You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Are Incentives Important in the GridCoin Reward Mechanism?
Overall good post.
The problem with Fairness is that it's unobtainable, as it's too fuzzy. But you have broke it down (a good step) to more defined problems:
- hardware and rewards - people will change hardware and system will level up / adjust itself; several decades of computer age and nobody found a perfect benchmark for different computer hardware / software / architecture comparisons;
- popularity - there are several problems; only a minority votes; people tend to join already popular trends; communities tend to be wrong - there was a consensus that Earth is flat and in the centre of the World; non-popular projects could be completely marginalized; humans are notoriously bad in evaluating what is useful and what is not;
ad Resource Allocation
It's unclear to me what you mean in this paragraph.
I agree that perfect fairness is probably unobtainable; however, I think there is room for improvement in the current magnitude distribution that would make it a lot more fair.
I meant that I think more people would be brought into the GridCoin network - i.e. more computational power, more projects, and higher value in GRC - by talking more about the projects that are being crunched - what can we do for science? For health and safety? For all of humanity?
Most likely there is. Do you have any detailed proposal? It's a bit related to whitelisting problem and I'm recently giving it quite a bit of thought.
As of right now, the main possibilities I have in mind are the ones I laid out in my last post; either rewards effectively based on FLOPS/hardware - as accurately as we can get - or rewards based on an intentional ranking of projects. Further investigation might reveal other possibilities than I just can't see now. But the de facto ranking that we have now I think doesn't make any sense.
Would you mind sharing?
Can you try to put this into numbers? For example just nvidia 1080 vs amd 7970 vs intel i5-6600K ?
After that we can research whether coding such a solution is feasible.
That's the plan :)
the more the output, the more the reward. I don't pity people with slow outdated hardware. I want GRC to motivate people to push science. The tougher the competition the better for science.
about the value of the project. its up to the user to judge as long as its whitelisted (need to change the criteria for whitelisting)
for popular project with little incentive. its basically. you are in because you believe in the science or just monetary rewards. but not both.
tiering projects and incentivizing popular project will create unfavorable user distribution.
Are you following the TBD project in development?