Not if they are already created and in accounts … then the problem is automating distribution (maybe not a small problem). This is separate from section creating tokens on the fly or holding them somehow - also not small problems and I suppose why the idea of 1MAID for 6.7SNT has been brought up by the @oetyng
I have no debate about the original plan being a good one. I’m not too worried about what plan happens as long as there is no easy hack in the long run.
EDIT: At this point I’d really just like the network to get launched, so happy for compromises in the original plan if it short-cuts some things … as long as those short-cuts aren’t going to lead to hacks. While the original plan was good IMO, if it means adding another year onto dev time - then no thank you.
The obvious counter to that is what i suggested, all tokens created at start (same) and the sections hold the 85%.
There is no creating of tokens in the functioning network which seemed to be the major issue sparking the thought of issuing all. Call it the middle ground if you wish.
Agreed. As long as bridges are not burnt and the superior method for users is chosen for launch for long term viability and satisfaction of original users and new users.
This doesn’t clarify what the possibilities might be. Useful work is very like “proof of resource” is it not?
So when you say puzzle solving and are now implying that could be useful puzzle solving, I’ve no idea what you have in mind or could be possible. It also raises the question, useful to who or what?
I just have lots of questions when you say puzzle solving which makes it impossible to comment on something using that approach.
I understand that there are degrees of risk and BFT, and that there have been quite extensive changes to strengthen this (pushing work out to clients and removing authority from sections).
My questioin is, are we doing this because things are not as good as they were in this area, and if not, why are we suddenly worried about rogue sections printing SNT?
I guess a reason might be that this is different from having coins at addresses, but even with that, having rogue sections would be bad enough wouldn’t it?
Is it about incentives for attackers being much greater if sections can mint SNT?
The network merely holding tokens from genesis (already having owners, immutable, incorruptible)
The network setting owners of tokens
The network creating tokens
From security standpoint: #3 is the worst option #2 is not good #1 is ok, could include some gradual release
From (ownership) decentralisation standpoint: #3 and #2 are about the same #1 is worse
Then there is the option of initial owners holding them from start, which is probably quite good from security standpoint, but has other downsides as mentioned above.
Doesn’t the network change owners every time SNT is transferred or rewards given. SNT is not really owned is it. It is the wallet that holds an amount of SNT
This ownership of SNT suggests we are back with a SNT is an object
Oh and I am behind the option to not be creating SNT on the running Network
With DBCs however, there is yet one more thing:
We have a whole new range of anonymity options. If we put ultra-anonymous at top priority, it might (this is not establihed yet) mean that it isn’t even possible for the network to create tokens…
No, payments are made by users directly to farmers as I understand it. I’m not sure how that works, but this authority has I believe been taken away from sections.
Well the network has to hold the SNT since it is divided up on section split and remember that payments for 1 chunk go to (up to) 4 sections since each chunk is replicated 4 fold. Or are the 4 nodes on the one section.
Also has to pay some to any dev if they have their App developer address set for a chunk
And why cannot the section have its own set of DBC then?
And I’d hate for the farmers to have any knowledge of the uploaders
I think this is all up in the air now with DBC’s and the desire to maintain full anonymity. If 1MAID == 6.7SNT then sections hold no SNT. As @happybeing says, users pay farmers under new concept being proposed.
EDIT: @oetyng perhaps each potential proposal could be laid out concisely so everyone can understand the compromises of each one?
So a DBC can be sent without the recipients set and the network set them? Otherwise the uploader needs to know when they sent it from their Wallet. So wallets would still exist?
Obviously I am not fully aware of the abilities of a DBC
I’m not educated on DBC’s either, but in other discussions I’ve read it’s been mentioned that they could be created without any info about the receiver.
Of course this leaves other issues, such as that if the data was somehow intercepted and decoded / unencrypted it could be cashed by anyone who tried to do so first.
getting into the weeds now but I guess even that number may need tweaking if my understanding is correct.
5% of SNT needs to go to early investors right?
Since it is not Safe for sections to hold tokens and many people are against current holders taking everything, there is a middle option in which a Foundation keeps the extra tokens on the condition that it cannot sell them on the market but only spends them to upload useful data to a certain percentage per year?
I would tend to agree with this as it really does psychologically make sense but then I look at Tezos and Cardano. Tezos has a supply not far from us I believe and Cardano a much
larger supply. Tezos technically has more functionality at the moment as well as being out in the market longer and yet Cardano is catching up in price.
There could be a million reasons why, maybe even the turbulent history with the Tezos foundation but I think what @Josh said makes a lot of sense too. The crypto market is almost completely illogical at times.
If we have what is effectively a stock split and it doesn’t change overall price of the portfolio then does it mean anything at all? Maybe it’s like contributing money to market making that you hadn’t planned to rather than having more than what you thought you would. I think @oetyng has the strongest point so far when it comes to distribution simply based on how the tokens would be by the network over more distributed secure individual user wallets.
Is there a way for holders to receive the extra in there wallets but have them locked and they simply act as custodians to the network and the funds can drip into the economy? Like staking in a sense. Not sure how that as a mechanism? Might be a silly idea but just spitballing.
getting into the weeds now but I guess even that number may need tweaking if my understanding is correct.
jars. 