What are the extreme things?
For example Zen_Knight, 2nd writer in this topic and registered in the forum only since march 29 :
1rst post : “Look, that is just rubbish.”
Snd post : “Other: 30% / 0 % /40% / 20% / 10% - research.
I’m happy to forgo the MN rewards for real development and innovation!”
Asking for the disappearance of masternodes is an extreme position (in addition to being impossible today since they ensure the security of the blockchain, miners only intervene in “backup”).
I don’t think anyone asked for the disappearance of the miners, nor of the development team…
2 Likes
I understand your misinterpretation of my quote as I never advocated for 80% as you suggest, the context in which I refer to balance is between miners and MN. 50/50= more decentralized vs less decentralized and less balance which you suggest 20/60.
Comical, I’m only speaking of the current proposal as I’ve stated nothing about “other systems”… But I understand your frustration. You seem to be more interested in “number go up” whereas I’m more interested in the longevity of the project because I understand the importance of privacy.
Money is made on any coin when one knows how to time and analyze charts, some lose and become bitter hope this is not you. We do not have to manipulate a coin to prefer mining or MN or visa versa to go up.
When your first words to someone are "you are wrong’’ perhaps some self reflection is in order. Nothing but Strawman arguments on your part.
I don’t disagree with you here.
1 Like
When I write 80%, it is not the block-reward distribution: it is the hashrate on FIRO that the PoW mining pool “2Miners.com” concentrates when we add its collective pool and its solo pool. The 51% attack is the main weak point of a PoW blockchain and FIRO miners have had no qualms about exposing FIRO to it for years.
We must be more interested in the topic before taking people back: this point has been explained several times in the topics of this vote.
For the rest, rather than assuming that the other has not understood or has hidden interests, it would be better to inquire and reflect, especially when you are new to a community.
1 Like
You mean like you assume I’m speaking of all pow or other systems? Above is my post. Which you then used to mischaracterize. Bit hypocritical is it not?
Perhaps it is YOU who should ask before assuming… As for the rest, your in no position to belittle a community member because they are as you say “new” to a community especially when I’ve been a strong supporter since 2017. Your intent is clear (“but there is urgency”). Some R&R may helpful.
A bigger man would recognize a mistake made and make things right but I get the feeling your not that. So be it.
We can all get worked up at times - especially on topics like this. Let’s be civil, though. No need to resort to disrespecting one another. We can always step away and let cooler heads prevail. 
2 Likes
If the vote is very close between the top few options would people be opposed to implementing something in between or do you want another round of voting?
3 Likes
Personnaly, I dont think another vote would be needed. I think it would be a waste of time. If its very close, like it is at the moment, it could be :
- Miners - 22.5%
- Masternodes - 55%
- Community fund - 7.5%
- Dev Fund - 15%
5 Likes
I personally would not be opposed to the average or something in-between.
How ever I would respectfully ask that the votes (people) in losing proposals reassess their current vote so that they are included in the options voted on highest.
We are on the same team and I fell (have) no Ill will towards you, forward we march.
1 Like
Fair enough though remember the whole purpose of the 3 votes per person is to allow them to show approval for all the proposals they’re comfortable with.
1 Like
A heads up that this will be the last time an important decision is left to trust level 1 participants. The next round would be Trust Level 2.
Requirements for Trust Level 2 are:
Trust Level 2 – Member
Members keep coming back to your community over a series of weeks; they have not only read, but actively participated long and consistently enough to be trusted with full citizenship.
Get to trust level 2 by…
- Visiting at least 15 days, not sequentially
- Casting at least 1 like
- Receiving at least 1 like
- Replying to at least 3 different topics
- Entering at least 20 topics
- Reading at least 100 posts
- Spend a total of 60 minutes reading posts
4 Likes
We’ll also take this opportunity to drop the block time to 2.5 minutes unless there’s serious opposition.
6 Likes
already voted but if we need to cut the pear in half i’ll would go for something like :
already voted but if we need to cut the pear in half i’ll would go for something like :
- Miners - 22.5%
- Masternodes - 55%
- Community fund - 7.5%
- Dev Fund - 15%
1 Like
There remains a problem: the people who could not put their 3 votes because there are not enough proposals that suit them.
For example, there are only 2 proposals with more than 50% for masternodes while there are as many (2) for 50% and 7 for less than 50%. Those who want more than 50% for masternodes can only vote 2 times instead of 3 times for all others.
In principle, I would be for it.
But this will come at the expense of the blockchain size: what would be the additional increase % of the blockchain with this block-time drop ?
I think the delay caused by a new vote can be avoided.
It all depends on what average is made.
I still think that the 20/60/5/15 distribution is the best compromise for all the reasons already exposed in the topic which deals with the new block-reward distribution.
If a compromise must be found, I remain convinced that it is vital to allocate the maximum of the block-reward to those who buy FIROs on the exchanges and who do not resell them: the masternode holders.
This compromise would be the following:
- Miners = 22.5% block-reward + 100% transaction fees
- Masternodes = 57.5% block-reward
- Community fund = 5% block-reward (trial)
- Dev Fund = 15% block reward
2 Likes
Agree with you, 20/60/5/15 would be great.
2 Likes