If miners are a “weakness” in the security of Firo then why have them? I mean if they are a threat to the project. 2Miners won’t attack you but I fear that some 1000 Firo node holders want heavy bags on the expense of the miners responsible of the block creation.
Miners aren’t hoping for anything and Firo as is now is less profitable than other mineable coins, when ETH goes to PoS Firo will probably end-up with no hash power because if Firo don’t care, miners won’t care neither to provide any hash power on 2miners or others, simple!
Practice and experience will prove you wrong and I hope not because some of these miners do actually care about Firo, good luck!
The debate still going on till when?
There is no conclusion
Community divided
Community is left to hate each other
I wonder of the purpose all of this? 325 comments. I think it already needs to stop. It is enough.
Don’t let this issue keeps going on
If team really want to vote, then let us VOTE
Indeed, I have the impression that we are not making much progress: the majority of comments consist of repeating the explanations already formulated in the topic, to contributors who have not bothered to read the previous posts.
I hope no one hates each other in our community. Me, I “love” you all :-).
The problem is to reason for the good of all: the point which makes react violently, it is that which concenren the particular miners interest.
Very generally, altcoin miners are opportunistic and go for the most profitable in the short term: no judgment, that’s how it is.
The news for PoW mining by GPU is the disappearance of ETH mining which will switch to PoS.
These miners will have to redirect their PoW mining to other altcoins. Of serious GPU PoW mining altcoins, there aren’t many left, and in those, FIRO takes pride of place.
The mining power to redirect from ETH to other altcoins is so important that there will be a huge peak in the hashrate and then the difficulty of these altcoins: mining will be much much less profitable over time than difficulty and price are balanced.
Some of these miners discover that the FIRO project is to reduce the part of the block-reward for mining: they are even more stressed and find it difficult to understand their long-term interest and the interest of the community.
So, to conclude: we must think for the project as a whole, not for this or that part of our community. What will benefit the whole community is the end of FIRO’s price drop and, even better, its price increase. We have listed what drives up the price of FIRO:
one or more massive investors (whales),
common use cases,
less pressure to sell FIRO,
more pressure to buy FIRO.
As part of this topic which concerns the distribution of the block-reward, we can act on the last two points with the distribution that I proposed (60% masternodes, 20% minors, 15% team, 5% community fund).
Above all, the question proves a lack of knowledge of the FIRO history.
FIRO is a project that was originally 100% PoW (ZCoin) and the mining ensured 100% of the lockchain security.
Then, the team developed the project by introducing masternodes while maintaining PoW mining.
Then, an attack in the mining part led the team to ensure most of the FIRO security to the masternodes, the miners only ensuring a secondary role, very weakened by the mining concentration on a single pool: 2Miners .
Why keep miners? Why remove them? I don’t have a definite opinion and I would need technical details from the team.
But why reduce they block-reward share from 50% to 20%? That’s what I explain in my posts.
My question doesn’t prove a lack of knowledge of Firo history. I was trying to highlight the fact that you are making big statements without understanding the technicalities behind them. Please stop being so defensive and judgmental, this doesn’t help anyone!
As mentioned in my previous post, you are biased because you have a couple of master nodes and you want more returns, additionally you want the price to rise because logically you want to sell to and have a profit, no shame in that but most importantly don’t talk about security nor caring about the project because you have little to no understanding of the consequences of driving the miners away.
A miner would rather shutting his rig completely down than mining at a loss, you draw miners as lost souls with hash power that will magically come to Firo even at 20% when ETH comes to PoS, again that’s a big statement which has no place in reality because there’s better “alt coins” to mine than Firo as is. I hope not everyone is having the same mindset and some of you can actually realise the consequences of this vote for the security and future of Firo.
What makes a network valuable is its size and resilience, right?
When the network has more redundant nodes, it is more decentralised, right?
Isn’t the number of nodes in a network a benchmark for its distribution?
Also, I fully agree with the statement that miners give value to the network through their real and tangible assets: GPUs, electricity, time, etc.
POW is, in my opinion, an effective method of entering and distributing coins on the market.
The problem I have become aware of as I read is that FIRO can change too easily and thus the protocol is not self-sufficient.
To me, FIRO is a hybrid that can take advantage of both POW and POS technologies, and the idea that it is possible to part with one of them would make me feel like I’ve been cheated.
What you don’t want to understand is that I’m also a miner… since the beginnings of Firo: you forget to mention that when I’ve mentioned it several times.
As for my intentions, you invent I don’t know what drama to try to discredit my words.
Yes, I want the price of FIRO to increase, like everyone here.
Yes, like most people who have supported the project from the beginning, without selling, I ended up having a bag. This shows that I have invested in FIRO, and not only through mining: I have also bought a lot on the markets.
Selling? If I’ve had FIROs for 6 years, do you really think I’ll sell on the first rise? If that was my goal, I would have sold a long time ago.
You bring your probable sales intentions to your interlocutor in an attempt to discredit him, and in addition you insult him by asserting ignorance without ever demonstrating any level of expertise yourself: only false assertions.
Miners are probably all going to lose money after the switch from ETH to PoS and FIRO will have nothing to do with it. They will go where they want, and there will be a large number of them who will be happy to be able to mine FIRO, even with 20% of the block-reward.
What matters is not the percentage of the block-reward obtained, it is the amount to which it corresponds, in btc or in fiat. By reducing the block-reward for miners from 50% to 20%, profitability will be preserved if Firo multiplies its price by 2.5, i.e. 8,000 sat x 2.5 = 20,000 sat. We must not compensate for the fall in the price of FIRO by part of the block-reward which has become excessive. FIRO’s price decline should be stopped and then reversed. To achieve this, the bulk of the block-reward should not be fueling downward pressure through miner and team sales. Most part of the reward block is to incentivize people to hold and buy FIR0s, which is what masternodes do. For everyone’s benefit, my advice for the best thing to do with the block-reward is to adopt the distribution I recommend.
Hi Ken! Under what pseudonym did you use to submit these vulnerabilities? You can DM me if you want to remain anonymous but just wanted to verify this.
I have tried DMing you but apparently I don’t have the option of doing so. My pseudonym is my real name (Ken is just a nickname) and I am not comfortable revealing my identity especially with such hostility in the forum and the fact that this is a privacy coin and we are discussing in a private forum.
Please do tone down on the hostility everyone. We are here to debate and we are all here to improve the future of Firo. We may not necessarily agree on the best course and it’s okay to have spirited debate but let’s try not to discredit the time that people take to write down their arguments.
It often easy to follow the history of Firo and we shouldn’t discount people’s opinions just because they may be newer to Firo. Sometimes fresh perspectives unencumbered by history can be helpful.
The problem with having small masternodes is that there will be MORE masternodes sharing the same percentage so actually each masternode will get less and what you would end up is less supply locked up in masternodes for the same number of nodes. There’s also no particular reason to have differing tier of masternodes on a technical standpoint.
If there are masternodes with different collateral levels, they will not all have the same reward.
The reward is to be modulated with the collateral size of the masternodes: if there are 3 sizes of collateral, for example, there must be 3 levels of remuneration.
I don’t see any difficulty in modulating the reward according to the collateral size.
On the other hand, I don’t know what it can be in terms of security: if the size of the collateral is different, to keep the same security, the weight of each masternode in the security must be modulated by its collateral level (otherwise, we could perhaps attack FIRO more easily by multiplying the small masternodes).
The subject is a community subject. The aim is to make FIRO masternodes accessible to as many people as possible: from the miner who holds, or from the buyer who discovers FIRO and wants an income without investing too much (small masternodes, for example 200 FIRO) but also to satisfy the whales , like Tim (big masternodes, e.g. 5000 FIRO).
