There is also a possibility to incorporate the backing into PoSP (our new staking algorithm) in future. The first thing that comes to mind is the ability to reward a higher percentage of the unclaimed network stake to CBX being staked when that CBX is physically backed. This could be a simple, across the board (backed-so-pay-extra-stake) payment or something more tailored that increases the stake payment in line with the value of the assets backing the CBX.
Yes. An incentivized 'backing' model through interest is certainly a possibility.
Is it necessary though ? Does it over complicate everything ?
I think it plays nicely with the idea of encoding the backing information into the blockchain. This would allow individual CBX to be queried and tracked, so each CBX in effect has a 'backing' history in addition to a 'transaction' history. This information could be used by the PoSP algorithm to incentivize backing. I think encouraging backing in this way, at least in the outset, will be beneficial. If we do go down this road and fully embrace the asset backing concept, I see it being a big change in direction for CBX. IMHO, that direction fits perfectly with Crypto Bullion's original concept, but it will need to be something that the CBX community agrees on.
Indeed. This requires community participation and > data from said participation.
I'm really trying to get members of The Silver Forum to start using Crypto Bullion and to try backing some CBX with precious metals that they own. I have a post offering some CBX in their private members lounge. In the main they see this as a bit of a learning curve, although have not rejected the concept and remain open to the possibilities with this.
Perhaps we should consider the experience from the perspective of someone totally new to crypto. There's a lot for someone to get their head around, and some simplifications to the wallet could pay dividends in terms of gently introducing them without bamboozling them. Perhaps if the wallet defaulted to a 'simple' mode, but allowed advanced users to to select 'advanced' or 'expert' modes which would give them more wallet functionality. I'm thinking along the lines of how Armory handles this. Having the client auto-connect to a central server where it pulls down the latest bootstrap and config files automatically would also be great. I think the ease-of-use payoff far outweighs any concerns of centralization. As if sign the data on the server and ship the associated public key inside the wallet, we could authenticate the data too. I think addressing barriers to entry is worth some thought in addition to all the great new ideas we're coming up with. On this note, if anyone has any feedback to share, perhaps from introducing a non-technical friend or family member to cryptocurrency software, that insight would be very useful. Thank you
