Keeping the Rust testnet up and running

English General Discussions
21

Thank you for taking the time @Donnybaseball, it was not wasted.
So I am almost back to where I started, but not quite.

That’s why I didn’t write “do exactly what we said we’d do”. No need for exactly. :smiley: Strong stuff in that article.

This is very hard to predict. But are we setting ourselves up for conflict? Or helping avoid it? twt.

Do you have any basis/refernce for this?
Sure, as a part of the Cardano project it will increase the overall value, but like you say, what we’ve actually seen are FUD regarding forks, and brands hurting. x2 sounds well exaggerated, but again reveals the intuitive, primitive (no offense meant) logic of “omg there have 2 coins instead of 1!”, but I get your drift.

I don’t see how 3# is relevant. You seem to be talking about mainnet there.

#4 really got me, I’m from Biology, and diversity is so important!

Technically true but not really. Nevermind, I know I wouldn’t have come up with a better solution.

IMO they just sort of might. We are definitely the turtle, but maybe the only ones who would make it past the finish line. That’s the fun with Blockchain, anyone can copy you, at any point in time. But they can’t be you.

I believe it will. And that it might be a big deal. I don’t mind when people spew crap because they are confused by “slot leader pre-selection” in Ouroboros, but we should really avoid confusion regarding the roadmap.
I myself, have been mostly away from the project for over a year until recently, waiting for the delayed Shelly. I had no doubts I would be back, and that Shelly, though tardy, will arrive as advertised.
This level of trust in our vision is a colossal power that we should not let sour by neglect.

When it’s all said and done I am partially convinced. But let’s not do it in whim @Donnybaseball!
Suggestion:Freeze the testnet until Q4 2020 and let IOHK and CF come up with a proper game plan.

For reciprocity, let me finish with a short video of my own, which illustrates prodigiously why -
Things are not what they are. They are what we think they are.
So we got to watch that :wink: . Thanks for the info mate!

2 Likes
22

Sounds good thank you! Going forward I’m looking forward to get the opinions of more stake pool operators and IOHK developers. I’m not qualified enough to judge the technical benefits of keeping vs restarting the test net and what they think that value is or isn’t.

1 Like
23

And Ada Stake holders! Our opinion matters too! :stuck_out_tongue:

I wish this was a mostly technical issue, then I would think the same. :confused:
But I think we should get as many voices in the discussion as we can, so folks are involved in a decision which may be more major than it seems right now…
Thanks @Donnybaseball!

1 Like
24

Absolutely agree what I’m looking for are the technical pro’s and con’s on the topic so we can all make a more informed decision.

1 Like
25

Found this thread after creating a new topic. Lots of great thoughts in this thread!

I share some similar, some different, and some new ideas in a post I story I wrote on medium sharing my thoughts on what’s best for Cardano & the ITN.

Please check it out here.

Would love any feedback you all have!

Cardano Dan

2 Likes
27

Pool registry -:+1: this improves security and supports the Cardano mainnet.

New Cardano Ambassador Category :+1: Yes this incentive supports Cardano mainnet.

Cardano Support — :+1: Yes IOHK, Emurgo and the Cardano foundation can contribute their funds to the ITN pools. But, this will probably affect the game theory regarding how many pools people decide to run.

new Cardano Ambassador Roles :+1:- Yes this is a good incentive.

Voting Multiplier — :-1: the ITN is a foreign chain. Foreign chains should have not have any voting power.

Gamify the Test Net — :-1:. Gamification is a good idea, but rewards should not come from the funds which were promised to post-snapshot ADA holders.

1 Like
28

Thanks for these great responses!

I agree with your statement. I wonder if a “foreign chain” could have an identity connection that allowed a user on mainnet to have an “attribute” that could be used as a multiplier? Such as, this user actively support the testnets and therefore, their votes count 10% more.

100% agree. The rewards would need to come from some other place. Such as, a CIP could be submitted to fund the ITN gamification rewards (which would be many orders of magnitude less than staking rewards) from the treasury. I’m thinking something like - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd prizes per Epoch totally $250 / epoch, or something like that.

1 Like
30
  • :+1:The gamification option sounds good and innovative.
  • :-1: The voting multiplier is not ideal because not everyone wants to support the ITN (A considerable number want it to be disbanded). It isn’t cool to require mainnet participants who dispise the ITN, to support the ITN by delegating to it, in order to gain the same 10% vote boost that ITN supporters have. A conflict of interest.
1 Like
31

You won me over on this one. I agree that the voting multiplier based on ITN participation is a bad idea.

2 Likes