Quote from: shveicar on May 01, 2017, 06:43:10 PM

Quote from: Berzeck on May 01, 2017, 04:58:42 PM

It means that bitcoin has using version 0.8.x up to december 2013 (and many nodes up to 2014) with tens of times more transactions, nodes, etc than wdc and network was not 'disturbing' even then. Many changes that came after that, patches scalability problem giving more time to the network; we do not have those problems right now because number of transactions are very very low in comparison, if you change to a PoW + PoS scheme that should secure a little more the network for a hashrate attack but what you do not realize is that performing a sybill atack is hundreds of times cheaper and easier to destroy a network something even btc is susceptible to. So you want fortify the front door with reinforced steel but you leave the back window open; feeling more secure.
As a side note: PoW will be changed in the future because its an enormous waste of power, the trend technology improves is always in the other direction; there are many experimental schemes that do not waste so much power that will supersede PoW, therefore securing hashrate is definitely a temporary solution because it will be changed again in the future.

But we do not need to argue about this, because as I said if someone else will invest time in temporal improvements I do not have a problem with that. We will coordinate and make the improvements

But some guidelines first:
*We won't use alpha status code (like your last proposal), that would be crazy and very reckless (to say the least) move.because it can kill the network. Changing core crypto functions is hard, changing it correctly with a decent QA is EXTREMELY HARD; it would be suicide if we try to implement alpha code for a new scheme and try to perform QA (Quality Assurance) ourselves
Whats more how exactly this proposal changes the 'disturbing' status of the network?!?!?!?
*We won't change to some experimental scheme which is a project of a single coin (related to point 1)
*The candidate schemes should be currently used and proved to work in production code (Pow + PoS for example)
In the past you wanted to change to some established PoW + PoS which can't hurt (done right of course), other proven schemes could work too

About voting:
Example:
  suppose there are 4 options:
  we will send to your address 0.1 wdc for option 1, 0.2 wdc for option 2 and so on (to whatever you put your vote).
  you have to send us back the amount for your vote to count
  the address used to send the coins will be checked for the amount of WDC you have in it.

  More coins more vote power.

Before we start vote, we need to agree on technical changes and only then vote for them.
You argue that any change with the addition of masternodes can lead to a catastrophe.
Then let's look at the my old sentence and then how the nearest coins to us (for example Potcoin, and scrypt algo) went to the POW + POSv mechanism https://github.com/potcoin/Potcoin-Seeder
Personally, I do not see that this coin is experiencing network problems, such as we now see at WDC.

I also propose to translate this discussion into a slack channel, that would not fill this forum with different ideas and reflections.

If you want, you can start a new slack channel or join the fact that I discovered worldcoin-group.slack.com (For me it does not matter)

Friend, we obviously have a problem of communication, what I am arguing is that the link you put as a reference clearly states that it is ALPHA code, and clearly states that it still needs a lot of testing BEFORE putting it in production; its nuts to use that code in our network
I also clearly state that I am OK with PoW + PoS (please, we really need to read carefully to avoid misundertstandings)

It would be better to use the official forum to backup the arguments before the poll. Also this first thread that will be put is just choosing candidates (like PoW + PoS)