A community for the latest discussions about the cutting edge of crypto design, it's culture and significant crypto news. Decentralize everything. Check out our [Community Guidelines](https://relevant.community/crypto/post/6122269e61d1cd005a877277/62427d3ed587ad005b647828)
53485 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
A community for the latest discussions about the cutting edge of crypto design, it's culture and significant crypto news. Decentralize everything. Check out our [Community Guidelines](https://relevant.community/crypto/post/6122269e61d1cd005a877277/62427d3ed587ad005b647828)
53485 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
0
20.2
0
20.2
I was thinking that because there are billions of worth of end stakes just after the big pay day that if you have still have stakes your percentage of the total shares should actually shoot up a lot. Im not sure how to calculate how much. Not too sure on the maths but will be interesting to see.
I was thinking that because there are billions of worth of end stakes just after the big pay day that if you have still have stakes your percentage of the total shares should actually shoot up a lot. Im not sure how to calculate how much. Not too sure on the maths but will be interesting to see.
Thank you for posting #KeepStakeDecentralized 💪
Thank you for posting #KeepStakeDecentralized 💪
I have seen when there are fewer stalkers on the network the price of staking goes up thereby brings an equilibrium between staking and lending. I've yet to see a coin with proof of stake with long term price appreciation. It seems obvious to me that if you can get a coin or token for free, then this will only have the effect of either stabilizing the price or making it go lower in price. If the point of proof of stake is securing the network, then that's fine. but when the price goes down and so less people wish to own it, there's the opposite effect on the network. Finance is largely centralized. We will inevitably see transition to decentralization. Keep up the great research Chris-remus. And last great thing is that #KeepStakeDecentralized💪
I have seen when there are fewer stalkers on the network the price of staking goes up thereby brings an equilibrium between staking and lending. I've yet to see a coin with proof of stake with long term price appreciation. It seems obvious to me that if you can get a coin or token for free, then this will only have the effect of either stabilizing the price or making it go lower in price. If the point of proof of stake is securing the network, then that's fine. but when the price goes down and so less people wish to own it, there's the opposite effect on the network. Finance is largely centralized. We will inevitably see transition to decentralization. Keep up the great research Chris-remus. And last great thing is that #KeepStakeDecentralized💪
Everything chris says in this is on point. POS does carry this risk of centralization as people try to lock in lower risk passive incomes. I applaud the call for people to take a bit more time in choosing who they delegate too, but I worry that without additional incentives we will still see a centralization of power (staking). Maybe a call to arms that I sense in this article will work, but we really need to push hard to educate people on the importance of this and align them to the values of decentralization otherwise the legacy systems will gobble up power with their huge financial war chests. What projects are out there are trying to negate this? Is there a place for a reputation system that adds weight to addresses that act in a "decentralized" fashion with regards to staking?
Everything chris says in this is on point. POS does carry this risk of centralization as people try to lock in lower risk passive incomes. I applaud the call for people to take a bit more time in choosing who they delegate too, but I worry that without additional incentives we will still see a centralization of power (staking). Maybe a call to arms that I sense in this article will work, but we really need to push hard to educate people on the importance of this and align them to the values of decentralization otherwise the legacy systems will gobble up power with their huge financial war chests. What projects are out there are trying to negate this? Is there a place for a reputation system that adds weight to addresses that act in a "decentralized" fashion with regards to staking?
The issue I see with most of the time is: For ex its feasible to launch a 51% attack on any network. What is the incentive to do? Anyone with the hashing power / staking power to do so is already incredibly wealthy in crypto. Why would they break the whole system, risking a crash or hard fork? The system fundamentally incentivises everyone to play by the rules. "What’s missing is an appreciation of values other than those in service of financial gain. And what loses out is decentralization, the value that underpins the goals that drive the crypto-first builders."
The issue I see with most of the time is: For ex its feasible to launch a 51% attack on any network. What is the incentive to do? Anyone with the hashing power / staking power to do so is already incredibly wealthy in crypto. Why would they break the whole system, risking a crash or hard fork? The system fundamentally incentivises everyone to play by the rules. "What’s missing is an appreciation of values other than those in service of financial gain. And what loses out is decentralization, the value that underpins the goals that drive the crypto-first builders."
Precisely, a reputation system makes sense because the more crypto goes mainstream, the more the practices and values inside crypto projects will reflect mainstream ideology. This process of cooptation is natural and happens to anything that goes mainstream, one could argue it is some ways the cost of going mainstream (think of LGBT movement from its start and the cooptation by HR managers and global brands today). Indeed, there has been a large focus on finance in crypto and therefore there has been a 'financiarisation' of the crypto-space. In order to avoid total cooptation there needs to be communities that take a stance and defend values such as decentralization - and users that choose to support such communities. One example is launchpads, most launchpads are basically repeating the normal way of doing business that is : the more money you have, the more shares you are given. Instead, a project like Raydium makes the conscient choice of keeping allocation low therefore resulting in a more equitable distribution of shares. These are choices. This is where ideology meets technology, and its fascinating.
Precisely, a reputation system makes sense because the more crypto goes mainstream, the more the practices and values inside crypto projects will reflect mainstream ideology. This process of cooptation is natural and happens to anything that goes mainstream, one could argue it is some ways the cost of going mainstream (think of LGBT movement from its start and the cooptation by HR managers and global brands today). Indeed, there has been a large focus on finance in crypto and therefore there has been a 'financiarisation' of the crypto-space. In order to avoid total cooptation there needs to be communities that take a stance and defend values such as decentralization - and users that choose to support such communities. One example is launchpads, most launchpads are basically repeating the normal way of doing business that is : the more money you have, the more shares you are given. Instead, a project like Raydium makes the conscient choice of keeping allocation low therefore resulting in a more equitable distribution of shares. These are choices. This is where ideology meets technology, and its fascinating.
You know crypto currency investment controls huge part of the world's passive income. I'm pretty sure the big pools are going to be around for quite a while. It's about encouraging and building up the smaller pools in the ecosystem. I realize pools which might be larger now started back on the incentivized testnet and worked their way up. But now that they are established and doing quite well they should be encouraging delegators to move on to smaller pools to build up the network. The small guys are putting a lot of time, effort and cost into helping the network decentralize. I realize this is still a capitalist economy, people will often speak with their money.
You know crypto currency investment controls huge part of the world's passive income. I'm pretty sure the big pools are going to be around for quite a while. It's about encouraging and building up the smaller pools in the ecosystem. I realize pools which might be larger now started back on the incentivized testnet and worked their way up. But now that they are established and doing quite well they should be encouraging delegators to move on to smaller pools to build up the network. The small guys are putting a lot of time, effort and cost into helping the network decentralize. I realize this is still a capitalist economy, people will often speak with their money.
When I look to the future, I ask myself if people really care about decentralization, and I just while I see decentralization as a huge market that inevitably will grow, I don’t see the larger population ever caring about true decentralization. I think a lot of people like the idea of centralized decentralization and I don’t see it’s growth ever stopping. I fully agree with you on the decentralized point of view, there's a graph to the right of this page too (adapools): [https://adapools.org/groups/solo-14](https://adapools.org/groups/solo-14) /u/ice-king-907 perhaps link the above link too in your post, so users can see how much of the cardano-stake pools are eaten up by certain operators currently. We need the community to delegate to Single Stake Pool Operators.
When I look to the future, I ask myself if people really care about decentralization, and I just while I see decentralization as a huge market that inevitably will grow, I don’t see the larger population ever caring about true decentralization. I think a lot of people like the idea of centralized decentralization and I don’t see it’s growth ever stopping. I fully agree with you on the decentralized point of view, there's a graph to the right of this page too (adapools): [https://adapools.org/groups/solo-14](https://adapools.org/groups/solo-14) /u/ice-king-907 perhaps link the above link too in your post, so users can see how much of the cardano-stake pools are eaten up by certain operators currently. We need the community to delegate to Single Stake Pool Operators.
I think that it takes more than just 'liking decentralization' in order for it to become something mainstream, or even just growing. It is about a lot of things: social norms, practices, values. It also has to become apparent for people that it could be good for them, otherwise why bother? It is one thing to have marginal proponents of decentralization and another for it to become a generalized value. It is not something most societies are used to, neither currently nor even traditionally. So in order to become a mainstream value there needs to be a huge shift. But there are others things that make decentralization attractive, that could be efficiency related arguments or transparency, distribution of power... There are many perks to decentralization though its quite far from our current ways of functioning as societies. Although I say this but I'm Swiss and there is quite a degree of decentralization in the Swiss way of governance that is rather rare.
I think that it takes more than just 'liking decentralization' in order for it to become something mainstream, or even just growing. It is about a lot of things: social norms, practices, values. It also has to become apparent for people that it could be good for them, otherwise why bother? It is one thing to have marginal proponents of decentralization and another for it to become a generalized value. It is not something most societies are used to, neither currently nor even traditionally. So in order to become a mainstream value there needs to be a huge shift. But there are others things that make decentralization attractive, that could be efficiency related arguments or transparency, distribution of power... There are many perks to decentralization though its quite far from our current ways of functioning as societies. Although I say this but I'm Swiss and there is quite a degree of decentralization in the Swiss way of governance that is rather rare.
There is nothing stoping the average person from joining into a true PoS network and taking part and since it is a far lower barrier of entry you end up with more decentralization than pow. Yes their will be those who have greater stake than other who come after but these same individuals would still act in the best interest of the network since they are still a part of it along with everyone else. Well the pool is definitely stable, it's not going anywhere. So from that perspective it's fine. From the perspective of try and support smaller single pools to further decentralize the network it's not. This is a pretty large pool operator in my opinion. He's got multiple pools with a lot of stake. It'd be a better use of your stake imo to support someone of much smaller stature. One of the solutions to this I've seen is done by the Idena network which uses a proof of person solution. I think to achieve true decentralization it has to be based on people, but that's incredibly difficult for a lot of technical and practical reasons.
There is nothing stoping the average person from joining into a true PoS network and taking part and since it is a far lower barrier of entry you end up with more decentralization than pow. Yes their will be those who have greater stake than other who come after but these same individuals would still act in the best interest of the network since they are still a part of it along with everyone else. Well the pool is definitely stable, it's not going anywhere. So from that perspective it's fine. From the perspective of try and support smaller single pools to further decentralize the network it's not. This is a pretty large pool operator in my opinion. He's got multiple pools with a lot of stake. It'd be a better use of your stake imo to support someone of much smaller stature. One of the solutions to this I've seen is done by the Idena network which uses a proof of person solution. I think to achieve true decentralization it has to be based on people, but that's incredibly difficult for a lot of technical and practical reasons.
I wish your first point was true. The unfortunate reality is that access to capital is becoming more and more of a barrier to staking network participation. When I started studying proof of stake in 2016, I was attracted to it for one of the reasons you cite, accessibility. Mining was out of reach for me, yet staking seemed accessible. Now, almost 5 years later, I'm feeling afraid that staking is becoming less and less accessible. I am encouraged by what Idena is doing and have been working to come online to it.
I wish your first point was true. The unfortunate reality is that access to capital is becoming more and more of a barrier to staking network participation. When I started studying proof of stake in 2016, I was attracted to it for one of the reasons you cite, accessibility. Mining was out of reach for me, yet staking seemed accessible. Now, almost 5 years later, I'm feeling afraid that staking is becoming less and less accessible. I am encouraged by what Idena is doing and have been working to come online to it.
Its similiar to a dividend - those who have large stake typically would act in the best interest of the network as it directly affects them. Having a bad actor try and act in malicious ways against its own network would not make much sense than how PoW is handled. With a PoW platform those who mine simply see it as any another coin and can move their hardware onto whatever else will pay them more if the economics dont allow for profitability - either by further centralization or moving onto other more advantageous PoW coins (thus hurting the network health). PoS would mitigate this since its similiar to a shareholder of a company wishing said organization to succeed. Anyone with sizeable stake would act in favour of the network health and every person who is a part of the network would receive an roi. All participate and all benefit.
Its similiar to a dividend - those who have large stake typically would act in the best interest of the network as it directly affects them. Having a bad actor try and act in malicious ways against its own network would not make much sense than how PoW is handled. With a PoW platform those who mine simply see it as any another coin and can move their hardware onto whatever else will pay them more if the economics dont allow for profitability - either by further centralization or moving onto other more advantageous PoW coins (thus hurting the network health). PoS would mitigate this since its similiar to a shareholder of a company wishing said organization to succeed. Anyone with sizeable stake would act in favour of the network health and every person who is a part of the network would receive an roi. All participate and all benefit.
proof-of-stake is energy efficient. It does not require computational power to solve mathematical equations. As a result, PoS networks only consume a small percentage of the energy consumed by an energy-guzzling PoW blockchain platform. In today’s increasingly eco-conscious world, this is a marked advantage.
proof-of-stake is energy efficient. It does not require computational power to solve mathematical equations. As a result, PoS networks only consume a small percentage of the energy consumed by an energy-guzzling PoW blockchain platform. In today’s increasingly eco-conscious world, this is a marked advantage.
In that case, I do starting to think that major DEFI protocols are going to have to decide if they are going to play by the rules that most countries want them to (KYC/AML), or if they are going to flip the middle finger at them. Invest in a compliance layer now or pay the piper later. May be DEFI to become mainstream will need to have at least a basic KYC/AML check or a centralized platform on top etc.
In that case, I do starting to think that major DEFI protocols are going to have to decide if they are going to play by the rules that most countries want them to (KYC/AML), or if they are going to flip the middle finger at them. Invest in a compliance layer now or pay the piper later. May be DEFI to become mainstream will need to have at least a basic KYC/AML check or a centralized platform on top etc.
if we really want this ecosystem to grow we need to recognize we need to operate within the rules society sets. I am not talking about doing this with no privacy. zero knowledge compliance and other systems need to be developed for defi to scale. i am confident they will be.
if we really want this ecosystem to grow we need to recognize we need to operate within the rules society sets. I am not talking about doing this with no privacy. zero knowledge compliance and other systems need to be developed for defi to scale. i am confident they will be.
This is possible in PoW because consensus is created through a collection of computational power. As such, if the bad actor in question can successfully deploy more hash power than the majority of the hash rate, they can seize control of the network. (However, in case of Bitcoin, one hour of an attack on this network would cost more than USD 800,000, according to crypto51.app, and would basically just allow double spending, while it doesn't allow the attacker to steal everyone's coins.)
This is possible in PoW because consensus is created through a collection of computational power. As such, if the bad actor in question can successfully deploy more hash power than the majority of the hash rate, they can seize control of the network. (However, in case of Bitcoin, one hour of an attack on this network would cost more than USD 800,000, according to crypto51.app, and would basically just allow double spending, while it doesn't allow the attacker to steal everyone's coins.)
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.