Quote from: tarmo888 on November 06, 2018, 03:58:02 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on November 06, 2018, 02:27:20 PM

Although it is not in the spirit of crypto. Perhaps regarding the way forward just in the short term. The distribution could be done a bit like this.
Those perhaps locking down the most BB for the longest periods would receive the greatest % rewards which were tiered. Sort of like a tiered pos scheme.

Most people think it is a crazy idea but I wonder what a public appeal to those ico managers that claimed huge amounts for free at the start to return just 50% of the bytes to be used in such a tiered POS scheme would achieve?
PR is quite important and those ico managers that have not already distributed the BB to their investors might like to show how fair they can be. Of course a polite request not to partake in our new pos scheme and suck them all back would be cool

Just ideas, may be technically impossible or just logically unsound.

Locking down someones address in crypto world is worse than changing the distribution. If that fork would happen then the price would go below $1 for sure.

PoW has the economy of scale, where the weaker players are darwinized, and the hash power gets concentrated in the hands of a few bigger miners.
PoS has the nothing in stake problem, where the validator has no downside for staking both forks.
https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/a/31476

Both of them are pseudo-anonymous, so you don't know who is the biggest. It can be that instead of 5 biggest, there is actually 2 biggest. This is especially bad for PoS because you don't even have to risk with real world cost (expensive mining rigs). This makes them vulnerable for Sybil attack. Solution for Sybil attack is non-anonymity or PoW.

Instead of PoW, Byteball has chosen non-anonymity for witnesses, who doesn't have the same powers as PoW miners too. They just make sure of the order of transactions, so there would not be double-spend. This means that until over half of the 12 witnesses don't collude, there can't be double-spends or transaction censoring. It doesn't matter who you are or how much transactions fee you pay, your transactions will be confirmed and final.

As you can see, all of them have their own pros and cons, depending what you think is important.

What does changing the consensus model now solve? What is the issue that is currently valid that it needs to be solved with tiered PoS right now? Keep the whales from dumping? Every coin has whales.

It is funny that everybody bitches about distribution change and how all the trust was immediately lost with that change, yet everybody also sees that there is something else that is fundamental to this coin, that should also be changed. How is that not gonna make it even more unstable?

There is simple process for fundamental changes, you just fork it and make your own coin, or you pick another coin to support. It's like a train, if you like where it is going then you get on it, if you don't then you get off and pick another train.

I'm not sure if you got what I really meant by locking down.

If you can voluntarily lock down a proportion of your coins for a certain amount of time. Those that volunteer to lock the most down for the longest time will attain a higher pos rate upon them becoming unlocked. I wasn't still talking about by force locking down those that got huge amounts of free coins. Although if they decided of their own free will to return say 50% of the BB they got for nothing by holding other peoples BTC then that would be nice for us here and could be used for the good of BB too in other ways.

Also you must not conflate changes that the vast majority of holders do not want because they saw that as not sating their speculative greed (full moon drops terminated) and which they assumed they had been promised....with changes the vast majority would perhaps like to see and were consulted on before hand That is not the same thing and would not kill trust in the same way.

Why does that mean changing the consensus model?

I didn't mean make it a tiered POS model as such. Just that it could be viewed as being like that. For example if you were to voluntarily lock down certain amounts of BB for certain amounts of time you would be awarded larger reward than those locking down less for less time. This would be how the final 22% was distributed over time. You could even perhaps say if you locked down more for longer and in addtion to this were actively promoting BB (with some criteria to meet for this) and even higher pos rate could be attained.

Anyway just ideas but of course like I said that could not be automated to a level that made it practical or feasible.

I think you are improving nicely on your people skills but the words bitching ect are still not perfect. It is nice to be able to discuss things even with people that you believe do not understand or are asking for unreasonable or even impossible things in a manner than does not offend or sound condescending. That level of diplomacy is a great skill that can only benefit the project in the long term.

Also just explaining clearly why things are unreasonable or impossible with no real upside is better than telling people go fork your own version. Of course 99.99% of people here have no possible way to do this as they do not have the skill set but can still be valuable to keep on side when considering building a big community and creating a network effect.