Jump to content
Cryptoid

FUTURE OF WORLDCOIN

Recommended Posts

I am relaxed enough, thank you.

That the coin is dying is not necessarily a question of perception, but of value. Which this is a result of produce and demand. And immediately we are back- the mining of 100k Worldcoin every day for no (current) good.

Ok i will take your word for it so I will explain here how we planned to deal with this topic (not yet with the problem) so we don't go in circles with endless debates.

 

But first some context is necessary so ...  History time !! ( :dry:  which i like it a little more than Diagram Time !! )

 

When committee finally could start focusing on development (This year ) we had 4 choices :

 

   1) If we were too much concerned of short term price we surely would just have made another coin so we wouldn't carry the burden of past scammers or Scharmbeck. We unanimously decided this was not an option (Morale: you don't want us to be short term minded)

   2) Search the holy grail ourselves : I call the 'holy grail' to the perfect algorithm that is completely ASIC 'resistant' , immune to 51 % attacks, immune  to multipool effect, etc etc. This requires a bigger team , not only for planning , coding, etc but most important QA (Quality Assurance), something that most  new coins aren't even considering (testnet is not enough !). Most coins will die in this search which is making many others panic and flip flop between algos accelerating this process.

       Some coins that went through this quest ended with a with an algo that didn't solve the problems and introduced new ones. 

   It was too risky to join this quest directly .

 

Which leads us to the next 2 viable choices :

   3) Integrate another well tested scheme  (PoW, PoS, mix , etc ) : This step would probably made the price to spike (a least for a while ) but WDC would inevitable become a tech 'integrator' not a tech 'producer'. We are completely sure that only tech producers will have a higher chance to survive in the future, we can argue why this is the case but probably a tech 'producer' is able to forge a better image than a tech 'integrator' ( which is just a more glamorous way to say 'copycat' )

   4) Give WDC a true identity and true value between crypto community: We agreed that in order to start recovering our trashed image, we need to build unique features in WDC and truly become tech 'producers', as you could understand this is not a trivial step. The strategy here is let business use WDC  without knowing how it actually works, so we will give them tools to integrate their services to the wallet in a very simple way. This is of course a multi year strategy but we will be able  to show concrete results by year's end. Therefor the new name WorldcoinBC : which actually stands for Worldcoin Business Center.

 

As you could appreciate, last 2 steps aren't trivial so we could only  select one.

Even if you disagree with the decision taken i hope you are able to see some value in it.

 

Now, about Pow, Pos, etc. We do not think that current scheme is inherently bad for WDC long term (after all this kind of scheme worked for LTC and BTC) .... BUT we are     open minded to new schemes that offers qualitative improvements and solutions not just quantitative ones. Keeping this in mind, when we release the next version of WorldcoinBC (May/June)  we will officially release some guidelines to start a healthy debate on this forum, i say guidelines because for example we won't consider short term schemes  (like pure PoS with high interest rates ).

The process, which will finish before year's end, will contain 3 or 4 steps (depending on the results ):

       

       1) Release guidelines to start public discussion ( may / june ) inviting formally to investors and supporters to make deep research in this topic. Also the  criteria which we will use to analyze  this schemes ( for example no pure PoS high interest schemes) explaining the reasons

       2) Of remaining candidates, development team will select the schemes that are technical feasible and that are aligned with our goals

       3) Committee will take a decision

       4) IF we decide to change scheme we will publish technical details, possible migration path, and a tentative schedule

 

Now before some one cries that 'it will be "too late by then .."  , that would definitely NOT be a problem LONG TERM, IF we make the RIGHT CHOICE

 

It's almost self evident that the worst thing we can do is to start flip flopping among our choices, so  we definitely can't bow under pressure nor RUSH this decision, we would also use the time to study how the newer schemes develop over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i will take your word for it so I will explain here how we planned to deal with this topic (not yet with the problem) so we don't go in circles with endless debates.

 

But first some context is necessary so ...  History time !! ( :dry:  which i like it a little more than Diagram Time !! )

 

When committee finally could start focusing on development (This year ) we had 4 choices :

 

   1) If we were too much concerned of short term price we surely would just have made another coin so we wouldn't carry the burden of past scammers or Scharmbeck. We unanimously decided this was not an option (Morale: you don't want us to be short term minded)

   2) Search the holy grail ourselves : I call the 'holy grail' to the perfect algorithm that is completely ASIC 'resistant' , immune to 51 % attacks, immune  to multipool effect, etc etc. This requires a bigger team , not only for planning , coding, etc but most important QA (Quality Assurance), something that most  new coins aren't even considering (testnet is not enough !). Most coins will die in this search which is making many others panic and flip flop between algos accelerating this process.

       Some coins that went through this quest ended with a with an algo that didn't solve the problems and introduced new ones. 

   It was too risky to join this quest directly .

 

Which leads us to the next 2 viable choices :

   3) Integrate another well tested scheme  (PoW, PoS, mix , etc ) : This step would probably made the price to spike (a least for a while ) but WDC would inevitable become a tech 'integrator' not a tech 'producer'. We are completely sure that only tech producers will have a higher chance to survive in the future, we can argue why this is the case but probably a tech 'producer' is able to forge a better image than a tech 'integrator' ( which is just a more glamorous way to say 'copycat' )

   4) Give WDC a true identity and true value between crypto community: We agreed that in order to start recovering our trashed image, we need to build unique features in WDC and truly become tech 'producers', as you could understand this is not a trivial step. The strategy here is let business use WDC  without knowing how it actually works, so we will give them tools to integrate their services to the wallet in a very simple way. This is of course a multi year strategy but we will be able  to show concrete results by year's end. Therefor the new name WorldcoinBC : which actually stands for Worldcoin Business Center.

 

As you could appreciate, last 2 steps aren't trivial so we could only  select one.

Even if you disagree with the decision taken i hope you are able to see some value in it.

 

Now, about Pow, Pos, etc. We do not think that current scheme is inherently bad for WDC long term (after all this kind of scheme worked for LTC and BTC) .... BUT we are     open minded to new schemes that offers qualitative improvements and solutions not just quantitative ones. Keeping this in mind, when we release the next version of WorldcoinBC (May/June)  we will officially release some guidelines to start a healthy debate on this forum, i say guidelines because for example we won't consider short term schemes  (like pure PoS with high interest rates ).

The process, which will finish before year's end, will contain 3 or 4 steps (depending on the results ):

       

       1) Release guidelines to start public discussion ( may / june ) inviting formally to investors and supporters to make deep research in this topic. Also the  criteria which we will use to analyze  this schemes ( for example no pure PoS high interest schemes) explaining the reasons

       2) Of remaining candidates, development team will select the schemes that are technical feasible and that are aligned with our goals

       3) Committee will take a decision

       4) IF we decide to change scheme we will publish technical details, possible migration path, and a tentative schedule

 

Now before some one cries that 'it will be "too late by then .."  , that would definitely NOT be a problem LONG TERM, IF we make the RIGHT CHOICE

 

It's almost self evident that the worst thing we can do is to start flip flopping among our choices, so  we definitely can't bow under pressure nor RUSH this decision, we would also use the time to study how the newer schemes develop over time.

 

Ok, there are a couple of things I strongly agree with and there are a good few things nobody can disagree with.

However, there are also quite a few other, more doubtful or straightaway incorrect things twisted in so it needs some clarification and discussion.

 

By the way, you put things here as if it is to end 'endless debates'- this is kind of funny, particularly when you, in the same context, admit that committee now finally focuses on development. Anyway, I have had some private news and that needs my attention now, but I will come back to this. That's a promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could (literally) bet you will.  We will be here :)

What i meant is that this topic is pretty recurrent ( whether we change or not i  agree it has merits )   so it is of no use to wait until may / june to announce our plan (originally i would have preferred to wait ), and also i am trying to explain why we are not ready to debate it now so we will probably go in circles, we also need to study careful the alternatives to have a meaningful debate .

I am glad that there are points which you agree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of examples out there that we can use to our advantage. Time tells which methods are beneficial and which are not, that's short term and long term. It's also quite obvious that the activity of the movement is crucial, whether that's dev, updates, whatever. When that goes there's not much left and the coin will soon meet an untimely death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shi    0

i still see no talk of economics

 

inflation is out of control cryptoid points out and everyone ignores him

 

but he is right and nothing in current plan addresses problem just puts make up on pig but still is pig

 

why not address economics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i still see no talk of economics

 

inflation is out of control cryptoid points out and everyone ignores him

 

but he is right and nothing in current plan addresses problem just puts make up on pig but still is pig

 

why not address economics?

As i posted, we can't change core algo as changing a font, it requires planning,  a lot of testing, etc etc. I explained why we didn't address this yet, and that we will address in the near future.

If you already have something planned, perfect, develop it and when we start debate here  in May/June obviously availability will be a point in favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i will take your word for it so I will explain here how we planned to deal with this topic (not yet with the problem) so we don't go in circles with endless debates.

 

But first some context is necessary so ...  History time !! ( :dry:  which i like it a little more than Diagram Time !! )

 

When committee finally could start focusing on development (This year ) we had 4 choices :

 

   1) If we were too much concerned of short term price we surely would just have made another coin so we wouldn't carry the burden of past scammers or Scharmbeck. We unanimously decided this was not an option (Morale: you don't want us to be short term minded)

   2) Search the holy grail ourselves : I call the 'holy grail' to the perfect algorithm that is completely ASIC 'resistant' , immune to 51 % attacks, immune  to multipool effect, etc etc. This requires a bigger team , not only for planning , coding, etc but most important QA (Quality Assurance), something that most  new coins aren't even considering (testnet is not enough !). Most coins will die in this search which is making many others panic and flip flop between algos accelerating this process.

       Some coins that went through this quest ended with a with an algo that didn't solve the problems and introduced new ones. 

   It was too risky to join this quest directly .

 

Which leads us to the next 2 viable choices :

   3) Integrate another well tested scheme  (PoW, PoS, mix , etc ) : This step would probably made the price to spike (a least for a while ) but WDC would inevitable become a tech 'integrator' not a tech 'producer'. We are completely sure that only tech producers will have a higher chance to survive in the future, we can argue why this is the case but probably a tech 'producer' is able to forge a better image than a tech 'integrator' ( which is just a more glamorous way to say 'copycat' )

   4) Give WDC a true identity and true value between crypto community: We agreed that in order to start recovering our trashed image, we need to build unique features in WDC and truly become tech 'producers', as you could understand this is not a trivial step. The strategy here is let business use WDC  without knowing how it actually works, so we will give them tools to integrate their services to the wallet in a very simple way. This is of course a multi year strategy but we will be able  to show concrete results by year's end. Therefor the new name WorldcoinBC : which actually stands for Worldcoin Business Center.

 

As you could appreciate, last 2 steps aren't trivial so we could only  select one.

Even if you disagree with the decision taken i hope you are able to see some value in it.

 

Now, about Pow, Pos, etc. We do not think that current scheme is inherently bad for WDC long term (after all this kind of scheme worked for LTC and BTC) .... BUT we are     open minded to new schemes that offers qualitative improvements and solutions not just quantitative ones. Keeping this in mind, when we release the next version of WorldcoinBC (May/June)  we will officially release some guidelines to start a healthy debate on this forum, i say guidelines because for example we won't consider short term schemes  (like pure PoS with high interest rates ).

The process, which will finish before year's end, will contain 3 or 4 steps (depending on the results ):

       

       1) Release guidelines to start public discussion ( may / june ) inviting formally to investors and supporters to make deep research in this topic. Also the  criteria which we will use to analyze  this schemes ( for example no pure PoS high interest schemes) explaining the reasons

       2) Of remaining candidates, development team will select the schemes that are technical feasible and that are aligned with our goals

       3) Committee will take a decision

       4) IF we decide to change scheme we will publish technical details, possible migration path, and a tentative schedule

 

Now before some one cries that 'it will be "too late by then .."  , that would definitely NOT be a problem LONG TERM, IF we make the RIGHT CHOICE

 

It's almost self evident that the worst thing we can do is to start flip flopping among our choices, so  we definitely can't bow under pressure nor RUSH this decision, we would also use the time to study how the newer schemes develop over time.

This is the post i made, please read it carefully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When our professional software developer Mario has published the main portion of the wallet engine I think we will be more attractive to the rare kind of developer that is experienced in advanced additions to the way Worldcoin works. So we are not waiting for nothing, just for something to increase interest which is a result of people, those people could well be developers that think outside boxes. The ones that infact we want, but also treasure hunters because there are no means of payment right now. I'm quite sure that will change, it has to because nothing is for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did but it was time wasted!

You did write a lot without saying anything  :huh:

What Berzeck is saying is this:

 

We have 2 points which we can aim for:

1. Don’t be a copycat and become an innovative cryptocurrency.

2. Work on the usability of the coin. People working in the software industry know how important this is. There is no doubt in how superior cryptocurrency actually is if we look at our current monetary system.

 

Jakob Nielsen says:

 

 

Usability is a quality attribute that assesses how easy user interfaces are to use. The word "usability" also refers to methods for improving ease-of-use during the design process.

Usability is defined by 5 quality components:

  • Learnability: How easy is it for users to accomplish basic tasks the first time they encounter the design?
  • Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks?
  • Memorability: When users return to the design after a period of not using it, how easily can they reestablish proficiency?
  • Errors: How many errors do users make, how severe are these errors, and how easily can they recover from the errors?
  • Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design?

There are many other important quality attributes. A key one is utility, which refers to the design's functionality: Does it do what users need?

Usability and utility are equally important and together determine whether something is useful: It matters little that something is easy if it's not what you want. It's also no good if the system can hypothetically do what you want, but you can't make it happen because the user interface is too difficult. To study a design's utility, you can use the same user research methods that improve usability.

  • Definition: Utility = whether it provides the features you need.
  • Definition: Usability = how easy & pleasant these features are to use.
  • Definition: Useful = usability + utility.

 

Thanks to the plugin system that is currently being developed, it will be easier to customize your wallet depending on your own Requirements. This will make Worldcoin more accessible to MORE people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a coin to be dead one of two things must happen :

 

- No network support. In this metric we have a very stable base

- No more development. We just started and we don't plan to quit.

 

So we are far from dead.  Most coins will be dead this year. You can argue everything you want but at the end we both now that it will be just a waste of time, there is nothing we can do to change all crypto market perception/trend; everything else is just trying to rationalize  something irrational as crypto market is.

When we release our first true product in june, you should come back and see if you like the technology we produced, if not then you can just move on. We will release progress made on new wallet on weekly basis so you can keep yourself informed on what are we doing.

We all are losing money but we knew that this will be hard and will require a lot of work from our part to reverse the situation.  We will do our part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×