You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why I am Very Disappointed by the Upcoming V8 Removal of the Magnitude Component of the Gridcoin Staking Weight
I agree it is alarming that this change is being made with zero input from the community. If I wasn't constantly stalking slack and steem I probably wouldn't know about it. Driving all miners with small wallets into the pool will essentially centralize the vast majority of mining being done. Additionally if GRC goes up a significant amount in value, which obviously we would like, the cost to acquire even 1k GRC will be too much. There must be a better way than a pure POS system.
This is to improve the network security, if the community seriously wants change then they should join in development (even just reading others posts & giving your opinion can help greatly).
It's a good thing that stake weight doesn't account for mag with the new system then.
A problem I look forwards to our community having to deal with, and we will no doubt deal with it when the time comes.
I guess my concern is mostly that there hasn't been much of a formal announcement with information from devs on reddit or steemit that I have seen. I feel like I follow the right people on Steem to have seen something but I expect most causal Gridcoin users are mostly just watching the reddit. To be fair Erkan did post something about it but I stopped reading his posts a while back.... To expect everyone to monitor the dec slack channel and sift through all of the technical talk for useful information is incredibly unreasonable. It does seem like there has been an effort from devs to be more transparent about what is happening, but it seems like right now it is typically coming several weeks after the fact.
I think ideally an actual dev would post version release notes on reddit and steemit when new versions come out. The notes Erkan c/p into his post for 3.6.0.1 doesn't mention anything about magnitude staking being removed. I'm not trying to raise a big stink, just think a little more communication would be beneficial.
Ya know, I mentioned having a summary of what is going on, the person doing it being compensated from dev compensation funds, and got lambasted about slavery. It was like Erelas's Law, ala Godwin's Law, the longer an internet discussion goes on, eventually someone will mention slavery.
Devs have been working on the required changes (and additional changes which are heavily detailed in the github branches, wikis, issues, etc) more or less full time, they can't do everything perfect - remember there isn't a centralized company behind Gridcoin but rather it's a decentralized/distributed community effort to develop/maintain/improve the gridcoin network.
Whilst it's true that it'd have been great to have announced the mag stake weight removal ahead of time, the required changes were required in a short time frame due to the network security issues associated with assigning stake weight to magnitude.
The consequential reduced POR payout rate will likely be addressed especially as our network grows (with the removal of the mandatory team req), we just need to research secure alternative methods of prioritizing POR payouts. You can see proposed changes in the github wiki & issues sections, you don't need to be programmer to help brainstorm.
There is indeed an editing backlog for the Gridcoin community hangouts (I trust you listen to them, at least the beyondbitcoin hangouts?) so you need to attend in order to hear the absolute latest news in person. These hangouts are incredibly transparent, anything not included is likely due to the information being unavailable to us at the time of a hangout.
Despite the backlog, we've not had the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of mag stake weight removal in a hangout yet.
My stance is that network security takes far greater priority than reward payout rate, however further research into secure POR reward prioritization should be explored/brainstormed as a community.
We're not perfect & there are many of us, so bear with us as we improve the communication issues that are being highlighted.
I think that there are a few that no longer, if they ever did, wish this community members opinion. Security is indeed key, but keeping the crunchers crunching is the entire point, otherwise research is not being done.
This is definitely going to increase the market capitalization for GRC, but I feel the system has been manipulated to do that, at the cost of the solo miner and personal faith in the system. If anyone can restore that, I'd be happy.
That and being predictive in what this change has caused. I feel it was predicted, but not by the majority of miners. In the short term, if I wish to remain with GRC and progress, then I should mine SIA and ETH, dump it, buy GRC, get a decent sized balance, then never research, and where does that benefit humanity?
If we do not prioritize core network security over payout frequency then we may come to find the rewards distributed to our crunchers rendered worthless. Temporary decreased payout frequency due to mag stake weight removal is a neccessity for the time being, if/when a more secure manner of prioritizing POR payouts is created it'll likely be implemented due to the sheer size of the BOINC network (500k-4m+ users can't buy a daily stake amount each, there isn't enough coins to go around).
The vast majority of the BOINC network crunches for free. Whilst team Gridcoin is the most powerful in terms of computing capacity it isn't the driving force behind the 99.5% of the BOINC network's volunteerism.
Somewhere in here, I did want to address listening to the hangouts. I've never bothered with them, because the deaf might listen very well, but they don't hear anything. Stated because you hoped we listened to them, I personally can't.
That said, it goes back to having a more centralized place for folks to get their information, can we pick one or two, not...all of them?
You also made the point that part of the development process is responding to comments, and I hope that includes here and in the forum, and that with all the times you've re-stated that security is the priority we might feel that the priorities, since that is being addressed be shifted to fixing the PoR situation created by the "fix", (that I will probably never be entirely happy with, not that my happiness is required, because of the name attached to it).
Foxes may know chicken houses inside and out, but they are not good guards for the chickens.
If you're deaf you should read the RSVP threads where the topics which were discussed are roughly documented and full of relevant hyperlinks, likewise enabling subtitles on youtube is fairly accurate.
I raised the hangouts because that's the most transparent medium we currently have, there's even some users providing transcribing recently.
We've got many platforms upon which our community is spread across, once we remove the team req this quantity of communication platforms will further increase (each individual team/technology forum). Even if you post on all of them, there's the high likelihood that users won't be online that day or week to take note (no to say that's a reason not to broadcast announcements).
Anything written in the announcement thread should seriously be considered lost, a couple pages after your post and nobody will ever see that content again. You're far better off creating dedicated threads in appropriate sub forums, as the announcement thread is more of a chatroom.
Likewise, it's best that once you have held discussions on here or on the forums that you curate your content into a concise stance on individual topics & provide that to the github issue or pull request. The lead devs aren't going to scour everyone's post history for their ideas.
The POR stake weight is not the next immediate priority, improving the accuracy of mag (potentially moving from rac to total credit (see thom's proposals)), the security/stability/predictability of superblocks and re-decentralizing the statistics scraping mechanisms are AFAIK the next high priority items.
If you disagree, you're entirely welcome to aid development regarding the functionality you desire to see implemented within the client.
Umm, I laugh at subtitles on YouTube regularly, they are not 100%, by far. Please, lol, don't tell a deaf person to turn on subtitles, I think we figured that one out a long time ago. I really do believe you didn't mean to offend, but that one was a fail, I'm just being easygoing about it, don't bank on others reactions being positive.