Topic: [ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network - page 543. (Read 1201380 times)
December 30, 2015, 06:06:09 PM
December 30, 2015, 05:22:38 PM
Decred looks very promising
December 30, 2015, 05:05:40 PM
I have Nvidia gtx 970 , gpu miner for Nvidia is released ? .
No miner released yet. The miner is a fork of an older version of cgminer with a rewritten kernel. It's been built for both AMD and NVIDIA cards, but it's likely that an optimized miner for NVIDIA cards will take a little finesse and a fork of ccminer.
I hope you guys can port this to FPGA like Blakecoin. I understand that it's not the same iteration of Blake-256, but FPGA mining would be excellent for Decred.
People don't realize just how promising Blake-256 is for the long run. It's fast, secure, and easy / cheap to manufacture asics for when the time comes.
For the time being, it should help people to maximize mining returns due to its low power consumption and high hash output / watt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
High hashrate per watt is always a good thing and having one secure algo rather than a chained algo like X11 was the right call.
I personally would like to see 8 round Blake-256 used so merge mining with the other coins using Blake-256 would be a possibility, but regardless, I'm excited about your project and the possible implications it will have for crypto as a whole.
I pulled this from the Blakecoin thread to elaborate on the advantages of the Blake-256 algo:
Advantages
Design
• simplicity of the algorithm
• interface for hashing with a salt
Performance
• fast in both software and hardware
• parallelism and throughput/area trade-off for hardware implementation
• simple speed/confidence trade-off with the tunable number of rounds
Security
• based on an intensively analyzed component (ChaCha)
• resistant to generic second-preimage attacks
• resistant to side-channel attacks
• resistant to length-extension"
December 30, 2015, 04:59:02 PM
December 30, 2015, 12:58:58 PM
I have Nvidia gtx 970 , gpu miner for Nvidia is released ? .
No miner released yet. The miner is a fork of an older version of cgminer with a rewritten kernel. It's been built for both AMD and NVIDIA cards, but it's likely that an optimized miner for NVIDIA cards will take a little finesse and a fork of ccminer.
December 30, 2015, 12:54:05 PM
I have Nvidia gtx 970 , gpu miner for Nvidia is released ? .
December 30, 2015, 06:08:15 AM
Those are very valid issues he brought up and im very interested in knowing what the response will be and/if any steps will be taken to lessen the fears of holding such a big % of the overall coins. I believe we all have seen what can happen (not saying that it will).
This looks like a very interesting project overall, lets see where it takes us.
This looks like a very interesting project overall, lets see where it takes us.
I agree they are valid points and will certainly need further interrogation to reach a solution. I want to add this though, and I know this is very anecdotal, but I've been interacting with the community directly every day. The devs are focused almost exclusively on the code at this stage - they have been popping in and out of here and are present in IRC, but they are not very active in communication yet. So the task of helping people in the community has fallen on me. My daily schedule goes like this every day now: (1) Wake up to 100+ PMs on the Decred forum, (2) 50+ e-mails, (3) and any number of posts on all the different outlets. I've made the commitment to give each of those contacts individual attention.
I have a pretty good pulse on who's who and the people interested in Decred now. And what I'm seeing is this: There are a significant number of people of high technical competence interested in the project - developers. This is incredibly promising for the project because if funding does indeed become a sustainable component of the overall system, there is going to be a very solid foundation for development in real terms. The btcsuite group with c0 are very competent guys and gals, but they're just one stakeholder in this system - we can't forget that. A Decred future can very well see a system with multiple development stakeholders and sustainable funding is going to secure that future. The overall point I am trying to make is that this isn't being approached from the perspective of looking after one or two developers for a year or two. There is a longer term goal here, and we should all take that into consideration when interrogating the issues.
I put that forward as my own experience with Decred thus far, with a look to the future.
December 30, 2015, 04:47:30 AM
Going to quote this and highlight it to say thank you. This is well constructed and informed critique. The devs are still asleep, so when everyone is back this issue will be addressed. Important to confirm the numbers since it's a full post and run projections. In coming up with a solution, the project needs to stay within a certain framework that can't be removed:
It does appear that there's broader support for these three points, and so working within that framework to find a solution seems optimal. That will be done.
- Developers do need to be rewarded for the risk they took by purchasing coins at a relatively high dollar value prior to any community support - even if it just hinges on the simplistic notion that the coins they purchased will be worth something in the future (or be worthless if Decred isn't decent software or the larger community rejects the project) - no free meals for the devs
- The community airdrop needs to stay intact since there's a social contract in place and no money will be taken from the community (the people won't be made to carry the devs' risk), and
- The project must remain sustainable so that development can continue beyond the current developers - the future extends far beyond the current set (even though they will be around no matter what, that's both human behaviour and very few people just walk away from something they have worked on for years)
It does appear that there's broader support for these three points, and so working within that framework to find a solution seems optimal. That will be done.
Those are very valid issues he brought up and im very interested in knowing what the response will be and/if any steps will be taken to lessen the fears of holding such a big % of the overall coins. I believe we all have seen what can happen (not saying that it will).
This looks like a very interesting project overall, lets see where it takes us.
December 30, 2015, 04:36:45 AM
December 30, 2015, 03:53:55 AM
December 30, 2015, 02:33:21 AM
((165,000+250,000+415,000)÷(21,000,000×0.08)) = USD 0.494047619 per coin. Anything less than that on a free market and the devs lose.
Arbitrarily attaching value to things. Solid.
Arbitrarily calling non-arbitrary things arbitrary. Solid.
(The $0.494047619 value isn't arbitrary, as the post you quoted but failed to comprehend clearly explained.)
Only an idiot like Icebreaker (How are those Hashfast rigs doing?) would consider completely made up numbers some form of financial reality. Developers paying themselves for their own work in their own project isn't any damn basis of valuation.
The numbers aren't "completely made up."
The $0.494047619 value isn't arbitrary, it's precisely the point where C0 breaks even.
What would it take to convince you XDC isn't a scam?
December 29, 2015, 09:43:35 PM
December 29, 2015, 09:08:23 PM
((165,000+250,000+415,000)÷(21,000,000×0.08)) = USD 0.494047619 per coin. Anything less than that on a free market and the devs lose.
Arbitrarily attaching value to things. Solid.
Arbitrarily calling non-arbitrary things arbitrary. Solid.
(The $0.494047619 value isn't arbitrary, as the post you quoted but failed to comprehend clearly explained.)
Only an idiot like Icebreaker (How are those Hashfast rigs doing?) would consider completely made up numbers some form of financial reality. Developers paying themselves for their own work in their own project isn't any damn basis of valuation.
December 29, 2015, 07:45:24 PM
December 29, 2015, 07:43:20 PM
December 29, 2015, 07:09:23 PM
I'll preface this post: I am genuinely interested in this coin and what it can offer and like most of the ideas being proposed. I am in the IRC channel and intend to be active in it. I am not here to FUD or bash this coin. But...
I have a concern that the developers are actually able to take a MUCH larger amount than the 10% subsidy just by staking their premine coins. Remember that 30% of all minted coins are given as PoS rewards.
On day 1 the developers will have 4% of all coins, but actually 50% of all coins in existence. If they stake these, then they will get 50% of the 30% proof of stake coins, a further 15% of ALL minted coins. This percentage will taper off over time as their % of all minted coins becomes smaller, but the numbers are still scary...
After 1 year, it is estimated that 4.7m coins will have been freshly minted, which is approximately 22% of the 21m coins. If the developers did not sell their premine coins, they would still hold their 4%, PLUS 2.2% for their developer subsidy (10% of the 22% freshly minted), PLUS whatever they have earned from staking for 12 months (roughly another 10% of all coins minted in the first year / 2.2% total, as they will be taking 15% of PoS coins on day 1 and around 6-7% of PoS coins after 1 year). So after 1 year the devs would have 4% + 2.2% + ~2.2% = 8.4% of all coins (~1.764m) which is a staggering 27.6% of all coins minted to date by then (1.764m out of 4.7m + 1.68m premine).
This also means that at the start of year 2 they could still be getting 8.3% of all newly minted coins through staking (27.6% of the 30% PoS) on top of the 10% dev subsidy.
I can understand the concept behind the 10% developer subsidy AND the premine (though I have a question mark over whether they need both), but I am seriously concerned that after 1 year the developers could still be raking > 18% of all new coins if they just sit and stake their initial premine.
Am I missing something in all of this?
Could there be a mechanism to prevent the developers from staking their premine coins, until they are sold on or until much later(year 3 or more) when their % of minted coins to date becomes much less?
I have a concern that the developers are actually able to take a MUCH larger amount than the 10% subsidy just by staking their premine coins. Remember that 30% of all minted coins are given as PoS rewards.
On day 1 the developers will have 4% of all coins, but actually 50% of all coins in existence. If they stake these, then they will get 50% of the 30% proof of stake coins, a further 15% of ALL minted coins. This percentage will taper off over time as their % of all minted coins becomes smaller, but the numbers are still scary...
After 1 year, it is estimated that 4.7m coins will have been freshly minted, which is approximately 22% of the 21m coins. If the developers did not sell their premine coins, they would still hold their 4%, PLUS 2.2% for their developer subsidy (10% of the 22% freshly minted), PLUS whatever they have earned from staking for 12 months (roughly another 10% of all coins minted in the first year / 2.2% total, as they will be taking 15% of PoS coins on day 1 and around 6-7% of PoS coins after 1 year). So after 1 year the devs would have 4% + 2.2% + ~2.2% = 8.4% of all coins (~1.764m) which is a staggering 27.6% of all coins minted to date by then (1.764m out of 4.7m + 1.68m premine).
This also means that at the start of year 2 they could still be getting 8.3% of all newly minted coins through staking (27.6% of the 30% PoS) on top of the 10% dev subsidy.
I can understand the concept behind the 10% developer subsidy AND the premine (though I have a question mark over whether they need both), but I am seriously concerned that after 1 year the developers could still be raking > 18% of all new coins if they just sit and stake their initial premine.
Am I missing something in all of this?
Could there be a mechanism to prevent the developers from staking their premine coins, until they are sold on or until much later(year 3 or more) when their % of minted coins to date becomes much less?
December 29, 2015, 06:46:29 PM
So, let's PR together, this signature for Sr. member and above, for other positions will be later
| DECRED | ▀███████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▀███████▄ ▀████████████▀ ▀███▄ ▄███▀ ▀███▄ ▀███▄ ▄███▀ ▀███▄ ▀███▄ ▄███▀ ▀███▄ ▀███▄▄███▀ ▀███▄ ▀██████▀ ▀███▄ ▀████▀ ▀███▄ ▀██▀ ▀███▄ ▀███▄ ▀███▄ ▀█▀ | Rethink Digital Currency
December 29, 2015, 05:43:15 PM
why even premine any if you are going to take 10% from rewards? Are you afraid that if no one ends up pumping it you still want to make money for the time you spent?
December 29, 2015, 04:43:00 PM
When CoinMarketCap (CT's main traffic generator) lists XDC, they will annotate it with the **premined mark of shame, something they refuse to do for Darkcoin despite it having a much higher percentage generated in the first 48 hours of its earlier-than-announced ninja launch. Darkcoin is a grey area. Whether or not the instamine was a true error or perhaps a very nifty thingy, they didn't state an obvious amount of premine or a certain percentage developer funds. Decred and some other alts, do/did. My favorite alt is Gulden. They have a similar amount of premine. In my opinion they are one of the very few alts that are truly aiming at intrinsic value, rather than value alone like so many coins do or turn out to be. Yet they have a track record (https://timeline.gulden.com/ that is backening their premine whilst that of Decred thus far, let us be honest, is nothing more but words. History learned all to well that alts with significant premine did not turned out quite well for it's end users in several cases. So there is nothing wrong with pointing out to coins in relation to a significantly premine, which is, after all, a given fact. December 29, 2015, 04:12:03 PM
Why would anyone reputable want to get involved in this? If you care to read the friendly manual, you'll find this question is addressed in a direct, substantial manner. Jump to:
|
