Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    1h 14m 34s

Community Reputation

106 Excellent Reputation


About nateonthenet

  • Rank
    Active Member

Recent Profile Visitors

595 profile views
  1. Who knows? And to some extent -- who cares? If there are developers who believe strongly in the current blockchain and want to continue with it, well, that's what forks are for. I guess my stance is that if this is a BAD idea, then 1) core developers won't bother wasting time with it / won't have any interest in maintaining it and 2) the community will rally around some alternative proposal and your hypothetical new developers will step forward to provide new leadership for such a fork. Yes, forks are bad for the market cap short term, but if one or the other is actually a good idea, then it's short-term pain that will result in long-term gain for everyone involved.
  2. I'm going to take a probably unpopular stance and say that it only partially matters what the community wants here. What matters more (and simultaneously encourages and worries me) is the degree to which the developers support this proposal, because the community isn't going to be responsible for implementing or maintaining it -- they merely vote with their wallets at the end of the day, so to speak, on whether or not they like the direction things are going in. That said, I'm a little concerned at Rob's desire to "fire and forget" here because realistically what is going to happen if we don't have strong support from iFoggz, Ravon, etc. is that in a year or two we're going to be exactly back at the point we are now, trying to update a codebase that hasn't been maintained all along. Conversely, if these guys are on board with the plan and willing to stick with it, I'm inclined to support whatever they're doing since (sorry, Rob!) Rob is implying that he'd like to more or less vanish again after this next push until his next burst of energy (whenever that may be) and it will be up to them to maintain it in the meantime. So if @Marco Nilsson, @iFoggz, @TheCharlatan, etc. are behind the plan, as well as some of the largest stakeholders like @VORTAC above, then I'd say let's get it done, but we do need to prepare for Rob ducking back into the background based on history and his own words here in this thread, so whatever we do, it needs to be something that survives his absence for the following year or two.
  3. Just a minor clarification -- there are almost 15M coins on Poloniex, and another 14M on Bittrex, plus other exchanges. I'm guessing the total is between 30-40M, which is about 10%, as I said.
  4. I have a lot of concerns about this proposal still, but this list isn't really a good objection. To start, the problem with the team requirement is the by-extension problem that every person participating in Gridcoin currently downloads the project statistics periodically from BOINC project sites. These are not small files and we are already treading perilously close to DDOSing the project servers as it is. Any large influx of users is going to have a detrimental effect on project servers because we don't really have a good way to avoid the DDOS effect (like reddit or slashdot effect) at the moment. There are at least 10% of the coins currently for sale on various exchanges. 14 million+ on each of Bittrex and Poloniex, minimally, plus more on others. Granted, any serious buying will immediately jack the price up prohibitively high, but the liquidity situation is worse with a lot of other coins. He's probably basing it on a minimum seat price of 50,000 coins, which he already said is a possibility, to be fair. However, this I definitely agree with -- this seat proposal completely GUTS ordinary voting for ordinary users. I really wish there was a way to make "voting" still completely democratic in this proposal, not lock it up worse than it is with a minority of large shareholders. And I do agree with this as well. Very out-of-left-field authoritarian when it was starting to feel like there was finally solid progress being made in an organic fashion. That said, it's not a reason in itself to reject the proposal, but it's important to remind people that coins can and do fork when competing visions with actual technical skill behind them are butting heads...
  5. I share @bzaborow's confusion/concern about the PoSE seeming a lot more PoW-heavy. In addition, this looks like it will completely disenfranchise smaller investors (400,000 GRC is a pretty high bar -- at most 1000 people can ever have that stake, and realistically that number is a lot lower) both in terms of voting and in terms of any sort of rewards for holding beyond whatever happens to the price. The latter is probably less concerning than the former; "Gridcoin 2" was cool insofar as it sort of gave everyone a voice if they cared to use it and could be a future governance utility for things far beyond the chain itself, and this new proposal will completely strip that. I may be able to get behind this if we can get some reassurances that it's not going to destroy the premise that Gridcoin is more energy-efficient than the competition to focus more computing power on distributed computing, and if we can at least talk about ways to avoid completely disenfranchising the 99.9% of people who aren't ever going to come remotely close to having 400,000 GRC.
  6. I'm in favor of incentivizing development, but I think this is a train wreck waiting to happen. It's impossible to verify hours spent and you're going to end up with people trying to game this system; while the current devs all seem like upstanding guys, this is begging for con devs to come in, submit trivial pull requests, and then claim stupid numbers of hours spent. I'm very much in favor of a foundation-funded bounty system with set awards for specific goals. This, not so much.
  7. Not to mention that I think the jury is still out on whether or not smart contracts are even practically feasible given the security and financial risks involved and the strain it could potentially put on networks...better to focus on stabilizing and expanding Gridcoin's core strengths rather than try to integrate every possible side feature, I think -- especially if those features can be bolted on as C.M. points out here.
  8. I've seen this before -- there's almost no detail so it's hard to say if they used smart contracts for this or just basic ETH transfers that you could technically do with any coin whatsoever. Would be interesting to know for sure.
  9. Yeah, that's strange. It was definitely enabled again a few days ago. As for CURE, GRC has always had more volume than CURE on Polo. I think we should be trying to convert people who are into FLDC and GNT (should be easy to show advantages on both: we're general purpose, unlike FLDC, and we're a staking coin, which GNT will never be) -- and maybe Blackcoin, since GRC *is* Blackcoin with BOINC integration if I'm not mistaken...
  10. I was actually thinking something like this recently. GRC needs an escrow service where projects can deposit funds and participants can be sure that the funds will get rained if conditions are met -- sort of like a reverse kickstarter. If you did it right, it could be a market where GRC BOINCers could go find projects offering whatever rates they're looking for, on top of the normal in-chain awards... If I had more time, I'd try to build this myself, but not likely to have that much time until late this year at the earliest.
  11. Any idea when it's safe to let our exchange partners know we can go out of maintenance mode? Right now my client is staying synced perfectly and network weight is almost 128M but looks like Polo etc. are still in maintenance mode...
  12. Mine was stuck at 854420 for a while. It's now at 854422 so I consider this progress... (Downloading blocks vs. syncing from zero made no difference; got stuck at 854420 both ways.) EDIT: I think it just forked itself, so that's not really progress. And yes, I'm on; I'll leave it overnight to see what happens.
  13. I'd like to echo this. I don't think it helps us right now that there is no real sense of a roadmap anymore. Appearances from Rob or any other developer are far and few between, and it gives a distinct sense of stagnation. I realize that Rob has other projects / jobs to work on, but it definitely feels a lot slower than the early days. Rob used to post multiple times a day; now we're lucky to hear from him once every couple of weeks. Until there are other developers actually, actively working on Gridcoin, this is dangerous for the coin (and the supposed new dev is off doing some Ethereum-based project that, as far as I can tell, has little-to-no bearing on us -- which means Rob's general unavailability is particularly troublesome). We sorely need to have at least a couple of active developers. Rob can't shoulder this forever, and even if he could, if he got hit by a meteorite the coin is dead since nobody else is working on it. Can't stress this enough.
  14. Really? This is how it looks in my browser - the right column (Left the team) has numerous entries for yesterday, 174 in total (including some well-known community members like nateonthenet, I don't think that's accurate, if that's really him). And when you click on Overview, number of total available hosts has decreased significantly (it was around 93000 few days ago, now it's 88208) I haven't left the team, but I haven't been actively mining in months, just running in Investor mode. Not sure whether I should be on that list at all right now.

Cryptocurrenytalk Logo


News, information, and discussions about cryptocurrencies, blockchains, technology, and events. Blockchaintalk is your source for advice on what to mine, technical details, new launch announcements, and advice from trusted members of the community. Cryptocurrencytalk is your source for everything crypto. We love discussing the world of cryptocurrencies.



Important Information

By using CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK.COM, you agree to our Terms of Use.