You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: RAC versus TCD: Case study 1
But worth thinking about and checking anyways.
Agreed.
short term there are things like the greylist and TCD
I think TCD is a good step in the right direction. My proposal is more long term, I think there are more important things to be actively developed right now.
then also things like ranking projects
I agree that it's a contentious issue, but it's still worth being looked into.
Also, to your point about the distribution of power ("interest of the network"), I also think that should be looked into. Do you have an ideal distribution in mind?
Probably the main factor is to get the right ratio of 'balance' to 'magnitude' as far as voting weight is concerned. We don't want all balance because then a few really rich people could totally dominate voting. This would be much more difficult to achieve if magnitude has significant weight, since a huge mining infrastructure would be required (especially once the Gridcoin network grows to rival the largest national supercomputers, which it probably will). We also don't want all magnitude because large investors should get at least some say in the future of Gridcoin, even if they don't mine.
Currently, the ratio is 70:30 balance to magnitude. This seems to work OK for now. Maybe there's a better answer though if we did more analysis...
I completely agree. Do you have some ideas about how we could analyze it, i.e. variables, etc.?
I've wanted to look into it myself but I decided to focus on other topics for now. Some solution to that problem could be implemented by a specific way for ranking projects (still don't know about that myself though), or maybe some other way, but I'm not sure what all the variables are.
On my to-do list! I have some ideas, but still need to flesh them out.