|
Title: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: Instamatic on June 27, 2014, 05:50:35 PM So I've been reading up on the BTC model after POW phase ends and converts to a transaction based reward system. Just thinking I rarely see it mentioned for these "altcoins".
Are there any that have passed the end of their POW phase and are still functional? I know some were POS only so not sure if they count. How does the network hash rate compare? Transaction/confirmation times? Transaction fees vs block rewards? Are supporters pointing miners at the coin simply to keep the network active with no monetary incentive? Just curious and it's hard to keep up with all the coins these days. Please don't flame me for not searching through them all effectively. Title: Re: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: coinsolidation on June 27, 2014, 08:06:45 PM So I've been reading up on the BTC model after POW phase ends and converts to a transaction based reward system. Just thinking I rarely see it mentioned for these "altcoins". Are there any that have passed the end of their POW phase and are still functional? I know some were POS only so not sure if they count. How does the network hash rate compare? Transaction/confirmation times? Transaction fees vs block rewards? Are supporters pointing miners at the coin simply to keep the network active with no monetary incentive? Just curious and it's hard to keep up with all the coins these days. Please don't flame me for not searching through them all effectively. I've been researching this recently. My conclusion is that no stable coin with longevity in mind has yet successfully migrated from block reward to transaction fee remuneration. Bitcoin should be well on the way to migrating to transaction fee funding of miners by about 2030 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). I am currently specifying (https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki) and developing a currency which aims to do this migration 10 years earlier and should have completed migration before bitcoin really starts. I've included rationale for each decision in my writings, if you'd like to discuss any of them in relation to bitmark, or just in general, I'd be more than happy to join you. Title: Re: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: schnötzel on June 27, 2014, 08:36:32 PM Why "Total Supply: ~ 27.58 million coins" ? and not exact 27 or 27,5 mil.
(I know it´s idiotic ) Title: Re: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: coinsolidation on June 27, 2014, 08:52:43 PM Why "Total Supply: ~ 27.58 million coins" ? and not exact 27 or 27,5 mil. (I know it´s idiotic ) This is a good question, thank you. I have not yet decided exactly which block reward will be the last, or whether to just keep halving until it's infeasible to halve any more. After a certain point when transactions are covering the mining costs the block reward is more of a bonus. Is there any reason you feel a round number would be better? I can do the numbers and work out the final few block rewards and assign a cut off block which equates to a round number. Potentially a round number of Marks, so 27.5xx million coins, to three decimal places. Title: Re: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: schnötzel on June 27, 2014, 09:01:35 PM Why "Total Supply: ~ 27.58 million coins" ? and not exact 27 or 27,5 mil. (I know it´s idiotic ) This is a good question, thank you. I have not yet decided exactly which block reward will be the last, or whether to just keep halving until it's infeasible to halve any more. After a certain point when transactions are covering the mining costs the block reward is more of a bonus. Is there any reason you feel a round number would be better? I can do the numbers and work out the final few block rewards and assign a cut off block which equates to a round number. Potentially a round number of Marks, so 27.5xx million coins, to three decimal places. I don´t know why, but i prefer integer (right word?). Total supply with " .xx " confuses me. Title: Re: Coins past POW: Sustaining? Post by: coinsolidation on June 27, 2014, 09:05:29 PM Why "Total Supply: ~ 27.58 million coins" ? and not exact 27 or 27,5 mil. (I know it´s idiotic ) Is there any reason you feel a round number would be better? I don´t know why, but i prefer integer (right word?). Total supply with " .xx " confuses me. source (https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki#block-reward--currency-supply-20-bitmarks): We suggest that humans tend to prefer whole numbers, and feel more comfortable working with smaller integers on a daily basis. Okay, that's good enough for me. I'll do the numbers and refine. Thanks for your input! |