...Your mistake was thinking that it was because of a mistake made by me or the team, In which it was not. And indeed it is a bug caused by NOMP.
....
Errr..... ummmm.... NO!
...And if you didn't know i'm also a NOMP/UNOMP developer...
...
if there is a CrownCoin "issue", it's a dev issue.
If you're a dev for NOMP and NOMP has a bug, then, yes, it was a mistake by you (not a mistake by me thinking it was a mistake by you). You don't get to claim being a dev for
both NOMP and the coin, claim there's a bug in NOMP that makes it not work as you expected, and then say I'm wrong for saying it's a dev issue. Why? Because, logic!
I only have rights to commit on the UNOMP branch. Therefore I am only a developer for UNOMP not NOMP. It was a mistake by me thinking you were using UNOMP. The reward structure is unaltered by UNOMP unless changes are intentionally made to get around it currently. NOMP purposely alters the reward structure in an improper manner and will not create valid blocks once enforcement is enbabled. UNOMP will.
I was working to give miners FULL block rewards during version upgrades while enforcement is NOT enabled. NOMP will still reward the nodes 20% like you are currently. UNOMP not currently but in the future will give miners the full reward during times enforcement is not turned on. and will automatically start to pay nodes once it is turned on.
I would just like to state that I appreciate infernoman not resorting to namecalling and also admitting when he realized he was in error -- it is one of the characteristics that makes him good to work with.
I would also like to point out that computergenie started this thread by accusing the coin of "robbing" miners, and clips the thread in his successive responses -- which doesn't facilitate discourse.
Computergenie has not made any incorrect statements -- but he even correctly identified identified that the key to a coin or crypto project is the community and Stonehedge agreed and invited him to join the discussion and community on Mattermost. I haven't checked there, so I don't know if that has happened - but I believe that speaks to where the Crown team is coming from.
And I know infernoman has been sleep deprived and deluged with inquiries -- so I also give him a pass for swinging at a deliberate insult online.
And I find that the smartest people are the ones who are able to recognize their mistakes, take responsibility and pivot.
Computergenie - you are correct that what makes a project is the community and that makes a good community isn't a bunch of weak people who need agreement -- but people who are ready to be challenged, test their ideas, adapt and respond.
This is what creates long-term survival and the ability to do this is why Crown will be a long-term alt-coin.
The fact that mining hash is variable and so Crown has followed a strategy of being merge-mined and added DGW, and split the block reward between "trons/thones/nodes" and miners is because of the variability of the hash rate for small coins. No one is being robbed -- that in itself is a strange sort of "entitlement" -- as though miners "own" the project. In fact the power of the project is that no one owns it and your implicit belief that miners should own it is mal-adaptive to the crypto community -- if anyone owns any of these projects it will kill the project in the long run -- strange its ability to innovate. I would argue that is part of what Bitcoin is struggling with -- this mal-adaptive belief you unwittingly expressed to start the thread.
To protect the long-term nature of the Crown project, the team had to rely on long-term participants -- which is where the nodes come in.
Anyway -- it's also worth going back to what mining originally was for Satoshi -- which was just a social hack to distribute coins to new users and build the community -- another point of failure is the emergence of ASICS and the concentration of mining which has choked off the building of the crypto community rather than acting as a vector of expansion. So while mining still serves a purpose for security -- it does not provide community expansion (social hack) or any mechanism for long-term stability for new projects.
Anyway -- welcome to the community everyone. Delighted to have discussion and be challenged, it means people are listening -- but dislike mean people, stupidity and the inability to consider ideas in a broader context. Worth taking a look at the Dunning Kruger effect on this -- we all have to be aware of where are blind spots and biases are or fall prey to that one.
We can all make perfectly accurate statements and also be completely wrong from time to time. I'm actually wrong most of the time -- I just try to be wrong in new and interesting ways each time. Crown would love to have a long-term stable mining base -- but the technology and economics of mining don't seem to support this, and that's just the world we live in. Anything can be ASIC'd... and once it is then mining is an arms race -- not a distribution vector to add new users. So mining only serves one of its two original purposes -- security -- and so it doesn't EARN the whole reward. This doesn't seem to be a conclusion unique to Crown, but rather the way the crypto community is evolving in response to survival pressures.
Hope that makes some sense. If I'm wrong in any of this, please let me know.
