That's fair but from what I understand POG will be highly unpredictable on the rewards (according to Rob on the other forum), which also defeats the purpose of having a pool (for predictability).
Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)
If we removed the stake requirement alone, it would remove 1 piece from the puzzle, but would leave all the rest of the complexity in place.
I will also add that this potential massive increase of coins being liquidated every month (from the foundation tithe) worries me as an investor.
Fair point, and I agree this is a concern, though it could be spread around the month better I think than the current monthly cycle.
I appreciate the discussion and concerns, better to work through them now than after a change is made.
Well that's the thing, I'm not sure what POG is solving compared to what is already there and so far I have not seen any convincing argument for it.
I do not see what POG is currently solving that needs to be solved to make us more attractive (as a coin) and/or that can not be solved by either PODC or heat mining in their current state or with very small modifications. On top of that, I think that resources could be directed to more "critical" areas that would make us more attractive to users. UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc.
From what I see currently, this is just mainly a way to provide more coins to the Foundation which I do not think is the way to go or would make us more attractive. Especially since it keeps adding supply (removal of stake and more coins being liquidated by the foundation) without having any convincing positive effects on the demand.
I say let's wait for more inputs on the question and it will hopefully help us move the discussion forward.
This argument against is POG is almost as like you are saying I created it in a delirious state and have no idea what I'm proposing.
POG is 90% simpler than PODC - let's at least not spread FUD to the masses to make a point. It only has one variable : tithe_weight for a person to know about (thats how much in total you gave in relation to others over a 24 hour period). Anyone can grasp that concept.
In contrast PODC has a dictionary of acronyms - I think we went through this exercise last month with MinersOfMen, he was asking about CPID, Magnitude, Task Weight, UTXO, RAC, supporter sites, sancs, contracts, staking or mining, superblocks, and even after that I don't think (a new user) will actually understand all of it unless they really want to stay with it.
As far as receiving more coins in the foundation that is a good problem to have.
No it is just saying that I am not convinced by it, that I have not see anything that would convince me that what it is achieving can not or is not already achieved by current algorithms and that other things would probably have a greater impact to me. Let me list them again: "UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc."
Also, what are the advantages of POG compared to the current heat mining? If you're talking about the built-in pool, you said yourself that POG will be unpredictable and promote (and I quote you)
"...the act of giving and being rewarded uncertain. What this does is forces the giver to give based on expecting nothing in return..."
which to me seems to be defeating the purpose of even being in a pool (predictable income) and potentially scary as a miner.
Finally on the extra coin for the foundation (and removal of stake), that might be great for you, not so much for someone looking to invest. You have to take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders.
Well on the UI improvements, we want to make those anwyay, regardless of the algorithm for heat mining. Some of that part of the decision has to do with where IPFS fits in. So discussing a better letter writing interface should not drive the decision to use POG or PODC. (However if we were voting on POOM, it would be relevant right now, because then we would have home sponsorships).
The POG advantage comes from eliminating PODC (not eliminating heat mining). POG is bolted on to POBH. But yes, as one improvement to POBH, we would gain the advantage of an internal pool.
I think you either misunderstood my reason to say "unpredictable" and its now being misconstrued as if I meant this POG algorithm is going to have an unpredictable payment effect or that POG is unpredictable. That was completely technical, and referring to the individual block solving event, that it cant be predicted *technologically* by a person exploiting it to try to game rewards at the expense of others. Let me rephrase : POG would be very predictable, easy to use, and scalable, and impo would have the traits that allow easy adoption. The summary of the end-user experience is that they tithe daily (when the UI or RPC report says its profitable to tithe) and then payments come back to the user once every 3 days (approximately) - which is much more predictable than solo mining. If consistently mined, one user would have 10 payments in a given month (with the full average remuneration) smoothing out any ripples or droughts.
(So therefore there is no need to be scared, as a miner, since you are receiving regular payments, no matter how big the miner base is - they are 10 times per month, on average).
On the extra coins for the foundation, its not better for me, its better for the orphans, and that is actually our #1 mission here - to sponsor orphans. So if we ended up with an algorithm that helped them more at the expense of our price (until our price improved, through easy adoption), wouldn't that be accomplishing our primary goal? But just to be fair, lets discuss where those coins came from (since we have the same money supply - they arent coming from thin air). The difference in one month of POG activity vs PODC activity is in POG, the coins were tithed from a miner to the foundation and they received less net rewards in a given month, and then the foundation sold them for orphanage payments. In PODC, the coins were given to PODC miners who either saved them or liquidated them to pay their electric bill. Both of these scenarios are the same - except you say that "the ones who saved them didnt crash the price". Yes but they will when they have to pay their electric bills. So, lets go 10,000 feet higher than this: In reality in a year, the real question will be : Do we have more PODC miners net or more POG miners? If the analysis is that we will have 351 PODC, or 2351 POG, (which is quite possible at the low PODC growth rate, and quite possible for an algo to be 'copied' by simply downloading and booting a POG algo), what has a longer term positive effect on the price? More investors. This is simply an exercise in discovering what algorithm will multiply with word of mouth.
Electric is gone once its spent, but the orphan benefits are lasting.
