RE: Koinos and Hive: What's the difference and why?

[edicted]

one of the things that I do agree with him on is that eventually the free-to-use element of the chain called Mana will likely have some monetary value

But that was pretty much the only point I was making in my post.
I did not read the whitepaper yesterday.
I skimmed it for the keywords needed to make my point.
I can see how calling it DPOS would be triggering as shit.
Thanks for writing this I learned a good chunk.

Comments

[justinw]

Awesome. Thanks for reading. Sounds like we're basically in agreement then. I think most users and developers on Koinos are in agreement too, eventually (at very high marketcaps) the "free to use" element does have some kind of monetary value and might make sense for some people to rent/borrow instead of holding their own base token to continually get free transactions. Oddly it's also an element that some users are excited about though - they are looking forward to renting out and/or being the borrower for Mana they have. Without the stake weighted voting aspect it feels a bit more wholesome for that to become a reality some day (but that's a matter of opinion I suppose).

[edicted]

The question I'm trying to answer right now are the block production incentives.
Do you know how Koinos prevents Sybil attack?
Trying to figure out how mining works...

My next post will have to be on koinos consensus because of the response I got.
Gonna take more work than usual.

[justinw]

The one thing I'd add to @andrachy's answer here is that in reference to the Sybil attack it's basically the same as on Bitcoin. You have to actually produce blocks in order to have governance votes. 1 block produced is 1 vote (it is not stake weighted). In order to produce more blocks than anyone else you have to first acquire stake and burn it and then actually produce blocks for quite some time to get your governance votes in. Changes to governance require 70% of produced blocks to be voting for a proposal, non-governance changes require 60%. This is very similar to Bitcoin because in order to attack the network there you would need to acquire 51% of the hash power and then actually continue to produce blocks - you couldn't just stop producing, you'd have to keep "owning" the network in perpetuity. This is part of why I say PoB is more similar to PoW than PoS. In addition, the default governance vote is "no" so it isn't possible for someone to sneak in a proposal without block producers actively engaging.

[andrarchy]

Great addition. Thanks!

[andrarchy]

Thanks for digging into how Koinos works.

1. Miners produce blocks in exchange for inflation.
2. Miners burn KOIN in exchange for VHP 1:1.
3. How much they earn is based on how much VHP they have, but as they receive KOIN rewards, their VHP gets destroyed.
4. So there are two components to the miner incentives:
   a. The rate at which the VHP of a miner is diminished and
   b. The KOIN earned from producing a valid block.
5. The rate at which VHP is reduced is based on the assumption that 50.1% of the KOIN supply is being burned per year.
6. The block reward (which is KOIN) is based on the sum of the total supply of KOIN and VHP times (1+ 0.02). 0.02 is the inflation rate.
7. The outcome of these incentives is that if the target burn rate is reached, the miner will receive an APR of 4%.
8. However, if the amount of KOIN burned is below the target, miners will automatically earn greater than 4%. If it is above the target, they will earn less.

The actual mechanics of how VHP and the output of a verifiable random function are combined to mimic proof of work are better explained in the whitepaper.

Does that answer your question?