Sorry if it helps to repeat, I am good with weekly. So .923 (.92) per week @4 monthly.
Getting back on this post and comments
The other important question is- what should be the basis of termination? Should it be- we stop after x months? We stop after we hit y%? We stop after we cut emissions by z? We stop because by then Ramiro &/or PNIās model will be ready to be deployed. I am also sensitive to the V1 timeline argument; Arthur said test net will be ready in Q3.
I think the model as presented in the spreadsheet can give us (comunnity) time to create a model and if it succeeds, replace/modify/improve controls. I donāt think that we should look in the very long term (+18 months), if this is OK for at least one year it is enough. Also remember that PNI is preparing another āaggressiveā emission control proposal.
I think you misunderstand what @profish was doing and what he and @RawthiL et al may continue to do if funding is provided. It is the creating of a simulation model of Pocket, as is now, and as is anticipated to be in v1 (with fisherman in lieu of cherry picker, etc) via a simulation environment that may make it easier to evaluate new ideas and āwhat-ifsā on changes to emissions (such as Vitalyās, etc.) or other potential protocol changes. It is not the new ideas per se.
This is correct, the model itself wont solve emission. What the model will give us is a strong understanding in the emission process and provide the community with tools to test hypothesis. I expect that using this we can all agree on some long term objectives and have an strong narrative to avoid FUD and noise in the discussions, which should in turn result in better emission control proposals (among other things).
Would we agree that our new target is 420k daily emissions from the current 690k. I.e, it continues to cut inflation and move the needle, but doesnāt get into ādangerous territory where unsuspecting things can happenā.
yep, it seems careful enough. Even the 420 in 12 months is not bad, given the community support on harder controls. Pressure on node-runner will be higher but there are other cards on the table that can relieve node-runners from sell pressure even furtherā¦
I have no problems with the proposed method it address my concerns. I look forward for the updated text/proposal.
Regarding the target emission if you want a harsher control, instead of 420 we could use the ISO version: 204
So are updates seem to be:
- We are good for a target of 420k or there abouts (Ramiroās ISO version not withstanding).
- We want to make weekly reductions.
@msa6867 @Caesar @RawthiL Thoughts on if we want to do a weekly percentage drop (~0.9 something) or a weekly emissions target reduction as per FREN (~5,192)?
Neither are particularly attractive numbers if we want to get exactly to 420k. Otherwise we could round up/down to 1% weekly drop or 5200 drop in weekly emissions and the 52nd week would a wild card number getting us to the exact goal.
If it doesnāt break the math/business case, I favour the meme.
Iām fine with keeping the meme since it is so close anyway. 4% per month for 12 months gets to 423 rather than 420ā¦ we can fudge it to 420 at the end. I will run 1% weekly decrease and how it looks. Iām fine monthly or weekly, but think monthly is easier to keep organized in the head. That being said, it is not a strongly held preference.
I am good with these minor tweaks here and there since we all have agreed on the majors.
Thanks guys!
Thoughts on if we want to do a weekly percentage drop (~0.9 something) or a weekly emissions target reduction as per FREN (~5,192)?
I think out econ guy (at POKTscan) will be more comfortable with monthly drops, its is easier to track for him I think, but really I do not have a problem on going weekly.