Jump to content

donkeykong9000

MEMBER
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    2h 47m 40s

1 Follower

About donkeykong9000

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

373 profile views
  1. Superblock generation ihas been stuck since Mar. 25th due to a large whale staking on a non-windows node. https://www.gridcoinstats.eu/superblock Could we get the foundation wallet to stake for a bit so we can get new superblocks in place? Or any other big wallets on windows who can stake for a while to update the neural network?
  2. Many on the steemit would like to see somewhere around 15k to 80k GRC to be the requirement https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@jamescowens/gridcoin-iii-proposal-comments https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@donkeykong9000/masterswor-er-masternodes-yay-or-nay
  3. I think the PIVX stakeminer is the way to go, since the proposed green PoW mechanism may be a hard sell to potential investors. It's easier to say that our coin will be PoS and is a "green" solution compared to DASH and bitcoin. I think I am also on board with the idea of masternodes since there are seemingly few other ways to ensure scalability without disrupting boinc servers. There may be some performance advantages as well compared to our current setup since there is incentive to maintain a heftier server dedicated to being a gridcoin network node. Unlike now, where the majority of wallets are likely being run on BOINC rigs which are already heavily loaded with project tasks. I also heavily agree with Quez that there should be a mechanism for non-masternodes to be involved in voting, whether though direct voting or via delegates.
  4. Good to see you again Rob, I think we have been desperately in need of your presence over the last little while. Regarding the proposal, would we not be open to a greater possibility of 51% attack with masternodes assuming the attacker was willing to pony up the grc to become the masternodes? This seems like a step backwards in terms of security as well as decentralization. Regarding the new green pow mechanism, would this actually result in a net decrease of cpu/computing power required for running the grc network?
  5. If we do force gridcoin into the username, that would give us some tracking ability since anyone who's interested could search for gridcoin on boincstats to look up the # of users and their activity level. So in a sense we could still use the gold standard boinc stats to track our computational power. Maybe we could set up a separate page to aggregate the computational output of all users with the tag gridcoin in their user name based on the boincstats info. So I think I am for removing the team requirement provided that we force users to informally join team gridcoin by putting a "[Gridcoin]" or similar tag into their user name. I think that it will be hard to predict what would happen if we did make this change, in terms of coin price/market cap. Perhaps we would have a higher computational output (hopefully). I see the main benefit as being that we could potentially work more closely with individual BOINC project developers without making it seem like they are favoring our BOINC team.
  6. Would we need to disband team gridcoin in order to take a wider stance within the BOINC community? It seems like that would be the only way to fully neutralize accusations of team-poaching. Even if we did abolish the team requirement the fact that there would still be a team that bears the name gridcoin may lead others to construe our attempts at engaging them in discussions as some sort of recruiting scheme. No doubt it would be nice to move from one team to another like in the olden days. But how much development time would this take and would this time be better spent on other things? Perhaps changing one's BOINC username to include a GRC specific tag as Quez suggested could get around the data aggregation problem in a relatively seamless way without creating a new field. If we forced inclusion of "GRC" or "xxXGRCXxx" (to be fancy) into usernames then perhaps this could serve a marketing purpose as well. The integrity issue that Rob brought up is also very important. How can we prove to potential future clients that our performance in terms of computation/research output is competitive? There we be no way to compare us with the gold standard boincstats that everyone uses for comparison. We would probably need some independent third party to audit our capability.
  7. Something else I thought of: Based on what Quez suggested, users with GRC in their name, or even a wallet address like in the old days could be eligible receive GRC. Perhaps they could be paid at a reduced rate compared to team members, let's say 10-20% of the total newly minted coins, thereby encouraging people to join the gridcoin team. To prevent spamming the servers with requests they could also be paid at a reduced frequency.
  8. I can see that there are good arguments on both sides and that it is very difficult to predict what exactly will happen if we remove the team requirement. Just so that we explore every option before committing to anything, how about this idea: We set aside a portion of newly minted GRC for other BOINC teams. It could be as low as 10% or as high as 50%. We periodically rain GRC upon the top 10 or top 25 or top 50 teams. We would of course have to have some way of authenticating whoever is receiving the coins to ensure no fraud occurs. We may want to give the coins to the leader or designated representative of each team rather than each team member individually. This would prevent the gridcoin team from becoming broken up and losing our stance within the rankings while also supporting the other teams out there. It would also be easier to implement since it is essentially a periodic transfer of coins.
  9. But was there ever a time when the hash rate of bitcoin increased 10 to 30 fold in a very short time, virtually overnight? And would the new users really be on team gridcoin if they literally weren't willing to join team Gridcoin? I think if the gridcoin requirement for team joining were removed, we would have an initial influx of new users followed by an exodus of "marginal" users as RTM put it. It would become more competitive and harder for marginal users to maintain their previous level of earnings. The marginal users would be replaced with the elite BOINC'ers who currently dominate the rankings, and who may not really be that interested in the long term success of gridcoin. Is this actually better for us?
  10. Demand will likely not increase with the influx of new users unless they bring with them some type of service or utility that we did not have before. I think if we do not have some way of increasing demand, we should not attempt to bring in too many new users at once, as this would dilute the earnings of long-time gridcoin supporters. If we recruited even 1% of 3 million BOINC'ers then that would equal 30,000 new users, representing a 1 in 30 dilution of earnings for existing gridcoiners. Many long standing supporters may not want to continue to support gridcoin after such a sharp reduction in earnings. I suggest we focus on ways of increasing the ease of use and demand for gridcoin rather than rapidly increasing computational power.
  11. This is an interesting idea, but the key point of the whole discussion about the team requirement is to preserve the old team structure. The people that used the old structure for years will never give up their statistics if they did not already join us. I feel that marketing gridcoin via a high ranking on boincstats potentially outweighs the benefits of attracting these users. Some of these users have also BOINC'd for years without compensation and may not see the value of setting up gridcoin even if it provides some financial benefit. They may also jump ship very easily if they perceive some technical difficulty with gridcoin, ie. they are loyal to BOINC computation but not gridcoin. We may not want to have these users on board when we can grow organically by recruiting new BOINC users that are interested in the success of gridcoin. This could be done by making the initial set up of gridcoin far more streamlined. A hybrid system consisting of an internal gridcoin team ranking would be relatively easy to implement, allowing development resources to be spent on other things (a mobile wallet for example, or streamlining the setup).
  12. I agree that splitting the team would cause things to fall into shambles. Having Gridcoin at the top or very close to the top of the rankings is the best marketing we can buy. Could we possibly subdivide the gridcoin team by having a built in ranking function within the gridcoin client? Perhaps when you set up gridcoin, there could be a box for entering a secondary team affiliation while still maintaining the primary Gridcoin affiliation on BOINCstats.
  13. I thought perhaps a newsletter type of thing could work but this idea is even better. Plus it would be built directly into the client, which could draw more people into gridcoin. And since you would need GRC to gain access to the data, it might push up gridcoin prices. I would rather gridcoin finance services be accessible to the masses of cryptocurrency enthusiasts/ordinary investors rather than a select few who could buy into the hedge fund. Plus far less regulatory burdens to deal with. I'm still open to new ideas and evaluating this from every angle. But some assumptions Id like to throw out there so we don't assume things - that in my opinion are incorrect. One, embedding a hedge fund in the client does not remove regulatory burdens. We have to solve the problem either way. Two, whether the user consumes data from quant.gridcoin.us or within the GRC client does not restrict it to a few who are investors. The newsletter idea could live in the quant web site or in client - again its just how it ends up being set up. (Maybe someone is recommending a UI that copies the Quant data into Gridcoin. It could also be argued that it pollutes the client for people who are not interested in finance.) Three, investing in GRCQ opens up the investment to more people not less. Most users are not going to be able to execute trades from a newsletter- because most wont have the 300k to open a PM account. Id go as far as saying 99% of the user base will not be able to execute one of the trades in the newsletter. So that translates to Newsletter = No use of the fund - GRCQ otoh = Full use of the fund. If you are having trouble understanding this point, Ill make a simple example. If you drop 75k into an options account, and try to execute the very first order with a short calendar spread, your margin will be astronomical on the very first contract. So you will not get the ROI that these trades provide in the centralized fund - so then, whats the point - that makes the newsletter useless. As far as decentralizing everything, it depends on what pieces. Maybe a DAC that was truly decentralized could clear the regulatory burden since it would not be owned by one entity. However, this particular idea in practice, could not execute trades without a central account. So this is a complicated problem and we need to keep thinking about what pieces would provide a value add to GRC that might clear regulatory hurdles, and what pieces need to remain centralized. I dont want to sound negative, but the actual core part of the idea - greek hedged house found - is simply centralized and has to be accepted this way or not used - because there is no decentralized options exchange that takes small pieces of investments without margin and holds them in anonymous accounts. And above, the newsletter idea really is not the same as a 'buy' 'sell' stock timing service. Im not into that, dont know if it would make money, its a different animal than what is currently being analyzed by the boinc clients. Thats why I never embraced that idea so far, because what you would end up with if you were a subscriber is something you could not use. So why sell something that is useless? And then, if the idea is OK Rob, rewrite your system to make a timing service. For hundreds of hours for an algo that may not work? Im trying to run with something that already works and then build on it. Thanks Rob, that makes a lot of sense. My main concern is that the regulatory burden may be quite significant for creating a hedge fund, while a newsletter type service or a stock analysis type service (see www.vectorvest.com as an example) would be comparatively much milder. That and having any type of downwards pressure on GRC prices (besides miners cashing in their earnings) might be a turnoff for current and future investors, as well as miners. Perhaps there would be even buying/selling of GRC for fund shares that would average out over time - but what if the fund had a particularly bad period which triggered an outflow of GRC - these funds would most likely be traded for BTC or cash, depressing GRC prices. Therefore the price of GRC would become linked to performance of the hedge fund, which may not ideal be for everyone. Perhaps as spass said, we could look into having gridcoin/ the gridcoin hedge fund function in an entirely uncoupled manner apart from the computational power that gridcoin finance provides. At least to start. And then later bring in the gridcoin burning/purchasing aspect of the hedge fund to support the price of gridcoin, which would catalyze scientific and gridcoin finance computation.
  14. I thought perhaps a newsletter type of thing could work but this idea is even better. Plus it would be built directly into the client, which could draw more people into gridcoin. And since you would need GRC to gain access to the data, it might push up gridcoin prices. I would rather gridcoin finance services be accessible to the masses of cryptocurrency enthusiasts/ordinary investors rather than a select few who could buy into the hedge fund. Plus far less regulatory burdens to deal with.
×

Important Information

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