I suggest to fully REMOVE the BRI. The original goal was to have an income for the foundation to sustain, but with the current prices it is hardly worth a coffee. Better to support the miners with this amount.
2 Likes
IMO the consensus protocol needs a big upgrade and the proposed above changes by @Marcin do not bring much value to the chain! The current PoW consensus with the current rolling checkpoint implementation is no good for DEFI as MEV-type attacks are way too easy. And DEFI seems to be the by far the largest use case for decentralised blockchain technology. So until the current consensus mechanism has not been improved to be at least better than Ethereum’s I don’t see a big future for æternity blockchain. Hyperchains was envisioned as a consensus upgrade from my perspective.
Disclaimer: I have no opinion on the changes touching FATE or Generalised Accounts.
You haven’t noticed that the AENS names are the original NFTs, or?
Yes. For the sake of miners and the network, this tx price is dynamic and should be rising more steeply during the implementation of better tx price adjusting logic in the nodes. this means: empty blocks = cheap couple tx, good for the users, nobody is hurt. Full blocks = pay more to be squeezed in.
Yes, the final checkpoint should give enough room for naturally needed chain reorgs when necessary, but not more than that. @uwiger do you remember what was the original reasoning behind the current configuration?
A general note - except for the auction parameters - the rest of the proposed changes are all optional; as a user you don’t need to skip PreClaim, you don’t have to use raw data pointers, and you don’t have to use the new delegation signatures. So in that sense they shouldn’t be too controversial. All changes are the result of users trying to solve a particular problem and most of them have been discussed in the forum and/or Github issues. Notably the delegations signatures and raw data pointers have been advocated for by among others @marco.chain - and the optional PreClaim was a suggestion from the SuperHero team (since they apparently had some technical issues with the current process).
Optional Pre-claim
Regarding making the pre-claim optional - and, again, this is only adding a work-flow - the idea is that with the introduction of auctions (in an earlier protocol upgrade) the frontrunning problem is much less of an issue. The best thing someone on the outside (be it a miner or some other user) can achieve is to make the initial bid on a name - they will not snipe the name. However, for longer names (13+ characters) where there is no auction, or if you are very, very eager to make the first bid on a name, nothing stops you from using the PreClaim! (Perhaps the Superhero team can chime in since they were one of the strong advocates of this, claiming it would lead to a better user experience)
Adjusted auction parameters
There was long discussion regarding this on the forum - where there were basically three camps:
- Group 1 - wanted short auctions (hours) and really short extensions (minutes)
- Group 2 - wanted shorter auctions (days) and shorter extensions (hours/days).
- Group 3 - wanted status quo, i.e. auctions in (days/months) and extensions in (days/months)
None of the groups were in a huge majority, though group 1 and 3 were most vocal, but in the end the result was a proposal landing in the middle in true democratic style.
Lastly, I have to admit that I don’t see why the change in auction length is unfair to those who have bought names in the past?
1 Like
I don’t see how you can claim that his has been democratic when there was no voting on it at any level. From my perspective it was the initiative of ONE guy (@marco.chain ) to change this.
I suggest to everyone here to vote AGAINST ceres upgrade with it’s above described scope. 
Many more people seem to be against changing anything about the auction parameters. 缩短AENS拍卖时间的建议非常糟糕 The proposal to shorten the auction time of AENS is very bad - #7 by YaniUnchained
You want to say democracy, did you pass the vote when BRI, you are the biggest undemocracy.
I would say that more people support such a change, 90% of the people who own AE near me support shortening the auction of domain names. Of course, I also support the voting process.
Most people are support it, because the proposal already includes a reduction in time, so they don’t come out and speak out. And it is often the naysayers who speak out.
Hi, Hans. There is only one issue regarding the PreClaim transaction on Superhero Wallet side. And there is no suggestion to delete it.
Earlier in our face-to-face Superhero Wallet team meeting, we were brainstorming on the name functionality. And one of the frustrating parts of that functionality, from a user experience perspective, was that we were showing two modals for confirming name registration. Preclaim and Claim. And it was suggested that we make one modal with current registrations process status.
...PreClaiming
....done V
....claiming
.... done V
We can also offer the user to decide how they want to register their name. Of course with a detailed explanation of possible problems.
Current rare issues that user may encounter when using PreClaim and Claim transactions in wallet. Will be fixed with the introduction of nonce management on the wallet or sdk side.
I have to admit I didn’t understand the post about how it is unfair that we auction out the names now and don’t wait for the millions of people (on X?) that has yet to discover Aeternity 
This discussion had at quite a few different people discussing the auctions, including four different polls - so at least there was some effort to gather different opinions.
And remember this is just at proposal, the plan is, I guess, to have vote on it, just like we have done in the past!?
I’m glad to hear there are finally plans to do proper nonce-handling 
Sounds like making the PreClaim optional wasn’t much needed then - but it wasn’t a very big feature either. At the end of the day it might simplify some use-case somewhere - and if you don’t like it, then just pretend it isn’t there 
2 Likes
We also duscussed AENS claim/preclaim in this issue
I still think it is useful to have preclaim optional.
1 Like
I think ae now is moving in the right direction; No marketing, no future; There is no future without accountability to shareholders. - ae dropped 99.9% due to the ridiculous concept of 1AE=1AE from the previous team; The AE community was disheartened. TRX is the obvious example; You can despise his lack of skill; But it is currently successfully used by a large number of users; His community is thriving. trx grew 1,000 times: and now AE BRI doesn’t pay for a cup of coffee; So 1AE=1AE has no future; Please first implement 1ae=1doge（Once 1ae=10000doge）; In implementation 1ae=0.001eth，Then consider whether ae can compete with eth; Or embrace eth and embrace the Marketing Department?. The direction of AE development is finally on the right track; The final result is whether 1AE =1ETH? Not that you have the skills; But Your user is 0!
True blockchain is marketing, market making, and technology three equally important; Always remember!
2 Likes
The necessary condition to re-establish trust is Hyperchains. but now it seems that developers are more about maintaining the core and superheroes. I don’t think all the tasks of the moment are more important than Hyperchains. So my question now is do Hyperchains really exist?
please stop trolling here. the BRI was introduced with a vote which was supported by overwhelming majority!
At the time of BRI, the infrastructure of ae was not perfect, and the wallet was difficult to use. A large number of holders don’t vote because their coins are on the exchange,。which is a kind of fake democracy enforced by foundations . Have you ever heard the real voice of the community?There would be no BRI if you really went to the community to understand the real ideas 
And then I want to stress that I’m not trolling，you’re the one who started talking about democracy。
2 Likes
users who keep their coins on centralised exchanges don’t have a voice. the exchange has their voice and can easily vote and probably has.
you don’t say why?
Ye, yeah, you are always right in your own world, and you will always find arguments to support your are right. You are too paranoid to really listen to the community.
As a member of the community, I am very very curious about a question: As the founder of AE, have you ever summarized the reasons why AE has great technology but has not been successful so far (including price and not being applied on a large scale)? looking forward to your answer very much!!!
1 Like
Although I am not a big user of AENS, I find the option of having name pointers referencing contracts a very neat feature. Aside from quality of life, I see it as a good way of having upgradable contracts — as long as names are used instead of addresses, the name owner will always be able to redirect it to a different implementation. It may sound like a security hole, which it indeed is if not used properly, but I can imagine cases where a bit of trust would not harm. Generalized accounts could aid decentralization here as well. Finally, one can always use Sophia to see what’s behind the name and use Chain.bytecode_hash to validate that the contract doesn’t deviate from your expectations. How lovely.
Aside from that I don’t have strong opinions on AENS.
I like the changes in FATE. Specifically that they are just a bunch of small, yet useful features. Makes you see how good FATE is in doing its job, keeping high ratio of satisfaction / maintenance_effort.
Regarding BRI… It’s definitely better to have it configurable, rather than not. I consider the change for the better regardless whether we want to keep it. And speaking about getting rid of it; if its value is, as Yani said, worth a coffee, then it shouldn’t make much difference for the miners. Therefore, I don’t see much reason to remove it, especially when the stake is low. To me BRI sounds healthy as a concept — just like casual transaction fees serve as a sort of tax making miners’ work pay off, BRI should support development. On the other hand, there was no vote on it for quite some time — maybe this is the moment for those upset/damaged by it to raise their voice.
1 Like