Quote from: almightyruler on February 20, 2018, 11:10:49 AM

Quote from: yiminh on February 18, 2018, 05:14:42 PM

I don't think a network security is a issue, no one can prove 51% attack occuered, what we need is marketing like litecoin so many people will use it as a cheap payments

Network security is a big issue. Current network hashrate is 1.2MH/s. This coin can be attacked very easily now. A couple of Gridseed Orbs could 51% it.

The first thing that needs to be fixed is mining rewards, so there's an incentive to mine.

Until then there's little point marketing to build a community of end users.

The emphasis on network security is definitely vital. But in regards Mining Rewards, let's not forget the substantial fact that IFC was to be a transaction-fee supported coin, zero inflation. Like eventually Bitcoin and others, except IFC is encountering all the challenges first.

A key problem is, a minimum transaction fee was not enforced in the software, and the miners don't currently have enough political/economic power to force it.
Consequently, many exchanges and users are chintzing on the fee, like setting it to 1 ifc.

Meanwhile, some exchanges are charging huge fees for withdrawals, like 1%, with this money going straight into their own pockets, never making it back to the miners. Then they want to turn around and complain the network isn't secure enough, not their fault, etc.

If a good chunk of those 1% fees was going to mining rewards, that would substantially improve the mining incentive!

So, in addition to tech upgrades to the coin, or rebasing to newer code (which should also be explored if community has the resources), a couple other approaches that can be applied immediately with no risk are:

1) Education, pressure, beseech exchanges (and users) to set their mining transaction payout fees higher.

2) A software upgrade to more strongly suggest (and/or enforce) a higher transaction fee. This could be done without affecting the protocol. (It would still be possible for a determined user to set low fees by re-compiling with their own source code edits, but hardly anyone would do that.)

As part of these efforts, it would be useful to analyze/graph the transaction quantities and fees, and publish reports about totals per day, by payer, etc. Especially, if one could tie transactions back to specific exchanges, and chart/document their fee payouts, that could be a strong factor to help shame/motivate them into paying a reasonable mining reward.

We could also use donation/faucet funds to reward good exchanges and high-volume user wallets. Like with a "Rebate" to wallets that are paying out highest % fees, per week.

The general idea is: Rather than just use community funds to directly pay miners (which is essentially subsidizing the exchanges), use those funds to incentivize users/exchanges to produce more transactions and better fee payouts -- which in turn supports the miners, and network security.