Jump to content

NEWS
  • WELCOME TO CRYPTOCURRENCYTALK!
  • We've upgraded the website with a lot of new features!
  • 3 NEW THEMES! Click on the + Themes button above!
  • Notice about SOCIAL LINKS: UPDATE YOUR SOCIAL LINKS
  • New video section, add your videos: VIDEO SECTION
  • Advertising will be available shortly, hold tight.
  • If you have any issues with the new site, please submit a support ticket: SUPPORT

Should we Re-Base Gridcoin using this proposal, or should we stay with current codebase and fix it using the Roadmap 4.0 proposals?  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we Re-Base Gridcoin using this proposal, or should we stay with current codebase and fix it using the Roadmap 4.0 proposals?

    • Re-Base Gridcoin using this proposal (a variation of Dash-Evolution/Bitcoin Core Nov 2017 with a Stakeminer)
      24
    • Stay with Current Code Base and fix it Piecemeal using Roadmap 4.0 Proposals
      9
    • Abstain (I do not wish to be involved)
      3


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, GeeBell said:

 

Total Credit Delta, TCD, is awesome! Please see Brod's suggestion with regard to bunkering and TCD. Finally, note that TCD can be implemented without Superblock Payments. 

 


Regarding the scaling of Superblock Payments, does this mean that it is possible to scale in terms of block size? Can it also scale to this level in terms of computation required to calculate everything required for each of the 10 000 recipients? Could you, please post (or link) the pdf of the Dash audit?

Hi Gee,

On the TCD, Ive given Marco the responsibility of taking that piece so we can work more efficiently.  Im working on the core, iFoggz on the associator, and Marco on the TCD.  He has explained to me he feels comfortable in being able to sample researcher credit deltas per day and generate a resulting magnitude file in our custom gridcoinresearch c++ class.  I invite Marco to come on board to discuss the bunkering.  I feel confident in his ability to provide an accurate TCD file inside the neural network to be shared among the nodes.

 

On scaling, yes, I can upload that audit but I do want to clarify - in that section they were focused on accuracy more than blowing the max size, and I was really going by Duffields comment I found after I read about large blocks (the creator) about "what do we do if we get past this limit" and he was basically saying I dont know, so yes, I had to do more work after that (so the audit is useless, and the comment is useless, sorry, but -- ) I did do more after that, I found an example of one bitcoin block that took a long time to pass that had 37,000 transactions in it and it passed through the network.  So then I went and created a dash block myself with simulated budget and payments and verified it on my network and it worked!  So our new system is bitcoin script compatible up to the latest that carried the 37,000 transactions.  So now we know we can handle over 10,000 actual tx in one block.   I verified the command that makes the hex that scales and what happens when we actually make the block - the code behind creating the superblock ends up containing a vout, a scriptsigpubkey, and an amount (Ie not a lot of data per drop payment, about 100 characters per payment). Meaning that the resulting 10,000 conceptual boinc payment block will definitely fit, definitely not die in the code, and definitely pass.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) said:

Let us make the assumption that the X11 algorithm suite have now been modified to Not run in an asic (this is to assume that on day 1-365 in prod the entire system starts by running on CPUs) and the hash is now called a POR hash (not x11) since it has been fundamentally modified.

iFoggz CPID association system requires a successful burn of 1grc to associate a beacon.  It also includes a feature to not allow the burn to enter the chain unless the CPID is found to be valid by every foreign node in the memory pool (meaning attackers cannot just create random burns with fake cpids) and spam the list. 

Let us assume to mine a block, one must sign it with a scriptSig that is associated to a burned beacon (if one wants to mine a block in a green fashion).

Let us assume the wallet keeps a map of BeaconScriptSigs ordered by <int height, Beacon-ScriptSig> descending, meaning we know how recent a CPID mined a block.

Let us assume the hashtarget is influenced by the Age of the last mined BeaconScriptSig for the researcher.

Meaning that the longer it has been since a CPID mined a block, the easier it is for that CPIDs script sig to mine a block.

An empty BeaconScriptSig (IE for an investor) would be treated as Age Max, meaning it would be similar to brute force attack on the block (IE pure POW).

An associated BeaconScriptSig would result in influencing the targethash by age of the last paid BeaconScriptSig.

Brute forcing a block through POW would require computing power of let us say, one day of work on the reference machine, while Beacon associated work would influence the hash to be one hour.

 

In this way, blocks would be solved in 2.5 mins consistently, with the existing DGW diff, however targethash is modified by Researcher Last Paid age,

and would result in block payments iterating mostly in the order of researcher paid age, and this would offer no advantage for one to create a new key to try to mine outside of the researcher scope.

Creating multiple CPIDs: Make a new CPID equal to max age.  It will not hurt the researcher as their payments are airdropped anyway.  Removing new CPID attack vector from this.

 

So I think in light of what you raised Charlatan, this would be the enhancement we would add to our green miner and we could then call it a green-POR-miner, since it is primarily CPID based and would have a custom POR hashes.

It would allow mining at minimum speed, and would result in payments iterating in order of payment age.

 

The diff level could be set in a way to ensure brute forcing the blocks is very tough.

 

Thank you for reminding us of the complexity of the problem, and I am committed to solving this in a novel and secure way for our community!

This sounds already like an improvement, but even with the addition of a BeaconScriptSig it is still possible to attack. First generate multiple CPIDs and register each of them with a burn transaction. For a burn transaction costing 1 GRC this is still very cheap compared to the consequences an attack would have. Then let them mature such that the hashtarget for each them is greatly reduced when mining a block. Then execute the mining attack again with a much higher nonce by signing each mined block with a different beacon. Your proposed fix might even work better for the attackers side, since he could accrue mature beacons in a much simpler manner and increase his chance of success. You could include the magnitude for each beacon in the difficulty calculation again, but then it would be near impossible for an investor to mine and it would open the blockchain for a replay attack. If this were the case I don't see what the benefit of this "Green Mining" scheme would be over using Proof of Stake.


The Charlatan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Doing the rebase all at once removes a lot of IT overhead and barriers and straightens the path for some of the higher challenges.  For one, we have to implement the piecemeal solutions in more of a custom coded way using the old codebase as it has veered off from the latest bitcoin base.

 

Yes, but why the switch to Masternodes?  We could go to an updated PoS codebase such as Ouroboros or even Graphene or EOS.  I strongly believe we should stay away from Graphene for now (only because it is still relatively new), but I would still support a switch to Graphene over Masternodes.  I would support a switch to Ouroboros over Graphene, Masternodes, and probably our current PoS system.  Ouroboros formally defines Proof of Stake (the first protocol to do so) and was developed through a peer review process (also the first protocol to do so).  That sounds like science to me!  What you're proposing is based off of heuristic development and arbitrary trust -- two things that strike fear into the heart of almost everyone.

 

Quote

Two the Dash base with the right abstraction design for Gridcoin solves almost every fundamental issue on the complaint list.

 

I strongly disagree.  Could you please share your complaint list and explain how the DASH base addresses these complaints?

 

Your third reason is the same as your first reason = ).

 

Quote

The success level of Various Masternode coins (not just dash) has been great also, giving me the impression that when investors have a propensity to leave the GRC invested in the escrow lease, and receive ROI they tend to not withdraw and spend it which in turn is good for our price.

 

Define success please.  It sounds like you view success as a rise in price.  I believe that this must not be a priority of Gridcoin.  If we focus on building something with utility, price will follow.  If we focus on price, utility will die.  Again, there are ways to encourage holding while improving the utility of Gridcoin.  I see nothing in this proposal which will increase support for BOINC, adoption of Gridcoin/BOINC, and increased use of open publishing/open access distributed computing networks.

 

------------------

 

I would like to hear your thoughts on how governments and regulators might react to fully anonymous protocols.  This question was first brought up by @C.M

 

Could you please detail the differences between Dynamic Witness Participation and PoSE when it comes to voting on the TCD dataset to be collected from BOINC?

 

Above all, please illustrate the "original vision" for Gridcoin which you mentioned on page 1 of this thread.  Then please describe how Masternodes work to achieve this vision.  I do not think there is any brainwashing going on, but perhaps the community has grown and evolved along with the vision, which is generally a good thing = ).  @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TheCharlatan said:

This sounds already like an improvement, but even with the addition of a BeaconScriptSig it is still possible to attack. First generate multiple CPIDs and register each of them with a burn transaction. For a burn transaction costing 1 GRC this is still very cheap compared to the consequences an attack would have. Then let them mature such that the hashtarget for each them is greatly reduced when mining a block. Then execute the mining attack again with a much higher nonce by signing each mined block with a different beacon. Your proposed fix might even work better for the attackers side, since he could accrue mature beacons in a much simpler manner and increase his chance of success. You could include the magnitude for each beacon in the difficulty calculation again, but then it would be near impossible for an investor to mine and it would open the blockchain for a replay attack. If this were the case I don't see what the benefit of this "Green Mining" scheme would be over using Proof of Stake.

Thanks, Im glad you agree it sounds like an improvement.  Finally, I think we are on stable footing for the design.  As part of iFoggzs requirements is to Not Allow Beacon Spam, Not allow Duplicate records per CPID or Address, and, since I added a rule that says New CPIDs start at the Max age, there is no attack vector for creating new cpids with no RAC.  This is enforced because iFoggz has a rule where the memory pool actually checks the validity of CPID registrations with BOINC, otherwise burn is not allowed in the chain.  So the attack you describe above is not a possible attack.

 

iFoggz does have part of his requirement to prevent replay attacks as well- he is aware othat exploit and has a nonce in the registration process,so that is not valid either.

 

So far, this new green POR miner will hold up.  I dont think anyone here will find a way to break it.  The POW bustication is possible porting the POR algo to an asic, but the bar will be so high it is finanacially useless to do that.

 

One side benefit of this new POR miner is now the researcher earner 60% through boinc and 10% through blockchain mining - an improvement they soreley deserve.  The remaining 30% goes to the masternodes for POSE.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

since we have been around for a few years we already have a large distribution footprint (of GRC per distinct user)

 

This is untrue.

 

https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@erkan/the-top50-grc-addresses-own-48-of-all-gridcoins

 

Note that this is addresses and not distinct users.  It is likely that more than one of these addresses belong to the same person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the posts in quick succession -- I lost the whole post and have had to write it from scratch.  I keep noticing parts I forgot to put back in =).

 

Quote

Regarding "proof of research", that is exactly what this proposal does.

 

Proof of Research means building a blockchain based on the proof of research done.  Just as Proof of Work is building a blockchain based on work done (hashing) and Proof of Stake is building a blockchain based on stake.  A Proof of Research blockchain would require that at least 51% of the blocks in the chain are made based on research done.  This Masternode proposal is not a proof of research algorithm -- 0% of the blocks will be made based on research done.

 

This is not PoR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

Yes, but why the switch to Masternodes?  We could go to an updated PoS codebase such as Ouroboros or even Graphene or EOS.  Ouroboros formally defines Proof of Stake (the first protocol to do so) and was developed through a peer review process (also the first protocol to do so).  That sounds like science to me!  What you're proposing is based off of heuristic development and arbitrary trust -- two things that strike fear into the heart of almost everyone.

-> I have an affinity for masternodes for a primary reason other than increases in price, let me insist that 90% of the affinity is for feature abstraction and not based on price.  Dash did the heavy lifting regarding prod testing of the phases required to securely aggregate, budget, vote, create a superblock, trigger a superblock and pay in a superblock, and I analyzed the gobject voting code, and my assessment is this particular process fits our problem to the highest degree.  Im sure one could shoehorn Ouroboros by adding custom code, but the problem here is not solving our green-proof of stake miner, its solving scalability requirements to pay the entire boinc network.  Dash appears to be a closer fit to the solution than starting with ourboros.

 

32 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

 

I strongly disagree.  Could you please share your complaint list and explain how the DASH base addresses these complaints?

-> In my opinion here are the major problems, and the reason I say the solution is fitting:  The latest bitcoin security, script and feature commits, gitian build, mac and windows installer, scalability for airdropping the NN payments to 7000 researchers(dashs budgeting and superblock system), elimination of dynamic witness requirement with dashs gobject voting and superblock modulus, instantsend for small blockchain sizes, Rewards for proof-of-service (solves the online participation issue), Rewards for replacement of interest bearing accounts (POSE), the ability to rank neural nodes (the ranking algorithm can order neural nodes by rank) for cool features for "chosen nodes" (IE the concept that a chosen node acts on an instantsend signal alone), secure voting, neural node assets meaning we have more ability to run custom code in the future if we ever need to add something to only the neural network side.

 

32 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

 

Define success please.  It sounds like you view success as a rise in price.  I believe that this must not be a priority of Gridcoin.  If we focus on building something with utility, price will follow.  If we focus on price, utility will die.  Again, there are ways to encourage holding while improving the utility of Gridcoin.  I see nothing in this proposal which will increase support for BOINC, adoption of Gridcoin/BOINC, and increased use of open publishing/open access distributed computing networks.

-> In my opinion success is revamping gridcoins wallet code, so each concise feature is solid, that the wallet is always in sync, the system is efficient, and utilizes its memory structure efficiently, is very scalable, and therefore the global codebase becomes a pleasure to maintain by the devs.

 

32 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

 

I would like to hear your thoughts on how governments and regulators might react to fully anonymous protocols.  This question was first brought up by @C.M

-> I feel that they may impose rules per country to add tracking per wallet, once central banks feel a pinch and a devaluation of their native currency.

32 minutes ago, jringo said:

Could you please detail the differences between Dynamic Witness Participation and PoSE when it comes to voting on the TCD dataset to be collected from BOINC?

-> I defer to Marco on this.

32 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

Above all, please illustrate the "original vision" for Gridcoin which you mentioned on page 1 of this thread.  Then please describe how Masternodes work to achieve this vision.  I do not think there is any brainwashing going on, but perhaps the community has grown and evolved along with the vision, which is generally a good thing = ).  @Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin)

-> I only meant the original vision of the Neural Network, to not be limited in function by being just a payment mechanism and stat keeper.  I meant I expected us to have some sort of groundbreaking feature that no other coin has and for that to live in the neural network, but that is a very tough concept knowing now how hard it is to create a decentralized feature that scales and meets every security requirement :).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) said:

Thanks, Im glad you agree it sounds like an improvement.  Finally, I think we are on stable footing for the design.  As part of iFoggzs requirements is to Not Allow Beacon Spam, Not allow Duplicate records per CPID or Address, and, since I added a rule that says New CPIDs start at the Max age, there is no attack vector for creating new cpids with no RAC.  This is enforced because iFoggz has a rule where the memory pool actually checks the validity of CPID registrations with BOINC, otherwise burn is not allowed in the chain.  So the attack you describe above is not a possible attack.

 

iFoggz does have part of his requirement to prevent replay attacks as well- he is aware othat exploit and has a nonce in the registration process,so that is not valid either.

 

So far, this new green POR miner will hold up.  I dont think anyone here will find a way to break it.  The POW bustication is possible porting the POR algo to an asic, but the bar will be so high it is finanacially useless to do that.

 

One side benefit of this new POR miner is now the researcher earner 60% through boinc and 10% through blockchain mining - an improvement they soreley deserve.  The remaining 30% goes to the masternodes for POSE.

If this is the proposal, it seems like there won't be an "investor" anymore. Also, it opens up the blockchain directly for attacks from manipulating BOINC servers. Currently you can only give yourself a higher magnitude and more payout, but if you include BOINC project stats directly into the mining/block creation process, you will leave the door open for this kind of attack vector to completely disrupt the block creation process. If gridcoin were to be a success and the financial incentive for such an attack would rise, the likelihood of this occuring is too high in my opinion, since every BOINC server would be a single point of failure.


I strongly believe, that no BOINC data should be used to decide who creates the next block. This process is just too insecure to have a crypto-currency rely on it. I believe this was noticed over the years (with several successful attacks executed) and should really not be an option anymore. Stats should only be used to determine the mint. 


The Charlatan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jringo said:

 

This is untrue.

 

https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@erkan/the-top50-grc-addresses-own-48-of-all-gridcoins

 

Note that this is addresses and not distinct users.  It is likely that more than one of these addresses belong to the same person.

 

Alright, I hope we dont drag the community into the quagmire here.  Ive been around working in the background even while everyone thinks Ive left.  Every week something happens, we either have integration partners conversations, contact at gridcoin emails, support problems, superblock emergencies, web gatherer failures, and now for a few months Ive been making simulated environments.  

 

Im not one who comes in here to misrepresent the community; I want the best for this community.

 

I'm going to say this in a succinct way:  I watch the external node connections, the peers.dat, the CPID beacon count, and we have over 2500 distinct GRC users.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jringo said:

Apologies for the posts in quick succession -- I lost the whole post and have had to write it from scratch.  I keep noticing parts I forgot to put back in =).

 

 

Proof of Research means building a blockchain based on the proof of research done.  Just as Proof of Work is building a blockchain based on work done (hashing) and Proof of Stake is building a blockchain based on stake.  A Proof of Research blockchain would require that at least 51% of the blocks in the chain are made based on research done.  This Masternode proposal is not a proof of research algorithm -- 0% of the blocks will be made based on research done.

 

This is not PoR.

Sorry, but I think you must be misunderstanding the concept here.

 

If we have 576 blocks per day, and promise to pay out 50,000 GRC per day for research activity, that is 86 GRC would be allocated per block for research.  That means that we would set the block payment so that the block pays 150grc per block (like we did when we started), 90 is held back for research, 45 is held back for Neural Nodes, and 15 grc is paid to the one who mines the block in a green fashion.

 

Throughout the day, all the boinc work is completed and the payment is airdropped from the superblock which pays much, much higher than normal (50,000 GRC).

 

Thats green and lean, and based on POR.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCharlatan said:

If this is the proposal, it seems like there won't be an "investor" anymore. Also, it opens up the blockchain directly for attacks from manipulating BOINC servers. Currently you can only give yourself a higher magnitude and more payout, but if you include BOINC project stats directly into the mining/block creation process, you will leave the door open for this kind of attack vector to completely disrupt the block creation process. If gridcoin were to be a success and the financial incentive for such an attack would rise, the likelihood of this occuring is too high in my opinion, since every BOINC server would be a single point of failure.


I strongly believe, that no BOINC data should be used to decide who creates the next block. This process is just too insecure to have a crypto-currency rely on it. I believe this was noticed over the years (with several successful attacks executed) and should really not be an option anymore. Stats should only be used to determine the mint. 

Well, the investor who wants to be a pure investor would lease a neural node.  They would spend $2000 on GRC, lease a neural node from VULTR, set up the software, and then receive about $100 a month in ROI (totally a guess, just for an example here) and leave the $2000 of GRC locked up.  So the terminology might change but correct there would be no investor CPID, no proof-of-stake, no interest, etc.

 

So let me delve into your concern here on boinc data to put you at ease.  There would be No private info in any block.  The block would have a scriptSig that associates itself with a burned beacon that exists somewhere in the chain, and that beacon just has a CPID and a public GRC address in it.  The block only contains the block hash and the bitcoin fields.  To understand how boinc plays in this, in our masternode network of say 500 nodes, about 25% of them would run Marcos TCD function (which generates a TCD text file).  That boinc information gathered is only shared among the neural network nodes who vote that day (basically there is a chainparam that Im allowed to choose for Minimum Network Voting Participation, this is a percentage of NET YES's (minus NOs)) so if I make it 25%, that means we need more than 25% of the neural network to sign this file with a YES.  So even this file does not contain personal information or get hashed into blocks, its just info shared among the neural network!  So I hope that quells your concern :).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) said:

Well, the investor who wants to be a pure investor would lease a neural node.  They would spend $2000 on GRC, lease a neural node from VULTR, set up the software, and then receive about $100 a month in ROI (totally a guess, just for an example here) and leave the $2000 of GRC locked up.  So the terminology might change but correct there would be no investor CPID, no proof-of-stake, no interest, etc.

 

So let me delve into your concern here on boinc data to put you at ease.  There would be No private info in any block.  The block would have a scriptSig that associates itself with a burned beacon that exists somewhere in the chain, and that beacon just has a CPID and a public GRC address in it.  The block only contains the block hash and the bitcoin fields.  To understand how boinc plays in this, in our masternode network of say 500 nodes, about 25% of them would run Marcos TCD function (which generates a TCD text file).  That boinc information gathered is only shared among the neural network nodes who vote that day (basically there is a chainparam that Im allowed to choose for Minimum Network Voting Participation, this is a percentage of NET YES's (minus NOs)) so if I make it 25%, that means we need more than 25% of the neural network to sign this file with a YES.  So even this file does not contain personal information or get hashed into blocks, its just info shared among the neural network!  So I hope that quells your concern :).

The problem has nothing to do with the data containing personal information, but rather that a single compromised/rogue BOINC server could disrupt the block creation process. If you scale to many projects and would need to rely on every single one of their project servers playing by our rules and implement strong security measures, this will end in a successful attack at some point that.

If just the mint is affected by a misbehaving project server, it would be noticed after some time, the project would be de-whitelisted and the damage done to the network would be minimal.

I do not see why this scenario should be potentially risked, when we have other proposals that offer much better security to the network.


The Charlatan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheCharlatan said:

The problem has nothing to do with the data containing personal information, but rather that a single compromised/rogue BOINC server could disrupt the block creation process. If you scale to many projects and would need to rely on every single one of their project servers playing by our rules and implement strong security measures, this will end in a successful attack at some point that.

If just the mint is affected by a misbehaving project server, it would be noticed after some time, the project would be de-whitelisted and the damage done to the network would be minimal.

I do not see why this scenario should be potentially risked, when we have other proposals that offer much better security to the network.

 

Ok, I understand you are talking about compromising project servers, not personal info, lets hone in on that.

 

First, I want to say if I have the ability to compromise the WCG server, I do not actually Hose the daily superblock for all the researchers.  The blockchain moves on paying 15 grc out for 575 blocks, and if for some reason the TCD file is not generated, block 576 - the superblock is going to pay 15 grc.  So there is no actual security compromise.  Now lets say the TCD file IS generated, and it skipped WCG.  That means that the superblock pays 50,000 grc but all the non-WCG boincers get more GRC (based on the higher magnitude) for that day.

 

Your scenario, attacking WCG server, has to do with how nimble the whitelist is.  iFoggz expressed concern that we need a more nimble whitelist.  So lets talk about that for a minute.

We planned on creating a gobject for the whitelist (this is a GUID).  The wallet will have a command that allows the NN to vote on adding or removing a whitelisted project.

 

In the scenario you describe, we would need 10% of the NN nodes to vote to remove WCG.  If the community does not like the whielist I invite you to share a better way than whitelisting for this particular element of Gridcoin.

 

I must stress however that this particular problem does not take down the rest of this idea.  We need to isolate this issue as "vulnerability of project sites" and address it as our mitigation feature for "compromised" project site.

 

Currently the mitigation in this version is a new whitelist that is voted on by NN nodes.

 

I do see that we would need to have an IT volunteer give us a nice quick UI for this whitelist so we can respond quickly to the threat!  Rather than an rpc command.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob Halförd - (Gridcoin) said:

Well, the investor who wants to be a pure investor would lease a neural node.  They would spend $2000 on GRC, lease a neural node from VULTR, set up the software, and then receive about $100 a month in ROI (totally a guess, just for an example here) and leave the $2000 of GRC locked up.  So the terminology might change but correct there would be no investor CPID, no proof-of-stake, no interest, etc.

 

Based on the numbers I've seen, I would also agree with your assessment that there are over 2000 GRCers. But I find the above numbers out of left field.

1. If our concern is about user base, then when the  hell are we getting rid of the team requirement. Let's do that before we do this complicated re-engineering. Or at least let's allow another team or two to work with GRC so we can see the scalability issues.

 

2. I agree with others, sure we may have a lot of users but we don't have a lot of coins available. You, the foundation, and several others hold 50%+ of the coins and you're not going to magically start selling them, so how are these magical investors supposed to come in that would ensure we don't become more consolidated and exclude little guys that this network was intended to serve (i.e. the BOINCers)?

 

3. I find your use of $2000 - for instance - quite ludicrous and fanciful to legitimize your argument. 400,000 coins at 4 cents is $16,000. I don't know how many people are going to allow that amount of money to be held in escrow. And, if traditional economics holds, the price will increase as more coins are locked in escrow. So again, what happens to the little guys? It's not entirely cleanr to me how this plan benefits BOINCers rather than big fish.

 

But, of course, since the polling in the wallet is being done by the number of coins owned rather than by user count, I guess it doesn't matter what us little guys thinks. I'm a fairly large fish here compared to many other BOINCers that join our IRC channel at a holding of 70-80K GRCs, but I definitely don't understand this propose and how a BOINCer benefits.

 

4. I question why this proposal was completely left out of the road map options that were presented on STEEM-IT if there is really as much e-mail communication occurring? I was so proud of our developer community for coming together to present a cohesive view of what they wanted to accomplish...and, then this thing just torpedoes that cohesiveness...

Edited by Frank0051

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank0051 said:

 

Based on the numbers I've seen, I would also agree with your assessment that there are over 2000 GRCers. But I find the above numbers out of left field.

1. If our concern is about user base, then when the  hell are we getting rid of the team requirement. Let's do that before we do this complicated re-engineering. Or at least let's allow another team or two to work with GRC so we can see the scalability issues.

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Frank0051 said:

 

2. I agree with others, sure we may have a lot of users but we don't have a lot of coins available. You, the foundation, and several others hold 50%+ of the coins and you're not going to magically start selling them, so how are these magical investors supposed to come in that would ensure we don't become more consolidated and exclude little guys that this network was intended to serve (i.e. the BOINCers)?

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Frank0051 said:

3. I find your use of $2000 - for instance - quite ludicrous and fanciful to legitimize your argument. 400,000 coins at 4 cents is $16,000. I don't know how many people are going to allow that amount of money to be held in escrow. And, if traditional economics holds, the price will increase as more coins are locked in escrow. So again, what happens to the little guys? It's not entirely cleanr to me how this plan benefits BOINCers rather than big fish.

 

He's probably basing it on a minimum seat price of 50,000 coins, which he already said is a possibility, to be fair.

 

2 hours ago, Frank0051 said:

 

But, of course, since the polling in the wallet is being done by the number of coins owned rather than by user count, I guess it doesn't matter what us little guys thinks. I'm a fairly large fish here compared to many other BOINCers that join our IRC channel at a holding of 70-80K GRCs, but I definitely don't understand this propose and how a BOINCer benefits.

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, Frank0051 said:

4. I question why this proposal was completely left out of the road map options that were presented on STEEM-IT if there is really as much e-mail communication occurring? I was so proud of our developer community for coming together to present a cohesive view of what they wanted to accomplish...and, then this thing just torpedoes that cohesiveness...

 

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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