Jump to content

Gridie

MEMBER
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    44m 30s

Community Reputation

10 Good Reputation

1 Follower

About Gridie

  • Rank
    Ensign

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @jamezz I found the 20 day completion time on my AMD 6300 disturbing as well. But even though I have only completed one work unit (for some reason is was 85 seconds) I have a RAC. I am not completely sure, but it appears that the project gives credits for Work In Progress. You will notice that I did abort a bunch for the reason you bring up. https://www.dhep.ga/boinc/results.php?hostid=1898 Best, Prescott
  2. This will bring another good CPU-only project into the network. Hopefully they can keep up with all the compute we can provide!
  3. I hope that they come back with functional work units. I really think that this research is imperative for space travel.
  4. I would like to ensure that everyone responding to this poll understands that I appreciate their input. If you have not figured it out by now, this is the reason that I continued this argument, even though I do not agree with removing Moo! Wrapper or any white-listed project, is to come to consensus on the purpose of Gridcoin. I joined Gridcoin to give support to BOINC. BOINC allows anyone to start a project and have people join in with a easy to use interface. I am giving a shout out too @tomasbrod for creating the poll. @G_UK, @QuintupleLeo, and @TerminallyBlueish for responding with their opinions. I created this poll to support my opinion that Moo! Wrapper, along with any project on BOINC, should be eligible for reward via Gridcoin. This is where Gridcoin's value is the most important - an objective record of work completed. That is where I believe our future lies.
  5. @QuintupleLeo Good way of stating the scientific usefulness of Moo. I was unable to create the poll myself. The original question was supposed to be A much less loaded question. Steemit is not pay to post. It is free to use. You can be banned through losing Steemit power, which would most likely result in you having to pay to post. It is there banning mechanism. However, I am not sure. I have only been paid for using Steemit. This is why the poll redirects to this discussion forum that has very little discussion of the actual reasoning behind the poll. The Steemit post even has less, it is more of a redirect and placeholder. I support your feelings regarding keeping the project. The reason I had this poll created was to find out what the Gridcoin community thought. It was not meant to be a means of actually getting rid of the project. My belief is that we should be having more BOINC projects added furthering another main goal of Gridcoin.
  6. @G_UK Thank you for your reply. I agree with you on all of your points. This poll was meant to respond to a group of stakeholder's concern about the validity of the project. Also, I was not able to create the poll. I think thomas brod was trying to make it easy for people to understand why the poll was being created in the first place. The main discussion actually occurred on reddit here. (https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/7qre20/moo_wrapper_is_this_a_scientific_project/). With a supplementary conversation on Steemit linked above. I am in support of keeping Moo because I think that we are more about rewarding those who want to give out volunteer resources for any reason.
  7. There was a request made by a stakeholder to have a vote to remove the Moo! Wrapper project due to it not being useful in terms of science advancement. It is just brute forcing a password, which has been done before and has no new knowledge to give us. Poll Name: De-list Moo! Wrapper project? Question: Should the Moo! Wrapper project be removed from the whitelist? Discussion link: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@prescott/poll-to-de-list-moo-wrapper Type: Balance + Magnitude Response choices: "Yes" "No" "Abstain" "Need More Information" Length: one month
  8. Rob: As a stakeholder, I beg you to fix the wallet crashing issue. Fix this and the whales will stay online and you will have your masternodes. Do not discount us current stakeholders as individual forces. We are willing to provide you what you need. How much do we need? How should we provide it? Will we get the current Return on Our Investment (ROI) that we are already receiving? I am assuming that this is what the current market is getting (and delivering) within their expectations? I will be present if you offer a meeting. We can use our cumulative experience to bring Gridcoin to a Variable Cost Efficient. I am a cost accountant, with the necessary skills to provide assertions to investors within the "US Market". Many Thanks, Gridie
  9. All: I am also interested in Frank0051's question. After reading the aforementioned threads, I think it is important to refocus on our goals of making the gridcoin blockchain more accessible to providers of research-resources. Would there be a way to make a BOINC project that would help alleviate some of the burden of our requests on project servers? Locking up of roughly a 4th (400,000 * 250 = 100 million) of the GRC in circulation would most likely increase the price per GRC (due mostly to signaling) and the largest stakeholders would benefit the most. If we were to accept Masternodes it might be correct for the major stakeholders to take/mitigate the liquidity risk. I would suggest that the escrow amount be in the form of a loan (interest bearing payable from Masternode earnings) of GRC from the major stakeholders to a potential Masternode. This way they cannot cash out until their loan has matured, reinforcing the long-term commitment to the overall goal of Gridcoin. This would of course require the integration of a smart contract code into the current build in order to actually implement the transition as described above. So maybe piecemeal smart contracts in first? I believe that this would actually give us the stability and functionality needed to become a better block chain and because it would be self-funded expansion we would create "organic" growth. This might give faith to the community that it is not focused on profiting for personal gain. As profit for personal gain is not the intention or spirit of the distributed research-resource provider community. Profit is important and should be considered, but not before the working capital is in place. Our working capital is the GRC blockchain and our collective profit would be the realization of our goals - a major one being to distribute gridcoin to everyone that gives resources to BOINC projects. Rewarding the whole BOINC sphere would most likely create orphan coins that are not "owned" by anyone. I would suggest that we find a way to have these balances accounted for and given to the respective projects (unless claimed) in order to compensate them for our demands on their systems. Thoughts? Can we re-imagine "Masternodes" for a second? What if these entities were entirely automated and not owned by anyone. The fees earned by them would need to be enough to rent the server. If we decided to do this, we would need to spend many more days and nights constructively destroying each others proposals, comments, and ideas. Feature Request: Can we include a "Bitcoin Days Destoryed" type of analytic tool that would allow anyone (probably most importantly the proof-of-you-have-done-something-for-the-network-or-BOINC-reward-mechcanism) to determine how many days it has been since the last time that coins have moved? We could aggregate this into a number that might help with consensus and the clear problem that was mentioned by Barton26 early about using a CPID-Count or Participation-Count based voting poll. It appears that I have described Proof-of-Stake. Thoughts? Finally: Can someone explain to me why we have a "speech" function in the advanced configuration tab? It seems very out of place and as far as I can tell is non-functional. Rob, thank you for your reply to my post. Paul, thank you for your post as well. C.M., I agree that a proposal vs proposal mindset is something we should avoid. At this point maybe the arguments and agreements of this thread should be summed. Best, Prescott
  10. First, that makes sense. Second, I can see that occurring, but there could be some controls put into place to account for this potential situation. One I am aware of is that have to be present in the chain for a certain amount of time before you can vote on something. @barton26 you are right though that it can be easily gamed if someone was prepared to do it. Thanks for the reply.
  11. Rob: Thank you for all of your efforts regarding the Gridcoin blockchain. I have a few questions, How would implementing all of these proposed changes at once be preferable over doing them piecemeal? I see the Masternode idea as a step backwards creating a more centralized system, I.E. one where significant resources are required to participate and the only way to benefit is with having an economy of scale. What are your thoughts on this? If the credit delta idea is to be implemented, how would this change the payout mechanism and the payouts rewarded? Please provide an example using 4,000 GRC and a 75 magnitude under current system. Regarding the voting mechanism, I think that the balance+magnitude method of share determination allows for those who hold a great deal of coins or magnitude to be unfairly represented. Usually that would make sense to allow for those who have the most to lose have the most say. However in this case, voting in this manner might alienate the rest of us in this community. I would propose that the poll be redone based on the CPIDcount or ParticpantCount to have an accurate view of what each stakeholder considers to be the correct course of action. I will use the current poll regarding this subject as an example, did 4 voters with 250,000 magnitude+balance respond no and 1 voter with 18 million magnitude+balance respond yes? Is there a way to determine this? If this technology is suppose to be innovative, should it not act in an innovative way? (I.E. not like the current system that is prone to abuse by those with higher resource access.) Thoughts? I just staked a block with 1.5 difficulty for the first time. (Usually this would crash my wallet). I feel a sense of pride helping to secure the network and it feels even better to be rewarded for it. In contrast, I spent months downloading the Ethereum block chain and received nothing but a full HDD. How can I continue to help without having to spend ~4,000 - 16,000 USD? In addition, could you please provide an amortization schedule of the return on investment on the Masternode idea? I agree that taking 661MBs of physical memory to run the wallet is absurd. How would your proposal address this? Final Thought: As a influential individual in the Gridcoin community please increase the visibility of this proposal by posting this discussion on Steemit, where many Gridcoin stakeholders go for information. Best Regards, Prescott
  12. Request for opinion: How to account for Gridcoin? All: I am a new member to Gridcoin. I joined Gridcoin due to my success on other Crypto Currency ventures. I have invested about $40 USD worth of BTC at the 2000 satoshis mark as of the writing of this post. I have successfully earned my first GRC in less than a week. I am very happy about this. I plan on investing more. When I say "investing" I mean capital, labor, and resources. As an Accounting Researcher I am constantly looking for a way to bring forth the underlying economic substance of any transaction that I encounter. I have a good idea of how to account for Crypto Currency trading activities, but my next goal is to understand how to account for Crypto Currency charitable activities. Such as the donation of computation resources to research. I envision these as a fully deductible activities poised at increase the power of scientific endeavors by the way of free market capitalistic gain. What I require? I need everyone to voice their opinion on this subject so I can achieve a level of due-process that is on par with current accounting standard setting bodies. That entails that I hear from Owners (foundation members), beneficiaries (members who can speak for the BOINC community), and Users (such as myself and others who wish to get rewarded for the lending of their computation resources). Disclosure: I am vested into Gridcoin at $40 USD. I have an opinion that will shape my conclusion based on the data. I will be evaluating and establishing any standards with regards to US GAAP. If you have any questions or if you think I should disclose more than what I have above. Please let me know. I will do my best to respond to this thread within 72 hours. Thank You.

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.