Gridcoin Hangout #43! SummarysteemCreated with Sketch.

in gridcoin •  11 days ago

Gridcoin Community Hangouts #43!

pexels-photo-443356.jpeg

(Please note that this article is only to summarise the questions and points that were brought up in the 43rd hangout. It does not cover every detail of the discussion. You can read the first summary of the Gridcoin Proposals here)

Attendance

(In approximate order of arrival to the channel)
fkinglag0, @geebell, @tomasbrod, @mercosity, @peppernrino, @jringo, zipty, @confuest, The Earl, KookiDo - late, @coltwlf - late, @ifoggz - late.

Thanks and introduction:

As always a big thank you to the BeyondBitcoin community & @officialfuzzy for hosting the BeyondBitcoin Mumble server and allowing Gridcoin the free use of this resource!

As always the hangouts started with an introduction by @peppernrino (hereafter referred to as Rino) who not only hosts the show but also arranges these hangouts and does the edits of most of the recordings. This week’s hangout followed, in order of the most number of upvotes, the topics submitted by the community in the comments of the Gridcoin Community Hangout Post. It was also noted that it was Remembrance Day.

Topics:

Constant Block Rewards

The first item on the docket was the 2nd 4.0-2018 roadmap discussion focusing on the economy of Gridcoin through the Constant Block rewards proposal in Gridcoin Research 4.0 post.

The purpose of the discussion was to focus on the impact of Constant Block Rewards on the economy of Gridcoin. The current problem is that 1.5% interest is earned on all coins whether they are actively staking or not. This means some investors keep their wallets offline and only come online for a few hours when they want to collect their interest which is paid to them in the next block they stake. It is very clear when these investor “whales” come online to quickly stake their coins as the difficulty of the network spikes.

When more coins are staking on the network there is less chance of persistent forks in the blockchain and it is theoretically more challenging to attack the network. Constant Block Rewards aims to encourage investors to keep their coins staking by minting a set reward of GRC for every block staked. The more coins staking the more frequently that staker would stake a block.

Fkinglag asked why we don’t simply tweak the current system as CBR seems like a radical change. Tomáš responded that it’s just two or three lines of code that are needed to implement Constant Block Rewards. Making changes to the current system would be more challenging from a technical viewpoint than moving to this new reward system.

@jringo mentions that while simple from a technical viewpoint, it is a radical economic change that needs to be explored along with alternatives before being implemented.

With regard to Constant Block Rewards, Rino suggested that Total Credit Delta (a replacement of the Recent Average Credit calculation) could be implemented first and the community could see how that fairs. Other community members in the hangout agreed as Constant Block Rewards can be seen as a substantial economic change.

Rino also asked if more coins are online would present an easier opportunity for any type of attack on the blockchain. Tomáš indicated that no, “more coins on the network can only be a good thing.” Rino reiterated his opinion that we should fix as many bugs as we can before making changes.

Tomáš agreed and reminded everyone that there are two things to fix: bugs which make forks easier (blocks need to be able to find the longest chain) and a low network weight which threatens the security and stability of the blockchain.

Tomáš also shared that the testnet (a test version of the entire Gridcoin blockchain) is currently working on fixing a fork bug. This means that in addition to the proposed Constant Block Rewards the devs are actively working on improvements to the stability of the current system.

Long Term Problems with Interest

KookiDo noted that there is a set number of GRC minted by research per day while the number of GRC minted by interested is exponential. As the number of GRC minted to pay interest goes up, won’t the number of research coins rewarded per day approach relative zero? The answer essentially boiled down to “yes, eventually”.

Read more on the problem at: Gridcoin Reward Mechanism and How to Improve It

Newer and Older Roadmaps

Fkinglag mentioned that there has been a roadmap for a while. The multisig nature of the Gridcoin Research 4.0 proposal makes it look like it is an attempt at overwriting the older roadmap. This was not the intention of the original authors but was rather to facilitate discussion around current ideas. Over this coming week the older roadmap will be looked into to see if and how the two roadmaps can be integrated.

More Information:

Discussion Surrounding CM's Comment

@cm-steem’s comment can be found here. To summarise it, he provides some disadvantages and advantages of Sharedropping to a Graphene codebase as well as detailing CM-SSA.

Time was taken to read CM’s comment live in the hangouts and reflections were levied on some areas.

Rino strongly agreed that a Graphene as a New codebase will have a large developer learning curve.

It was noted that Constant Block Rewards can fix low stake weight thus negating this as an advantage of a move to graphene.

Overall it was felt that there was more value in Sharedropping to a more modern version of the current type of blockchain based on the bitcoin codebase when compared to switching to Graphene.

Regarding CM-SSA Beacon proposal CM comments that he felt that his proposal was misrepresented, so provides the informative reply he had previously posted – this can be viewed by following the link in the heading of this section. His clarification of CM-SSA was included in the previous summary of proposal discussions.

Main sections commented on while reading his comment included:

”Example alternative uses [of openssl based userid ownership proof]: … Anything that requires proof of BOINC account ownership.”

This could facilitate commercialisation of BOINC projects; this proof could be used by independent parties who wish to offer monetary compensation for work on their projects which produce Intellectual Property results. The cost to those independent parties would be a fraction of the cost of renting a centralized supercomputer to perform their for profit IP calculations. This is not necessarily in line with the open source, open results, altruistic grid computing nature of Gridcoin and BOINC. While this can be done independently by individual companies if they so choose, Gridcoin might not want to facilitate this process by encouraging projects to freely offer the required tools. If a company wants to pay people for their own private computations on the BOINC infrastructure, they should be required to build their own tools for doing so. Is there a way that the possibility of commercialisation could be reduced?

“Projects may decide they don't want to support such a feature, to which we would retort with removing them from the whitelist? Lol..”

Lol.. No.
It’s either all in or not at all. The whitelisted projects have been chosen specifically by the community through polling. The only way that the above can take place is if a poll is first passed regarding this decision.

”We could remove the team requirement instantly with this, as it's absolute proof of account ownership.”

Removing the team requirement will probably drastically increase the user base of Gridcoin. This could have the effect of unintentionally creating a Denial of Service attack on project servers. It is recommended that something like the proposed Dynamic Witness Participation for the creation of superblocks is instituted first. Once this is in place the institution of either Brod-SSA or CM-SSA can be implemented which would allow for the safe removal of the team requirement. Finally, it would be beneficial to have Gridcoin in a place where it can withstand the scrutiny of many new users when the team requirement is lifted. Examples of improvements in this regard would be the replacement of the confusing Recent Average Credit calculation with the simpler Total Credit Delta calculation as well as reducing the number of soft forks the network undergoes.

State of the Network

Jringo gave an account of the state of the Gridcoin network. A copy of which can be found here.

No hosts?

KookiDo pointed out that the user “Pomegranate-“ has zero hosts according to gridcoinstats while having one of the highest credit values. It was noted that it is possible to hide hosts on BOINC which means that block explorers like gridcoinstats cannot see the user’s number of hosts.

Additional information:

Next hangout!

Everyone is very welcome to join the Gridcoin Community Classroom #2 on Saturday, November 18 at 6PM UTC. You can check everytimezone for time zone info. You can follow these links to see the original announcement of the Gridcoin Community Classroom and the overview of the first Classroom.

Further thanks:

Thank you to @jringo for proofreading this article. Thank you to all the devs who are continuously working behind the scenes. Finally, appreciation is extended to everyone in the community who contributed to the hangouts – in person or otherwise. If you wish to take part in the conversation, join a community forum such as Steemit, CryptoCurrencyTalk,
Discord, reddit and Slack (request an email invite if you’d like to join)!

Here’s to the growth and development of Gridcoin!

Signed
GeeBell

Note to the reader: being relatively new to Steemit, you resteeming this article has a powerful effect and will be greatly appreciated.

pexels-photo-207247.jpeg

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

@jringo mentions that while simple from a technical viewpoint, it is a radical economic change that needs to be explored along with alternatives before being implemented.

I don't think we should delay the implementation of CBR any further, the stake weight has been dangerously low for the last few months, what good are new features if the stake weight drops enough to risk the continued existence of GRC?

Likewise, we've had two polls on this matter - both of which had a majority in favour of implementing such changes.


Discussion Surrounding CM's Comment

It was noted that Constant Block Rewards can fix low stake weight thus negating this as an advantage of a move to graphene.

CBR would likely improve the stake weight participaton, but if manual reward claim is implemented for POR we may end up in the same low stake weight situation as we currently are in & graphene wouldn't need anyone other than witnesses to run a node.

Overall it was felt that there was more value in Sharedropping to a more modern version of the current type of blockchain based on the bitcoin codebase when compared to switching to Graphene.

More value? Perhaps in terms of developer learning curve, but we'd still have substantial development undertakings to implement ontop of a bitcoin based blockchain - witnesses/delegates, manual reward claim, true decentralization of responsibilities/roles, secure voting, secure/redundant/accurate neural network.


Regarding CM-SSA Beacon proposal CM comments [...]
Main sections commented on while reading his comment included:

”Example alternative uses [of openssl based userid ownership proof]: … Anything that requires proof of BOINC account ownership.”

This could facilitate commercialisation of BOINC projects; this proof could be used by independent parties who wish to offer monetary compensation for work on their projects which produce Intellectual Property results.

My proposal does not neccessarily focus solely on commercial elements, I gave multiple non-commercial use cases. It would enable POR on any platform (economic/whatever).

The cost to those independent parties would be a fraction of the cost of renting a centralized supercomputer to perform their for profit IP calculations. This is not necessarily in line with the open source, open results, altruistic grid computing nature of Gridcoin and BOINC.

This has nothing to do with my proposal, your example applies to a commercial company deciding to utilize the BOINC network (DD@H for example) over the private cloud.

Likewise, the 'open results/altruistic' angle of BOINC is not mandatory, anyone can use BOINC for anything they want.

While this can be done independently by individual companies if they so choose, Gridcoin might not want to facilitate this process by encouraging projects to freely offer the required tools.

What? So because Gridcoin users aren't fond of commercial projects (even though the commercial projects WCG & DD@H are whitelisted) we shouldn't encourage them to improve/implement proof of userID ownership?

If a company wants to pay people for their own private computations on the BOINC infrastructure, they should be required to build their own tools for doing so. Is there a way that the possibility of commercialisation could be reduced?

Too bad, my proposal is MIT licensed & available for use by any future project forever. Likewise, BOINC isn't solely for non-profit scientific work, it's an open source middleware toolkit for distributed computing which can be used by anyone.

“Projects may decide they don't want to support such a feature, to which we would retort with removing them from the whitelist? Lol..”

Lol.. No.
It’s either all in or not at all. The whitelisted projects have been chosen specifically by the community through polling. The only way that the above can take place is if a poll is first passed regarding this decision.

The 'lol..' at the end of my sentence was supposed to imply that it wasn't a serious suggestion - project whitelist status demands a whitelist vote & we couldn't eject projects without such a poll.

That said, 'either all in or not at all' mentality is flawed, if we go down this route and several projects voice hardline objections then it's entirely justifiable to start the process of voting them out, similarly if project admins are entirely unresponsive (nobody at home - dangerous).

There could be a switch over period in which the old system was used, or perhaps projects which don't immediately implement it could have their CPID ownership proven implicitly by registering userID ownership across projects which shared the same CPID?

”We could remove the team requirement instantly with this, as it's absolute proof of account ownership.”

Removing the team requirement will probably drastically increase the user base of Gridcoin. This could have the effect of unintentionally creating a Denial of Service attack on project servers. It is recommended that something like the proposed Dynamic Witness Participation for the creation of superblocks is instituted first. Once this is in place the institution of either Brod-SSA or CM-SSA can be implemented which would allow for the safe removal of the team requirement. Finally, it would be beneficial to have Gridcoin in a place where it can withstand the scrutiny of many new users when the team requirement is lifted. Examples of improvements in this regard would be the replacement of the confusing Recent Average Credit calculation with the simpler Total Credit Delta calculation as well as reducing the number of soft forks the network undergoes.

CM-SSA would eliminate project server side checks for proving account ownership, reducing the load placed on their servers.

If manual reward claiming is implemented, then even with a massive surge in userbase we'll likely not see a massive increase in users running a client (perhaps the DOS against project servers wouldn't be a problem).

DWP is far off from implementation, the use of graphene would be a massive shortcut to realizing such functionality.

I'm all for TCD calc over RAC, but the majority of BOINC users in other teams are likely entirely aware of what RAC is.

Soft forks? The only intentional forks we've had are mandatory/hard forks/upgrades in the past & there are many to come w/ these radical proposals being put forwards by the community. I do agree that perhaps lifting the team req would be best when the network is more stable (it is currently not stable & between mandatory releases).

·

I don't think we should delay the implementation of CBR any further

Personally, I agree.

if manual reward claim is implemented for POR we may end up in the same low stake weight situation

Maybe we shouldn't do MRC then.

your example applies to a commercial company deciding to utilize the BOINC network (DD@H for example) over the private cloud.
Likewise, the 'open results/altruistic' angle of BOINC is not mandatory, anyone can use BOINC for anything they want.

True. (Note, that it's not my example. This section could have been worded more neutrally though and I'll attempt that in the future.)

BOINC isn't solely for non-profit scientific work

I'm reasoning aloud here... BOINC may not be, but what about Gridcoin? As you've pointed out there are already two commercialised projects though. I guess the approach of Gridcoin is irrelevant? We're just interested in fixing the CPID issues. What BOINC and the projects do with the tools is their business - it only becomes our issue if it relates to a whitelisted project.

if we go down this route and several projects voice hardline objections then it's entirely justifiable to start the process of voting them out, similarly if project admins are entirely unresponsive (nobody at home - dangerous).

Personally, agreed.

[projects] could have their CPID ownership proven implicitly by registering userID ownership across projects which shared the same CPID?

Can you expand on this?

Soft forks?

Forks in the blockchain caused by wallets staking simultaneously and different nodes following different chains until they revert back to the longest chain. Is there a different, better technical term for this?

·
·

I don't think we should delay the implementation of CBR any further

Personally, I agree.

If manual reward claim is implemented for POR we may end up in the same low stake weight situation

Maybe we shouldn't do MRC then.

In the past I've held a hardline opposition to 'manual reward claims', however the last year of using Steem & the ease of just clicking a button to earn your reward (available in NEOS too), I'm more positive about the idea.

It'd have to be secure though - If I can spam 1000 tx which require nodes to perform complex POR checks then you could effectively DOS nodes. If it's rate limited on the network then sounds good to me.

But aye, with regards to network stake weight - CBR would have to be implemented before MRC, hopefully that combined with an influx of non-invested users would help negate the low stake weight threat?

BOINC isn't solely for non-profit scientific work

I'm reasoning aloud here... BOINC may not be, but what about Gridcoin? As you've pointed out there are already two commercialised projects though. I guess the approach of Gridcoin is irrelevant?

Gridcoin - it really depends, our competitors without real compute environments but with a basic compute:token market are several orders more valuable than Gridcoin. I think that there is definitely an argument to be made for partially commercializing Gridcoin (say x% to commercial projects, majority y% guaranteed to non-profit/non-commercial projects).

I for one would be interested in a floating magnitude %, temporarily allocateable to projects based on burning (destruction) of GRC against project burn addresses.

links:
https://github.com/gridcoin/Gridcoin-Research/issues/536
https://cryptocurrencytalk.com/topic/38994-magnitude-multiplier/?page=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/5wb4bl/suggestion_make_another_type_of_list_greenlist/

We're just interested in fixing the CPID issues. What BOINC and the projects do with the tools is their business - it only becomes our issue if it relates to a whitelisted project.

Idd, my 'CM-SSA' proposal creates a simple absolute proof of userID ownership, it's not attached to any external project/agenda.

[projects] could have their CPID ownership proven implicitly by registering userID ownership across projects which shared the same CPID?

Can you expand on this?

Sure, currently we verify ownership of a CPID because this proves that you own the BOINC account which is logged into your local BOINC manager (projects running alongside each other in the same client merge CPID).

The CPID can change upon email change, or can split if an older project is introduced into your compute environment (register once, wait a year, introduce to a manager with 5 new projects w/ merged cpid --> split cpid to old cpid, as oldest cpid takes priority).

userID operates on an individual project basis, so we do need the user to perform the userID ownership registration process for each project (unless we introduce OAuth2 to automate the process). userID never changes so you can't accidentally invalidate your gridcoin registration.

Point is, if you verify your userID ownership, and that userID has a CPID 'x', and the project without CM-SSA support uses CPID 'x', we could assume ownership of CPID 'x' possibly.

Given the simplicity of the tool, it shouldn't be tough for any project that is using the official BOINC repo codebase, perhaps WCG who have their own homebrew java web back-end would need to make their own version of the script (or we'd need to perform implicit CPID ownership proof).

Soft forks?

Forks in the blockchain caused by wallets staking simultaneously and different nodes following different chains until they revert back to the longest chain. Is there a different, better technical term for this?

I'd call this network instability. We shouldn't be forking in this manner so frequently, yet we are due to low network stake weight. Every few days I find my wallet w/ diff 0.000... :/

·
·
·

partially commercializing Gridcoin

Am I correct in thinking that "project rain" ideas would link into this context? And that CM/BROD-SSA would make this (much) easier?

Point is, if you verify your userID ownership, and that userID has a CPID 'x', and the project without CM-SSA support uses CPID 'x', we could assume ownership of CPID 'x' possibly.

I understand!

·
·
·
·

partially commercializing Gridcoin

Am I correct in thinking that "project rain" ideas would link into this context? And that CM/BROD-SSA would make this (much) easier?

No, my idea for partial-commercialization of Gridcoin is to dedicate x% of total y% mag to a floating mag pool which can be allocated temporarily to projects based on quantity of GRC burned recently within individual project burn addresses.

Project rain is likely not going to be possible to implement within existing BOINC projects, however the code is MIT licensed on Github if anyone wants to run a BOINC project which after CPIDs merge can be used for sharedrop targeting.

CM/BROD-SSA aim to improve the current beacon system to be more secure & efficient. By proving userID ownership, nobody can steal your beacon and you don't need to worry about maintaining a CPID.

I don't know why I had it in my head that "hangouts" meant that everybody was actually getting together in real life over coffee or something. Yes, that's on me and I feel silly for not realizing sooner it's a digital world.
The room you guys talk in... is it typing or audio? If audio would someone with low speed ruin it for everybody else? I'm running about 100kbs internet.

·

It would be great if you install Mumble - you can join the server and we can check if your internet connection is strong enough for you to receive and transmit to us. Check out @peppernrino's post for steps to join the Mumble server: https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@peppernrino/gridcoin-community-hangout-043-repost

As @jringo has indicated, we have community members who just listen and type so if you have problems with upload quality then you can still join and won't be alone in the chat box! :-)

·

= ) it's mumble, so it's Voice over IP -- audio. It also has a text chat box to the side that people without mics type questions and responses in which are then read by someone for the recording. Feel free to bring your 100kbs into the next one! Everything should be fine.

Thank you for the summary @gebell.

Great discussion!!

I must apologise for my sudden disappearance in the later stages of the hangout.

I had a small family crisis which needed sorting and is now resolved.

boinc
Courtesy of @joshoeah

Congratulations @geebell! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the total payout received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

Thanks for the summary @geebell. Looking forward to listening to the hangout later.

Regarding the interest payments, having a constant block reward for PoS that gradually decreased over time, eg halving every set number of blocks similar to bitcoin (210,000 for btc) might be a good way to emphasize BOINC rewards over PoS rewards as time goes on. If PoR is also used to secure the blockchain then that would also lessen the requirement for paying out large PoS rewards. At the moment however it may be a necessity to reward stakers well in order to secure the network.

Regarding commercialization, IMO there is nothing inherently bad if companies or users want to set up projects for commercial purposes. I think we should eventually make it easier to do so. We could set up a requirement to burn coins in exchange for computation which would create a demand for gridcoin and incentivize more open research. Either that or have a portion of coins sent to an address for funding development.

Keep up the great work!

nice post bro, please please please UP Vote me..

Congratulations @geebell!
Your post was mentioned in the hit parade in the following category:

  • Pending payout - Ranked 6 with $ 40,17

Thank you @geebell for this good work of hangout summary.
For @cm-steem: I think your version of SSA is superior to mine in terms of performance and flexibility, if we can make it work.