherway you can go about this is just make it a FTC PoB IPO.
That way everyone comes over to the new product and they’re automatically token holders eligible for candidacy
-
The otherway you can go about this is just make it a FTC PoB IPO.
That way everyone comes over to the new product and they’re automatically token holders eligible for candidacy
That would run the risk of FTC being pumped the crap out of so people can get tokens for the ICO. How would this effect the valuation? Sounds like a way to get more people burned, which I’m not in favour of.
-
The otherway you can go about this is just make it a FTC PoB IPO.
That way everyone comes over to the new product and they’re automatically token holders eligible for candidacy
Then just do that, and forget about the whole DPoS thing entirely. That’s always been an option, and one that I’ve discussed at length. It’s called Featherparty.
-
The otherway you can go about this is just make it a FTC PoB IPO.
That way everyone comes over to the new product and they’re automatically token holders eligible for candidacy
That would absolutely destroy any chance of a fair valuation because you’re using a hyper-inflated whale manipulated economy to value your new one. You’re just trading one problem for another while screwing over everyone who SHOULD be investing in you.
-
One of the goals was to provide value to investors long term, both to existing token holders, and to potential new shareholders.
When did that stop being a goal when discussing a complimentary product? When did the needs of the very few start to outweigh the needs of the masses?
-
Ultimately this up to Lizhi or who ever submits the code to see if the market likes the idea or not.
