Money? if i think about money in the short term i would be mining ravencoin or ethereum, but i am betting half my mining power with ergo because i see that this coin project has a future.
So don’t say what you think is right, because you were wrong on this point.
The soft fork corresponds in about ~20% rise in price if miners want to get the same reward. In crypto world the 20% is literally nothing, especially since Ergo is more than 75% down since ATH.
If Ergo wanted to have real short time gains as you say, it would use other mechanisms such as halving or coin burning, which would be much more beneficial than this soft fork. However, it doesn’t. Why? Because the goal of the soft fork is to prolong emissions for several years to allow more research in this field and not to make the price pump.
As a miner, I don’t like this initiative.
This is a very crude initiative!
At current value, this would be a loss.
If this initiative were considered together with specific development plans = marketing, which would give reason to expect an increase in the price of the coin, then it would still be possible to somehow positively evaluate this initiative.
In this way, like initiative posted, I am against.
I’m not a massive fan of burns personally, In ERGO I don’t think coin burning can be done in ERGO in the traditional sense due to the the storage rent mechanism and would most likely end up in a re-emissions contract sometime down the line ?. correct me if I am wrong.
Community polling puts it at ~90% support.
This SF is not related to price as has been reiterated, the reduction is negligible (~20%). Especially considering the Puell Multiple. (Miners tend to sell fewer coins as price dips). It’s solely for ensuring the ecosystem has enough time to mature as the first storage rent payment takes from 2023 and that is cutting it fine.
This has been discussed for years by the devs. Previous SF proposal to change the storage rent period was rejected and the soft-fork governance paper used describes this exact scenario (and so does the thread where storage rent was first posted)
Will mining pool operators be able to abuse the voting by voting on behalf on individual miners ?. Voting should be as trust-less as possible. I believe mining pool operators have to much power over swaying the vote in the current proposal. I am aware mining pool Getblok.io adding Proof-of-vote to avoid voting being abused. Voting should be counted correctly via recording box’s.
Voting mechanisms past and present have always had their flaws. Will there be access to vote tally within the blockchain to ensure votes are counted correctly. Technological complications will bar some people from voting and that is one of my main concerns are we given to much power to miner vote rather then user vote and in the current vote I see pools having a lot of leverage over the vote.
Only pools & solo miners actually vote and (at their own discretion). As you said, GetBlok is launching voting tokens, some other pools performed internal polls.
Users vote by switching their hash rate to GetBlok or any pools that agree with their view on the proposal. If 10%+ disagrees they need to participate. I don’t think that is too high a bar all things considered.
Seriously, doesn’t this community value the principles of hard money?
If you can play around with emission it’s no longer hard money, it’s “artificial”. This can make ERG appear less reliable as a long-term store of wealth.
The original emission was introduced to the public as a promise. If Ergo wants to be taken seriously as hard money this should never change.
An honest miner who solves the puzzle should be allowed to collect the full reward, as is his right, from the emission box, as stated in the White paper. No majority should be allowed to change that, just as no majority should be allowed to steal money from an address.
What’s worse, is that in Ergo, the emission is basically a smart contract that is no different than any other smart contract in the system. This soft-fork is effectively censoring a smart contract by rejecting blocks where an honest miner withdraws the full amount to his personal address. This is extremely concerning and goes against basic principles.
No smart contract on Ergo should ever be censored. Such a thing destroys the value of the network, this should be obvious.
Also, this soft fork creates a terrible economic incentive to fork the chain in order to collect the original full emission. This destroys a key security assumption of PoW. Are we trying to encourage 51% attacks?
I’m only concerned about what will happen when all ERG runs out. We should be more focused on alternatives to the Storage Rent and Transactions Fees rewards. I read @kushti 's feedback about this proposal but I’m not totally agree about disregards Proof of Stake. It should be considered as an alternative solution if the network can’t be able to survive with rent and fees. I’m not agree about what @Oleg is saying, cause time passes and decisions could changes if is necessary. Perpetual Proof of Work could be a great goal but to realize it we have at least 4 years (for now) to study a solution. We shouldn’t consider alternatives until we couldn’t find solutions. Alternatives are fixes, not solutions.
So I really hope we will be able to adopt hybrid approaches where Proof of Stake and Proof of Work could live together. This is my proposal:
Miners could be rewarded with a little portion of ergs (30% of Storage Rent and TXS fees for example) and some fidelity tokens which allows them to switch to Proof of Stake when they will got all tokens necessaries to be Validators. The necessary fidelity token quantity will increase gradually with Validators growth.
A Validator could earns through the remains rents and txs fees (70% in this case). Through this method Proof of Work and Proof of Stake could lives together and the distribution could be more profitable for miners who are incentivized to become a Validator, and for Validators who will earn fees and rents without electricity costs.
Almost exactly 6 years ago Donald Trump became president of the US.
What will the future hold in another 6 years?
What will the future hold in 36 years?
If blockchain is going to make a different in the world, and this blockchain will be part of that difference, then it won’t take 36 years. This change is drastic. Maybe consider something less severe?
Apologies. I don’t understand why this proposal needs to be so drastic.
From a layman perspective, there are other ways if you want to prolong the reward to miners without messing with emission. One idea that comes to mind is to accumulate current tx fee into a re-emission contract (instead of distributing it to the miners), and distribute it as mining reward after emission ends. As erg tx fee is quite low right now, if you want you can increase the tx fee to provide higher contribution to the re-emission contract.
If you want to change the emission, what stopping you to mint additional coins (let’s say 2.3m coins - to make it even 100m) for the tail end mining rewards?
Thanks.
I’m only concerned about what will happen when all ERG runs out. We should be more focused on alternatives to the Storage Rent and Transactions Fees rewards. I read @kushti 's feedback about this proposal but I’m not totally agree about disregards Proof of Stake. It should be considered as an alternative solution wether the network can’t be able to survive with rent and fees. I’m not agree about what @Oleg is saying, cause time passes and decisions could changes if is necessary. Perpetual Proof of Work could be a great goal but to realize it we have at least 4 years (for now) to study a solution. We shouldn’t consider alternatives until we couldn’t find solutions. Alternatives are fixes, not solutions.
So I really hope we will be able to adopt hybrid approaches where Proof of Stake and Proof of Work could live together. This is my proposal:
Miners could be rewarded with a little portion of ergs (30% of Storage Rent and TXS fees for example) and some fidelity tokens which allows them to switch to Proof of Stake when they will got all tokens necessaries to be Validators. The necessary fidelity token quantity will increase gradually with Validators growth.
A Validator could earns through the remains rents and txs fees (70% in this case). Through this method Proof of Work and Proof of Stake could lives together and the distribution could be more profitable for miners who are incentivized to become a Validator, and for Validators who will earn fees and rents without electricity costs.
Adding that 2.3m coins would cause inflation and would go against the monetary policy that’s in place. There is a set number of tokens and this number should not change based on the original agreement that’s been set.
Fully understood. And I agree that we should keep the monetary policy intact. That’s why my main point is to find another way to solve the post-emission reward issue without changing the existing emission schedule.
Blockchain technology has changed so much over time. In the last couple of years, we have seen so many changes to cryptocurrency and I think it’s set to change a lot more. I say we hold off a little on the re-emmisions to get our heads around any upcoming changes. Also, I agree that maybes charging a little more transaction fee to around double what it currently is half going to re-emissions box and a half to the miners could work better than the current proposal. There are other coins I have been studying that run POS and POW systems. There is often some infighting with miners feeling like they have less control over the security of the blockchain or vice versa where validators who have put down a lot of money to become validators often feel like small miners are getting better rewards without locking up their coins. While POW/POS system is good to protect against a 51% attack I think ERGO should always stick to the plan it first laid out and that is to remain a short-tail POW blockchain.
Your idea sounds good, but it is against the ethos of the project. 1 gpu = 1 vote
the “value” is always a value - the proposal of EIP-0027 is not a solution, is taking part of the income.
The value of ERGO was? or IS? it’s solutions to the network?
betther than taking income from miners, spreading it into unreal future is to GIVE SOMETHING.
so my proposal is: no taking that X or R or whatever… use already writed software and ADD tokens, that can be exchangable in future ERGO2 project with bigger emmision, and those who will be mining, can use thos tokens to get new ERGO based currency, connect those two blockchains make them dependable.
EIP-0027 should be shuted down. Better is to give than taking. Use the brand that the company has developed for new project, connect those projects. part of current emmision as You proposed for next 7 years, can be tokens for that new project currency for miners
Find new function for ERGO-1 after emission ends. As software tokens, as keys for something. Something useable.
Hope I helped. I do not agree with taking reward minus X, I vote for giving that part as tokens for future ergo project.
ERGO IS also A BRAND, I think you all forgot about it…
my point is that extending the emission of coins will not work. because the Competition on market will be increasing anyway.
Instead of taking some of the coins, from the rewards it is better to add a token that you as a miner will exchange - - for an ERG2 coin (as a successor to the ERG project) in the next ~ 7 years.
You increase the expectation and at the same time build a new project - with a new coin emission. making positive hype, no one is mining two coins at the same time. Now ERG and future ERG2
ERGO is a brand, not only a currency. There will be some other usability for it after the end of the current emission.
(post deleted by author)