[ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network

[IncludeBeer]

Why is the decred team so silent talking about the POW algorithm and the introduction of ASIC.

I mean how come that a coin which is all about COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE ignores their community?

And why in the hell design an ASIC and put huge effort (and cost) in it if you could instead simply FORK the algo with a COMMUNITY vote to one where ASICs already exist !!!   POLITEIA !!!
They even talk about raising funds for the development of said ASIC but instead with POLITEIA the community could vote to change the algo eg to SHA256 or x11 in the first place and spare us said fundraising ...

And besides that why CORNER the mining to a limited amount of hardware which favors the few ...

And moreover why not delve into a multi algorithm POW phase if you guys so embrace the ASIC abuse ...


I suggest a name change to: Cecred

bruh...btctalk is one of the last places to look for news and conversation. Go check the slack for instance. 

[1713424568]

1713424568

[1713424568]

1713424568

[1713424568]

1713424568

[1713424568]

1713424568

[Wind_FURY]

I do not believe Asics are avoidable for any mining algorithm. If an altcoin developer says that their coin is "Asic proof", then he is either lying or misinformed. Think about it, a good computer engineer can always design hardware to do one thing based on the software no matter what algorithm it is.

Some coins choose to embrace it, like Sia, while some attempt to discourage it by changing mining algorithms, like Vertcoin.

[naskel]

N-Engine Multi Pool Server

Decred is added to our pool!

http://pool.n-engine.com

- FREE (donation only)
- Dedicated server (European and US link)
- Fast! (Gigabit link on optical fiber!)
- DDoS protection
- GeoDNS balancing system
- Support 24h/7 (Mail, Troll box, Irc channel)

Payouts are made automatically every 10 minutes for all balances above 0.5, or 0.05 on Sunday.

No more fee, more coin for YOU!

Happy FREE mining !

Main Pool url : http://pool.n-engine.com

You can follow us @Twitter : https://twitter.com/NeCrypto

Support :
On IRC : freenode > #N-Engine
By mail: contact[a.t.]n-engine.com

[fun_k]

This is my favorite coin, decent documentation and awesome ideas behind it. Too bad I've missed the airdrop and its early days 

[EmilioMann]

blablablah shit
shit shit shit blah blah
blah blah blah shit

1- If you want to talk to any of the devs, look for them where they all are. On official forum and on slack

2- In what way asics harm or prevent the Politeia from existing?
The dev team has no connection with any of the asics manufacturers.

3- The blake algorithm was chosen and improved to decred, because it's more modern, secure and with numerous advantages over others who already have asic, such as sha256 and script. That is why it is not enough to just make a hard fork to one that already accepted asic and is inferior in security. duh  

4- Go and study a little more about crypto currencies before talking so much shit

5- I suggest changing your name to grinch.

[revelacaogr]

Hard Forks Done Right – It’s Decred’s Time to Shine!
https://thedecreddigest.com/2017/11/08/hard-forks-done-right-its-decreds-time-to-shine/


In late 2015 a group of Bitcoin developers proposed a solution to the governance crisis plaguing the Bitcoin network. As the creators of btcsuite – an alternative full node implementation of Bitcoin written in Go – they had first-hand experience of the problem. In a series of blogs, the team highlighted the extent of Bitcoins governance issues. To them it was clear, in order solve the problem they had to go back to basics, right back to zero to build a new cryptocurrency from the ground up, on the foundations decentralised governance. Shortly after, the group, known as Company Zero (c0), announced the launch of Decred – a new cryptocurrency that not only solved Bitcoins governance issue but extended the technology of Bitcoin itself. Aside from funding, Bitcoin’s main governance problem relates to its inability to make decisions effectively. More specifically, the problem revolves around who ultimately decides to hard fork to a new set of consensus rules, and how. To allow us to better understand how Decred has solved the governance problem, this blog will examine how both Bitcoin and Decred make consensus change (hard fork) decisions............

[revelacaogr]

Decred
 We're proud to introduce EDU.DCR, a series of educational videos to start learning about Decred!
Watch Episode 1: "Purchasing Decred with Local Currency"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8EPi7ddKCc

[crypto research]

Decred
 We're proud to introduce EDU.DCR, a series of educational videos to start learning about Decred!
Watch Episode 1: "Purchasing Decred with Local Currency"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8EPi7ddKCc

Thanks for info.

[Grim]

blablablah shit
shit shit shit blah blah
blah blah blah shit

1- If you want to talk to any of the devs, look for them where they all are. On official forum and on slack

2- In what way asics harm or prevent the Politeia from existing?
The dev team has no connection with any of the asics manufacturers.

3- The blake algorithm was chosen and improved to decred, because it's more modern, secure and with numerous advantages over others who already have asic, such as sha256 and script. That is why it is not enough to just make a hard fork to one that already accepted asic and is inferior in security. duh  

4- Go and study a little more about crypto currencies before talking so much shit

5- I suggest changing your name to grinch.

yeah more centralization is good eh? who doesn't understand the principals of crypto ...

so why again is it named DE cred ?

ASICs equals CEntralization, its been proven to us by btc - how come you guys don't get such a simple fact.

Don't you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

[EmilioMann]

Asics don't cause centralization in Decred.
The decisions are taken by stake holders through POS mining tickets.
Decred found the solution to the btc governance problem

[Grim]

Asics don't cause centralization in Decred.
The decisions are taken by stake holders through POS mining tickets.
Decred found the solution to the btc governance problem

Yes the miners don't have the (voting)power to fork but that doesn't mean at all that mining itself wont be centralized due to ASICs.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the matter.

[IncludeBeer]

Asics don't cause centralization in Decred.
The decisions are taken by stake holders through POS mining tickets.
Decred found the solution to the btc governance problem

Yes the miners don't have the (voting)power to fork but that doesn't mean at all that mining itself wont be centralized due to ASICs.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the matter.

I'd challenge that. Asics don't cause centralization of mining anymore than GPU-mined PoW chains. Pool mining is a much larger cause of mining centralization than asics.

The only real difference between an asic and a gpu, is the asic costs more and can only be used for that 1 algo. The "offender" there is the higher cost of hardware. It's true, that will price some small miners out of the mining game (and thus, the argument of causing centralization). However, those exact same small-time miners are mining, guess where, with pools! They are not solo mining and adding to a decentralized network. Do you see how this counters the argument of "gpu == decentralization"?

You should go search for case studies on Ethereum vs Bitcoin mining centralization. I'm betting you'll learn a thing or two. 

[Grim]

Asics don't cause centralization in Decred.
The decisions are taken by stake holders through POS mining tickets.
Decred found the solution to the btc governance problem

Yes the miners don't have the (voting)power to fork but that doesn't mean at all that mining itself wont be centralized due to ASICs.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the matter.

I'd challenge that. Asics don't cause centralization of mining anymore than GPU-mined PoW chains. Pool mining is a much larger cause of mining centralization than asics.

The only real difference between an asic and a gpu, is the asic costs more and can only be used for that 1 algo. The "offender" there is the higher cost of hardware. It's true, that will price some small miners out of the mining game (and thus, the argument of causing centralization). However, those exact same small-time miners are mining, guess where, with pools! They are not solo mining and adding to a decentralized network. Do you see how this counters the argument of "gpu == decentralization"?

You should go search for case studies on Ethereum vs Bitcoin mining centralization. I'm betting you'll learn a thing or two.  

While large pools pose an issue, you seem to neglect the bigger picture and principals at hand.

The distribution, the issuance, the subsidy of the coin itself is what you should be concerned way first and foremost about.
I mean isn't that obvious to you? How come this even needs to be said ...

Do I really need to spell it out? The coin distribution itself will be more centralized which is one of the WORST things to happen to any coin which claims to operate in a fair and DEcentralized manner.

And you dare to challenge THAT?

 

[vfrias]

Is there an expected date for the LN implementation?

[gembitz]

I've already seen some similar ICO, why are you different?

There is no ICO in Decred.
ICO is scam, people pay a pre-set amount off the market for a promise written on a piece of paper that has not even begun to be developed and which usually will never be.

The funny thing is that these same people often criticize a premine, where devs need to work to make the market value the coins that will serve as their payoff.
All the similar projects you saw there are copies of Decred.

Decred is a project that finances itself through its own mined coins.

With each block 60% of the coins are destined to the POW miners, 30% to the POS miners confirming the POW mining, avoiding that a concentration of hashrate can determine the path of the coin and 10% are destined to the development fund.
At the beggining, a premine was made to finance the currency until the 10% of mining reached a reasonable amount for that.

Contrary to what the fudders say, the premine doesn't go all for the main devs.
8% of the total coins were premined, of these 8%, half were distributed to thousands of people around the world through airdrop.
Of the remaining 4%, about 1% went to the initial development fund, paying for marketing, design and also other devs still leaving an amount that continues in this fund.

Only around 3% were allocated to main devs as payment for all the work done since 2013, including the development of BITCOIN SUITE, which today is responsible for enabling ATOMIC SWAPS and is a fundamental basis for the development of LIGHTNING NETWORK.
Work recognized and consecrated by other currencies devs and also by LN developers.

Ethereum was coded using the bitcoin suite developed by Decred devs.

premine and your airdrop was a fraud i am speaking on behalf of me & several people who got gypped ! :\ Where is the Israeli Bitcoin Cartel behind this?

How can an airdrop be a 'fraud'?

lets ask Meni Rosenfeld and the rest of mercenaries that started this honeypot :\ hmmm

[IncludeBeer]

Asics don't cause centralization in Decred.
The decisions are taken by stake holders through POS mining tickets.
Decred found the solution to the btc governance problem

Yes the miners don't have the (voting)power to fork but that doesn't mean at all that mining itself wont be centralized due to ASICs.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the matter.

I'd challenge that. Asics don't cause centralization of mining anymore than GPU-mined PoW chains. Pool mining is a much larger cause of mining centralization than asics.

The only real difference between an asic and a gpu, is the asic costs more and can only be used for that 1 algo. The "offender" there is the higher cost of hardware. It's true, that will price some small miners out of the mining game (and thus, the argument of causing centralization). However, those exact same small-time miners are mining, guess where, with pools! They are not solo mining and adding to a decentralized network. Do you see how this counters the argument of "gpu == decentralization"?

You should go search for case studies on Ethereum vs Bitcoin mining centralization. I'm betting you'll learn a thing or two.  

While large pools pose an issue, you seem to neglect the bigger picture and principals at hand.

The distribution, the issuance, the subsidy of the coin itself is what you should be concerned way first and foremost about.
I mean isn't that obvious to you? How come this even needs to be said ...

Do I really need to spell it out? The coin distribution itself will be more centralized which is one of the WORST things to happen to any coin which claims to operate in a fair and DEcentralized manner.

And you dare to challenge THAT?

 

Lol Ok, try to get off that high horse. We're adults (at least I am) having a discussion

Issuance and subsidy is agnostic to gpu vs asic mining topic (as long as difficulty adjustment works well). Concerning coin distribution: it's a downside. But again, I'd argue it doesn't outweigh the plethora of security benefits gained, at least imo (and the opinion of the devs )

BTC makes a great case study. Despite the centralization of hash power (which we also see occurs with gpu algos), chain security is high, and the coin is obviously prospering. And that was "v1" of Asic coins! Take a look at LTC coin distribution compared to BTC. See the wider distribution among wallets? It's reasonable to say then, that DCR distribution will also be *at least as* good as BTC's, e.g. due to manufacturer lessons learned.

Let's not forget that PoW is only 1 way the chain is secured. That's especially critical when considering the distribution problem. PoS through tickets is a low-barrier entry for "mining" DCR, meaning those individuals priced out of asics will be able to mine. The counter argument for that would be ticket price I suppose. 79 DCR ticket x $30/DCR = $2370 for one ticket right now. Luckily, DCR started with a larger distribution than most coins due to the airdrop

[Stepmarina]

Need Chinese translation

[hannusolo]

I assume when the lightning network goes live, we could possibly see a price pump. A very big portion of the DCR coins is usually staked, so it is always easy for DCr to rise. But in these cases what is happening to the ticket prices, are theay usually going up or down? I haven't watched this stuff before, any experiences?

[Jack Liver]

But in these cases what is happening to the ticket prices, are theay usually going up or down? I haven't watched this stuff before, any experiences?

if the market price rises surely someone will stop their ticket buyer to sell some DCR with less coin in stake the ticket price going down.

[MrSunshine]

I assume when the lightning network goes live, we could possibly see a price pump. A very big portion of the DCR coins is usually staked, so it is always easy for DCr to rise. But in these cases what is happening to the ticket prices, are theay usually going up or down? I haven't watched this stuff before, any experiences?

I have noticed no correlation between DCR price and ticket costs. Ticket prices go up if a lot more people stake. This happened a couple weeks ago when many more tickets were bought than average, raising the ticket prices buy $20.