Bitcoin Forum
August 16, 2018, 06:44:12 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 [250] 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 313 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [VIA] ★ Viacoin ★ ~ the future of digital currency ~ ★  (Read 822776 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
l.crypto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 24, 2015, 01:20:16 PM
 #4981

I hold some via but my concern is the huge inflation of 30% annually gonna kill it, no matter if this coin has been the most developed as many argue because the crypto space is evolving in a pace that via can´t afford without resources/developing or associations linked to real world, moreover BtcDrack just sits silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold, there is no roadmap not a single word in this beheaded thread just some brave believers that prefer to think everything is ok because someone is working for them behind the scenes, the leader has to assume their on character and keep the people inform of every stage for good or for bad, answer just to tech/irrelevant questions just aggravate this because he is aware but prefer not say anything about the real issues. Sad Sad

Regarding changes to the consensus code, I hope you don't think I have some kind of ability to force changes because I dont. We can propose change to consensus like we did with merged mining, and now BIP66 and it is up to the users and miners agree. If you want new features or whatever you should suggest them. I'm open to ideas and we can discuss features.

I've been silent for a long time, but ill take my chance here as I see a maybe big opportunity: if I understood you correctly, its up to the community (and well yes miners) to agree on bigger changes to the consensus like the reduced coin supply/inflation that llildur implied. And youre up to "suggestions" if enough community members push it - and will implement it? Please correct me if im wrong...

Why im asking: as I was a supporter for the merge mining fork, I would also LOVE to see a reduction of the overall supply.

It could give some market action back and obviously benefits current holders - or in other words: all the people who still believe in this project even through these tough times.  Tongue Only downside I see is that it would need a hard fork (?)...but Todd and you have shown in the past that youre more than capable of that so personally I think the risk is pretty low.

Anyway to sum it up: would be cool if we could have some discussion about that like we had with the merged mining decision. Calling everyone to action  Grin


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534401852
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534401852

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534401852
Reply with quote  #2

1534401852
Report to moderator
llildur
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 115
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 06:14:50 AM
 #4982

I hold some via but my concern is the huge inflation of 30% annually gonna kill it, no matter if this coin has been the most developed as many argue because the crypto space is evolving in a pace that via can´t afford without resources/developing or associations linked to real world, moreover BtcDrack just sits silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold, there is no roadmap not a single word in this beheaded thread just some brave believers that prefer to think everything is ok because someone is working for them behind the scenes, the leader has to assume their on character and keep the people inform of every stage for good or for bad, answer just to tech/irrelevant questions just aggravate this because he is aware but prefer not say anything about the real issues. Sad Sad

Regarding changes to the consensus code, I hope you don't think I have some kind of ability to force changes because I dont. We can propose change to consensus like we did with merged mining, and now BIP66 and it is up to the users and miners agree. If you want new features or whatever you should suggest them. I'm open to ideas and we can discuss features.

I've been silent for a long time, but ill take my chance here as I see a maybe big opportunity: if I understood you correctly, its up to the community (and well yes miners) to agree on bigger changes to the consensus like the reduced coin supply/inflation that llildur implied. And youre up to "suggestions" if enough community members push it - and will implement it? Please correct me if im wrong...

Why im asking: as I was a supporter for the merge mining fork, I would also LOVE to see a reduction of the overall supply.

It could give some market action back and obviously benefits current holders - or in other words: all the people who still believe in this project even through these tough times.  Tongue Only downside I see is that it would need a hard fork (?)...but Todd and you have shown in the past that youre more than capable of that so personally I think the risk is pretty low.

Anyway to sum it up: would be cool if we could have some discussion about that like we had with the merged mining decision. Calling everyone to action  Grin




First at all i have to say that i think via has plenty of room to grow up, one of the main features why i invest in VIA is because this is not only a coin is a platform 2.0 to issue new contracts or colored coin upon it  like mastercoin, counterparty, etc. you may say that this projects are build upon BTC blockchain but one good example that this is not a requisite is PPC with NUSHARES and NUBITS, my question is why VIA is stagnant, why this lack of interest in timelockverify if this can be used in a bunch of ways to solve problems, maybe the great inflation ratio is keeping away potencial investors, if this is what it has to be done in order to move forward why not? fork is not that bad, even others coins like CLOAK come from the deadyard with a completely new approach and a code from the ground up,  the most worrifing thing to me is that seems nobody are eager to come an build upon this platform.  Undecided Undecided
Majormax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1018


View Profile WWW
July 25, 2015, 10:13:07 AM
 #4983

I hold some via but my concern is the huge inflation of 30% annually gonna kill it, no matter if this coin has been the most developed as many argue because the crypto space is evolving in a pace that via can´t afford without resources/developing or associations linked to real world, moreover BtcDrack just sits silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold, there is no roadmap not a single word in this beheaded thread just some brave believers that prefer to think everything is ok because someone is working for them behind the scenes, the leader has to assume their on character and keep the people inform of every stage for good or for bad, answer just to tech/irrelevant questions just aggravate this because he is aware but prefer not say anything about the real issues. Sad Sad

Inflation does not kill coins. It helps in the distribution.

However, developers do kill coins by inaction, although it is a long process. Developers efforts should be directed to recruiting, or rewarding, new skilled coders who can stick with the project. Individuals are not a constant, but companies/large teams can be.
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 11:07:05 AM
 #4984

However, developers do kill coins by inaction.

Like Litecoin I suppose?
There is zero correlation between development and price action.
tokeweed
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1029


Life, Love and Laughter...


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 11:10:47 AM
 #4985

However, developers do kill coins by inaction.

Like Litecoin I suppose?
There is zero correlation between development and price action.

That's true.  Litecoin is very much alive.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 25, 2015, 11:12:28 AM
 #4986

First at all i have to say that i think via has plenty of room to grow up, one of the main features why i invest in VIA is because this is not only a coin is a platform 2.0 to issue new contracts or colored coin upon it  like mastercoin, counterparty, etc. you may say that this projects are build upon BTC blockchain but one good example that this is not a requisite is PPC with NUSHARES and NUBITS, my question is why VIA is stagnant, why this lack of interest in timelockverify if this can be used in a bunch of ways to solve problems, maybe the great inflation ratio is keeping away potencial investors, if this is what it has to be done in order to move forward why not? fork is not that bad, even others coins like CLOAK come from the deadyard with a completely new approach and a code from the ground up,  the most worrifing thing to me is that seems nobody are eager to come an build upon this platform.  Undecided Undecided

If people really do want to alter the inflation schedule you're going to need to make a concrete proposal (explain exactly what it should change to) and rally support around it. Changes like this are not trivial but with support, anything is possible. Changes can be proposed in the code and if accepted by users and miners will become the new status quo.

If a proposal gets enough support and is technical sound then it can be merged and released but I will not make the proposal but I will make peer review of it.
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 05:22:21 AM
 #4987

I think before any proposal could be made for altering the inflation schedule an analysis of the current schedule could be carried out what was the reasoning

The schedule was based on non-merged mining which requires creating enough incentive for miners to mine enough to secure the coin. That dynamic changed significantly with merged mining because the coin will be mined anyway, even with a small mining schedule (e.g. doge) because whatever subsidy is still free money to the miner as they dont have to expend any extra resources to merge mine an infinite number of coins.
l.crypto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 12:54:19 PM
 #4988

I think before any proposal could be made for altering the inflation schedule an analysis of the current schedule could be carried out what was the reasoning

The schedule was based on non-merged mining which requires creating enough incentive for miners to mine enough to secure the coin. That dynamic changed significantly with merged mining because the coin will be mined anyway, even with a small mining schedule (e.g. doge) because whatever subsidy is still free money to the miner as they dont have to expend any extra resources to merge mine an infinite number of coins.

Translation: at the beginning VIA had to endure the negative effect of high inflation to secure the network (= giving miners enough incentive to mine VIA)...since merge mining this is no longer true. We can significantly reduce inflation without risking blockchain security.

btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 05:44:52 PM
 #4989

I think before any proposal could be made for altering the inflation schedule an analysis of the current schedule could be carried out what was the reasoning

The schedule was based on non-merged mining which requires creating enough incentive for miners to mine enough to secure the coin. That dynamic changed significantly with merged mining because the coin will be mined anyway, even with a small mining schedule (e.g. doge) because whatever subsidy is still free money to the miner as they dont have to expend any extra resources to merge mine an infinite number of coins.

Translation: at the beginning VIA had to endure the negative effect of high inflation to secure the network (= giving miners enough incentive to mine VIA)...since merge mining this is no longer true. We can significantly reduce inflation without risking blockchain security.




Well the question was is there a paper of some kind? Drak didn't give an answer.  I accept what's being said about the change in mining but where's the analysis technical review or whatever you want to call it past, present and future.

You can't just make adhoc changes like this without it smacking of an attempt to pump the price, I totally agree with Draks sentiment that it requires consultation peer review and whatever along with something provided to review (explain exactly why, what and when to change).

I also agree with other Viacoiners that development or the lack of it requires attention. Drak you're doing great with the development at you're end but the community is really not performing, self included.

Concerns are being expressed that nothing appears to be being developed on the protocol how would altering the coin supply change that?

"Viacoin is designed from the ground up to be both a digital currency and provide the backbone of ClearingHouse protocol" - http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/05/what-is-viacoin.html merged mining was partly to increase viacoin blockchain security making the protocol more robust and suitable as an alternative to development on the bitcoin blockchain which is considered slow and restrictive and there's the spam effect.

Increased security for Viacoin was identified as a requirement for not least Fintech services such as those being built by Overstock and others.

"reduce inflation without risking blockchain security" sounds great but for what purpose other than to pump some short-sighted life into Viacoin for the coffers of whom "sit silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold"

There is no "paper" in particular other than what has been written about on the blog: Viacoin's original remit was to be a platform for fast embedded consensus protocols and in general to contribute to the greater good in this space. Where there have been extensions, those have been written up separately, like with BIP65, checklocktimeverify.

I generally do not support the idea of changing the coin schedule, but since it was brought up, I am saying I am in no position to dictate what happens, the only time you'll see a veto from me is if there is some kind of technical issue. By veto I mean refusing to merge a patch in the Viacoin Core repository, remembering that anyone can release a fork, although again, consensus critical changes are more difficult to convince the ecosystem to adopt. We did succeed with merged mining hard fork and that changed the dynamics for all the smaller miners and pools that were involved in the beginning.

So all I can offer up is my reasoning for the mining schedule at genesis. Block rewards main purpose is to encourage PoW miners to secure Viacoin. Merged mining changes the dynamics, take DOGE for example there are now only 10,000 DOGE per block, that;s about 0.006BTC, but it is still merged mined because it can be done so for free. For miners that's a bonus because they can mine LTC and get extra rewards for all the merged mined coins they simultaneously mine. As such, if the coin is merged mined, the security of the network wont be affected by a change to the block reward schedule as it would if it was normal PoW mining.

If some new PoS algo came along that worked for example, the block rewards could literally drop to zero and the network run off fees.

This is really the last I have to say on the matter, please dont ask me any more questions as I do not *personally* support changing any fundamental settings of the coin, but just like happened with Merged Mining, there was overwhelming community support for it, and the viacoin ecosystem agreed to make the change. That's how it works. Even better, if someone wants to propose a change formally, they are welcome to make a pull request and garner support. This is the same way it works upstream in Bitcoin Core, so no different down here.
Marcus Augustus
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 51
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 08:22:31 AM
 #4990

However, developers do kill coins by inaction, although it is a long process. Developers efforts should be directed to recruiting, or rewarding, new skilled coders who can stick with the project. Individuals are not a constant, but companies/large teams can be.

Core coders for a mature coin should stick to maintenance and technical improvements. Bitcoin is a good example.

Real coin life comes from third parties' implementing services around a coin.  MtGOX was a good example of a third party service that helped build the Bitcoin economy. The core Bitcoin developers did not create MtGOX.

It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.
GooseNL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 204
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 06, 2015, 09:27:30 AM
 #4991

Is there 95% adoption for BIP 66?
solid12345
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 06, 2015, 05:05:06 PM
 #4992


It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.


I think the question is whether $350k worth of man-hour work has been put into this coin as raised from the ICO.

Now if you give me just $100 grand in Bitcoin I promise to go to IT school, get a degree in computer programming and breathe some life into it!
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1049


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2015, 04:33:05 AM
 #4993


For 350k you could have already built something on par with DASH.

Dash is, to quote Peter Todd, an insta-mined "snake oil" scam with "bad crypto."

VIA+XCH is far superior, and drak is a better dev than Evan "oops I accidentally gave myself the first 2 million coins but won't relaunch" Duffield.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
August 10, 2015, 06:46:08 AM
 #4994

However, developers do kill coins by inaction, although it is a long process. Developers efforts should be directed to recruiting, or rewarding, new skilled coders who can stick with the project. Individuals are not a constant, but companies/large teams can be.

Core coders for a mature coin should stick to maintenance and technical improvements. Bitcoin is a good example.

Real coin life comes from third parties' implementing services around a coin.  MtGOX was a good example of a third party service that helped build the Bitcoin economy. The core Bitcoin developers did not create MtGOX.

It is unreasonable to ask core developers to continue to develop services after they have built the infrastructure around a coin. Like Bitcoin and several other coins, VIA is a platform for distributed services. If you want to breathe life into VIA, figure out how to cultivate its ecosystem. Design a service for it. Harness its unique attributes to enrich yourself and add value to VIA in the process. One thing you can't say is that the infrastructure for services is not present in VIA. It's there by design.


l.crypto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 12:13:57 PM
 #4995


"reduce inflation without risking blockchain security" sounds great but for what purpose other than to pump some short-sighted life into Viacoin for the coffers of whom "sit silent without answer concerns of this community watching how this drama unfold"


EXACTLY for that purpose: bringing some action and life back to VIA.

Sorry to play advocatus diaboli here: theres NO community to push adaption. Changing rewards or total supply wont change that miracly, but it is a step in the right direction in my opinion - likely bringing some attention back to VIA. VIAs tech is great, no doubt, but time is running AGAINST Viacoin. Nothing to sugercoat here.

You call it short sighted, I say its an opportunity to get VIA back on the radar. EVERY kind of PR helps VIA at this stage. Smoking hopium does not.

For me its pretty easy (no affront here): we can either keep things going like they are and watch VIA completely fade, or try to get people "interested" again. Some only for market action, but some will have a closer look and realize the good tech VIA has to offer. Many coins have shown these moves can work and with Drak at the helm the risks are pretty small techwise. Moreover he kinda agreed that he would make it if enough people supported it. I'm more than willing to take that "risk", simply cause I know how the alternative will look like (and I think everyone could see it the last 8-9 months already...).
btcdrak
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 12:26:35 PM
 #4996

Is there 95% adoption for BIP 66?

It's oscillating between 92% and 93%

You can count the blockversions using this script from linux commandline.

Code:
<?php
$startBlock 
json_decode(`viacoin-cli getinfo`, true)['blocks'];
$blocks = [];
$v4 0;
for (
$c=$startBlock$c>($startBlock-19000); $c--) {
    
$hash = `viacoin-cli getblockhash $c`;
    
$version json_decode(`viacoin-cli getblock $hash`, true)['version'];
    
$v4 += ($version == 5636356) ? 0;
}

echo 
"$v4/19000\n";

Once 95% locks in, I will release a new version with the next soft-fork.
kcanup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 10, 2015, 01:02:42 PM
 #4997

Bumping this thread coz i stopped getting notification and i dont want to miss Via's big news  Wink
wildduck
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 06:48:09 AM
 #4998

Where did you hear about via big news?

kcanup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 10:55:24 AM
 #4999

Where did you hear about via big news?
Bro if you are referring to my above post then nowhere  Grin I am just saying i dont wanna miss anything big coming here  Wink
Primitive
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 04:57:27 PM
 #5000

anybody know what is going on with clearinghouse.io (domain expired) and clearwallet.io (domain not resolving) ?

NEM, LSK, STRAT
Pages: « 1 ... 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 [250] 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 313 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!