[Progress] Ideas for the Future
-
I was going to try and stay off the forum for a bit, but its too tempting. Well done for making this thread and keeping it on track, Spartan.
Of all of Kevlar’s ideas discussed in slack, one of the most extreme I think solves the most of the problems. Create the second chain and assimilate the first as either a sidechain or as counter party assets. As a sidechain you could remove miners and use the delegates proof of work as the proof of work for BC1, not in a dissimilar way to litecoin and doge merged mining.
Since delegates would be the only miners, coin tokens would be issued to them. However why stop there? Using Kevlar’s Coin Days Destroyed health metric to regulate inflation, coin production would essentially pause until such a time that the network was displaying traits of a healthy economy. Delegate miners would still have the incentive of the issuance of shares as the reward for mining even if coin production was paused so the cogs would keep turning. Neoscrypt would be redundant in this model (unless for historical sake, the delegates used it at low/zero difficulty)
And important point to add, is that voting shares and coin tokens are very different. If you want to buy a cup of coffee, you wouldn’t really want to use voting shares directly. You are not handing over shares, you are using tokens to simulate money. Both can exist, both have uses.
Because BC2 would be used as the primary chain, BC1 sidechain would benefit from faster transaction times. Decreasing the transaction times down to 10 seconds.
Advantages
BC1 get’s the love it needs.
No need for ACP. Both blockchains secured by the delegates.
Faster Transaction Times.
Inflation could be controlled.
Psychological link between the two chains. Since BC1 is dependant on BC2.Disadvantages
You’d pee off the miners. They would have to become delegates to get any reward.
Not everyone is in favour of changing the inflation model.
BC1 would be hard forked. All clients and exchanges would need to update, else miners could keep PoW going on their own fork.
If there’s no coin reward to issue, you could just use CP assets.
Time and effort put into Neoscrypt would be wasted -
If a new exchange services a different market then the current then it can increase liquidity.
Oh yeah?
Prove it.
I can show you ALL KINDS of times when a new exchange added a pair, and it resulted in a dilution of liquidity, not an increase. My statement is based on verifiable evidence. Would you like to verify it for yourself?
-
[Edit: Text deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]
[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated forum rules section1, rule 3]
Now, can we please get BACK on topic? If you want to flame me, there’s totally a separate topic for that…
-
I was going to try and stay off the forum for a bit, but its too tempting. Well done for making this thread and keeping it on track, Spartan.
Of all of Kevlar’s ideas discussed in slack, one of the most extreme I think solves the most of the problems. Create the second chain and assimilate the first as either a sidechain or as counter party assets. As a sidechain you could remove miners and use the delegates proof of work as the proof of work for BC1, not in a dissimilar way to litecoin and doge merged mining.
Since delegates would be the only miners, coin tokens would be issued to them. However why stop there? Using Kevlar’s Coin Days Destroyed health metric to regulate inflation, coin production would essentially pause until such a time that the network was displaying traits of a healthy economy. Delegate miners would still have the incentive of the issuance of shares as the reward for mining even if coin production was paused so the cogs would keep turning. Neoscrypt would be redundant in this model (unless for historical sake, the delegates used it at low/zero difficulty)
And important point to add, is that voting shares and coin tokens are very different. If you want to buy a cup of coffee, you wouldn’t really want to use voting shares directly. You are not handing over shares, you are using tokens to simulate money. Both can exist, both have uses.
Because BC2 would be used as the primary chain, BC1 sidechain would benefit from faster transaction times. Decreasing the transaction times down to 10 seconds.
Advantages
BC1 get’s the love it needs.
No need for ACP. Both blockchains secured by the delegates.
Faster Transaction Times.
Inflation could be controlled.
Psychological link between the two chains. Since BC1 is dependant on BC2.Disadvantages
You’d pee off the miners. They would have to become delegates to get any reward.
Not everyone is in favour of changing the inflation model.
BC1 would be hard forked. All clients and exchanges would need to update, else miners could keep PoW going on their own fork.
If there’s no coin reward to issue, you could just use CP assets.
Time and effort put into Neoscrypt would be wastedWell you left out all the other advantages. Like asset issuing, asset value pegging, a decentralized exchange, p2p loans… the list is quite extensive.
But good job at the initial pass MrWyrm. I look forward to this list being expanded.
-
sorry hadn’t you left?
-
It’s not about debate. It’s about repeating information that has repeatedly been debunked.
Information designed to mislead people, hurt people, and generally stop them from understanding what it is we’re talking about. That’s what a liar does: They tell lies.
[Edit: Text partially deleted as it violated Forum rules section1, rule 3]
It’s really disgusting behavior and I’m sick of having to defend myself from it.
And as usual the trolls can’t not take the discussion off topic. It always has to center around me. Not what’s good for the coin.
Edit: Well kelsey edited his post so he no longer was playing armchair doctor, trying to make me out to be the one with the problem. Now it just says, “sorry hadn’t you left?”. It was another good example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Kelsey, please, stop the trolling. It’s old.
-
Edit: Well kelsey edited his post so he no longer was playing armchair doctor, trying to make me out to be the one with the problem. Now it just says, “sorry hadn’t you left?”. It was another good example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Kelsey, please, stop the trolling. It’s old.
I edited my post purely because after I re read it, I deemed it possibly too harsh, I suggest on occasion you do the same ;)
