I could also be very censorship resistant. Right now with energy shocks in Germany and the rest of Europe… It’s not hard to imagine governments coming after consumers who use a lot of energy. A node on the other hand has a low energy footprint.
It would be interesting to know how much it would affect a nodes function. If it added only 0.5 seconds to transaction time or something, that maybe a good trade off?
It would be great if a few of us could try it on testnet.
1 Like
Hosting the masternodes at home would be ideal: the problem is the fixed (really fixed) IP address.
If an onion address allows you to host masternodes at home, that would be really perfect (and adding IP privacy).
Yes the onion does the routing auto-magically. It would be worth a try. On testnet first.
4 Likes
This is also partly my thinking also. However I think there is a lot that can be done with community fund, to build sustainable growth.
2 Likes
So I’m glad an option for 10% fund is doing well.
In the future though, perhaps something like.
-
20% | 
50% | 
15% | 
15%
Looong term, nodes will add to the bear cycle, especially after halving’s.
If we can cement our place in the crypto ecosystem by then, I don’t think it’l matter too much, as the community would still be confident about Firo’s future.
1 Like
have a nice life, protocol flip-floppers
Asic would be my preference.
If we are only mining via GPu(100%) then the mining can be 100% centralize, same goes for MN, however if we distribute mining lets say 50/50 between miners and MN it becomes more difficult for entities to 100% capture the entire mining network. 50/50 between miners and MN is as decentralized as it gets in my view. However given the choices 30/50/5/15 would be best. Though I’d take another 5% from master nodes and give it to the community fund because I do believe it to be a valuable asset to the Firo community going forward.
I much prefer the proposed distribution of Reburn favoring 35/40/10/15.
“I personally don’t think rewarding masternodes overly is the way to go and would have preferred something like”
35% | 40% | 10% | 15%
2 Likes
Faster block propagation is definitely a step in the right direction. Private, secure, and fast currency.
1 Like
I think 25% | 50% | 10% | 15% is a good moderate choice.
It will let us examine what effect adjusting the tap and sink will have on price. Mining is pretty much 100% price suppression if not hodl’d. While nodes have to first invest in a large sum upfront pushing price up, before they can then dump anything.
If this desired result occurs then mining hashrate will increase with price anyway.
Also I think the community fund being 10% could add much more value to Firo than miner reward getting an extra 5%.
And again more value in FIro, means more hashpower and security.
5 Likes
It’s also quite telling that the MN’s didn’t just vote for the highest MN rewards.
The difference between MN poll options getting 50% or 60% is markedly different in this poll with the new options compared to the previous poll.
Kind of dispels some of the charges from critics of the previous poll, that it was a bunch of MN’s voting purely for greed.
2 Likes
1,Open SOLO-mining on the Firo-QT wallet (like solo-mining on Bitcoin-QT wallet in the earliest days of Bitcoin);Really Hardcore FIRO-fans like me can mine at home ,even if i can’t mine anything. I like run Firo-QT wallet 24 hours a day just like run Bitcoin-core wallet 24/7 at my home computer, decentralization at home.
2,Develop one-click-setting masternodes fuction on the Firo-QT wallet. Really Hardcore FIRO-fans like me can easy decentralization at home.
Just like SETI@HOME (Run by fans alone for 21 years) ,even if all miners leave, we can stell succeed ,we could run FIRO@HOME
@reuben
3 Likes
You can call it flip flopping but thanks to it other project’s come and take the flip flops for free and implement it on their coins.
Thank god for open source 
People need to start giving credit where credit is due.
My choices, as a miner, were actually:
40% | 40% | 5% | 15%
35% | 35% | 15% | 15%
Reason was simple, at first i wanted to give more rewards to the master-nodes. But after some few digging in the forum, i found out that, ironically, master-nodes were also centralized just like mining network hash-rate. So is there any reason to give more on one side if centralization is everywhere already?
I see someone actually even provided a beautiful datasheet earlier in the topic lol
2 Likes
Certainly, the masternode holders have a centralization issue as well, since oftentimes they use AllNodes; however, this isn’t really comparable to mining. PoW is compromised when an individual or group maliciously attacks from the outside with an overwhelming amount of hash (>51%) or from within a pool that has an overwhelming amount of the hash and takes advantage of the situation (as we see 2Miners has) which means that, if we were PoW, this entire time Firo would be vulnerable to such an attack.
Unlike miners, Masternodes can be centralized on any of those service providers and not be compromised in the same facet. The reason the centralization is a concern for masternodes is because of the fact that if said service provider goes down, then it brings a lot of nodes down with it, which would make it that much easier for someone to also target the other nodes remaining on the network (attacking one of the other service providers). If a lot of nodes go down, the security would be weakened, but not broken. Even if such an attack did breach, they would then have to perform a malicious attack through the PoW before nodes came back online. However, attacking the PoW (especially right now) would be far easier for them to do than the nodes I’d think.
So the centralization of nodes is a problem from certain prospects, but it is not comparable to the centralization of hash on the PoW side.
5 Likes
I just have a quick question…
While we are reallocating block rewards and reducing block times by half.
Would this also be a good time to reduce the maximum coin supply back to 21million?
I also wonder if there is any point in doing that, if the community wants to go the route of a tail emission.
Personally from a sustainability perspective, I prefer the idea of adopting a tail emission thats somewhat comparable to Monero’s longterm strategy.
I really would like a tail emission tbh.
The reason I even bring this up, is every interview we do. It seems the host wants to know why supply is 21.4 million. Then we have to rehash a protocol bug from years ago that has no bearing on Firo today.
In my opinion, this still does damage to Firos image, and in most cases could be avoided.
1 Like