Lowering blocktime and blockreward


#1

Problem statement

  1. Inflation 2 .faster tx comfirmations with 1m blocks

Mission Statement or Vision
Stop high inflation by decreasing blockreward by 20% and after that every 35days (50k blocks at 1m blocktime) by 7%

This must not be the exact blockreward plan to be implemented , if this voting succeds we may have a contest with diffrent plans of lowering the blockreward

Objectives to be achieved

Preferred approach
By combining fork at next major sapling upgrade

Benefits statement

**Performance and progress **
Risks and ways to address them

A basic plan of work (timeline and key milestones)
ASAP

Cost estimates and funding sources
Just devtime

Opposing arguments and responses

Other
If there is anything else you’d like to share.

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


#2

These are 2 proposals in one, do you try to camouflage one of them?


#3

Yeah … realized that now… anyway … we may see some comments on that


#4

Of course, let’s see what they say


#5

Am I missing something here? this has us stop at 6.4Billion? The supply is fine - the emission rate is what is problematic.


#6

Total supply must be 21billions.


#7

Instead of upgrading the coin right now, because we just had an update so recently, Let’s focus on promoting Bitcoin Z as it is such a bargain right now, and maybe a community fund to create a more unique and feature filled wallet??


#8

Without this coin is dead :wink:


#9

I’m with you solidarity , I vote yes .


#10

I think proposal is too radical on reducing block reward.I still didn’t vote, but since this is only proposal which is negotiable, I could vote for “yes” option.
Interesting is that this proposal is quite opposite of what most BTCZ developers would like to do, so I am not sure how would they react if “yes” option win here. It’s hard to work on something you don’t agree with. I couldn’t, I admit…


#11

I’ve built a rough sigmoid curve as a possible candidate for a more mathematically sound and possibly more fair distribution of the btcz coin, focusing mainly on the following points: slow emission to curve dumping of btcz currently, accelerated distribution in the middle as mass adoption takes place, and increase in price towards the end due to lowering of emission.

The following assumption was taken: mass adoption happens in the 5th year of btcz (1825 days from day 0), and emission changes from concurrent block without altering the final or current supply.

the following function was used:

F(x)= L / (1+e^(-k(x-x0)))

where L is max supply 21 billion
k is the slope
x0 is the center of inflection point (basically the point where the slope, aka block reward, reaches the maximum.

see attached file for graph and more information.

the numbers are only a rough calculation, the k, x0 xould be further modified to fit the requirements further. Currently with our supplies we’d be around 2bln, so around the 440 day mark in the graph


#12

IMO Masternodes would the best thing to bring new investors into bitcz.


#13

Guys: This proposal wants to cut 7% of block reward every 35 days.

So, we will have 10 cuts per year.

In one year, block reward will be nearly half of what it is today.

It means: A 50% halving every One year.

This cut is to harsh to me. It is to much.

Please. Enver. Drop of this Proposal, and redesign to a 3% (or 3.5%) cut every 35 days. So that we will have a nearly 25% (or 30%) halving every One Year. More reasonable in long term.


#14

I’m sorry but i think other proposal was better in long run. Not only the reward is the problem…Can we think about again what Equipool wrote proposal?


#15

Sorry for my bad saying but… dudes! This proposal just sucks! It is clearly a way to get valuation in short-therm, without taking into account the consequences in long run … It is so Scam-Like, that I am impressed with the approval of more than 56% of the community…

Lets stop trying to solve the BTCZ problem by trick ways … What we need to discuss is how to get a larger user base. I am not the market guy, but I do tried to support this community by running mining pools for a while, and spreading the word as I could. I did my best at that time, and in doing that, I came to know how great is this community. Always trying to help each other and looking for the best solutions.

Resume: if our user bases keeps the same, cutting block-reward like that is just going to bring artificial-valuation. Which will be the opportunity for people to cash-out, and maybe never come back.


#16

I think we need something of this sort. We need something drastic to happen in the markets so maybe we can get listed on some exchanges that actually trade volume. We need this to get noticed by the general population sense the marketing side of things, at least from what I have notice over the last 4 months isn’t done very well


#17

Agree with MadMax, no need to try and inflate things artificially. Focus on making a solid product and growing the user base. The rest will come naturally.
Also, at the moment the alt-coins are burning up left and right. So don’t worry about the price. :v:
Even at current prices, mining BTCZ is 40% more profitable than ZCash. So if Nethash doubles like it did with ZCash when Coinbase announced possible listing, its going to hurt small players aka “community”. I think it’s better that it doesn’t get listed for at least another year on big exchanges. Need to spread out more coins first. Focus on making seamless micro payments, ditch the bulky adresses.

Want your coins to be worth something?
~Be more user friendly than the competition.
~Sponsor some Twitch streamers!(also eSports)

#InItForTheCommunity :joy:


#18

Here’s what I know -

When it comes to predicting the future, there are times when one can see forward with high certainty and high (ultimate, retrospective) accuracy about an end state, but INSIGHT INTO THE PATH that gets there is for practical purposes IMPOSSIBLE.

That’s how the future creates itself, by zigging, zagging, and flowing over, under, and around the things that are impeding it.

The end state in this case (if we don’t screw it up along the way) is (relatively) wide adoption of BTCZ at some value-equivalent near to or greater than $1.

If that end state is reached (and all the current community members are invested in that, in greater or lesser degrees), then how important are the twists and turns of the path taken? Not so very important, I would say.

More specifically, WHO holds the BTCZ today, X years from now, Y years from now, Z years from now is of practically no importance so long as the holdings are decentralized, the coin survives, and the insfrastructure is robust.

Maybe all 21 billion BTCZ is emitted in 10 years, and held at that time by 21,000 BTCZ millionaires. OK, so what? Things continue to proceed from there.

Maybe all 21 billion BTCZ is emitted in 10 years and in the meantime all cellphones have become viable miners and there are 3 billion people holding an average of 7 BTCZ each. Again, so what? Things continue to proceed from there.

I say “So what?” (and that is a serious question that anyone can try to answer) either way.

BTCZ was concieved of, and is currently, among other things, the “coin for individual miners” (GPU miners, rather than racks of corporate ASICs). This is a good and valid thing to be.

It is, however, a different thing than being the “coin for the currently unbanked billions” or “the coin for all humanity”. I’ll call that FairCoin. FairCoin would be a worthy project for sure, but it’s not the project we have here.

FairCoin may not be possible using the current structure of cryptcurrency as it now exists. Or maybe it would be, but in either case FairCoin would need it’s own “white paper” and a significantly different approach than the “all coins created start as 100% owned by tech-savvy (and relatively well-off) miners” used today.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that some people really want to turn BTCZ into FairCoin.

I don’t object to the concept of FairCoin. In fact, I support it. But BTCZ is not it! (and can’t be, IMO).

A person with just a single GPU card can today begin to accumulate BTCZ in whole numbers (rather than tiny fractions) by mining. That is a good thing. The current rate of creation supports that. A person without a computer at all, or w/o the means to have at least one modern GPU dedicated to the task cannot accumulate BTCZ by mining. That’s not going to change no matter how you jigger the creation parameters.

So, what exactly is the big point about “fairness”? Fairness to whom? Fairness by what definition? BTCZ as it currently exists is much more “fair” in the current context of crypto than BTC itself.

There is a risk of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good!

In summary, I am unconvinced (so far) that upside (in any sense) of changing the creation parameters outweighs the downside of demonstrably tossing aside fundamental (e.g. in the white paper) founding aspects of the coin.

Yes, the “community” can make such a decision. Sure. But the arguments put forth in it’s favor are very thin. So far, it seems to me that keeping the stated compact that everyone participating so far has bought into would be the best way to ensure BTCZ’s survival to realize its destiny.

I invite serious, detailed discussion/opinion to the contrary. Lacking same, I think staying the course is the best way to maintain and build the faith and stability upon which the utility of all currencies ultimately rests.


#19

I agree totally with @teh_pwnerer (and others). Let’s first focus on promoting Bitcoin Z, solving the issues like the actual payment gateway and creating more feature like the TxtZ project ! And also not changing some basic rules like block reward decreasing and total supply (or others x100 coin cutting system). I think the problem actually is not here, and it’s not technical.

Yes! Exactly that point is very important! Like the last proposal, this one is trying to pump the price artificially, and after what? Some guys will cash out all coin = Pump & dump scheme…

@sj1 :+1:, you have almost everything said! I find your post is very responsible and constructive. Bravo.

Note: In my opinion, (outside of the ASIC updats) the only util update could be a smaller block time like 1 minute with a block reward of 5’000. Because the total (or new mined) supply are the same. This could be very util for future game development. But is here someone that could explain exactly the security impact if we do so ?

And for the end, sorry @LesiBTCZ, but:

It’s very not constructive… everyone can have an opinion, and I could also short my answer as like: “I think that with this update , the coin will die”. Do you think it’s util ?


#20

Lol it’s already dead something needs to bring it back to life. People think the success of Btcz is a guaranteed thing, it’s not lol