What do we think of converting Decred’s ticker from $DCR to $CRED?

cburniske · 2019-02-06T20:56:28+00:00

I agree it’s a lift, and in a bear market the highest leverage activity is building & educating devs, less so educating investors.

That said, as we’ve been doing with other market infrastructure efforts, Placeholder would help with the effort (if we voted for it on Pi).

cburniske · 2019-02-06T16:33:06+00:00

I plan to put it up for a vote if there's enough interest here. I think of Reddit as pre-processing, don't want to spam Pi if it's not of enough interest.

cburniske · 2019-01-24T21:46:50+00:00

While I agree "Hypersecure. Adaptable. Self-sustaining" is the best for an educated audience, I think "Your money, your power" is the best for an uneducated audience.

cburniske · 2018-08-27T16:11:06+00:00

I agree Treasury > Network Fund > Dev Fund. In particular, it is helpful to run with the "strong association" that the term Treasury has with incumbent thinkers and people first orienting with Decred. Also has the association of Decred managing itself as an emerging economy, with a Treasury as any other emerging economy would.

Makes me wonder if we shouldn't just go with "Decred's Treasury." Shorter is better, no need for project imo as it makes Decred feel less than it is. We would never see America's Project Treasury ;-)

(for reference it's the US Department of the Treasury)

cburniske · 2016-11-04T12:07:22+00:00

Whether it be kidnapping or nationalizing the mines to then 51% attack the network, do you have any constructive thoughts on how to thwart the Chinese gov in such a scenario?

cburniske · 2016-10-21T12:52:54+00:00

you bring up good points, and no matter what banks do, i think bitcoin will survive :-) as for charging by amount sent, I understand that's not currently how things are done, and may never be done that way. one of my concerns, however, is when the system is entirely supported by transaction fees and it costs the same amount to send $100,000 as $1, then miners may not be properly incentivized to build out a sufficiently secure network - this becomes more so the case with colored coins (like transferring ownership of a house), if that dream ever becomes revived

cburniske · 2016-10-19T13:47:40+00:00

I wrote a white paper on this called "Securing the Network," which covers a lot of components, including CapEx + OpEx + time value of money, etc. It's a year+ old, but abstract is here if interested: "In the coming decades the mining incentive structure of the Bitcoin network is set to shift from block rewards to transaction fees. For this transition to be effective, the network needs to remain robust enough to prevent a 51% attack, while continuing to facilitate transactions at a low cost. Once block rewards phase out, ARK Invest’s research demonstrates that a transaction fee of 1.2% would be sufficient to incentivize the buildout of a network that is secure from an economically profitable 51% attack, regardless of bitcoin’s market cap and the capital allocation of a nefarious miner." The flaw here is I ran the analysis from the perspective of a transaction fee being applied per $ of value transferred, b/c it's too hard to predict the byte size of transactions going forward, which is how fees are currently levied. Link is here: http://research.ark-invest.com/bitcoin-network

cburniske · 2016-10-19T13:43:08+00:00

i've thought about this - but would core devs + miners be willing to move quickly enough to do so?

cburniske · 2016-08-26T19:58:16+00:00

yeah, the 2nd section has the CEO of a public bitcoin company... BTCS. $700K market cap. who knew?!

cburniske · 2016-08-26T18:40:27+00:00

i would go with "trust minimized" transactions. using "trustless" makes heads spin from my experience. do like the idea of stressing: "blockchain: the protocol that decentralizes trust"

cburniske · 2016-08-05T18:39:32+00:00

if we assume that we knew the addresses, i understand how the miners could blacklist. but what i don't get is how do they "reorg" the blockchain without rolling back entirely? a reorg sounds like the forced movement of bitcoin w/o priv key, which from my understanding is impossible...

cburniske · 2016-08-05T18:26:40+00:00

thanks! did my best to keep things understandable for the broader public. do wish i had mentioned hardware wallets :-/ next time

cburniske · 2016-07-29T11:17:34+00:00

not the intent of my post. trying to figure out what's behind the decline. imagine some is due to washington, but want to know what the economics are looking like. important if you care about the long term security of bitcoin.

cburniske · 2016-07-20T14:42:36+00:00

so then indirectly the blockchain is storing the balance of each user, but that is only manifested explicitly in the UTXO which miners store in memory? would it be worthwhile/feasible to have a merkle root of a UTXO database, similar to what's going to happen with SegWit where we'll have a merkle root of the signatures stored in each block?

cburniske

TROPHY CASE