|
242
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] DARKNET [DNET] QRK ALGO - PoW/PoS
|
on: February 06, 2016, 07:53:30 PM
|
The initial 3:1 ratio that was announced has been slightly misinterpreted to mean that the intent was for Masternodes to have 3X the profitability of staking. That was not the intent, we felt that having roughly the same number of coins in both general circulation and staking as locked up in Masternodes was probably a good ratio. The 3:1 came about from attempting to determine how that distribution might look, while not entirely arbitrary, that ratio was based on a lot of guessing, and probably shouldn't have been included in the proposal. In hindsight, it is probably good that it was, without SockPuppetAccount seeing, thinking about, and questioning it he may have never come up with the idea he did, I would like to think that we would have, but that could be wishful thinking, and I don't want to take anything away from him.
Ahhhh, I see now. The intent of the 3:1 ratio thing was totally lost in communication. When I had questioned s3v3nh4cks about the original PoS reward schedule, he said that masternodes would always be more profitable than staking. The only way to guarantee that is to implement PoS 2.0 with a flat reward and tightly control the distribution of coins between masternodes and stakers, so I immediately assumed this was what he meant when he revealed the latest proposal. You are correct though in that I would have never thought of my idea if it wasn't for this miscommunication. I think that if someone sat me down and asked me to come up with a reward scheme for a PoS coin with masternodes where it was guaranteed that masternodes would be more profitable than staking, I would have come up with pretty much the same idea IF I had thought of the "seesaw" reward scheme. You guys came up with that, I just came up with a way to implement it simply and efficiently. Combine the two and you end up with a very elegant solution to the problem of controlling distribution of new coins in a PoS coin with masternodes, something that has never been done before. So, with all of that out of the way, we are still working to determine the ideal ratio of coins in general circulation and staking vs. coins in Masternodes, there is a delicate balance to achieve here. The profitability of Masternodes vs. staking is also not entirely determined yet. The consensus is that Masternodes should be more profitable compared with staking your coins, but how much more is open for debate. I, personally, think that when the ratio of Masternode coins to all other coins is at the determined ideal ratio Masternodes should be 1.25 to 1.5 times as profitable. Enough to encourage accumulation to build Masternodes, which will help the price, but not so much as to take away from the number of coins staking, which would reduce the security of the network. Input, opinions, and discussion in those regards are both welcome and encouraged.
Yes, this is the big question mark. I have seen both of you around the forum before and I get the sense you are both serious about this project and in it for the long haul. When you think about it, has there ever been a "serious" PoS coin with masternodes? No. They have all been shit-coins and scam-coins. This is because when you think about it, a pure PoS coin does not play well with masternodes. It works fine in DASH because PoW is securing the blockchain so in theory 100% of the coins could be locked up in masternodes and it would not compromise network security. With a pure PoS coin though? Well, the same resource (coins) is securing the blockchain and the masternode network. Too many coins locked up in masternodes compromises the blockchain. Too many coins staking leads to a weak masternode network. If the goal is to find the ideal balance between both while ensuring that masternodes will always be more profitable than staking, we are in uncharted territory. Not ending PoW and making the coin mixed PoW/PoS for the long run is something to consider. Minor point to keep in mind with mixed PoW/PoS though is that a masternode will be getting rewarded every block, while miners and stakers will be splitting the blocks 50/50. So if the goal is guaranteeing that masternodes will always pay 1.25-1.5x as much as staking, the "seesaw" reward algorithm with need to account for this so that stakers aren't cheated out of half their reward and the masternode bonus becomes effectively 2.5-3x. If PoW is off the table though? It will be all about finding just the right balance and it maybe wise to seesaw the rewards back towards PoS at a certain point. Rather than designing the seesaw rewards to always pay 1.25-1.5x the reward to masternodes, maybe only guarantee the masternode bonus up until a certain percentage of total coins are locked up in masternodes. Then tilt the rewards back in the other direction to discourage new masternode creation and encourage some masternode owners to stake instead. Admittedly, I am not knowledgeable enough with this stuff to say for sure at what point too many masternodes begins to seriously threaten the security of the blockchain. Suggestion: is it possible to have masternodes of higher amounts get rewarded more? ex. putting aside 10,000 DNET gives you 1.25 - 1.5x, setting aside 20,000 gives you 1.35 - 1.65. This might might things slightly more complicated but it would reward those who are willing to hold more DNET while also securing the network. |
|
|
|
|
255
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: BITCREDIT | NEW BANKNODES | UPDATE 6/15/15
|
on: June 26, 2015, 01:26:24 AM
|
We want to rid ourselves of wasteful competitive mining and reward users and service providers whose activity is useful to growth and development. This must be done in a secure, auditable manner and so reliance on other chains, even BTC must be reduced, drastically. We are trying to reach out to the world so instead of complicating things we should be making them easier. While the mining solution is fairly sound , the bid based system creates a problem, new users have to figure out BTC AND BCR. This is unacceptable, luckily i had not wasted too much time on this doomed line of coding. While BTC was the start,we are trying to distinguish ourselves , falling back on reliance on BTC is absolutely out of the question. Users need to access BCR and get out directly. I have been talking to other users , new users who find our processes long and cumbersome. Even service providers , say a shop owner would have difficulty understanding all this. While we are designing something highly integrated and very complicated, we must not lose sight that to the typical user, it must be as simple as point and shoot. I want to take cues from successful products in other industries, example Apple....for all their close minded antics they have perfected the user experience (google is catching up) and quality. This means we are now going to be working twice as hard, not only to bring functionality , but to make it very appealing and very very easy to use. The reason every other coin is failing is that they become so technically efficient, that they forget this is meant to spread around the world, fro the chief tech officer of a big corp to a 6 year old paying bus fee in the depths of africa, it must be EXTREMELY SIMPLE to use BCR. So during use if you encounter an issue, or find anything you dislike , something the is slow, something that just makes the user experience suck, i am asking you to report it here:- https://github.com/bitcreditscc/bicreditsnew/issues. We will respond to it and do our utmost best to fix it and if you think you already know the solution, please be kind enough to let us know. Bank nodes will be mainly responsible for creation of new BCR through proof of stake. Larger bank nodes (higher tiers) will be able to have higher stake rate based on usage/performance or some other statistic so that you are rewarded for both holding more BCR and your willingness to provide BCR as services. This also works because as more 'services' are required, this means there will be more users needing/using BCR so that will also in turn allow bank nodes to create more BCR (supply increases with demand this way). Just thinking out loud. |
|
|
|
|
257
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] NeuCoin - Easy to use, free to try, focused on micropayments - Official
|
on: June 25, 2015, 09:48:18 PM
|
LOrreV - "The reason most of the coins being held by the foundations is to get the coin in the hands of many different types of people."
OK maybe, in theory. But its clearly open to abuse.
We have been told very little about the foundations structure. (A subject you could ask about nokoin forum about?)
We know at launch the nokoin "team" will be paid 200m nokoin for work done. Value at presale $2m or 8000btc (declared as $1m)
We know the nokoin "team" have another 300m nokoin reserved for work done after launch. Value at presale $3m or 12000btc (declared as $2.25m)
We know that foundations will be under nokoin "team" control for years to come.
We know a large block of nokoin will be awarded to companies that help nokoin grow.
Starting with radioairplay owned by Dank aufman. Award value $? (undeclared)
and jango.com, founded by Dank aufman. Award value $? (undeclared)
Possibly many more "DanK" companies?
Possibly many more "team" companies?
Combine the obvious opportunity for fiscal abuse with an old boy network of scammers and thieves. I will be dumping my survey coins.
(Seriously, why not ask for some details on nokoin forum? Sandrine is hoping to launch in July. Also disproportionate staking rewards for larger holders, some figures please. Also some of Dartious Questions/concerns could be answered, unless it's just blind faith for you)
is the coins being held staked? then they might end up controlling even more.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
