RE: Why I am Very Disappointed by the Upcoming V8 Removal of the Magnitude Component of the Gridcoin Staking Weight
All the conversation surrounding pools and the need to join them for new users, makes me question why are these changes being made (and with more frequency)? Sure, there are probably plenty of valid reasons for wanting to join and be a part of a pool.
However, there's been lots of discussion and work made to eliminate the team requirement, as well as changes implemented to allow new users to work independently and outside of pools. Wouldn't it make sense to be making changes and modifications that continue to allow more "independent" (ie: not requiring joining the pools in order to meet requirements, etc.) users?
It seems very counterintuitive to be implementing changes that continue to add more cause to join a pool.
Nothing against the pools, however, I think pools should continue to be an option, and if anything, we need to be re-examining changes that are moving the chain closer to essentially forcing pool membership. My thought is, the pool is one more additional layer that generates increased constraints and hurdles, which ultimately, are the roadblocks of enhancing blockchain membership.
Sure, however the recently proposed & implemented changes are required due to severe network security risks associated with stake weight assigned to magnitude. Improvements to POR payout prioritization will likely come with time, you can help brainstorm such improvements in here/slack/github.
If you check out the github gridcoin-research wiki for the incompatible changes, there are many proposed changes worthy of reading through. There are great improvements coming to increase the accuracy of POR payouts, so don't think that we aren't taking POR users in mind when changes are made to the network.
On the contrary, you can use the pool to avoid running the Gridcoin client entirely & send your coins to a mobile wallet or exchange - vastly easier than running a staking client. Sure blockchain membership is desirable, that's why we want to prioritize network security over POR payout prioritization (not that this will be a permanent debuff to researchers).
So, not to belabor the point, but I want to be crystal clear, you did just say that this is indeed a debuff to researchers?
If that is the case, I want those that keep "informing" me it's not, to stick it and I pass that baton over to you, because, like I said, it's driving me nutso.
I will forever now say, lightheartedly, honest, "It is so because cm-steem / custom said so!"
Oh, and I would be remorseful if I did not say this, thank you for coming by and addressing the various comments! I, and I hope others do as well, sincerely appreciate it :)
V8 is a buff to security, at the cost of a debuff to researchers.
I invite anyone to try fault that.
^^^
It's potentially a debuff in that if you were highly reliant on magnitude based stake weight, then you may experience a reduced staking frequency. The improvement of the network security is a serious buff which is worthy of the slight POR debuff.
The reality may be different from the theories being thrown around, because with wildly fluctuating and unpredicatble mag weight out of the picture it may actually be the case that small/medium stakers experience an increased rate of staking. We'll have to wait until after the mandatory upgrade to provide a clear answer to your question.
My posts are that of my own, I do not represent the gridcoin network rather myself & I did not personally develop the v8 mechanisms, so don't go quoting me as official gridcoin fact.
Yes, we are aware Brod developed the V8 "fix".
As for frequency of staking, I'm at day ten plus now, honestly should have probably staked around the millionth, didn't, oh well, bad luck, however we'll never know for certain, as one person made sure that he staked it and no one else.
Thomas staking the millionth isn't stopping you from staking right now, likewise there's no way for you to have estimated that you'd have otherwise staked the millionth block.
I don't see how this comment is beneficial to the discussion, it's somewhat irrelevant to my comment & your quote of 'fix' isn't present in my comment. Did you mean to post to a different comment?
No one can make that prediction, that is correct, I stated as much saying that we would never know.
I put quotation marks around fix, because of the points we disagree on that is is indeed a fix, nothing more.
Let's not be argumentative, but agree to disagree there. That would also explain my "foxes guarding the henhouse" comment earlier, as Brod initiated the exploit, and is credited with fixing or "fixing" it afterward.
How I choose to comment is entirely my own doing, if you wish to judge whether it is relevant to the discussion or not, by all means, do so, but I am honestly going to say detante whether you wish it or not and take some good advice I recently received and not fall any farther down this rabbit hole.