You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 'Conciliation' of the reward curves? / Die 'Versöhnung' der Reward-Kurven?
I don't know if you're going to see this, but your "flat at beginning" argument does not hold. The flatness you are talking about is referring to the slope between 0 and 1, which is not the regime in which the reward curve operates. You can see that here. Not only is the quadratic curve shifted by a constant so that the slope is actually greater than 1, but rshares are already integers that would place them farther out.
I disagree. It simply depends on the exact equation. If you put a suitable term in front of the 'x', it does start flat but at some point rises. (If you do the same with a linear curve it won't increase strong enough later.)
Can you elaborate? The curve I'm seeing right now is
(x+s)^2 - s^2 = x^2 + 2sx, wheresis large. (2000000000000from my reading, but that may not be right depending what the old code state was), it seems to me that it's already not flat no matter how you look at it?And right, linear is just steady, so I can see that it's not rising later. My point was that comparing the two curves, the quadratic curve was at no point any less flat than linear. Or were you proposing a quadratic curve that is flatter at the beginning?
Which curve are you seeing? I don't know what the exact reward curve actually is (I am not a witness, I am not involved in such decisions)! I just write in general.
My own example is a curve which starts as 0.1*x2. My post is only about the idea itself.
It is possible to choose any curve that starts flat (how flat and how long the flat part is, depends on the specific equation), then increases and finally is getting linear. But it's not on me to decide which exact curve should be finally chosen (I am not getting paid for that), I wanted to introduce the idea.
(With spline interpolation one could get a curve which is more beautiful without a buckling.)
By the way It's obvious: some Hardforks ago we still had a non-linear reward curve, and self-votes were by far not as strong as they are now (I can tell you from my own experience). Nowadays, with a linear reward curve, it's obviously really worth it to upvote own comments or articles, even if nobody else is upvoting them.
Ok, understood, thanks!
By the way, after doing some research now I see the argument about self-voting. The total number of accounts that can self vote is much more in linear than in super-linear, so that's the discrepancy I was missing. But whoever is at the top has way too much power, and they would be free to self-vote without anyone stopping them, no? So I'm actually liking proposals that place a linear tail at the high end of stake. But now I'm wondering if that affects self voting in the same way...
But in the end, I'm thinking that the flatness of the curve matters less than how sharp the curve is at the tail end in terms of concentrating power. The concentration of power is the real reason that the total number of people that can self vote is less in superlinear.
Edit- to answer your question, the curve is in the code I was pointing at that had the specific implementation of how it was before. Anyway, not relevant.
Please enjoy my (linear!) 10 % upvote on your comment. :-)