I support the previous speaker
It is a terrible look for a decentralized project to give full control to a centralized entity. Anyone who believes in decentralization period should not support this in any way for any period of time. No āemergencyā should be great enough to completely steer away from the fundamentals.
This change would forever ruin this project. Optics on it as it is are not super favorable but this would ensure itās demise.
1 Like
Maybe you just mine on asic and āworksā here to prevent loses ))
Iām have talk with usual miners and they are all donāt care really if white list will be implemented for the period till algo changed.
If all gpu miners will quit, who in this case will support project now ?
As for me, current situation the same by damage as when was double spend attack to bitcoin. I mean losses of network almost the same, taking in account all sides of that.
So, when was double spend attack, community were run hard fork and resolve the issue, and probably at that time someone said too, that it is against decentralisation and etc.
As I said, if miners will quit, decentralisation will not have a demand. But if miners will feel that their votes are important and they can impact on the blockchain they will support project with double efforts.
And as I said, the white list could be implemented without KYC, by hardware prints for example.
I am against any changes! Any radical changes will cause community outrage! It will also have a reputational impact on the project because the current state of affairs is flawed and needs to be redone. No one is stopping you from buying hardware for a higher hashrate than an unknown miner or group of individuals
It is most likely that the unknown miner is a GPU/FGPA farm so an algo change will not affect them unless it is a change to a CPU/ASIC algo which is why I didnāt suggest it as a solution.
Any network especially during the first year is centralized around the core developers, we trust their software updates and donāt audit the open source code. This would just make it formal and my proposal acknowledges that it would only be temporary.
Anyone using a network is only going to do so if it trusts the core developers anyway plus they have a lot of investment in this network they arenāt going to screw it. My solution is the best one for IRON price. The unknown entity already has 60% of hashrate better the core developers have control than an unknown.
2 Likes
Besides, unknown behaviour bring to mind that he dump token rate intentionally, even not for profit.
1 Like
No one who supports a decentralized privacy based crypto project should ever ask for censorship on the chain.
This is not the way.
I am vehemently opposed to implementing censorship of the miners on the network and if this or anything like it is implemented I will be leaving this project for good.
There are better ways.
3 Likes
I think most people fear that there was some weirdness going on and some devs got early access to algo and developed Asics (not saying its what happened or that itās even likely) or itās a huge FPGA farm.
An algo change to an asic resistant and FPGA resistant (not FPGA proof) algo should help prove or disprove those speculations and possibly bring the network difficulty back down to a healthier level (not over 60% to one source).
1 Like
So, now it controlled by unknown and you feel yourself good. As misher said, better for very first period it would be controlled by the team, but not unknown. According to current dynamics exchange rate will be 0.1 in 12 days.
At the same time, unknown will have probably 90%.
I donāt understand why you allow some unknown to control network, and very impressive explaining that you will not stay in case someone will controlling the network.
It is already happened.
1 Like
In my opinion this whole proposal is both ridiculous and frightening. It truly shows how some people operate in this space.
I would like to remind some people that we are in decentralized crypto space and this coin you are mining is marketed as a privacy one. And yet some of you are practically begging for centralization.
I am also baffled that some people argumentation is based on their assumption of price changes. What makes you think that when you KYC a privacy blockchain the price will benefit. Also why do you talk about price at all at this point in time is beyond me. As of now this chain only exists, there is nothing inherently useful here, there are no incentives to buy IRON at all. The only people buying are speculating.
I have a great solution for people who are unsatisfied with the current state and unsatisfied with some non-invasive solutions proposed in this thread (the solutions which I support). The great thing about mining is you can vote with your hashing power, you can move it to projects you like, and withdraw it from projects you donāt.
If you want to stay, maybe, just maybe, if devs could finally focus properly on implementing features they have planned, instead of wasting their time on this unknown hashrate issue, there would be REAL incentives to mine and/or buy the coin. As previously mentioned no one will move ā$100k in BTCā to this chain. No one will even move $10 in BTC, because there is no bridge.
If I am solo mining I am included in this unknown hashrate too. I donāt want to KYC in any way as I donāt want to mine on any of the pools. Why would you make me to do so? Do you want me to stop mining and reduce overall hashrate thus increasing the percentage owned by the biggest pool?
I propose to develop the chain instead of wasting the time, thus making the real economic incentives for mining, as there are none as of now.
5 Likes
Letās do as you suggest, GPU miners will continue exit from IF mining. In 3 months we will have 95% unknown hashrate there percent of miners like you about 5%.
All this period, unknown miners will dumping the price sharing the coins across speculators in general.
When bridges will be launched, huge amount of coins will be in hands of small group, who will be available to manipulate with rate for a long time.
I donāt know how many community members will still support the project, because for now it looks like IF developed for small group of speculators and mining farms.
I believe that IF will be successful in anyway but if things will not be changed, probably there will be 2-3 years period without community support and demand, till some persons with huge operations in BTC/ETH starts using the network for their purposes. If starts, sure ))
1 Like
you can buy all these coins and get rich
1 Like
If I could buy all, I would say nothing on this matter 
1 Like
No oneās using a bridge when the chain is controlled by 1 entity. This is a choice between momentary centralization under the core developers versus permanent centralization under an unknown entity. The first is temporary and people trust the core developers, the 2nd sacrifices the chain on the altar of principle and watches as it burns to the ground.
If you canāt trust the core developers who can you trust?
Also honestly centralized or not Iron Fish works as long as people can trust the centralized entity. BNB and Solana work after all. My goal is to get IRON price up as high as possible. That happens if people trust the chain and use it to bridge assets to/from to get them from 1 eth address to another so they can have a private address. That is the main use of Iron Fish, that is what is going to pump the coin, thatās what makes it valuable. A network controlled by unknown people, likely in Russia/China, is not going to work. A network controlled by an entity in the US who is highly invested in the network sounds much better/safer.
That being said my proposal is for this to be temporary so we can see what happens, the unknown may contact us if they are forced to and we can finally have a conversation. And I never said KYC I said email and a name. Please stop fearmongering by screaming KYC!
2 Likes
Iām support 1000%. Also think that unknown come from China and USA, according to selling timeframes on exchanges.
But probably they will not implement it 
Because really it against main statement
As I understand, people here feel that network still decentralised in case not regulated by the Team, and they donāt care that does regulated by unknown )
2 Likes
Thank goodness there are people that understand this, I was starting to get worriedā¦
3 Likes
Yeah Iām surprised at how many are disagreeing. I assume we are all miners, so if Iron Fish goes down we stop mining it. Iād rather mine it under the core devs and make money then move off. I donāt think anyone here will keep mining if the value falls into the toilet even more.
So between price and morality, Iād choose price. Are the people who are disagreeing promising to keep mining even if the price falls to $0.000001?
2 Likes
Iām from slavianic community, there all stop mine IF, and who interested in $IRON, mine other coins, sell and buy $IRON.
But 70% of audience share hate and even donāt buy.
And situation will continue, it is economically proficient now to mine other coin, sell and buy $IRON.
Supporting the project is important, but only few people have a sources to mine with understanding they lose 2/3 of earnings.
I already understand, we will endure āunknownā, then speculators, then something new. )) All smart people with money will use network for own purposes, and in few years we have a chance to ā¦ )
1 Like
I also oppose this, mining nodes should NOT need approval to submit blocks, thats just an insane idea that goes against the most basic fundamentals of crypto currency. Ironfish needs to bite the bullet and change the algo, and while youāre at it maybe figure out a solution to stop the hashrate manipulation the pools are doing.
I dont think it matters what the team does. I think they missed the mark and have lost any credibility they have and no matter what they do no one will come back and support this project. To many people have already lost interest or trust in this project and the team. Good luck
1 Like