It’s called “speculation”, you can look it up here: Theoretical philosophy - Wikipedia
cool!
It does not imply any trust inside the finally selected reward mechanism itself.
I am puzzled how you would consider finding a draft of a document in a forum-comment left by a community member, and downloading it from a 3rd party website not related to authors in any way as “being released”.
Ok.
Doesn’t change the fact that authors can use GitHub for their collaborative work, and doesn’t change the fact how tons of people are thankful for them doing the work in open, so we can gratefully observe the work process.
And doesn’t imply that public should have anything to do with the process of designing complex consensus protocols.
You are definitely free and welcomed to discuss anything, and maybe try to educate the public on why different mentioned solutions are good and/or bad in certain aspects. I am not trying to forbid the discussion of public research documents, I am trying to correct the wrong ideas from your description of the document, and point out that these discussions have entertaining/educational nature and will not affect the results of the protocol design.
Everyone will know when design process is finished and published. I think it will be nice for everyone to understand that you are taking 3rd party renderings of old revisions of design process documents and presenting to the public your own take on how you imagine the design process to work, which probably has nothing in common with reality.
And I don’t say that it might not be interesting for the community to play a game where they try to come up with their own ideas on how stuff might work, and then compare it to actual results and try to figure out why their solution would not be selected.
My points are simple:
-
Reward distribution method is finalised (and will be available in actually released specification)
-
When you say “the way rewards are distributed depend on the users trust” - other readers might think that it implies they will have to trust other people with their wallets or rewards, and this is not the case.
-
People might think that you know something they don’t and that when you say “the community needs to be involved in this discussion” you mean that protocol developers actually require some sort of a public vote in order for the protocol to be finished, and this is also not the case. Protocol designers apply their deep scientific knowledge and decades of experience in cryptography, formal methods, game theory, and engineering in order to come up with what they think is the best, secure, fair, trustless, and sustainable solution for the presented problem. And they happily take and consider input from contributors, when it’s presented in a competent way thru appropriate channels.
I just point out my corrections. Does not mean that entertaining discussion might not continue.