How come so many things are being voted for but the consensus algorithm isn't?

It doesn't only need to be secure you know but needs to try to reach the widest the fairest distribution.

Decentralizing ... as the DE in DEcred ...

Hypocrisy at its best.

PoolTogether launched in June, and in the next six months its users won a total of $3,594. Over the same six month period, Tezos validators earned transaction fees totalling $3,745.

Any claims about Decred superiority exist due to ignorance and/or to defraud users, that's about it. It's the same as with most altcoins and tokens, this fanclub isn't any much different. Irrelevant as that may be though, if you don't want to supply information then that is your choice and not my problem.

Maybe not as big a spike, because fewer tickets were sold near top of the ticket prices compared to other times.

Yeah, I pretty much understand how the law of supply and demand works. But there were even greater spikes of volume throughout this year which didn't cause such increases in price. That's why I was a little surprised to see such price action. Maybe it's because there's more DCR in the market now, so the same movements happen on a larger scale.

What a ball it's been. And will continue to be! This forum is an institution of the crypto world and someday will be studied as one of the birthplaces of the global revolution Bitcoin signifies.

Are you a troll?




Yes, we can say that it is impossible to chain split decred without stakeholders agreeing to it.
Atack decred costs 20X more than taking control of bitcoin in a 51% attack.
Why would someone spend 20x more to attack decred, if with 20X less, they can do with bitcoin and earn much more billions of dollars?

https://blog.usejournal.com/apples-to-apples-decred-is-20x-more-expensive-to-attack-than-bitcoin-68bafeb4546f

https://medium.com/decred/decreds-hybrid-protocol-a-superior-deterrent-to-majority-attacks-9421bf486292

https://medium.com/decred/detailed-analysis-of-decred-fork-resistance-93022e0bcde7

without replay protection ~ what makes you think the original chain nodes will not be sybil attacked via malicious state actors? weeee

Or rename it to Decred Classic, "the real for-the-community Decred". I'm not sure of what's technically possible, but that was the point of the debate. On-chain governance can't stop a community of different standpoints from breaking apart, and splitting away.

Can't happen? What if there was a motivated minority that didn't want the "new feature" in an upgrade? What if the majority already voted in 1GB blocks, and the minority didn't want it? What if the miners need to change the supply cap to support their costs, and the majority voted for it, but the minority didn't want it?

What would happen to the minority? They wouldn't have the ability to fork, and split away?

On-chain governance system works until a motivated minority stops following the majority. Remember, changes in the network are permanent. What happens if there's a group dedicated enough not to accept those changes?

What percentage of all DCR have been mined? I believe Decred's "scaling debate"/biggest test to the blockchain governance in practice would be if to "increase/change the block reward/schedule without increasing the supply cap", or "increase the supply cap".

Thank you very much for this answer with all the detailed pieces of information about Decred airdrop.

Exactly what I was asking for and of course awarded this post with merit to show my appreciation and how valuable it was for me.

I don't see anything suspicious here, even more, that was really decent airdrop with clear requirements, so really don't understand all these FUD above?

Now I am surprised and literally don't understand why such an obvious FUD from Gembitz?

@Gembitz can you please explain what you mean with: "the "airdrop" was a bittrex insider phishing scam"?

I would like to hear both sides of the story before drawing final conclusions, such an ordinary human caution, forced by my experience  .

Of course, thank you Jwinterm for fast answers and explanation. I would like to hear more details about this airdrop, like how long it was ongoing, who can participate, how much coins were distributed, when was the start and the end, and so on. That is why I asked for a source of information because I wanted to know more details.

Preventing forks from breaking away with a shared tx history prior to some block is impossible. If you're going to hardfork away from decred, then you can do anything you want to maintain the tx history. For instance, at block X empty the ticket pool, reset ticket price to 1 dcr, reset PoW diff and change algo, if necessary modify other checks to allow ticket pool to be emptied, etc. It's ludicrous to pretend that no one could hard fork decred and start a split chain with a shared tx history prior to some block. Would it be more of a pita than doing the same thing to Bitcoin? Sure. Would it be impossible? Controller nuclear fusion isn't impossible, this sure as shit isn't impossible.

What would happen to Decred in a Bitcoin Cash or Segwit2X hard fork scenario?
Firstly, Bitcoins hard fork problem would simply not happen in Decred. There is a formal on-chain voting system to deal with all governance decisions related to hard forks. Secondly, it would be virtually impossible to fork the Decred network in the way we have recently seen with the Bitcoin Cash fork or SegWit2x. This is because all new blocks created by PoW miners need to conform to the wishes of Decred stakeholders (PoS miners). If PoW miners refuse to comply with the collective policy, PoS miners can invalidate any new blocks they create. So, for example, if 80% of stakeholders voted in favour of activating the Lightning Network, and the remaining 20% refused to move over to the new chain that supported Lightning Network features, then the 80% majority could simply vote new blocks on the old chain as invalid, which would strip them of the block reward. In turn, this would incentivise PoW miners to move from the old chain to the new chain, and the old chain would die off.

The only way someone could hard fork Decred against the wishes of stakeholders would be to create an entirely new fork of the blockchain and start it from scratch. In which case, it would not be contentious at all, because it wouldn’t be Decred.

Don't you understand? NOTHING might stop a minority from forking of, and cause a split in the chain if they disagree with what's changed in the protocol. Changes in the protocol that can ever never be removed anymore.

What until Decred gets its own scaling debate.