Jump to content


Freicoin Developer
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jtimon last won the day on September 1 2017

jtimon had the most liked content!

About jtimon

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1226 profile views
  1. So, regarding releases...should we keep working on 0.9 for the next release and also start working on a 0.15 rebase for the next after that one?
  2. Well, first of all if one chain is planned to be abandoned after some 1wp period, some coins will get lost there. I don't see the point in doing any kind of peg between 2 currencies with different subsidies (money creation) in different chains. The 2:1 up to 50 M also seems pointless. I don't think another chain helps with the foundation problem in any way. Apart from that, I would prefer a hf to elements features or a spin-off (if we really want a new genesis block) than a one way peg. But I guess we can leave that for other threads.
  3. > allow pegs into this sidechain to be doubled in quantity 2:1 so that up to 50M freicoins can be moved from the old chain to the new chain, resulting in 100M on the other side. The new chain would also have its own subsidy so, if all goes well, there is a period of coexistence where both chains are used, until the peg pool is exhausted and the old chain is archived. This sounds, in principle, as a very bad idea to me.
  4. My intention is not to "abandon the coin and let it die" but that doesn't mean maaku, me or any other voluntary should be bullied for using (or not) their time as a voluntary however they want. Please, @Arcurus stop telling other volunteers how they should spend their time. You are free to spend your own time however you want. When things don't happen as fast as you wanted them to happen (or just don't happen at all), don't blame other volunteers for not having done them: blame yourself for not having done more to make them happen. @Bicknellski volunteers that are developers don't have special obligations or privileges. Here there's no ICO in which users paid developers like in eth: eth and freicoin communities simply cannot be compared in this sense. Please stop talking as if @Mark Friedenbach me or anyone else owed you something just because you are a user. I'm a user too. Just because I learned how to program that doesn't make me your slave or anyone else's. Please, save your "developers should do X or focus on Y", "the community should focus on X", etc. In my experience that doesn't help build a healthy community of volunteers, it does pretty much the opposite. You will focus on whatever interests you the most and everyone else will do the same. We can discuss potential future roadmaps in other threads, but this is about putting an end to the foundation. So back to the topic at hand... Yes, as said in the opening post, I think the promised 100% matching should be done before putting an end to the foundation. Regarding the softfork to limit the quantity that the foundation can issue: 1) There's no need to do that at the consensus level if the foundation is still centralized. 2) It doesn't put an end to the centralized foundation. I'm surprised that people don't like 2 and I'm not sure I understand the reasons, but it seems I'm kind of alone having that as a favorite. I guess my preferred order is: 2 > 4 > 1 > 3.
  5. It is to be expected that with a higher reward we just get an increase in hashrate and difficulty, and thus an increase in security (which currently isn't great due to the tiny reward), but not necessarily to miners' profits. This may have a temporary effect on the price, but I don't think it will be greater than with option 3. Option 3 also doubles the utxo size (well, more or less, discounting reused addresses). Again, option 4 (reducing block subsidy and thus the total 100 M supply) is not a hardfork, but a softfork.
  6. > doesn't sound that great to me. its basically Bitcoin with demurrage for eternity to miners what @jtimon suggested. Yes, that was basically freicoin's design from the beginning. The foundation was a later mistake. > i strongly oppose not to look into proof of stake security I did look into pos, and I think it's flawed. But you are free to keep looking into it. > to the soft fork, that could be easy to implement, just add one address where some part of the block reward goes if less than 100K coins are on that and give control of the address to someone who does the job of distributing them. later we can decentralize it. Isn't that what the foundation is currently supposed to do? > simply destroy the coins seems up to now the best solution for the foundation. You mean option 1 or option 4? > simply out of curiosity, where did the community fail in distributing the coins? Well, the coins are not being distributed. There's no software to do so automatically (we didn't moved from 10% to 100%). And that's only for the matching program, the community also didn't developed any other distribution program. > i dont think that neither @jtimon or marc will even look into proof of stake. We did. And I'm starting to get tired of you bringing up the subject on every topic, even if it doesn't have anything to do with pos like this one. If you care about pos more than you care about demurrage I think you confused freicoin with ppcoin. > by the way if you want to know how a distributed foundation can be implemented in a soft fork, just look how dash does it. yes the technology is out there since years and functioning very we I think dash is deeply broken tech, it is very frustrating that you keep comparing bitcoin and freicoin to it all the time. You are more than welcome to implement your own coin with dash "features" and with demurrage. I'm not interested. Regarding distributing coins with a sf/hf, that's basically what republicoin was about. But distributing it on-chain is not easier than distributing it through a centralized foundation, which we're failing at. You are more than welcomed to write the code. Until then, I think using demurrage as mining subsidy is the simplest and more reasonable option. @Rik8119 what you suggest is option 4 and it's a sf, not a hf. Still, it's the only option that requires a consensus change. And IMO it's dubious that it has any important advantage over the other options. I still don't think I understand the complains against option 2, to be honest. The funds are currently "going to miners" just by leaving them with the foundation and they would also go to miners with option 1, only slower (thus having both inflation plus demurrage for much longer). @Mark Friedenbachhas access to the keys, I don't see how "the users for github" are relevant. > So when will all this happen? Not before we decide what to do.
  7. > So what is your vision for the coin moving forward Developers? My priority regarding Freicoin is starting to do rebases much faster and continuously, getting all the new improvements, bugfixes and features. As for new consensus changes features, apart from those included in more modern versions of bitcoin (cltv[bip65], csv[bip68/bip112], segwit[bip141]), it would be nice to get features from https://elementsproject.org/ which now also rebases periodically. Specially I would like to have confidential transactions https://elementsproject.org/elements/confidential-transactions/ and confidential assets: https://elementsproject.org/elements/asset-issuance/ This is similar to freimarkets' basic asset issuance but with much better privacy. But that requires a hardfork, so it strongly depends on support from the community. There's also some incentive problems with the utxo, but I think we can solve them. In general, that's my basic plan for Freicoin development: rebase and get new features from elements and bitcoin. I'm also working on a block explorer for bitcoin, elements and liquid that I would like to adapt to freicoin as well. But of course other people can work on other things. In any case, this is rather orthogonal to the foundation's funds. So please, let's try to stay on topic. New developments, new webs and potential consensus changes are all fine to discuss, but I don't think they are directly related to the question at hand, which is admitting we have failed as a community (and as devs) with the foundation and non-mining distribution, put an end to it and move on to other things.
  8. > with the BTC from the ico, you pay the developers to work full-time on FRC and do promotion Which developers are interested in doing that? I'm not interested in beig paid by an ICO and I'm pretty sure maaku doesn't want that either. > Certainly, you know the issues surrounding coming regulation better than most. No, actually, I don't. But I never wanted to be paid from money collected through an "ICO" precisely because I don't know and I don't want to find out the hard way.
  9. Re: ICO: no, as said icos are part of the motivation for destroying the foundation. You make an ico of frc for btc and then what you do with the btc? > a softfork that makes sure that some part of the block reward is used for Freicoin related projects. If we had the technology to do that we wouldn't need to destroy the foundation's coins. But we don't. > that demurrage should be drawn from there only and not from speculators/normal wallets. So basically remove the demurrage feature that inspired freicoin in the first place and makes it unique. I strongly oppose this. > proof of stake Strongly oppose. > The coins should be destroyed, and that it takes time to reach 100 mil is good. Good for what? The initial plan was to have 0% inflation on top of the 5% demurrage in only 3 years. > To be honest i think 100 mil is too much either way and its not a good number. There's no number that's better than another. 100 M is more or less arbitrary, but less than 21 M. > i don't see how higher mining rewards will benefit the coin, more coins means simply less price per coin. In all the options is the same amount (100 M) except for option 4.
  10. Thanks everyone for sharing your views! > Woergl f.e. was the most successful freigeld currency and they used it to pay for social infrastructure. And IMHO it is the only reasonable purpose to redistribute money to the poor. The purpose of freigeld is not to redistribute money to the poor, but rather remove the existence of poverty under the assumption that is caused by chronic interest and cyclic monetary velocity. > option 2 is not fair to investors. I don't see why not. The coins were planned to be put in circulation either way. As "investor" I don't consider it unfair.
  11. When Freicoin was launched, we thought the Freicoin Foundation could be a good way to use "excesive rewards to miners" for good causes and to promote Freicoin adoption. Since then, 3 of the people initially in the foundation have distanced themselves from the project (in part, because of the foundation), we haven't been able to keep up even with the matched donations distribution program, which also hasn't move towards a more decentralized implementation (like republicoin) and no other distribution programs have been implemented. I haven't been maintaining the website properly and Mark hasn't done the matching often enough. We apologize for that. Many potential users distrust Freicoin "because of the foundation's 'premine'". Sites are often confused about Freicoin's monetary base of 100 M because of the foundation's funds, and people often belive that Freicoin still has inflation on top of the demurrage (but the inflation was supposed to only last the first 3 years). The foundation has also been a constant source of friction and conflict within the Freicoin community, often demotivating both users and developers when not causing direct confrontation between each other. It has also taken volunteer resources which could have otherwise gone to actual development and innovation. At this point, I'm convinced that the Foundation has not only not helped Freicoin but actually has done the opposite. On top of all that, the ecosystem has been invaded with "Initial Coin Offerings" and other schemes which I personally consider scams. And although I think the foundation is very different and not a scam, I'm no longer sure regulators will be able to tell the difference when the time comes. The last thing I had in mind when proposing Freicoin was going to jail because of the foundation (which actually was a later idea, wasn't there in the initial proposal). We explained that if the foundation ever misbehaved or got their funds stolen, Users could activate a softfork to destroy those funds. The foundation can also destroy those funds unilaterally, but we want to ask the community what would be the preferred way to close the foundation, since there are several ways to achieve this technically. Since it was promised to match 100% instead of 10% and some more donations were done with that expectation, we can do one last matching (including going from 10% to 100% retroactively as promised) before destroying the remaining funds. Here are some other options, please, 1) Simply destroy them by sending them to an OP_RETURN output. This has the disadvantage that there will be inflation again and it will take very long until all the 100 M are issued. 2) Turn them back into mining rewards by creating txs only with fees that are locked in time, so that each block can take one. We can decide at which rate they're given to miners and for how long (until they're gone). With this we can get to the 100 M much faster and has the additional advantage that provides more incentive to mine (which is currently extremly low). 3) Distribute proportionally to the current freicoin holders. This has this has the disadvantage that chosing a given time may look unfair. Is it after the final matching, right after, wait for the donation receivers to spend their coins? This may also cause a price crash, but it's hard to tell. 4) Destroy the remaining funds like in option one, but also do a softfork to reduce the current miner subsidy so that instead of the monetary base growing to 100 M, it just remains to whatever it is now without the remaining foundation funds. This requires a consensus change, may cause a hasrate crash (because the incentive for miners will suddenly much lower) and we lose the round and beauty 100 M figure. My favourite option is number 2, although it has more parameters to discuss. If anybody thinks of another option, please, share it. One more time, we apologize for how the foundation was handled, I wish we had never done it in the first place, but this is where we're at.
  12. If I was to re-design Freicoin from the beginning I would change some small things, but it wouldn't look like this proposal at all.
  13. I haven't read the whole post but I must say it is unlikely I will ever use, support or contribute in any way to an altcoin based on PoS. I also think that 1 min blocks and moving from demurrage to inflation are bad ideas. Since it seems to be based on different ideas and priorities I ask that please don't call this altcoin freicoin 2 and call it something else instead.
  14. > i like freicoin but I don't see movements. When starts the party? anothers coins with + 3000%. Forget about the price. Freicoin is not about speculation.
  15. I don't have a node now (shame on me, I wasn't able to compile the other day). From what Rik8119 says, it seems that the longest chain is invalid, because the blocks have nVersion=2 > I can only run version x.8.3. There's your problem then, once bip66 was activated, all miners need to validate it and produce nVersion=3 blocks. From what it's in the release notes you need, see https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin/commit/808ee0ecab1e075c0835e74cd85627d3e5b1dd1d
  • Create New...