Quote from: Anon136 on March 26, 2015, 01:17:23 AM

Quote from: P3RS3US on March 26, 2015, 12:28:30 AM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 26, 2015, 12:20:42 AM

But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.

^Love it!

Quote

It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal.

Why a year? Seems arbitrary. Anyway with mining farms/bots etc I personally don't see a prolonged PoW phase doing much for distribution. Why not just get to the good stuff (PoS) sooner rather than later?
btw i entered in December so missed the mining phase by a lot. Wouldn't have made much difference to me anyway - I find GPU mining stressful.

Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.

So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch. It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.

I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.

Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.

Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.

Solid points. While the 2 week pow cannot be changed, perhaps the low price , to some extent, mitigates some of that. If the price to mine SDC was roughly around the price SDC was at for the past 3 months or so, would that equate to an equal distribution? If it were to cost me the same mining versus buying on the open market, can we consider that a wash? This is just theoretical, I'm unsure of mining costs vs. SDC price, but it does seem to be very low. At any rate, you raise some valid questions. Hope more people can chime in.