DCR Fork Vote

Why A DCR-X Forking Is Vital to Keep the Community’s Authenticity and Reputation

As a DCR miner and DCR PoS pledger at the same time, I’ve been paying a great attention to all the comments aroused in the DCR community since the change of PoW/PoS/Treasury subsidy split from 60/30/10 to 10/80/10.

Here I’d like to elaborate why I think it’s a bad idea for the change.

In my view, DCR has come to its bottleneck and deadlocked so far, to a point where I believe the forking of DCR-X from DCR is inevitable. In the DCR-X, the subsidy split of PoW/PoS/Treasury will remain 60/30/10, together with a lot of new features being activated.

Why so?

First, it doesn’t solve the core problem that the game could be rigged simply by increasing PoS subsidy split to 80%. We all know that PoS is a ‘winners take all’ game where the whales’ powers snowball over time, and becoming the de-facto centralised controller of an ecosystem, and this is not just some daunting imagination, it is a widely existing problem for public blockchains that run on the PoS consensus. What’s worse, it has already been proved after DCR’s subsidy split change: total amount of staking remained the same, but subsidy was taken from part of the decreased PoW miners and re-allocated to early PoS pledger. The result? Devastating and unfair to both early-stage and new-joining PoW miners.

Secondly, in reality, we are heading towards a world where PoW and PoS co-exist, it’s never an ‘either or’ game, as that’s never healthy. We can all agree that both PoW and PoS possess each of their own advantages and disadvantages. The drastic increase in the PoS split is a catastrophe to the PoW miners and given how significant a part they played in the classic DCR community, it’s also a catastrophe to the DCR world by exploiting these miners.

In addition, the ‘malicious miners’ mentioned in the proposal of change is simply wrong by fact (and mathematics). The DCR in circulation now is 14 million, with around 2500 being generated daily, simply too insignificant to manipulate the token price. In the 80% PoS proposal, whales would easily bump token and manipulate price by staking their dominant majority.

If the above is all too theoretical to buy in, look at what happened to EOS.

Now let’s look at another significant loophole in the 10/80/10 structure – risk of attack.

The decrease in PoW split would cause the decrease in the network hashrate, but the increase of PoS from 30% to 80% doesn’t increase DCR’s TVL at all. This actually creates an ideal scenario for attackers, where originally it requires both hashrate power and token staking to attack DCR. With the change taking place, it lowers the bar to attackers while rising the bar for miners.

Now let me summarise the key benefits of the DCR-X forking:

1. It sticks to the original PoW/PoS/Treasury split of 60/30/10, a much more reasonable and healthier balance.
2. It sticks to our analogy to BTC, where we stick to rules rather than changing overnight.
3. Introduce EVM into DCR-X: Treasury awards welcomes and attracts more developers into DCR-X and proactively participate and build it into an ecosystem as dynamic as ETH, which is a positive driving force for the rise of the token price in a long run, instead of depending singly on PoS.
4. By adding OmniLayer and Sharding technologies, it drastically improves the speed of DCR-X’s TPS, and allows users to develop their own NFTs.
5. Potential to realise the first green mining project: After discussing with several leading Blockchain Server’s Manufacturer, I make sure DCR-X mining machines could be upgraded to green energy miners by integrating the chipset sensor technology.

Conclusion The earlier proposal of subsidy split change does not solve the problem and it creates another layer of unnecessary and unbalanced structure to the community. A DCR-X forking is inevitable to do to keep the essence and advantage of the original and the authentic DCR.