The design space for incentivizing miners (and other benefical activitities) is so much bigger than just plain rewards or transaction fees.
Topic: How good is Decred? - page 2. (Read 8673 times)
The design space for incentivizing miners (and other benefical activitities) is so much bigger than just plain rewards or transaction fees.
Also, if voting were "cost free", as you propose, wouldn't it be easier for bad actors to forge the future of the Decred chain?
If this were the case, why would they care how they voted? They have nothing to lose. No skin in the game.
If this were the case, why would they care how they voted? They have nothing to lose. No skin in the game.
By the way... our pools are NOT reward sharing as you seem to think. All they do is vote according to a users preference so that a user may remain offline if he/she chooses to use a pool. Individuals still retain control of 100% of their funds.
I am operating at a higher level of meta economics wherein your "preferences" differentiation is afaics irrelevant. The users who don't align their preferences with the majority will lose rewards, because the majority can censor every block of the minority. Now go back to the point that voting (i.e. "preferences") is not cost-free and thus is manipulable.
Not true, rewards are available regardless of one's alignment. You are rewarded for your say, not what you say.
By the way... our pools are NOT reward sharing as you seem to think. All they do is vote according to a users preference so that a user may remain offline if he/she chooses to use a pool. Individuals still retain control of 100% of their funds.
I am operating at a higher level of meta economics wherein your "preferences" differentiation is afaics irrelevant. The users who don't align their preferences with the majority will lose rewards, because the majority can censor every block of the minority. Now go back to the point that voting (i.e. "preferences") is not cost-free and thus is manipulable.
Delegating preferences means users can't be bothered, i.e. the cost of voting is not free. Thus they will not be expert. They will not be able to organize because they can be divided and conquered and many different pet "preferences" (analogous examples from current democracies include e.g. gay rights, abortion, etc). They can even be incited via propaganda to diffuse their efforts into a multitude of preferences.
This is why @dinofelis is correct when he states instead the rules must be hard-coded immutably into the protocol.
Hey hey, don't put words in my mouth. I never said users MUST stake through pools, only that many were. We do have several users that are staking on cloud servers or their own personal computers...
Right. I simply mean that afaik users are effectively forced to delegate to pools because otherwise they will be debased relative to those who do. Which I stated that. Apology if my wording incorrectly implied that you wrote they MUST.
Finding viable (decentralized) alternatives to PoW is not easy. No one has yet.
By the way... our pools are NOT reward sharing as you seem to think. All they do is vote according to a users preference so that a user may remain offline if he/she chooses to use a pool. Individuals still retain control of 100% of their funds.
Hey hey, don't put words in my mouth. I never said users MUST stake through pools, only that many were. We do have several users that are staking on cloud servers or their own personal computers...
Right. I simply mean that afaik users are effectively forced to delegate to pools ("manipulable into voting as a colluding bloc") because otherwise they will be debased relative to those who do. Which I stated that. Apology if my wording incorrectly implied that you wrote they MUST.
Finding viable (decentralized) alternatives to PoW is not easy. No one has yet. Upthread I explained why in theory PoW is immutable and decentralized.
There is no way you will keep any where near 50% of the users online and participating in staking.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
currently more than 40% of DCR are in the PoS mining and every voted ticket get the same reward when picked, it's a lottery system, only 1/3 off all ticket are in the PoS pools the majority is solo staking, like me.
What part of this can't you understand?
The Decred community manager pointed out that users MUST stake through pools (else their tokens are effectively debased) with lockup durations of 42 - 142 days, and I replied that delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
...
You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
...
You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
Hey hey, don't put words in my mouth. I never said users MUST stake through pools, only that many were. We do have several users that are staking on cloud servers or their own personal computers...
edit to add: Also, unlike other PoS models, there is an incentive built into DCR that encourages 100% wallet uptime. If you are not online when your tickets are called to vote, you lose your subsidy!
There is no way you will keep any where near 50% of the users online and participating in staking.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
currently more than 40% of DCR are in the PoS mining and every voted ticket get the same reward when picked, it's a lottery system, only 1/3 off all ticket are in the PoS pools the majority is solo staking, like me.
What part of this can't you understand?
The Decred community manager pointed out that users MUST stake through pools (else their tokens are effectively debased) with lockup durations of 42 - 142 days, and I replied that delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
...
You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
...
You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
There is no way you will keep any where near 50% of the users online and participating in staking.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
currently more than 40% of DCR are in the PoS mining and every voted ticket get the same reward when picked, it's a lottery system, only 1/3 off all ticket are in the PoS pools the majority is solo staking, like me.
Rewards are a bitch. You fight and cheat for them.
The design space for incentivizing miners (and other benefical activitities) is so much bigger than just plain rewards or transaction fees.
First i want to say that i am not that experienced in the involved maths or economics behind CC.
That is obvious because your statement below is nonsense.
And my nickname and that this is the first posting should give you an idea that i am a 100% decred advocate. So, yeah i am a bozo butthole at its best...
It isn't my wish for you to remain ignorant, but only you can decide whether to put in the effort.
I know it comes as an unpleasant shock to naive fanboiz that what you thought could be the next big thing, is in fact a dud. Therefor, your psychological reaction is to want to blame your mistake on me, somehow coming to the incorrect conclusion that I am all about ego or a corrupted vested interest.
Thanks for your mathematical proof of that if you control a majority of stake you need a less fraction of pow to control the network.
The conclusion comes down to something like:
Bad News: If someone owns the network - they can own the network!
I am impressed what a mathematical genius you must be to come to that conclusion! Wow! I am wondering what the fuck you are doing here at crypto at all... please tell us some more news we did not knew before your appearance!
The conclusion comes down to something like:
Bad News: If someone owns the network - they can own the network!
I am impressed what a mathematical genius you must be to come to that conclusion! Wow! I am wondering what the fuck you are doing here at crypto at all... please tell us some more news we did not knew before your appearance!
So you need a majority of +75% of staketickets to pull of your attack.
Additionaly you need a good amount of PoW under your control.
Additionaly you need a good amount of PoW under your control.
You did not read carefully the upthread discussion. The following example was only with 1/3 control of the stake, the attacker would only need 6% of the hashrate. In other words, combining PoW and PoS makes the system less secure.
There is no way you will keep any where near 50% of the users online and participating in staking.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
((1/0.33 - 1) × 0.20)3 = 0.06
Where the attacking whales only need 6% of the hashrate to double-spend. And I didn't even get into the math of selfish-mining attacks which are much much more damning. The security is absolute dogshit. The selfish mining is going to be much worse and quickly centralized the PoW control of the coin (even though nobody can detect this).
The only way this design makes any sense is for a very centralized stake where we trust that overlord. Which is precisely what you guys are counting on and you damn well know it. Else you are really really bozos if you can't do some simple math.
Whales can profitably attack their own coin by shorting it before they do. They can turn the price into a yoyo, going long and short as they know the timing. Centralized shit is a clusterfuck.
I hope you are proud to work on this shit.
So run the numbers with a more realistic participation percentage and you can see that this design can't possibly scale up to mass adoption. In the power-law distribution only about 33% of the wealth will be serious owners and of them many are not going to bother staking since that will end up pretty much an unprofitable activity due to competition. So in reality the math is going to look more like:
((1/0.33 - 1) × 0.20)3 = 0.06
Where the attacking whales only need 6% of the hashrate to double-spend. And I didn't even get into the math of selfish-mining attacks which are much much more damning. The security is absolute dogshit. The selfish mining is going to be much worse and quickly centralized the PoW control of the coin (even though nobody can detect this).
The only way this design makes any sense is for a very centralized stake where we trust that overlord. Which is precisely what you guys are counting on and you damn well know it. Else you are really really bozos if you can't do some simple math.
Whales can profitably attack their own coin by shorting it before they do. They can turn the price into a yoyo, going long and short as they know the timing. Centralized shit is a clusterfuck.
I hope you are proud to work on this shit.
Even with only 25% of the stake, the attacker only needs 22% of the hashrate when only 20% of the stake is online (and again it is all much worse than this once you factor in selfish-mining strategies):
((1/0.25 - 1) × 0.20)3 = 0.22
So where in the above math is the majority ownership of the network which you insinuate?
The Decred community manager pointed out that users MUST stake through pools (else their tokens are effectively debased) with lockup durations of 42 - 142 days, and I replied that delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
Tangentially, considering that staking (buying tickets) is a fungible, highly competitive activity with no competitive advantage, then the marginal profit from doing so will trend to 0 unless there is some advantage due to economies-of-scale. In any system where the profit is 0, then the participation rate should fall to near 0%. So actually the security of this dogshit is horrendous:
((1/0.10 - 1) × 0.01)3 ≈ 0
You are forced to stake in a pool not because of any competitive advantage in mining (the entire thing is just a farce to obscure that whales control everything and extract the maximum that the market will bear), but because they are debasing everyone who doesn't delegate staking to pools. Thus it is just another scheme that forces the float towards 0 to make the price go up by highly disincentivizing trading. So this is Steem's model of locking up tokens. What happens is then you can't sell when the peak is reached (go look at Steem dropping from $4 to $0.10).
So lets keep on analyzing your abuse of charlie lee, the btcsuite developers and everyone involved in decred....
Have you not seen that I have been pushing hard on buying Litecoin. And I even dropped a suggestion for Charlie to rename the coin unit of Litecoin to ecoin.
And upthread I stated that I come to understand that Decred is probably a backup plan for Charlie if the Scrypt miners on Litecoin don't activate certain necessary improvements such as SegWit for Lightning Networks.
My commentary seems to be fairly supportive of Charlie, although I must say that he needs to stop shilling dogshit technology because he is causing me to doubt his competence (his respectability will decline if doesn't disown this Decred dogshit).
That would enable you to pull of an attack that will burn your investment, which have to be locked into tickets to pull that attack of 
Incorrect. Re-read the quote above of what I had written upthread. And pay attention to the part about shorting your own token.
I mean, thanks, this is a pinky & the brains wet dream at its best! Have fun achieving this you economic genius.
Only those who are too fucking dumb to read and think, agree with your nonsense misinterpretation of the facts.
people don't realise there's a hard cap of 20 tickets per block accepted so it's almost impossible to flood the pool unless the price is very high and then, of course, you run into capital restrictions.
That has nothing to do with why delegating to pools is a form of centralized control.
Man you guy is just a joke on cocaine... thats a impression someone gets of your genius conclusions you get!
Retards do often think that very smart people are talking nonsense, because the smart people communicate on a level that the retards can't assimilate. Thus to the retard such as yourself, the smart person appears to be stupid. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]
Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.
Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.
On the issues with and ramifications of centralization:
Disagree. Because the cost of voting is not free, i.e. democracy is centralized. Actually a small number of highly knowledgeable whales who have conflicting priorities (such that a stalemate is attained, which appears to be the case now with Bitcoin as you had previously posited) is more decentralized because these whales are not manipulable into voting as a colluding bloc, except perhaps to defend the status quo. And this is precisely the conceptual reason why Bitcoin may still be decentralized. But the danger is that over time the paradigm is a winner-take-all due to either the marginal utility of economies-of-scale (within the Bitcoin protocol) being perfectly constant and/or the inability of the Bitcoin small block, non-shrinking (money supply, i.e. not a deflationary supply) system to adapt to the knowledge age as finance becomes inexorably less efficacious w.r.t. to knowledge value (i.e. the NWO will be able to bring those whales into submission to the higher authority of an externality). I would much prefer if possible a protocol wherein the power of everyone is essentially nil. I think I may have such a design, but I am highly skeptical as I should be.
Of course, the smaller the number of votees needed to do this, the higher the probability of de facto centralization.
Disagree. Because the cost of voting is not free, i.e. democracy is centralized. Actually a small number of highly knowledgeable whales who have conflicting priorities (such that a stalemate is attained, which appears to be the case now with Bitcoin as you had previously posited) is more decentralized because these whales are not manipulable into voting as a colluding bloc, except perhaps to defend the status quo. And this is precisely the conceptual reason why Bitcoin may still be decentralized. But the danger is that over time the paradigm is a winner-take-all due to either the marginal utility of economies-of-scale (within the Bitcoin protocol) being perfectly constant and/or the inability of the Bitcoin small block, non-shrinking (money supply, i.e. not a deflationary supply) system to adapt to the knowledge age as finance becomes inexorably less efficacious w.r.t. to knowledge value (i.e. the NWO will be able to bring those whales into submission to the higher authority of an externality). I would much prefer if possible a protocol wherein the power of everyone is essentially nil. I think I may have such a design, but I am highly skeptical as I should be.
Real world example of how non-ideal money (i.e. money that can be manipulated) distorts markets:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/the-euro-crisis-the-previous-debt/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/greece/greek-govt-is-40-of-gdp/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/the-euro-crisis-the-previous-debt/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/greece/greek-govt-is-40-of-gdp/
it's good but i don't like how the dev hold a gigantic amount of coins, it worry me for a dump one day like vitali did with ethereum
they were giving away a very good amount, 350 dercred or so per person, which has a value of more than a bitcoin!, giving for free a whole bitcoin, is crazy
I remember back when at DCR free distribution around 3500 people participated. It was a great start, good potentials in future IMO.
they were giving away a very good amount, 350 dercred or so per person, which has a value of more than a bitcoin!, giving for free a whole bitcoin, is crazy
Just how good is Decred? Does it have what it takes to hit the big time?
Had limited experience with it, but as I recall the transaction fees are insanely high. It seemed to start pumping around the time Coblee started shilling for it on twitter. Has some unique governance system or some such thing.
I have not much experiences with it but when price goes up usually also fees go up in USD. So if price when up 30 times ad now fee is $1 then before raise fee was only 3 cents. Developers will just need to adjust fees to fit DECRED value.
I remember back when at DCR free distribution around 3500 people participated. It was a great start, good potentials in future IMO.
and "accidentally" have bugs that ... etc) with such brutal frankness. 
I hope your not insinuating that when Evan Duffield released the coin early so he would have no competition and then had a "bug" in the code that caused it to spit out many many more coins than it was supposed to while he was the only one doing it, and then forgot that he could do a relaunch after the bug fix which he had previously done before, I hope your not saying he did all that deliberately?
I presume your talking about some other coin than Dash?
i think he means Xcoin...btw..what ever happened to xcoin?
First i want to say that i am not that experienced in the involved maths or economics behind CC.
And my nickname and that this is the first posting should give you an idea that i am a 100% decred advocate. So, yeah i am a bozo butthole at its best...
Thanks for your mathematical proof of that if you control a majority of stake you need a less fraction of pow to control the network.
The conclusion comes down to something like:
Bad News: If someone owns the network - they can own the network!
I am impressed what a mathematical genius you must be to come to that conclusion! Wow! I am wondering what the fuck you are doing here at crypto at all... please tell us some more news we did not knew before your appearance! The coin you will release must put everyone else into its shadows!
So lets keep on analyzing your abuse of charlie lee, the btcsuite developers and everyone involved in decred....
So you need a majority of +75% of staketickets to pull of your attack.
Additionaly you need a good amount of PoW under your control.
That would enable you to pull of an attack that will burn your investment, which have to be locked into tickets to pull that attack of
I mean, thanks, this is a pinky & the brains wet dream at its best! Have fun achieving this you economic genius.
people don't realise there's a hard cap of 20 tickets per block accepted so it's almost impossible to flood the pool unless the price is very high and then, of course, you run into capital restrictions.
https://forum.decred.org/threads/what-can-be-learned-from-peercoin-nubits.5020/#post-24035
Can you please show an example of an coin where it is not possible to attack the network if you own the network? Anyone? Please help me, this finding is so fundamental i think i just should go back to investing in fiat!
Man you guy is just a joke on cocaine... thats a impression someone gets of your genius conclusions you get!
The initial airdrop gave 284 Coins which is currently worth +$3400 - Staked for one year its more like +$3600 (thank you bozo developers, this is decentralization)
You are talking about centralization... of course thats a scenario that "Decentralized Credit" is trying to prevent at all costs. Lately we see a lot of people jumping on the hater train which i laugh out loud about. Go guy... give some more of your genius economic analyses and keep on bubbling shit like an butt with an inlet!
You made my day, enlight yourself but leave the drugs away please...
And my nickname and that this is the first posting should give you an idea that i am a 100% decred advocate. So, yeah i am a bozo butthole at its best...
Thanks for your mathematical proof of that if you control a majority of stake you need a less fraction of pow to control the network.
The conclusion comes down to something like:
Bad News: If someone owns the network - they can own the network!
I am impressed what a mathematical genius you must be to come to that conclusion! Wow! I am wondering what the fuck you are doing here at crypto at all... please tell us some more news we did not knew before your appearance! The coin you will release must put everyone else into its shadows!
So lets keep on analyzing your abuse of charlie lee, the btcsuite developers and everyone involved in decred....
So you need a majority of +75% of staketickets to pull of your attack.
Additionaly you need a good amount of PoW under your control.
That would enable you to pull of an attack that will burn your investment, which have to be locked into tickets to pull that attack of
I mean, thanks, this is a pinky & the brains wet dream at its best! Have fun achieving this you economic genius.
people don't realise there's a hard cap of 20 tickets per block accepted so it's almost impossible to flood the pool unless the price is very high and then, of course, you run into capital restrictions.
https://forum.decred.org/threads/what-can-be-learned-from-peercoin-nubits.5020/#post-24035
Can you please show an example of an coin where it is not possible to attack the network if you own the network? Anyone? Please help me, this finding is so fundamental i think i just should go back to investing in fiat!
Man you guy is just a joke on cocaine... thats a impression someone gets of your genius conclusions you get!
The initial airdrop gave 284 Coins which is currently worth +$3400 - Staked for one year its more like +$3600 (thank you bozo developers, this is decentralization)
You are talking about centralization... of course thats a scenario that "Decentralized Credit" is trying to prevent at all costs. Lately we see a lot of people jumping on the hater train which i laugh out loud about. Go guy... give some more of your genius economic analyses and keep on bubbling shit like an butt with an inlet!
You made my day, enlight yourself but leave the drugs away please...
and "accidentally" have bugs that ... etc) with such brutal frankness.
I hope your not insinuating that when Evan Duffield released the coin early so he would have no competition and then had a "bug" in the code that caused it to spit out many many more coins than it was supposed to while he was the only one doing it, and then forgot that he could do a relaunch after the bug fix which he had previously done before, I hope your not saying he did all that deliberately?
I presume your talking about some other coin than Dash?
What about coins on exchanges? Do we lose the staking benefits thus we are being debased if we HODL them on exchanges? I realize HODLing coins on exchanges is risky and stupid. (⊙_◎)
You can't HODL coins on exchanges, can you ? You can hodl IOU on exchanges, while they are hodling coins (or playing with it, or buying cocaine and prostitutes with it). You hodl tokens in a centralized database for as long as the owner of the database wants to let you own them, but you don't own any crypto tokens. Essentially, you've bought exchange IOU tokens in their database with crypto tokens with which you paid them.
Really you shouldn't refer to the Dash wallet (or the wallet for any centralized coin run by whales debase your tokens at will, manipulate the exchange value, and "accidentally" have bugs that ... etc) with such brutal frankness.
Lesson: control over a public/private key pair doesn't necessarily mean you own anything.
Jump to: