The end of the foundation

[Skaro 129]

@Rik8119well actually that was as far as I got. I wasn't sure what kind of effort @jtimon was wanting to make. So I'm not sure how complex the idea could/should be. But it seemed that a new wallet with POS/POW split could distribute the Foundation funds. The demurrage is still a good idea and may be more attractive now with countries legalizing crypto-currencies.With a wallet at 0.14, Freicoin becomes modern and it could literally be a relaunch with The Foundation funds for redistribution. We could even have an ico (or I guess it would be a co)... ;-)

[Arcurus 331]

On 7/23/2017 at 10:42 AM, Skaro said:

 The method of selection you proposed would probably just transfer most of the money to the mining pool(s).

? --> to clarify, i propose to bring the foundation coins in circulation as block reward and combine it with a softfork that makes sure that some part of the block reward is used for Freicoin related projects.  The softfork is enough if enforced by the main Freicoin economic nodes.

For example, create time locked transactions that spent (100% as fee) of the foundation coins over a three year period with unlocking one transaction every 10 minutes.

 

Then add a softfort:

the main economic Freicoin nodes enforce that a certain part of the block reward is send to a specific address if less then 100.000 coins are on the address.

if we don't empty the address than at max 100.000 coins will hang on it. 

In the future we could implement a smarter distribution mechanism like outlined in other posts.

 

[Adilado 18]

We are now many forum contributors and long time supporters that strongly believe that the foundations coins should not be released into circulation and the miners, if the timeframe is 10-100 years then fine but not in a quick pace as it will just crash the price, we dont need freicoin priced at 1 satoshi and it would not be fair to current holders of Freicoin.

What freicoin need is something to support growth of price and to be very attractive to their speculators. 

My personal opinion is that the foundations coins of 80% should be locked in a blockchain time contract and that demurrage should be drawn from there only and not from speculators/normal wallets. 

The second step (my personal opinion) would be to allow a proof of stake interest of about 2% so that holders will be rewarded for holding and not selling.

Further we could have a small transaction fee that gets burnt but probably a no fee system is better in marketing purpose.

Then what we need is a big marketing effort, designing a great website, promote our exchange and relaunch this coin on bitcointalk.

We have the opportunity to really grow here, lets make that happen instead of the opposite, people are really scared of investing in a coin that lose 5% of value yearly, it needs to be modified.

[Adilado 18]

Of the proposed options i say 1 or 4.

The coins should be destroyed, and that it takes time to reach 100 mil is good.

To be honest i think 100 mil is too much either way and its not a good number.

28 or close to is much better and closer to Bitcoin.

But it has to work for the miners too.

[jtimon 36]

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.

[Skaro 129]

Well, @jtimon with the  BTC from the ico, you pay the developers to work full-time on FRC and do promotion. I'm not saying one has to do an ICO, I'm just answering what one could do with the BTC: invest in FRC. But, the time it takes to set up a ICO, FRC wallets could be updated.

Certainly, you know the issues surrounding coming regulation better than most. 

[jtimon 36]

>  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.
 

[Adilado 18]

> So basically remove the demurrage feature that inspired freicoin in the first place and makes it unique. I strongly oppose this.

Yes, I believe that the current system will keep us from growing, it is not a coincidence that we are among the smallest coins out there.

And the reason I believe that the 100 mil coins is a bad idea is that i dont want to see Freicoin priced at 1 satoshi, comeon lets make this coin grow with some new thinking, there must be a way that we all can agree.

[Bicknellski 276]

On 7/10/2017 at 5:24 AM, jtimon said:

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.
 

I vote for 1. Bury them and move on. That might be painful but in reality there  is ZERO movement on the coin currently. Demurrage is meant to make the coin move and it is the ONLY thing that makes this coin unique to other offerings in the cryptoverse. What we have had for nearly 2 years is a dead coin limping along with four or five people funding little projects here and there with little or no Developer support.  Any plans  that attempt to recirculate these coins of the foundation now are really not going to be a 'fair' distribution which is the exact warning that was given to the foundation when you implemented this idea in the first place.

What we need is for adoption of Freicoin. How? I don't see how removing features like demurrage does anything but bury this coin permanently. What is required are MORE features as promised by Jorge and Mark in the past that is what we need to see and would be the only thing that would save the Kria moving forward. 

So what is your vision for the coin moving forward Developers?

Really are you going to help keep the coin alive or are you going to ultimately abandon it?

Given the past history of 'progress' I am not seeing a sustained commitment to follow up on Freicoin.

Maybe it is time to let the coin die? And I say this because it is clear this coin is not your first priority obviously and hasn't been that for a number of years. That is fine because what would be worse is if we have a partial or small infusion of work and then things go back to what they have been for years stagnation. 

 

 

[Adilado 18]

Definitely dont let the coin die, that would not be fair for anyone. We now have a nice exchange and some volume. Lets work from here. And burn the foundation coins to start with.

Then we have been discussing a new website and Fedde says he could help out with that.

That is a good start.

[Skaro 129]

Looking through the comments, people have voted for more than one option. Considering that, it appears that option 1 has the most support at 6 votes, and option 2 at 4 votes. 

[jtimon 36]

> 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.
 

[Adilado 18]

Sounds good, I have faith in the devs. I think we indeed should keep working and developing.

[Skaro 129]

Well, staying off topic for just one more comment, ;-) @jtimon, that sounds GRRR-EAT!!

[Arcurus 331]

5 hours ago, Skaro said:

Well, staying off topic for just one more comment, ;-) @jtimon, that sounds GRRR-EAT!!

doesn't sound that great to me. its basically Bitcoin with demurrage for eternity to miners what @jtimon suggested.

i strongly oppose not to look into proof of stake security

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.

simply destroy the coins seems up to now the best solution for the foundation.

simply out of curiosity, where did the community fail in distributing the coins?

 

 

[Adilado 18]

6 minutes ago, Arcurus said:

doesn't sound that great to me. its basically Bitcoin with demurrage for eternity to miners what @jtimon suggested.

i strongly oppose not to look into proof of stake security

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.

simply destroy the coins seems up to now the best solution for the foundation.

simply out of curiosity, where did the community fail in distributing the coins?

 

 

I agree that proof of stake would be best, i love proof of stake so i hope dev can reconsider

[Arcurus 331]

Just now, Adilado said:

I agree that proof of stake would be best, i love proof of stake so i hope dev can recondider

i dont think that neither @jtimon or marc will even look into proof of stake. 

If you want proof of stake (combined with proof of work) i guess you have to do it like segwitt2X. secure the economic majority, then implement proof of stake like for example done in dash as layer two. then make a softfork and add it. 

@jtimon 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 well!

 

[Arcurus 331]

the more i think about it the idea of having two different development teams working on Freicoin sounds really great to me.

Layer is 1 / proof of work could be mainly developed by mark and jtmon if they are interested

Layer 2 / proof of stake / masternodes - see dash / distributed budgeting system can be implemented by other developers independent of each other

Layer two must only be enforced by the main economic nodes, therefore can change more easily than layer 1

Layer two would also allow instant and private transactions like in dash.

 

 

[Rik8119 242]

To begin changing the coin (after burning the foundation coins), we could implement a HF to decrease the mining reward all we need to do is change this code in main.cpp:

mpq GetPerpetualSubsidyAmount(int nHeight)
{
    return MPQ_MAX_MONEY * -Params().HostDemurrageRate();
}

//START change #1:----->

mpq GetPerpetualSubsidyAmountNew(int nHeight)
{
    return MPQ_MAX_MONEY/5 * -Params().HostDemurrageRate();
}

//END change #1     -----<

CBudget GetPerpetualSubsidyBudget(int nHeight)
{
    static CBudget emptyBudget = CBudget(0, std::vector<CBudgetEntry>());
    return emptyBudget;
}

CBudget GetTransactionFeeBudget(int nHeight)
{
    static CBudget emptyBudget = CBudget(0, std::vector<CBudgetEntry>());
    return emptyBudget;
}

mpq GetBlockValue(int nHeight, const mpq& nFees)
{

    //START change #2:----->
   if (nHeight > 200000) {
        return GetPerpetualSubsidyAmountNew(nHeight) + nFees;
   }
   //END change #2:     -----<

    return GetInitialDistributionAmount(nHeight) +
           GetPerpetualSubsidyAmount(nHeight) + nFees;
}

[Arcurus 331]

4 hours ago, Rik8119 said:

we could implement a HF to decrease the mining reward all we need to do is change this code in main.cpp:

can you write in words what the code does? Reduce mining reward, or reserve some part of the block reward for alternative distribution?

[Rik8119 242]

Old programmer problem, bad communicaiton ;-) after some block (e.g. 200 000) the mining reward (max coins) is devided by 5 each block. Thats all ;-)

[Adilado 18]

So when will all this happen?

[Rik8119 242]

We have to wait for @jtimon to talk to @Mark Friedenbach as far as i know they togher have the keys and the users for github..

[jtimon 36]

> 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.

[Rik8119 242]

@jtimon yes i know that atm we follow what was planned all along. But the idea was, that if we have a stable coin supply and miners are already payed for their service why to pay them extra frc that is only used to inflate the price and discourage investors (in the end they pay for whatever freicoin is used for). So cutting the mining reward and only having the coins in circulation that are already out there was the idea some of us developed and which requires a hf.

That also means that most of us wanted the foundation funds to be destroyed, or maybe better

Option 5: to distribute it proportionally to all freicoin addresses out there (doesnt require a hard fork then).