Well, I was having this conversation with a few of my close friends in Slack the other day, and I thought that this might help a few people further understand the decision making process that has gone into choosing the PoW consensus mechanism.
Please keep in mind this was just a snippet of a conversation we were having in Slack. I haven't refined this for an official post so it may be a bit rough around the edges, but I just thought I would share my opinion. Please note this does not take into account the PoST hybrid mechanism or the cross chain load balancing protocol which we are waiting on more details for:
**Waltonchain has a plan, and it's brilliant**
"The "outdated" PoW consensus mechanism was specifically chosen by the Waltonchain team for the Parent Chain because it is the only consensus mechanism so far which has constantly withstood the test of war. No other consensus mechanism has ever withstood the type of attacks/hacks etc that Bitcoin has, for as long as it has, and managed to come out stronger because of it. I suggest listening to Andreas Antonopoulous speak on Bitcoin being the only battle proven chain in the space. It may seem outdated with all these fancy words like Sharding being thrown around, and the endless debate about scalability which gets everybody hyped up. But then you have to ask yourself, "Why in the blue hell would the WTC team knowingly pick PoW when it seems as though the entire space is moving away from it?"
I'll tell you why. They have a plan, and in my opinion, it's absolutely brilliant, and will be one of the major factors contributing to long term economic rent for miners once the ecosystem reaches full maturity, positioning the WTC token as one of the most valuable in the space. The security and longevity of data is of the utmost importance when laying the foundations for the bottom layer protocol of the unified public ledger of China/the global supply chain. As the physical world continues to assimilate with the digital at an ever accelarating pace, the authenticity of data, and its longevity, simply cannot be compromised. The safety of citizens, and the very fabrics of society will depend on it.
Currently, China's digital infrastructure is centralized. The transmission of data requires human oversight, and trust is involved at every step of the way. This has been working for them since the inception of the internet. However, as we move towards the "Smart" era, the powers that be are becoming fully aware of the limitations of their centralized infrastructures, and the vulnerabilities it places their citizens at. I'm not sure if you guys realize this yet, but digital warfare is becoming the new warfare, and this may sound odd but that is one of the most bullish statements somebody invested in a public blockchain could hope to hear. Why? Because blockchain is the solution to bad actor devices. By 2025, the amount of interconnected devices is set to grow to 250 billion. Really consider that number for a second. There are 7 billion humans on Earth.
First of all, China knows the most that vertical scaling to meet this demand is impossible. If they could pull off this kind of system using a centralized DB, Waltonchain wouldn't even exist. Instead, what are they doing? They are decentralizing the bottom layer of the infrastructure while maintaining control of everything else. They know true decentralization is the most effective way to protect against the threat of state sponsored cyber attacks for example, when their entire country is dependent on the functionality/longevity of their Smart Infastructure. They must also protect against dishonest inputs of data, and design a large scale device authentication system using the blockchain for the billions of vulnerable devices which are currently incredibly easy to hack.
(See Wei Songjies patent for his device authentication system which allows interconnected devices to automatically kick out bad actors in the network by using some type of automated security system based off the WTC blockchain).
What I'm saying is, they are not going to begin laying the foundations for a project of this scope by using the second safest option. Longevity + Authenticity of data simply cannot be compromised."
These are four questions which I feel are my priorities to have answered by the team. Tell me what you think:
*1) Why has nothing been done about the top mining addresses clearly violating the single GPU mining rules to exploit an unfair advantage against lesser off members of the community who may not have the funds to compete?
For months now, there has been undeniable evidence of large GPU mining farms completely dominating the mining aspect of Waltonchain. Why has this abuse of the rules been ignored and continuously allowed to be violated by these groups, who have made it increasingly harder for smaller miners to find blocks, without atleast trying to level the playing field by opening up multi-GPU mining for all?
*2) Why were Guardian Masternodes introduced in the first place?
When Guardian Masternodes were first released, they were sold to us as the necessary backbone of the Parent Chain infrastructure. The title "Guardian" was chosen by no coincidence. GMN's were advertised as the pool which Waltonchain would host the entire server capacity within:
"After a long internal discussion we decided that the Guardian Masternode pool would be the same pool that we place our entire server capacity within."
This was back when GMN's were first introduced. As of today, Guardian Masternodes serve no other purpose than miners. There are no special tasks for them to perform, no extra responsibilities, and no mining difficulty decreases as once promised. In return, GMN's receive incrementally increasing airdropped rewards for merely holding their tokens. They don't even need to point their CPU power towards their address. As a GMN holder, I would like to ask, why am I needed?
*3) Why is the PoS reward airdropped instead of inbuilt into the blockchain?
I have been holding back on this question because I expected further PoS details to be released, and further details on PoST to be released, yet there has still been nothing. As of today, the PoW + PoST Blockchain which was supposedly innovated by the Waltonchain team is a highly centralized, PoW blockchain with airdrops disguised as PoS. The only time mechanism available is the incrementally increasing GMN airdrops, which is actually airdropped by the team, so it's not a time based mechanism, it's just airdrops, again.
PoW + PoST was supposed to be an improved consensus mechanism based off the calculation of Hash Power x Stake x Time to determine an address's profitability. What we have instead is a PoW consensus mechanism, and a team willing to airdrop certain addresses certain amounts of WTC in return for buying and holding the token. Could you please explain this?
*4) Do you think it's possible for the price of the WTC token to rise while the blockchain becomes cheaper for customers to use?
How does the team at Waltonchain plan to provide users with a competitively priced blockchain platform for transactions, while also catering to the needs of the Masternode holders, who have purchased the token in order to receive a return on investment? There is a conflict of interest between investors wanting a higher priced token, and end users wanting a lower priced token.