7 ms·
Decred proposal: Change PoW/PoS Subsidy Split From 60/30 to 10/80
- xverbro 5y agoThe coin is "Store of Nothing" and controlled by a handful of people (company 0). It's the big player manipulating the price and voting, not the miners. The coin will die with the company's ego. Avoid it.
- sogamer 5y agoGot any on chain data or research to back up your claims ? Cause there is onchain data to prove miners dumping in a malicious way to keep price suppressed. https://medium.com/@tacorevenge https://medium.com/@tacorevenge You sound like a miner who is finally getting their dues. While I am sure that c0 has a larger than average holding, the voting patterns indicate they dont always get what they want.
- ryanlol 5y agoThis is kind of hilarious. They seem to be upset that the miners are selling their coins and therefore are sabotaging the cryptocurrency by pushing the price down.
- paulgb 5y agoYes, I'm curious to know more context on why they see miners selling the coins as proof that they are malicious actors trying to keep the price down. The very nature of PoW is that miners typically have high expenses, and need to sell coins to pay their power/hardware bills. To the extent that this hasn't happened in bitcoin, it's because capital is currently cheap enough that some of the big miners prefer to hold the bitcoin and borrow against it to cover expenses.
- 100001_100011 5y agoMore context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPDak2o9VSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPDak2o9VSk
- gitfan86 5y agoThe utility of Bitcoin is that it allows you to bypass government and regulations and high cost money transfer services. The price should reflect that utility and anything beyond that is day trading or beanie baby style speculating
- mgraczyk 5y agoAnd worth stating that the "other side" is the proof of stake participants, who hold the currency and want the price to stay high.
- Grimburger 5y agoBoth groups have just as much incentive for the price to be higher, it's a moot point.
- lozenge 5y agoPoW can jump to another coin without writing off their investment (into hardware), PoS can't.
- koolba 5y agoWith PoS it’s even more liquid as you can dump your tokens and buy them on a new network to stake their. Assuming the tokens are worth anything.
- mgraczyk 5y agoI don't know how decred works, but typically there are consensus level barriers to this to mitigate "nothing at stake" attacks. For example you may need to lock the tokens for weeks or months to use them as stake, and it may be impossible to trustlessly transfer ownership of locked tokens.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tracedddd 5y agoDecred has ASICs and there is nothing they can realistically jump to.
- mgraczyk 5y agoThat's not true. The miners have a large capital investment in mining equipment which can be used for other purposes (or they rent, in which case the same reasoning holds). Proof of stake participants have their capital in the system's currency. The PoW are less sensitive to price because they lose less capital for the same change in price as compare to PoS participants.
- TheAdamist 5y agoIf there's nothing else the coins can be used for, selling is the logical conclusion, holding is just being the sucker who sells last.
- young_unixer 5y ago(also applies to dollars)
- KarlKemp 5y agoSure, in the sense that both this potted plant and this currently inactive volcano could soon start ejecting red-hot magma. Because one of every x billion "things" are active volcanoes, and these are both "things".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ohgodplsno 5y agoThe sucker who sells the last dollar has other problems, most likely the total collapse of a superpower means that not being able to trade your dollar is not going to be the most preoccupying thing on your mind.
- tivra 5y agoIt's not because miners are selling but because HOW they are selling. I recommend reading these two well-researched blog posts if you want to know the details: https://medium.com/@tacorevenge https://medium.com/@tacorevenge
- ryanlol 5y agoOf course it all comes down to some equally hilarious technical analysis :)
- student2k 5y agoWell they are selling in malicious way, for example they never put a lot of coins to sell at same time, so if someone wants to buy a lot, it show no liquidity, But you can buy pretty much as much as you want without changing the price, bots keep adding, Another way is they keep adding more when price breakout. For me it is clear some group of people got an advantage (hardware and electricity price) and do that with a couple of alts projects in order to get more btc.
- ryanlol 5y agoThis looks like a fairly naive trading bot, not “selling in a malicious way”.
- sogamer 5y agoPlease read the link and the blog post below. Its not due to miners simply "selling". https://medium.com/@tacorevenge/ https://medium.com/@tacorevenge/
- kzrdude 5y agoWhat's decred? What's special about it and is it one of the bigger cryptos?
- rolltotheriver 5y agoDecred is a SOV crypto. It has governance, a treasury fund, staking rewards. It has a very low supply. So much of it is locked into the staking pool.
- tracedddd 5y agoDecred is a cryptocurrency who’s core offering is an expanded governance system. Although at the top it’s pretty much run by the company right now.
- chizhik-pyzhik 5y agoDecred was created in 2013 as "bitcoin but with governance". You can earn it through both proof-of-work AND proof-of-stake mining. Users who participate in proof-of-stake mining can vote on proposals such as this one. (Their voting power is roughly equivalent to how many DCR they've locked up.) It got a lot of attention when Bitcoin was having its block size limit controversy around 2015 (which led to the fork between bitcoin/bitcoin cash).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rolltotheriver 5y agoThe large mining groups are mining Decred just to sell it for Bitcoin. They are helping Decred at all. This didn’t happen to Bitcoin during its early days, if so it wouldn’t have survived.
- rolltotheriver 5y agoEdit. They are NOT helping Decred at all
- WJW 5y agoMiners being in it for the money instead of for the ideology? What a shocker.
- paulgb 5y agoIt’s a store of value!* * as long as miners are benevolent and don’t sell it
- cblconfederate 5y agominers are supposed to be in it for the money
- sogamer 5y agoAgree miners are supposed to be in it for the money. But in this case it looks like they are not. They are waiting for exactly the right moments to dump such that they cause maximum drop in prices. This is counter intuitive of how you expect miners to sell. See: https://medium.com/@tacorevenge/ https://medium.com/@tacorevenge/
- tracedddd 5y agoThere’s nothing wrong with a neutral, politically uninterested party running the infrastructure for profit reasons. In fact it’s probably better than a bunch of charged and opinionated members trying to sway influence one way or another.
- mikeiz404 5y agoWouldn’t it be roughly equivalent for a miner to put the amount spent on overhead and recurring cost such as electricity into staking and then sell or “dump” the staking rewards assuming the % payout is the same? It seems given enough time, with all be it potentially new entities, you risk being back at where you started. However I’m not familiar with Decred and only have a general idea of PoS.
- chizhik-pyzhik 5y agoI imagine that the difference in profitability between PoW and PoS is arbitraged away over time. If it's a lot more profitable to PoS mine, some of the PoW miners would just switch over, which in turn makes PoW slightly more profitable for everyone still doing it.