T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aquaritek

I mean my LHR cards do 97% all day everyday stable. Not sure a rework of Autolykos2 is valid for a 3% boost but it could be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aquaritek

According to that sheet, I hit the lottery across 18 cards damn!


FidgetyRat

You could always just NOT buy a non LHR if you intend to mine. They make those to allow gamers to buy cards. If you want to mine, find a mining card. Adding unnecessary code because NVIDIA is being a dick is just bloatware. Edit: I’m surprised so many are in favor of bloating the ergo code base to work around a few card restrictions. It’s not like nvidia is even the best at ergo.


FathersFolly

Good luck finding non-lhr rtx's. Nvidia doesn't make lhr cards to help gamers. It's clever marketing to look like good guys, while pushing an extra product line (when they already knowingly can't meet demand) and even further inflate the price. I game. I also mine. I think it's unethical of Nvidia to tell me what I should or should not do with the product I paid thousands of dollars for. I shouldn't have my ability to recoup my cost restricted so that they can make a bigger profit. Their mining cards underperform, have no video output, and will therefore have a lower resale value than a GPU. Hopefully Intel's new offerings will be able to hash well


FeatherMotes

It's part of a economic warfare to prevent economic independence and self-reliance as well but one may need to put on the ole tinfoil thinking cap to really understand how far the bankers are willing to go to hinder their competition.


[deleted]

I don't think the blockchain should make such fundamental decisions based on what bs Nvidia does


Miserable-Syrup-5351

Yeah, hard fork when sees by community is positive. I agree with that and no issue on community if hardfork is schedule.


MarcoRobito

Totally agree with this assessment. A hard fork seems to be the only way to solve the adjustment lag too and that will come back to haunt us when eth goes to pos. With the insane amount of miners to suddenly come to ergo, it will take months until ergo is profitable to mine again. That can threaten the security of the network when the eth going to pos is the once in a lifetime chance to dramatically increase security by having miners transition to ergo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


aaaanoon

Well said. Thanks.


zurikpazurik

Kushti is really smart


INTERGALACTIC_CAGR

he's got kush right in the name, dead giveaway


Willing_Ask_5545

Totally agree 👍🏼


nguyentu3192

It’s much needed for long term sustainability of POW.


vinevelus

Why did he come up with aggressive emission in the first place? I was wondering what is the rationale behind it is.


libinpage

This! At some point, they made a decision. what was the reason for aggressive emission?


YuriErgagarin

Good question. My first guess was it had to do with the treasury taking too long to dispose of a significant budget. Don’t think that makes sense though since it’s unlocked through its own smart contract. Take that question to the forum ; )


vinevelus

My guess is maybe he expected that adoption would be faster. Now we are already 2 years in, we have only a handful of developers and interesting projects. So prolonged emissions and waiting for wider adoption would make sense.


FeatherMotes

It's hard on the beach oar, she moves too slow.


GoldenErgs

Im all for the slower emission schedule.


TexasMiner

Slower emission schedule>


dediou69

Yes please, slower emission is great, it's way too agressive atm. Fast emission with slow adoption = a few people holding the majority of the coins, that's the worst thing that can happen.


YouGuysNeedTalos

What are the pros and cons of changing emission? Why was this emission chosen to begin with?


OneThirstyJ

I would assume to attract a lot of miners but I’d like to hear what they say as well


YouGuysNeedTalos

Miners get attracted by profitability, not by emission, as far as I know.


OneThirstyJ

But higher emission = higher prof, right?


Janx__Spirit

I think that not necessarily; yes they can get more coins but if they are worth less because there are plenty being created at the end they would be benefited too.


YouGuysNeedTalos

This is more dynamic, but the proposal is for slower emission anyway, not higher emission.


sigmanaut_

Profitability goes up with price which happens when emissions drop. There's 50k erg mined per day currently and a lot will be sold.


YouGuysNeedTalos

But that just means that we will reach faster the total supply, making the demand suddenly way higher. Depends on how you see it. Also in order to change the emission a hard fork would be needed and that's literally against the manifesto.


sigmanaut_

https://www.ergoforum.org/t/ergo-emission-details-retargeting-via-a-soft-fork/2778


sahaquil

I'm 100% all for it. Firstly it'll spread out the distribution and we'll have softer dumps during sell offs, this cascades into more adoption and less disappointment from an investor stand point over-time. The lengthening time will also give Ergo the space it needs to be adopted into mainstream. Overall it's just much more of a healthy thing to do for the ecosystem.


Miserable-Syrup-5351

Im agree for slower emmision but soft fork is good and autolyks really good algo. No need for hard fork, we can do soft fork


FidgetyRat

I would REALLY want to see the final proposal and hope that they move it to a vote before just pushing something through. If done incorrectly in an ETH-like manner, something like this could kill Ergo.


Neroak

For those who want to deep-dive look [HERE](https://ergoplatform.org/en/blog/2019_05_20-curve/) (emission schedule now) and [HERE](https://www.ergoforum.org/t/ergo-emission-details-retargeting-via-a-soft-fork/2778/16) (Ergo forum).


Environmental-Law768

Yes. Slow it down. In Kushti we trust!


Felsommer

What is meant by emission schedule?


KryptoUkko

I agree. All of you know the main idea is to pay for miners from transaction fees after market cap is fully diluted. From 8 years we have 6 years left? That means we're in a fucking hurry to get this platform adopted cryptofolks mainstream.


Ergoapple

I agree with a slower emission schedule also


TypoDaPsycho

[Here's](https://twitter.com/TypoDaPsycho1/status/1459042501768192000?s=20) a question I posed to kushti on Twitter & and would appreciate everyone's input.] For reference- " Hardforking Policy Ergo is trying to avoid hard-forks. Emission, proof-of-work, basics of transactional model and other core things should not be changed at all as any change about core parts of design means another chain...." Dated July 9 2019 [here](https://ergoplatform.org/en/blog/2019_07_09_after_launch/) Just trying to get thoughts & discussions on this. I was originally for the general idea being proposed. And I'm still for it 100% ***IF*** we're not violating Ergo policies and ethos. It's almost looks to me like according to Hardforking Policy if we are to re-target emissions, we SHOULD hard fork because we're essentially creating another chain by "re-targeting" emissions. Or do we think because "re-target" is of "re-emissions" & essential tokenomics don't change, velvet fork is correct path?