we need to revive this coin..because im following this coin from the start..
the price is defleted and need more innovation..via coin is a good coin but need more community
Topic: [ANN] [VIA] ★ Viacoin ★ ~ the future of digital currency ~ ★ - page 61. (Read 825850 times)
Translated into plain English:
Via isn't making us rich fast enough so we want to cull the majority of coins still to be mined in an effort to push the price up like quantitative hardening.
Doesn't sound like an advancement in coin tech to me, sounds like market manipulation actually and if you are willing to destroy now then what's to say you won't feel like 'creating' later?
Changing the block size, mining algorithm etc seems fine and natural but fucking with the quantity is very ECB and bang out of order.
You knew what boat you were boarding before it sailed so either hold on for the ride or dump ship.
Via isn't making us rich fast enough so we want to cull the majority of coins still to be mined in an effort to push the price up like quantitative hardening.
Doesn't sound like an advancement in coin tech to me, sounds like market manipulation actually and if you are willing to destroy now then what's to say you won't feel like 'creating' later?
Changing the block size, mining algorithm etc seems fine and natural but fucking with the quantity is very ECB and bang out of order.
You knew what boat you were boarding before it sailed so either hold on for the ride or dump ship.
I assume around 50 million total number would be more advisable with the block reward degrading over time say keep the same reward up to 22.5 mil, then 25 in one year, 27 two years, 28.5 3 years, 29.9 4 years. 31.2 5 years , 32.4 years, 33.5 - 7 years and then 0.25m/ year to a total of 44-48 million though i would go for 44
It's not a concrete proposal and it's nowhere near technically sound, I don't see Drak agreeing to a change recommendation solely for that purpose.
VIA updating the current website, outdated and broken links, via/xch block explorers, clearinghouse!! blog updates and community building are, in my opinion a greater priority.
I would like to see all those things updated before 'Via's big news' breaks, whatever that is!
VIA updating the current website, outdated and broken links, via/xch block explorers, clearinghouse!! blog updates and community building are, in my opinion a greater priority.
I would like to see all those things updated before 'Via's big news' breaks, whatever that is!
Please correct me, but Drak always EMPHASIZED that this is a community project and hes just the "tech guy" (please no offense here, VIAs tech is still great imo). In other words: he will stay out of political or market discussions, community has to decide where the coin is going and changes can be submitted at any time. He will only use his "veto" if it hurts VIA in a technical way, otherwise every proposal that gets enough community support will be tried to be implemented.
Since mining is secured by merge mining REGARDLESS OF REWARDS, I dont see how a reduction of the inflation can hurt VIA. Quite the opposite if the fork is done professionally. I agree that website maintainence etc. has to be done as well, but since you mentioned "community building": how should this work? How has it worked the past year?
Modifying the reward schedule is a concrete chance to get some people involved again, at least getting VIA back on the radar. It's not super big news, but at least better than nothing and a step into the direction of "community building".
I have a suggestion for a better block subsidy as was being discussed a few weeks ago. Sorry for lurking, but I never had anything to say before. How about introducing the more traditional block halving from a set point in the future. Something along the lines of
This would reduce the block schedule significantly in about 7 months from now.
Code:
main.cpp:
CAmount GetBlockValue(int nHeight, const CAmount& nFees)
{
//...
} else if (nHeight > 1400000) {
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval(); // 675000 blocks or 6 months
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings <= 64) {
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
}
}
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
CAmount GetBlockValue(int nHeight, const CAmount& nFees)
{
//...
} else if (nHeight > 1400000) {
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval(); // 675000 blocks or 6 months
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings <= 64) {
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
}
}
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
This would reduce the block schedule significantly in about 7 months from now.
Thank you for your suggestion and welcome to the community (whatever is left of it lol)! Good to see that VIA still has some lurkers
I'm sure the more tech savvy guys around can elaborate it better, but what I understood from your suggestion (please correct me if wrong):
1. you propose a fork that would take place in about half a year from now, giving enough time to securely plan and prepare it
2. after the fork the rewards will be halved every 6 months
3. if my math is not too much off and its based on the current schedule (about 32MM blocks altogether), it would mean we end with about 23-25MM VIA coins => total supply of VIA down to lets say 24MM coins (from current 92MM)
Not sure if its intended to have a similar amount as BTC in the end, but I personally kinda like the idea
I have a suggestion for a better block subsidy as was being discussed a few weeks ago. Sorry for lurking, but I never had anything to say before. How about introducing the more traditional block halving from a set point in the future. Something along the lines of
This would reduce the block schedule significantly in about 7 months from now.
Code:
main.cpp:
CAmount GetBlockValue(int nHeight, const CAmount& nFees)
{
//...
} else if (nHeight > 1400000) {
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval(); // 675000 blocks or 6 months
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings <= 64) {
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
}
}
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
CAmount GetBlockValue(int nHeight, const CAmount& nFees)
{
//...
} else if (nHeight > 1400000) {
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval(); // 675000 blocks or 6 months
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings <= 64) {
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
}
}
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
This would reduce the block schedule significantly in about 7 months from now.
clearwallet.CO works. thanks.
anybody know what is going on with clearinghouse.io (domain expired) and clearwallet.io (domain not resolving) ?
As I explained pages ago, there is a problem with the registrar. For the other domains it is clearwallet.co, not io.
anybody know what is going on with clearinghouse.io (domain expired) and clearwallet.io (domain not resolving) ?
Where did you hear about via big news?
Bro if you are referring to my above post then nowhere 
I am just saying i dont wanna miss anything big coming here 
Where did you hear about via big news?
Bumping this thread coz i stopped getting notification and i dont want to miss Via's big news
Is there 95% adoption for BIP 66?
It's oscillating between 92% and 93%
You can count the blockversions using this script from linux commandline.
Code:
$startBlock = json_decode(`viacoin-cli getinfo`, true)['blocks'];
$blocks = [];
$v4 = 0;
for ($c=$startBlock; $c>($startBlock-19000); $c--) {
$hash = `viacoin-cli getblockhash $c`;
$version = json_decode(`viacoin-cli getblock $hash`, true)['version'];
$v4 += ($version == 5636356) ? 1 : 0;
}
echo "$v4/19000\n";
$blocks = [];
$v4 = 0;
for ($c=$startBlock; $c>($startBlock-19000); $c--) {
$hash = `viacoin-cli getblockhash $c`;
$version = json_decode(`viacoin-cli getblock $hash`, true)['version'];
$v4 += ($version == 5636356) ? 1 : 0;
}
echo "$v4/19000\n";
Once 95% locks in, I will release a new version with the next soft-fork.
"reduce inflation without risking blockchain security" sounds great but for what purpose other than to pump some short-sighted life into Viacoin for the coffers of whom "sit silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold"
EXACTLY for that purpose: bringing some action and life back to VIA.
Sorry to play advocatus diaboli here: theres NO community to push adaption. Changing rewards or total supply wont change that miracly, but it is a step in the right direction in my opinion - likely bringing some attention back to VIA. VIAs tech is great, no doubt, but time is running AGAINST Viacoin. Nothing to sugercoat here.
You call it short sighted, I say its an opportunity to get VIA back on the radar. EVERY kind of PR helps VIA at this stage. Smoking hopium does not.
For me its pretty easy (no affront here): we can either keep things going like they are and watch VIA completely fade, or try to get people "interested" again. Some only for market action, but some will have a closer look and realize the good tech VIA has to offer. Many coins have shown these moves can work and with Drak at the helm the risks are pretty small techwise. Moreover he kinda agreed that he would make it if enough people supported it. I'm more than willing to take that "risk", simply cause I know how the alternative will look like (and I think everyone could see it the last 8-9 months already...).
However, developers do kill coins by inaction, although it is a long process. Developers efforts should be directed to recruiting, or rewarding, new skilled coders who can stick with the project. Individuals are not a constant, but companies/large teams can be.
Core coders for a mature coin should stick to maintenance and technical improvements. Bitcoin is a good example.
Real coin life comes from third parties' implementing services around a coin. MtGOX was a good example of a third party service that helped build the Bitcoin economy. The core Bitcoin developers did not create MtGOX.
It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.
For 350k you could have already built something on par with DASH.
Dash is, to quote Peter Todd, an insta-mined "snake oil" scam with "bad crypto."
VIA+XCH is far superior, and drak is a better dev than Evan "oops I accidentally gave myself the first 2 million coins but won't relaunch" Duffield.
It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.
I think the question is whether $350k worth of man-hour work has been put into this coin as raised from the ICO.
Now if you give me just $100 grand in Bitcoin I promise to go to IT school, get a degree in computer programming and breathe some life into it!
Is there 95% adoption for BIP 66?
However, developers do kill coins by inaction, although it is a long process. Developers efforts should be directed to recruiting, or rewarding, new skilled coders who can stick with the project. Individuals are not a constant, but companies/large teams can be.
Core coders for a mature coin should stick to maintenance and technical improvements. Bitcoin is a good example.
Real coin life comes from third parties' implementing services around a coin. MtGOX was a good example of a third party service that helped build the Bitcoin economy. The core Bitcoin developers did not create MtGOX.
It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.
I think before any proposal could be made for altering the inflation schedule an analysis of the current schedule could be carried out what was the reasoning
The schedule was based on non-merged mining which requires creating enough incentive for miners to mine enough to secure the coin. That dynamic changed significantly with merged mining because the coin will be mined anyway, even with a small mining schedule (e.g. doge) because whatever subsidy is still free money to the miner as they dont have to expend any extra resources to merge mine an infinite number of coins.
Translation: at the beginning VIA had to endure the negative effect of high inflation to secure the network (= giving miners enough incentive to mine VIA)...since merge mining this is no longer true. We can significantly reduce inflation without risking blockchain security.
Well the question was is there a paper of some kind? Drak didn't give an answer. I accept what's being said about the change in mining but where's the analysis technical review or whatever you want to call it past, present and future.
You can't just make adhoc changes like this without it smacking of an attempt to pump the price, I totally agree with Draks sentiment that it requires consultation peer review and whatever along with something provided to review (explain exactly why, what and when to change).
I also agree with other Viacoiners that development or the lack of it requires attention. Drak you're doing great with the development at you're end but the community is really not performing, self included.
Concerns are being expressed that nothing appears to be being developed on the protocol how would altering the coin supply change that?
"Viacoin is designed from the ground up to be both a digital currency and provide the backbone of ClearingHouse protocol" - http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/05/what-is-viacoin.html merged mining was partly to increase viacoin blockchain security making the protocol more robust and suitable as an alternative to development on the bitcoin blockchain which is considered slow and restrictive and there's the spam effect.
Increased security for Viacoin was identified as a requirement for not least Fintech services such as those being built by Overstock and others.
"reduce inflation without risking blockchain security" sounds great but for what purpose other than to pump some short-sighted life into Viacoin for the coffers of whom "sit silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold"
There is no "paper" in particular other than what has been written about on the blog: Viacoin's original remit was to be a platform for fast embedded consensus protocols and in general to contribute to the greater good in this space. Where there have been extensions, those have been written up separately, like with BIP65, checklocktimeverify.
I generally do not support the idea of changing the coin schedule, but since it was brought up, I am saying I am in no position to dictate what happens, the only time you'll see a veto from me is if there is some kind of technical issue. By veto I mean refusing to merge a patch in the Viacoin Core repository, remembering that anyone can release a fork, although again, consensus critical changes are more difficult to convince the ecosystem to adopt. We did succeed with merged mining hard fork and that changed the dynamics for all the smaller miners and pools that were involved in the beginning.
So all I can offer up is my reasoning for the mining schedule at genesis. Block rewards main purpose is to encourage PoW miners to secure Viacoin. Merged mining changes the dynamics, take DOGE for example there are now only 10,000 DOGE per block, that;s about 0.006BTC, but it is still merged mined because it can be done so for free. For miners that's a bonus because they can mine LTC and get extra rewards for all the merged mined coins they simultaneously mine. As such, if the coin is merged mined, the security of the network wont be affected by a change to the block reward schedule as it would if it was normal PoW mining.
If some new PoS algo came along that worked for example, the block rewards could literally drop to zero and the network run off fees.
This is really the last I have to say on the matter, please dont ask me any more questions as I do not *personally* support changing any fundamental settings of the coin, but just like happened with Merged Mining, there was overwhelming community support for it, and the viacoin ecosystem agreed to make the change. That's how it works. Even better, if someone wants to propose a change formally, they are welcome to make a pull request and garner support. This is the same way it works upstream in Bitcoin Core, so no different down here.
I think before any proposal could be made for altering the inflation schedule an analysis of the current schedule could be carried out what was the reasoning
The schedule was based on non-merged mining which requires creating enough incentive for miners to mine enough to secure the coin. That dynamic changed significantly with merged mining because the coin will be mined anyway, even with a small mining schedule (e.g. doge) because whatever subsidy is still free money to the miner as they dont have to expend any extra resources to merge mine an infinite number of coins.
Translation: at the beginning VIA had to endure the negative effect of high inflation to secure the network (= giving miners enough incentive to mine VIA)...since merge mining this is no longer true. We can significantly reduce inflation without risking blockchain security.
Jump to: