The plus side of this is that newbs with very low balances stake more often and get positive feedback for their efforts. The number one complaint of minnows is that they never stake and wonder if they are doing something wrong or if it's a scam. The downside is that relatively large fish can sit out and get a full PoS reward without supporting the chain.

@caraka Indeed, with the current low 'balance' stake weight participation it's easier for 'newbies' with a low quantities of coins to stake, however, low balance staking participation could potentially put network consensus at risk if an individual acquires a large stake weight (either via DPOR (pool/cheater) or balance (exchange?) ).

To properly understand the risk behind low balance stake weight participation, we need to document the DPOR weight calculation: https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/49141-dpor-stake-weight-calculations/

What happens with the amount of Stake that are not generated because 80% of the coins are not online and staking? Does the network compensate for this? If it doesn't compensate for it, it would mean that the network generates less coins?

Its up to each individual to actually come online and stake to receive the .015% interest on their coin age. So no, the network will not compensate for this as the wallet will only pay interest on personal balances (not on a shared kitty).

Regarding newbies, the coin is capable of generating a special POR block with .01grc reward, but the feature has been waiting for our next mandatory.

Im not sold on the large stakeweight consensus risk problem yet; or at least, let me rephrase: We have bigger fish to fry for the time being. We need to prioritize things like having our 2nd dev finish all cross platform features, and bringing up the quant finance network, and adding our cosmetic features for newbies, and shoring up what we have before we can dream about "breaking changes" - things that end up getting us in a bunch of hot water.

@startailcoon In a POSv3 system, if you did not actively stake, those potential rewards would be earned by others currently staking (your offline stake would earn 0 interest).

@gridcoin I don't think we should be granting any special newbie blocks nor newbie stake weight boosts - the 'newbie boost' was needed back when research was only tracked from when you first staked a block, but shortly after implementing the newbie rules you made it so that rewards were tracked from beacon advertisement onwards - negating the purpose of newbie boosts.

Regarding the large stakeweight consensus risk - if between 60 to 100 mil GRC (out of 387mil+) are staking on average, in order to '51% attack' the network via POS one would only require 30-50mil GRC. Those with that quantity of coins are the foundation and exchanges (and possibly one or two whales). I have not taken DPOR stake weight into account because DPOR stake weight documentation is unclear/unavailable.

Throwback perspective regarding network consensus: When I began acquiring an estimated 30-40% POW hash weight in classic via an ASIC (lol @ that wasted 20BTC) you accelerated the change to POS to combat the threat. Switching to POSv3 in a future planned&tested hard fork would create an incentive for investors to continuously stake & secure the network from 51% (really 7.75% to 12.92% right now) attacks.

Yeah, there's certainly development priorities such as porting functionality from Windows to Linux, improving load times, improving the UI, upgrading to qt5, neural network, etc, but that shouldn't prevent us from discussing these matters. As we become a more active community we'll pick up developers along the way that may be able to relieve you of some of the development burden.

I'm not sure about the priority of the Quant finance network nor if it should be built into the client rather than running on top of the client via op_return transactions & viewable from a web application, however I have no idea what this quant network entails.

If 60-100Mil GRC on average are staking at any one time, then the following two users (with a combined balance of over 93Mil GRC) are capable of performing a 51% attack if they work together (perhaps on their own if stake weight is lower than usual):

PhilD : http://gridcoinstats.eu/cpid.php?a=view&id=9ce6f19e20f69790601c9bf9c0b03928
Test1235: http://gridcoinstats.eu/cpid.php?a=view&id=e6a4984e4c9bb7b53ac56e4b03f0cd4f

Who are these users & are they active in the community? How did they end up with such large sums of GRC?

It's possible that the user Test1235 has even more coins since the CPID hasn't been used since 2015-10-29. The page can only track addresses that staked with that CPID once. Any new addresses that just collects PoS reward will not show up in the list of that CPID. The user was never really active on BOINC, just briefly in the period of Oktober 2015, hence why we can track some of the addresses to the same user.

By checking out some of the addresses you can see that the user actually was active as late as 2016-10-29 with this address.

I think going over to PoSv3 is a good idea and will support it.

PS. I will see if I can make some kind of calculated value of how many coins are in staking rotation and how many are inactive. It will give us a better estimate of the network health. DS.

users concerned about this can participate until February 8 in this poll:

• Should we implement POSv3 to combat low network stake weight?
  https://steemit.com/gridcoin/@erkan/gridcoin-poll-should-we-implement-posv3to-combat-low-network-stake-weight-vote-until-february-8

@startailcoon

PS. I will see if I can make some kind of calculated value of how many coins are in staking rotation and how many are inactive. It will give us a better estimate of the network health. DS.

That would be extremely cool, would potentially freak people out though if the staking participation was low & on display though, eh? haha!

Blackcoin has been running POSv3 for more than 6 months at this point without issue, which is a good sign.

Yes good for blackcoin, may not be good for other coins ;P

I just talked with the blackcoin dev @janko33bd more, and he said Blackcoin's v3 approach can't be used directly, since it's too BLK specific.
All other coins which tried to use it had some problems.

So, more work is needed for implementation

@grctest

That would be extremely cool, would potentially freak people out though if the staking participation was low & on display though, eh? haha!

True, might not be for public use. But if we are on the brink of having someone able to do a 51% attack, wouldn't you want to know rather than hoping it wasn't so? :P

@janko33bd

Yes good for blackcoin, may not be good for other coins ;P

Based on what assumption wouldn't it be good for other coins?

@Erkan-Yilmaz
I was afraid it wasn't that easy :D

P2p networks are hard to simulate, because of different conditions of network providers in different parts of world, different community creates a different network environment with it's own problems.

other coins that utilize PosV3:

ShadowCoin SDC:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowcash/comments/5nphsx/sdc_uses_pos_version_30_from_blackcoin_here_is_an/?st=iy3c481z&sh=f7b9fec9

POS vs DPOR stake weight balance?

Another factor that needs considered is POS:DPOR stake weight balance (huppdiwupp's posts are worth reading) : https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/49141-dpor-stake-weight-calculations/

Link to hupdiwup's initial post & following quote:

"If you have a low magnitude the probability to stake would be greater if you just ran an investor wallet. If you have a high magnitude the probability to stake is greater than running an investor node.
This was a little bit of a surprise to me. I thought that you would always have at least the probability to stake of an investor and the work you do for boinc crunching increases this probability. So that despite the imapct of "owed" the ratio between investor and cruncher would be constant, given a magnitude."

Proposal 1 conclusion:

"Now, if you are owed nothing the probability to stake is the same as if you were an investor. If owed is positive your probability goes up, if owed is negative it goes down. The impact of the variable owed is dependent on your magnitude, so it boosts small magnitude nodes more than large magnitude nodes.
The problem with this is that you could create a lot of gridcoin+boinc nodes with a small magnitude, close the wallets and then build up probability.

The way it currently works you can also build up probability by crunching with the wallet closed. But since small magnitudes and small balances are being penalized it is more expensive. This is at the cost of newbies not staking blocks or having a newbie boost.

This is basically the same problem as with PoSv1 vs PoSv2, whether to use coinage or coin. So maybe we should eliminate the owed-variable from the equation."

Proposal 2 conclusion::

"The advantage of this would be that you cannot build up probability to stake. Regardless how long your wallet has been offline or what you are "owed" the probability stays the same.

But this would come down to the same discussion we had with the vote weight. What should the ratio between magnitude and balance be.
If ideally all coins would stake all the time it would be no problem if the weight was equal (p=1). But if only 20% of the total coin supply stake at one time it could be too much.

I don't know if the total coin supply is easily accessible. If it is not it could be set as a constant but then the importance of Magnitude would slowly decay as more coins are created.

If there is a way to determin how many coins stake at a single time, we could use that metric instead of total coin supply. This would mean that you would have to have 51% coins staking plus 51% magnitude staking for an attack at any point in time.

Steemit thread

Fixed rewards to ensure the stated interest per year as advertised & to ensure maximum balance stake weight participation.

I am currently in the process of using a script on a pi node to analyze how the network weight changes over a 24-48 hour period (to determine times when the network is relatively "weak"). I will be producing a graph when the test is finished if anyone is interested in this data.

So we put in a confusing poll for this before we did our own research? LOL.

Blame whoever created the poll

Yeah, its like creating a poll to see if we want to switch to POW from POS, and expecting someone to actually program it. Maybe check with the Programmers first next time, thanks.

Were not Blaming whose creating the poll, Im just making a point that putting a poll in is not accomplishing work or moving us forward.

So we put in a confusing poll for this before we did our own research? LOL.

There's been an entire thread on POS:DPOR stake weight balance on cryptocointalk for months, users simply won't do research on the topic unless faced with a poll which requires them to read a couple posts on github/cryptocointalk.

The poll is indeed quite confusing, you're right - I'll create a couple polls which are simpler (fixed rewards, POS:DPOR stake weight balance, etc).

Yeah, its like creating a poll to see if we want to switch to POW from POS, and expecting someone to actually program it. Maybe check with the Programmers first next time, thanks.

Were not Blaming whose creating the poll, Im just making a point that putting a poll in is not accomplishing work or moving us forward.

The poll is not worded along the lines of "Should Rob Halford drop literally everything he's doing IRL and immediately focus on implementing POSv3 without pay?", we've held development/technical polls in the past which were not followed up with dramatic demands/mandates for development (splash image for example).

The poll doesn't accomplish nothing, it gets new users involved in the development/research process, gets users used to voting within the client, and helps to estimate the priority the network perceives this issue has.

You were previously involved in this github issue: #106 (comment) The reason that this issue has resurfaced is that users are concerned that two unknown users collectively have enough to potentially 51% attack the network if the initial staking balance estimates are accurate: #106 (comment)

In terms of research that is required:

• We need to figure out how many coins on average are staking over a 24hr period to truly evaluate the risk of 51% attacks by whales. Several users are actively creating scripts to track this.
• Everyone should read huppdiwupp's two proposals on POS:DPOR stake weight balance (backed by graphs and research on cryptocointalk).
• We should all vote on the poll to further evaluate the network's staking behaviour (though, we can also deduce this from going through gridcoinstats.eu address transaction pages):

Since my(huppdiwupp) posts on cryptocointalk came up I wanted to point out that I don't know if everything I wrote is right. I tried to understand the staking mechanism to the best of my knowledge but there haven't been any posts proving me right or wrong. I don't considering myself a blockchain expert so it would be great if someone with more knowlege and experience could take a look. Since there has not been much interest on cryptocointalk I didn't pursue the matter any further but if there is any interest I could share my idea on how we might get a dynamic stake weight. Dynamic in the sense that no matter how many coins are staking the probability to stake is almost 50:50 between magnitude and balance.

After looking at how pure POS coins estimate the amount of coins currently staking I believe there is no easy way to do the same with gridcoin. I think we would have to know the magnitude and the research owed for every wallet currently staking.

I now have my chart for the first 24 hours of network stake weight logging. In the interest of security, I do not want to openly post them for the world to see. If you would like to receive a copy of the spreadsheet, raw data, or simply the graph, send me a message on irc or the forums. Username is barton26 on both.

Edit: Tomorrow at this time I will have the 48 hour logs as well.

@gridcoin , while I did not create the poll because I cannot, I do this it's a good mechanism to gather community sentiment. Based on what I have read from here and the multiple pages linked, I do find this topic interesting and I do think a couple major holders can drastically influence the network (particularly in polls - which this does not solve) because of the lack of active participation because the supermajority of GRC holders.

Given this, if it helps at all, I am going to vote yes on this item but I'm also willing to donate $50 or $100 to the development of this. While it's not much, maybe if other people are willing to do so it could be a bigger incentive.

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive.

Here is the clean graph (no numbers) of 48 hours of network stake weight: http://imgur.com/a/Likya

Those wishing for the data or summarized data are welcome to contact me on irc.

We need to figure out how many coins on average are staking over a 24hr period to truly evaluate the risk of 51% attacks by whales. Several users are actively creating scripts to track this.

Here is the clean graph (no numbers) of 48 hours of network stake weight: http://imgur.com/a/Likya

This graph (alongside actual figures communicated in private) confirms that network POS stake weight is dangerously low & we need to figure out how to improve staking participation.

I've seen the numbers for one of 24 hour periods, it's also interesting to me that today the network weight is at the highest I've ever seen it (156M) - it's almost like some large holders suddenly came online. At one point - particularly in the two weeks following the mandatory upgrade - I had seen the network weight as low as 60M.

Hopefully people take these concerns seriously and at least use the poll as a way to say this is something that this is something worth continued focus.

156/385 = 40.52% of coins staking.

This does not take into account the stakeweight generated by DPOR, however as discussed in this cryptocointalk thread the mechanism is not 100% understood (potentially unbalanced?)

Task: Create DPOR whitepaper
Erkan-Yilmaz/Gridcoin-tasks#3

Perhaps low stake weight is caused by apathy towards staking, cold storage and users storing their coins on centralized exchanges?

Methods of encouraging staking participation:

• POSv3 route of fixed POS rewards & no interest gained when offline.
• Encouraging the use of decentralized exchanges & recommending keeping coins on centralized exchanges at a minimum.

Methods of improving staking:

• Potentially exploring rebalancing POS:DPOR via @skcin's proposals (or new proposals discussed in the cryptocointalk thread).
• Perhaps creating a monthly lottery (external payment/rain (sendmany) script) where by having staked a block is en entry into a lottery to win x GRC? We could take the addresses were used to stake as the reward address.

Any other ideas, people?

other ways to improve staking participation:

• lottery
• increase PoS reward
• default option: start client at boot

Gridcoin has been developing at a record pace over the past months. I have seen very little obstruction when it comes to this progresses. I would hope, however, that when we start to crack open the base protocols we will slow down and take our time so we don't need to fix them again in a month. I would also hope that we try to include as much of the community as possible and provide ample time for counter-proposals and discussion. If we don't, we run the risk of forking GRC just like SegWit forked bitcoin. SegWit did not really give enough time for dissenters to form counter-proposals, so when SegWit activated without serious consideration for alternatives, those who dissented forked the coin so they could implement their own solutions when they are ready (I think in November). I do not think that anything discussed here is serious enough to cause a fork, but we should learn from the mistake of bitcoin and attempt to fix the process now instead of when a serious change is proposed. We should do this for the security of Gridcoin, not in favor of any one proposal or another.

That said, I have been working on the whitepaper along with a proposal over the past months. I was hoping to release everything together in a nice, neat, and accessible format. Because there is now an active poll regarding one of the base protocols, I can not wait. Here is a rough outline of what I have been working on with regards to proposals. I apologize for the format but I simply will not have enough time in the next 21 days to complete and refine the content. Also, if there is a better way to display pages of text without having to reformat everything, I'm all ears = ). I'm still new to GitHub.

EDIT ADD:

Interest earned on coins does not require the coin to stake within a specific time period. The 6 month limit is related to DPoR and beacons. This doesn't change much of the proposal outline's purpose, but it is misinformation. My apologies!

Coin*Age interest payment is not limited to 6 months. You seem to mix the Reward system with the Consensus system. DPoR is part of the chain, not a separate protocol, proof of it are the numerous recent forks where nodes disagreed on the reward amount. Please, @jring-o , Stop spreading the misinformation.

My mistake! After getting some clarification, it would seem that interest earned on coins does not require the coin to stake within a specific time period.

The 6 month limit is related to DPoR and beacons. I will update the post accordingly.

It seems as though your actual problem with this vote is that you were working on a different proposal over the course of months and you're upset that you hadn't finished it before somebody pulled the trigger on a vote. While I can understand your frustration, I would have more respect for it if you had led with that information instead of repeatedly trying to stall people by saying "this is just way too premature" because while the process can certainly be improved, by existing Gridcoin standards this topic has been discussed exhaustively and it's not unreasonable at all that we'd move to a vote on it.

Now, on to your proposal which I do commend you for preparing as it looks very well thought-out....

To be honest with you, I wouldn't agree that there's a very strong relationship between what you're proposing and what this vote is asking. This vote is addressing a longstanding problem with Gridcoin that has generated a lot of consternation particularly among the mining crowd that major GRC holders are not doing their part to secure the blockchain but are collecting hundreds of thousands of GRC per year in interest. It is widely understood that the "interest-based/APR" model is broken and needs to be addressed. I had an 8-hour long discussion with a fellow on Reddit about this subject... he was a long-time contributor to this community and had left the community several months ago. He cited this exact thread as an example of why he left Gridcoin: he felt like critical changes weren't being acted on even when it had become clear that the community was supportive.

Your proposal is far, far more broad. You are proposing eliminating the PoS rewards entirely and creating some alternative system of stake weight that prioritizes some yet-to-be-determined metric that helps miners stake, and you're basing it on the premise/assumption that we just flat-out don't need investors (non-miners) to help secure the blockchain. I would not agree with that premise, and I also would not agree that an "opinion poll" would tell us anything useful about it. If you were to create a poll asking people if they would stake more, less, or the same if PoS rewards were removed entirely, their answer inherently is going to be based on whether they agree with the idea of removing PoS rewards or not, as opposed to an honest/truthful answer about what they predict their behavior would actually be.

Even if we could agree in.... another year or two, maybe.... on the idea of removing PoS rewards entirely and figuring out some secure way to calculate stake weight for miners, you're ultimately going into this transition completely blind, not knowing whether or not you might have a mass-exodus of GRC holders, not knowing if you're properly incentivizing people to stake (or if you're incentivizing the right people, even).

Either way, as I've said before when I've perceived you as trying to lay out road blocks when others are trying to take action on an issue, your personal vision for how this could be done is going to take quite a while to sort through and educate everyone on. There's no reason why we can't move forward with a needed change and, on a parallel path, you could work on educating the community on your own proposal.

Just my two cents on the matter.

@XaqFields who you mean by "you"? I feel that it is me, due to all my proposals, but I am not sure. This poll is only about block rewards, not any other proposal. Not about burning tx fees, not about changing the weight calculation (which was already changed). Please do not mix Reward and Consensus protocol. Yes, they are interconnected (changing rewards causes fork in consensus), but otherwise can be changed separately (with proper mandatory transition process).

This is --and should be-- an actionable poll. This thread is more than a full year old, and this issue has been discussed ad-nauseum and this thread has been linked no fewer than a dozen times on various mediums since I began participating in the community a few months ago. Everyone who is paying any amount of attention is fully aware of this discussion and has had ample time already to participate.

No, sorry, but that is wrong.
First of all GitHub is and was never the place where people were send to get information or discuss things.
GitHub also is not the center of the world. It it some outlying, fringe medium most people - if at all - know that you can download stuff.
Also if you send people to "read it" and point them to this thread they see something ONE YEAR old and close it. Or if they read on they see Rob saying "this is not important right now".
And so on.

This thread is NOT how people can make an informed decision. And no, it is also not a broad discussion with "the community". it is a throwing of thoughts from GitHubers.

For example has anyone here addressed the question WHY people are not staking their wallets 24/7? If you want to change that, you should know the reason, don't you think?

I also have one of those big wallets that is not on most of the time. Why? I don't have seen ONE of the three main reasons here. (And I wont tell you know, because you may start thinking about it and come up with other reasons then mine.)

The only concern I have long-term is that PoS will reward will out perform PoR, so we need to rein in PoS somehow, either by reducing the PoS APR at predetermined block targets, fixing the block reward.
Of higher importance is banning a node from consecutive block staking IMHO.

The PoS outrunning the PoR is actually a small problem, since we have only 1,5% inflation.
That means even after 10 years the PoS will only be ~20% higher then PoR. Under "ideal" situation, not counting those who don't stake (especially exchanges) and coins that get lost (there are always some).

But yes, we could decrease the PoS, but I am against any big change at one point. People have invested, counting on their interest. I won't argue about how many that actually are, but it is still a valid stakeholder group and should not be "robbed".

Regarding this my proposal (as I have written similar at the start of the coin) would be to slowly decreasing the interest.
We could decrease the interest by 0,1% roughly once per year until we are down to 0,5% yearly. Then in 2028 we could think again about that topic in a (I am sure) completely new environment. Of course that road could still be changed, but by this you are both reigning in interest and showing that you don't break promises. Gridcoin is a long term coin, so we both CAN do long term plans and have people planning with it long term.

I am full into not-consecutive staking.

@LennStar

The PoS outrunning the PoR is actually a small problem, since we have only 1,5% inflation.

That is wrong. The monetary inflation is higher since you also have to count the research reward.

But yes, we could decrease the PoS, but I am against any big change at one point. People have invested, counting on their interest. I won't argue about how many that actually are, but it is still a valid stakeholder group and should not be "robbed".

I think investors should rethink if gridcoin in its current state is a good investment. Even if you collect your 1.5% interest you still loose in terms of the percentage of the marketcap you hold. That is because there is also the research reward. Your 1.5% interest does not compensate for the total monetary inflation.

@grctest I think 17 grc static block reward is too high. You have to keep in mind that the static block reward is payed all the time. Interest can be lost if you don't stake and send the coins before you do. Also we don't know how many coins are lost, so the interesst actually payed is not 1.5% of total coins supply. And we should think about the balance between research reward and interest.

@XaqFields there appears to be a misunderstanding.

What I posted is an extremely rough and sloppy outline regarding potential ways to address the multiple issues that come with our PoS protocol. It's a list of 5 potential proposals. I've explored "no reward" first and most because no one had talked about it and yes, I find it the most interesting. The others have all been mentioned in various chats and community hubs.

I do not have the technical know-how for making an actual proposal. An actual proposal would come with lines of code and various definitions. There hasn't been an actual proposal made in this thread.

@LennStar I agree that if we use an incentive, we should make it non-consecutive staking.

Also, the idea for lowering interest over time is interesting. It is definitely important that we respect our past commitments.

I think that Gridcoin or some other coin will have broken profit priority from securing the blockchain in some way by 2020. Maybe we could get to %0 or near %0 by then? Either way, I would like to know more. Is there math behind your %0.1 reduction/year or is that just for an example? Do you foresee any problems or great benefits to taking this path of Fixed Reduced Interest?

The current economic situation is unsustainable in the long term. Large investors if they have joined the community of Gridcoin, it is not because they want to earn 1.5% (and maybe lose 30% of the value in a year because the market knows that Gridcoin has an inflationary problem and sells, or whatever else) no one would risk 100k or 1M of dollars to earn 1.5% annually against a high volatility. Gridcoin is not a bank. Investors who come into Gridcoin enter us because they believe that being valued only a few cents in the future can recreate the fairy tale that has already happened for Bitcoins and other currencies. It will happen to us as well, we are investing precisely for this, but the booom is delaying precisely because there is a fundamental problem. Investors, or anyone else, hope to see the value of their investment multiply, no one invests to earn through the miserable 1.5 percent with a high risk percentage.

P.S.
In Italia, the most secure bank of all banks offers an annual return of 1.65%. Do you have to deposit your big money to earn in a bank or encrypted currency without any guarantee? I would not do such a thing even if it were possible on bitcoins. the pos with interest system has nothing attractive, on the contrary. Maybe it is also one of the causes that prevents the BOOM of Gridcoin in the markets

Apologize for my English, I use the support of an automatic translator (deepl.com) to write here

@LennStar wrote:

This is --and should be-- an actionable poll. This thread is more than a full year old, and this issue has been discussed ad-nauseum and this thread has been linked no fewer than a dozen times on various mediums since I began participating in the community a few months ago. Everyone who is paying any amount of attention is fully aware of this discussion and has had ample time already to participate.

No, sorry, but that is wrong.
First of all GitHub is and was never the place where people were send to get information or discuss things.

I disagree, we've been using the gridcoin-research github repo for its issues and wiki functionality far more than we've used the cryptocurrencytalk development subforum (dead by comparison regarding core gridcoin topics).

@LennStar wrote:
GitHub also is not the center of the world. It it some outlying, fringe medium most people - if at all - know that you can download stuff.

It's the centre of Gridcoin's development, release and issue tracking - it holds far more legitimacy as a forum for discussing key gridcoin development topics than most other forums.

@LennStar wrote:
Also if you send people to "read it" and point them to this thread they see something ONE YEAR old and close it. Or if they read on they see Rob saying "this is not important right now".
And so on.

The same users would likely stumble across similar posts in page 2 of 10 on cryptocurrencytalk - users who won't bother informing themselves when provided sufficient information due to laziness aren't worth losing sleep over when it comes to voting.

@LennStar wrote:
This thread is NOT how people can make an informed decision. And no, it is also not a broad discussion with "the community". it is a throwing of thoughts from GitHubers.

GitHub users are key gridcoin community members who are actively contributing towards Gridcoin's development; It takes 5 mins max to make a github account & we've had discussions on this topic in multiple gridcoin hangouts over the last year.

Look at cryptocurrencytalk's related threads:
https://cryptocurrencytalk.com/topic/49141-dpor-stake-weight-calculations/?page=2
https://cryptocurrencytalk.com/topic/38341-brainstorming-gridcoin-dpor-distributed-proof-of-research-removing-the-load-off-of-netsoft/?page=3

Note the lack of participation compared to this issue? GitHub stands as the most productive platform for discussing technical gridcoin topics, perhaps with slack coming in a close second place (though good luck following a year old conversation on slack).

@LennStar wrote:
For example has anyone here addressed the question WHY people are not staking their wallets 24/7? If you want to change that, you should know the reason, don't you think?

Because they don't need to; a greedy whale can stake once a year and get their full year's POS rewards in a few blocks without bothering to secure the network. We effectively incentivize leeching rewards from the network.

@LennStar wrote:
I also have one of those big wallets that is not on most of the time. Why? I don't have seen ONE of the three main reasons here. (And I wont tell you know, because you may start thinking about it and come up with other reasons then mine.)

You won't tell the core gridcoin developers issues which keep you from staking continuously? Doesn't seem productive at all to keep 'secrets' to yourself, I doubt their existence if you maintain this attitude.

Constant interest per block implemented in #617 .

The monetary inflation is higher since you also have to count the research reward.

Yes, but reasearch inflation is also 1.5% (from startpoint). 50/50
The difference between those two is small, that was the point in that statement regarding galloping inflation. (That is when the bread costs 5% more in the evening then in the morning. We Germans remember it in the bones ;) )

GitHub users are key gridcoin community members who are actively contributing towards Gridcoin's development;
Because they don't need to; a greedy whale can stake once a year and get their full year's POS rewards in a few blocks without bothering to secure the network. We effectively incentivize leeching rewards from the network.

Thank you for proving my point ;)
A fine POV bubble of "developers" you have here, but this is neither "the community" nor "the users".

And then yes, I will write down something and then you can see if smaller rewards will solve that and increase net weight.

Yes, but reasearch inflation is also 1.5% (from startpoint). 50/50

This is false.

Stating that Github is "neither the community nor the users" is just ridiculous. There are plenty of us non-devs here too and Github has always been the best place for technical discussions, not just for Gridcoin, but for any crypto.

My biggest concern long term is that staking is the only way to do research without trusting a pool. If the cost to stake keeps rising as it has been we could end up with nearly all users researching from a pool with a handful of whales ruling all transactions.

@voronoipotato Please see Section 3. of Gridcoin Research 4.0 Proposals and the recent polls.

This is now considered done.