I don't know how GRC distributes rewards, but from what you wrote I gather that you need something similar to a price feed. Let's call it a "work feed" - an (elected?) group of people gathers external data and publishes that on the blockchain. The blockchain has a built-in algorithm that looks at the feed data and from that it decides how to distribute rewards.

Currently, every windows client gathers BOINC statistics directly from the whitelisted BOINC projects, extracts team Gridcoin stats & produces a local table of stats for every registered (within the grc network) user. Once a day, the statistics (which the most clients agree upon) are included in a 'superblock' to which rewards are based upon when end users stake a block.

The problem with the above is that if we were to remove the team requirement to increase our userbase, the gridcoin network would be overwhelmingly consuming BOINC web server resources. Elected delegate roles for producing these statistics would solve this issue.

If it was possible for these stats to be fed into a built-in algorithm which paid BOINC users (rather than the end users having to stake a block to access their owed rewards) that would be pretty epic! To counter the issue of "I don't need a stake to earn rewards" (bad for marketcap), the algorithm could vary frequency of payouts to end users based on their base asset holdings.

There is no technical reason why the witnesses should be the ones to produce that "work feed". From a decentralisation perspective I think it would be a good idea to separate these roles.

It would make sense to separate the responsibilities out to different entities, however, voting participation needs to be incentivized somehow (or really in your face) - currently we're getting like.. 15% max voting weight participation on the GRC network.

The tricky part will be defining the "work feed" data so that it can be included in the blockchain in an efficient way. You may already have solved that on the current GRC chain.

The Gridcoin network has solved this to a certain degree, we could probably scale to 10k+ users with the current block storage mechanism, however if we were to aim for the current max ceiling of 560k+ active BOINC users we would be in trouble. On the other hand, users could use light clients & witnesses/comittee's would have the burden of storing this data..

Quote from: xeroc on October 19, 2016, 08:22:02 am

Quote from: pc on October 15, 2016, 07:38:28 am

I don't know how GRC distributes rewards, but from what you wrote I gather that you need something similar to a price feed. Let's call it a "work feed" - an (elected?) group of people gathers external data and publishes that on the blockchain. The blockchain has a built-in algorithm that looks at the feed data and from that it decides how to distribute rewards.

Pretty much what steem does .. except that EVERYONE decides on who gets the block rewards

Only on a very abstract level, IMO. Steem rewards a very subjective notion of "quality" (that I don't seem to agree with most of the time), whereas GRC tries to reward an actual measurable quantity of work.

You're right in that it would follow the same lines of Steemit - where rewards are issued by an algorithm (which is fed by data, in steem's case votes & GRC's case NN statistics) then distributed to users without end-users staking blocks & without witnesses having the ability to steal these issued funds.

However, as PC states - Steem doesn't proportionally reward users for their work completed (Steem's really a lottery whether or not large users see/upvote your post/comment) where as (gridcoin+graphene) would continuously & proportionally reward verified BOINC computation.

Quote from: MrJeans on October 05, 2016, 12:10:48 pm

Quote from: 天籁 on September 29, 2016, 02:37:28 am

Quote from: Brekyrself on September 29, 2016, 01:55:29 am

Graphene 2.0?

steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/steem-developer-update-graphene-2-0

Doesn't serve to improve the bitshares exchange.
Yes, I agree. Improvements could be made to the browser wallet to improve user friendliness.

What would be some of the security drawbacks? A centralized entity is trusted not to loose your wallet files incase you loose them.

Is SVK not on DPOS payroll? If not, and if he wants, he should be. There is a ton to be done!

You can look at the current workers here: https://cryptofresh.com/workers

The worker system is not being used, at all.

Should the minimum vote weight required for worker approval be reduced? If you don't vote in an IRL election your vote isn't counted as opposition but rather ignored.

Does suppressing currencies make BTS less decentralized?

How about starting small and fixing the block explorer.  It hasn't displayed the correct value for BTS for months...  If something as simple as this can't be maintained, how is BTS ever going to be able to handle a larger and more complex project?

Is it open source? If it was we may see multiple block explorers being created..

For anyone that's interested, I've posted a sneak preview of 'Project Rain' in screenshort form (showing off Bitshares on front page).

There's also an extensive discussion brewing regarding Project Rain.

Do join in the discussion!

https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@cm-steem/sneak-preview-of-project-rain-screenshots

I've voted for this worker proposal, as xeroc says - it'd be great to get bitCNY:RippleCNY (bitUSD:RippleUSD) gateways.

OP - might be worth appearing on a future BeyondBitcoin episode to rally support if you're still interested in this idea.

Quote from: crypto123 on September 12, 2016, 02:36:48 pm

The 5% interest on anything was a major selling point for BTSX (Hell, it has an emoji here! ). I would love to be able to set interest on UIA/MPA.

I would as well, as I wrote in the steemit post.

What do you think of the argument I outlined as to why perhaps that is not a good idea?

I think providing yield for smartcoins would increase interest in holding them for the long term, in the BTSX system the trading fees were used to cover yield and now this is given to the witnesses, right? What about reverting to that old system but 50:50 witnesses/holders - so that witnesses don't entirely lose out on fees.

I think yield on UIA, or potentially new functionality to set 'x%' interest on an UIA (issuing new UIA tokens & sending to UIA holders) without involving the UIA issuer for each interest payment would be really cool.

Looks like another scientific cryptocurrency rally is occuring again!