iirc the section “mints” for DBC will need to process user transactions. It is logically inconsistent to say this process will be safe and secure for p2p transactions but not for sn2p transactions. Every p2p transaction is in fact a p2sn followed by sn2p transaction. Having sn as a middleman to every transaction is valuable.
3 Likes
From my reading in the other topic, it was p2sn and sn2p. But things said in this topic makes me wonder if DBCs are enabling much more than this. Like each upload DBC is held then distributed to each of the farmers. 1000 payments result in 1000 reward payments to multiple farmers for each one.
The explored issue arises from how many tokens the section has to handle, if the small network has 10 sections with 8.5% of 4 billion tokens in each then the desire to steal these tokens is high. Or if each of the 10 have the ability to create that many. Either way the explored issue is the number of tokens.
So if the section has no stash and is only receiving tokens, polling them, then issuing them to farmers then there is not much to lose if a section is compromised.
This is NOT right. If you check the DBC code or follow the confidential transaction explanations on this forum, you see that the transaction initiator in a p2p case is in control at all times. All the elders/network does is ensure that the hash of the transaction isn’t present on their list of spent DBCs then reissue to the specified receiver address. The elders don’t even know the value of the DBCs they are forwarding.
Maybe in a p2farmers situation the elders might have some control in that they are in charge of the adult node addresses to forward the reward payment to. But there too, the same mechanism would be at play whereby they don’t need to know the amounts (it’s total amount collected over a period divided by section membership) or be able to change the addresses.
But they aren’t printing money. This is precisely the power it’s being proposed removed from them.
5 Likes
Is not dependent on new supply.
The more reading and thinking I do on this, the more inclined I am to restrict the distribution of all tokens to existing holders (i.e. a split or a cap) because there’s a massive benefit to having:
- absolute confidence in the supply
- very little if any incentive to take over a section (Sybil attacks become very unlikely to be tried or succeed) and we ensure the network is almost provably secure from day zero.
The above is a massive win which we shouldn’t overlook. If mutation is also shifted away from the network we have a mindblowingly secure, efficient design.
I think there will be a lot more focus on those facts from the technical and crypto community than on how the tokens were distributed. Some speculators and investors will complain, but I don’t think users, farmers and application builders will care much about that, they will be much more impressed by the above benefits, and after launch it is they who matter.
I am still concerned about giving more power to existing holders, particularly any remaining whales, so we should think more about that. Perhaps start a topic discussing it with the aid of @mav’s statistics on the number of holdings, coin movements etc.
At the same time we can have another linked topic to look for ways to mitigate this by widening the distribution. For example by allocating a proportion of funds to the foundation to be distributed in a clearly defined way over time. Perhaps donations to educational charities earmarked for regions of the world with low GDP per head of population. I suggest not replying here with comments on the latter two points, but replying on a new topic for each of:
- Analysis of MAID distribution and impact of a split or cap at launch
- Ways to mitigate the impact of a split or cap of SNT distribution
If anyone wants to start those discussions I’ll link the above to the topic(s).
EDIT:
I think there may be some additional benefit to the split/cap distribution in terms of coin price because if the only source of SNT is sales by holders (and none from the network) the price is likely to rise to the level at which demand for SNT (from users wanting to store) matches a price at which holders are willing to sell.
I think that this rise will be a benefit because it will highlight SNT immediately after launch and gain attention. It may also lead to a relatively stable upward price profile, driven by a combination of increasing demand to use the network, and holders wanting a higher price as their holdings diminish over time due to disposals.
At the same time this should not affect storage costs, because these are calculated by the network as the amount of SNT needed to ensure farmers are just profitable enough.
These seem like useful secondary benefits of the split or cap approach.
17 Likes
Strong points, very important to teach new
people about this in text and video, if this will be the choose route.
They won’t get any more relative power of existing owners than today, probably it will give them a chance to get out at a lower price, I don’t think they will stay longer than neccessary. If you are smart whale you don’t want that high risk.
In stocks IPO whales in general don’t seem to stay long, they get out as soon as they are allowed after launch, get rid of the risk and cash in.
To discriminate investors might open for legal problems.
1 Like
Perhaps “transaction” was a poor term. I speaking from the perspective of a high level abstraction.
Yes.
1 Like
If a whale currently owned 1% of the coins, and their share was multiplied 9 times, they now have a much larger % of coins, that allows for easier price manipulation.
2 Likes
Thanks @neo you articulated what I tried but miserably failed at.
The 6.7 ratio still evades me though.
@ 6.7 we have 3,032,101,160 which is only 70.2% of the 4,294,967, 296?
You seem to know the allocation better than me, can you please break it all down so that it adds up?
Are you disputing the below figure?
No If they have 10 of 100 or 100 of 1000, it is indifferent, both are 10%.
When they all investors get 9x, current total supply gets 9x, that makes it indifferent.
The only thing is that it will be no future inflation.
1 Like
If only 15 % are distributed, and 85 % left on the table that whale would have to work very hard for the network, or spend alot of money to reach the % were considering allocating them.
1 Like
If any whale would stay for that long time to reach max supply, they would be stupid, it probably would make them higher chance to go bancrupt because they would not undestand risk or have the brain to be rich.
If any whale is that stupid, then god speed to them.
Distribution to existing holders is a bad idea imo. Better to randomly distribute rewards throughout the network. Farmers could request one of the rewards based on a successful chunk return similar to classic safecoin. The farmers become the “initiator” of a request and then part of the validity check includes proof that the farmer operated correctly before reissing the dbc. IFrom another perspective, all the 2^32 snt dbc could be issued at genesis at some level of divisibility, with 85% having the recipient set to a “good farmer” with a particular section prefix.
That does not change the fact that we’re considering allocating huge percentages of total coins to a small amount of ppl.
2 Likes
You are logical incorrect, every investor gets the same relative 9x, no difference. 1 of 1000 is the same as 10 of 10 000.
I for one will be doing that in either case … the more SNT the more people can be hired to build on the network. I’m not even out to create for-profit sites/apps … the appreciation in value of SNT as more is built on top of it is more than enough compensation.
But can’t do anything until value of network is decent … what ‘decent’ looks like will change considerably if this proposal goes through – meaning it will be much easier to start hiring and building for the network much sooner than I previously believed … I’m not even a whale, just a dolphin maybe … but if others like me and above are thinking the same, then this could really accelerate development of the network post-launch.
2 Likes
If we could do this and retain the benefits I highlighted I’d agree, but by choosing this you are throwing those benefits away.
You can’t have both so it is a matter of which are the more important - bullet proof security of the network and confidence in total supply, or a different distribution mechanism, which is why I’m now inclined to accept the split/cap approach (as I’ve elaborated here).
4 Likes
It’s the value of every SNT that decides, just more amount of SNT wont matter.
The only things are possible benfits for the network and that current investors wont be diluted in the future.
2 Likes
I’ve edited my post above to add another possible benefit to the split or cap approach:
1 Like
Please stick to the good tone, we all have the same goal here.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
14 Likes