Ah you can make a poetic ode to Patrick's many gifts and even set the whole thing to music if you feel so compelled, but don't organize my time nor put me in your team, please. There's no "our" anything, get that, bro...?

I know it hurts you deeply dear boy but it is not really "nobody", as usual you tend to have a very loose concept of what "nobody" and "everybody" means... oh and my comment wasn't "asinine" -it was factual and exactly correct, instead-. Only two or three people doesn't qualify as "nobody", you see... but it is quite understandable that you feel the need to come up in defense of your your friendly, friend, pal, even when no defense is needed nor called for. Quite understandable indeed.

Regardless of just two people perhaps using the excuse for unrelated agenda-driven attacks, the arrogance factor is not even in discussion, unfortunately, the university anecdote notwithstanding.

The main one is to NOT ask anyone who post in it why they do it.

Additionally, I strive to bring an element of common sense to an otherwise well populated stream of extremist postings, from the outright haters to the girly cheerleaders.

I take that you approve -now that you know my point-? And what does Hestas Hudas mean? Oh never mind, please disregard that...

So simple and yet so hard to do... apparently.

I feel exactly the same way about the idiots incapable of bringing anything to any table and yet feeling the need to express publicly their disapproval of others when the logical, obvious, easiest solution is to just hit the ignore button. When you feel the need, you feel the need...

And now a word from... ok, lets get some RESULTS! Perhaps with some some money will come to VRC, finally, before we follow BC towards the singles like we have been doing for weeks now.

Doug, that white paper shouldn't take too much longer to be written. Nor should the new version of the wallet with the real staking coins numbers. And those are very simple things, not even results, but would be much better than the NOTHING AT ALL we have had for quite a while now.

Now, for the roadmaps etc... why not trying something really retro-original... like, for instance, announcing that we are going to get results, specific results, on some specific date? I know, a lot of people support YOUR idea of not doing it to avoid the "inevitable dump when the deadlines are not met"... well, guess what: Them and YOU, are completely WRONG on that one. Proven. Irrefutably. Signed, sealed, delivered: We haven't had any deadline missed in the last few weeks and we are, indeed, 66% below the price then so there's nothing to lose, really, is there? The community is stretched already to the max: Everyone is staking. Everyone with cash is buying at current prices... and still, the spiral downside continues, so why not change the strategy altogether? It will probably work. I am willing to bet that it WILL work. And what if they dump if you miss some deadline in the future? No one would complain much if the coin is dumped, for that reason, from 30k to 20k or less... we are, I would remind you, at barely 11k, so, really, there's nothing to lose at this point.

No? OK. It was just a suggestion... with a guarantee attached: It could NOT provide worse results than the ones already "achieved".

And I for one believe that it would provide a much better results right away.

But, of course, you know oh so much better, so use your discretion, ok?

Lets make it clear that I don't agree or supports, as I have posted many times, with the revisiting of the attacks for the "rollback". I supported and still do the "rollback", among other things because there wasn't anything else that could be done honestly. And because it was playing clean and fair.

I have also stated many times how ridiculous it is to assume that the current downfall in price has anything to do with the rollback. It is simply not true. And the downfall doesn't affect VRC only, it does affect, among many others, CLOAK and BC to identical -or bigger- extent. That made clear, I find reproachable to keep beating that dead horse to serve quite bastard agendas and personally attack a dev that perhaps should use a bit more of restrain but that shouldn't be attacked at any opportunity for having contributed to make a decision, long time ago, that the entire VRC community overwhelmingly supported and still does support. Including me.

The university remark was indeed as inappropriate as it was sarcastic. Nothing more stereotyped or arrogant that many previous and current remarks. Arrogance is, indeed, a shortcoming here. A big one. But that remark, specifically, doesn't add -or takes way- to it.

So, usual suspects such as Smoothie and his croonies... the door is -remains- closed.

I am quite willing and quite able. And I thank you for taking the time to give, for the first time, a decent explanation about how many coins are, potentially, REALLY staking. And the figure, as we all agree on, is quite impressive indeed. BUT that doesn't dissolve magically the FACTS of the "issue at hand": The difference between approximately 20 million coins staking and 28+ million in the weighted/coinage system is STAGGERING, as I have already pointed out many, many times and not, in any way shape or form anything that can be dismissed, like Doug tried to, as some figure m"not too much bigger... 40% is, again, STAGGERINGLY bigger. Besides confusing and not meaning anything really for the meaningful number is, of course, the 20 million REAL coins that are not being offered for trade and are, indeed supporting both the network and the coin.

I hope you get now what the issue at hand was... before you, with your arrogance, created others completely unnecessarily... I guess your ego requires that just like it does require not accepting that you made a HUGE mistake transferring your 200k coins and setting well walls at the time of the roll back. It would be promising if you would start to respect everyone, more or less, that posts here and not immediately assume that your level, on anything really, is superior to anyone. First because it isn't even remotely close to true and second because, precisely the indication that it would be occasionally true would be demonstrated by the fact that you don't assume it to be so. Go on a digest that for a while, it may take a second or two to get the full meaning of it.

Finally, I'm sure everyone would appreciate your efforts and those of the other devs to try to make VRC the best coin there is. If this were enthusiasm for the project, it would be great; as it happens, we all know it is, again, a showing of unwarranted youthful arrogance for there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that VRC is going on that direction any time fast. I, on the other hand, am more of a results driven individual who doesn't care much for the efforts... if you literally kill yourself trying to be the greatest basketball player in history, your effort may be huge indeed... as huge as the result disappointing. I'm sure you catch my metaphor (after all that 23rd university might have provided some understanding of such, although perhaps it is still premature to assume so... as you can see, irony and sarcasms are easily accessible to anyone), so just doing the best you can would be more than enough for me.

For now. And not for too much longer. As many others have noted here, this project is dramatically short in results and extremely long in cheerleaders. Not a good, or even sustainable, combination.

Uh, ah, little boy, when you say "no one" you are referring to a very minimal and diminishing amount of choir boys. I already proved to you some time ago that many people DO pay attention to very relevant matters I post about. Nothing compared to those interested in your silver coins of course, I get that, but some.

in any case, your reality and mine are completely parallel so keep your infatuation or whatever it is with Pat and co., ok? I thought you had me on ignore but I guess one way or another you just can't keep your eyes away from my posts... other that this specific one, none of what I write is or will ever be directed or intended for you, is that clear enough? When I say you are toxic for the cloin, I am stating a fact that others have corroborated widely, not bec ause I want or expect you to change. You are way beyond the point of no return, boy and, furthermore, of no interest whatsoever to me.

It would appear that it is you who is attracted to socal, since you are sooo close that you keep him on the loop -albeit on a necessary short leash- being as he is toxic for the coin. Hey, I don't have anything against anyone's attractions, to each his own.

What is it then, can you or can you not know how many coins, real ones, are staking at any given time? Why 15 million is categorically not possible but 20-22 is "likely closer"? And under what measurement, even if those figures of 20-22 million prove to in fact be "more likely" is that "not too much bigger"? as Doug put it.

The answers, dear Patrick, much as your private "explanation" of the reasons behind the 200k transfer, are far from shedding real light on the issue at hand. No, I did not attend a top 24 university but I am extraordinarily good at looking things up on google. And I "get" things quite above whatever average, including those who are studying -with a lot to go- on top 23 universities, like you.

I take that you mean "through and through" instead...

I don't know, or care, if you are pretending now that I am a "naysayer" or that I throw "personal attacks" on the devs. Either case would be wrong for I have been, by far the first and most outspoken in praising them coming out of anonymity and setting a new standard in crypto. But, you know, Patric is more on the fatty side, regardless of my appreciation, Doug repeats "at the end of the day" way too many times in public and dev3 looks the picture perfect of the nerd that never gets laid. You think that is personal attacks or just a personal appreciation of the obvious? Also, from where I am standing, they are three nice kids playing a game of adults, full of youthful arrogance, so far incapable of admitting they have made mistakes -and they have- and making that some people -like you- will believe and put their money behind those beliefs- that they are "professionals" when, in fact, they have a hobby called VRC and they are professionals at nothing (they are students), except for dev3 of course that, until new layoffs come at least, still makes a living off or working at Microsoft, so, even more than for the other two, VRC is just a side hobby, nothing else. And that is a reality way beyond whatever you make your mind believe, through and through.

The level of idiocy that purported humans are capable of, in some cases, never ceases to amaze me. And when you put it together with blind greed so prevalent here, we are talking stratospheric idiocy.

And, of course, no answer to the very relevant question. What the hell does it matter when all you care about is the price rebounding... or pretending you are here for the long run no matter what.

And if you are a guy from Valencia somehow astonishingly convinced he is somewhat intelligent, the shit reaches proportions intergalactic, really.

Hey, to each his own. If you don't care that 15 million coins are really staking while credit is given to 28 million instead, the only thing I can do is demand answers, THE REAL KIND. Either way, no one can achieve that total idiots will somehow develop a brain.

No no no Patrick, you simply refuse to acknowledge the reality here. There's no "silliness" in claiming that maybe as much as DOUBLE the real amount of coins staking is actually staking. Thank you for your attempt at explaining this but no, sorry, you are WRONG. The 28+ million figure is the weighted amount staking, right? My claim -far from silly- is that probably only HALF of that amount ion REAL coins is actually sitting in open wallets, while the rest is either in pre-staking situation or, in most major amount, simply sitting in the exchanges, NOT staking at all. So we are not talking a "10% higher". We are talking much, much, MUUUUUCH higher than 10%.

Now, if EVEN 10% is higher indeed, how does that additional staking not influence the inflation level? how is "no interest is being earned beyond the ~1.5-2.5% per year" possible if the staking "coins", in HUGELY BIGGER NUMBERS than the real coins, are staking and therefore producing new coins? Let's provide an scenario where the average number of phantom coins during the year is 30 million, while the real amount of coins is 27 million. If the interest produced is 2.5% we will end up the year with 750k more new VRCs, right? That would be 2.77777% of the TOTAL real coins (those that staked and those that did not). Now, assuming the REAL amount of coins that staked, averaged let's say 18 million, we will find that those coins got 4.17% instead of the maximum of 2.5%. And that is, obviously, not even counting the staking of those coins staked along the way themselves... where's my math wrong in this scenario?

I'll tell you what, right now, you know, positively, the exact number of coins that are in the exchanges, NOT staking. You should have them all at the top of the rich list -very easy to know which ones are bittrex, cryptsy and mintpal, the most significant. How many millions are now there. Those are NOT staking at all. Deduct them from the 28 million and you will see immediately that the figure is far from 10% and most definitely can't be called "not too much bigger". And that doesn't include, of course, those coins waiting to stake in the different wallets that have not reached the 8 hours threshold maturity. What exactly is the "silliness"??

About the "phenomenon" I will investigate if it does happen in other coins. It is not difficult when there are so many coins with much less than 27 million coins total so I'll make sure to bring back some preliminary results of my investigation asap.

Well it is not an easy thing to understand... especially if if it not put bin the proper perspective, so there's no beating any dead horse, it is, in fact, a very alive horse no matter how you choose to look at it. And pretending that this is making a mountain out of a mole hill is NOT, definitely, the proper perspective. Whatever this is, is something neither Patrick nor Doug quite understand, which in itself is very worrysome. I think we all agree that it is an immediate need to have a wallet that tells us how many REAL coins are staking at any and all times, that doesn't need repeating and should be implemented as a very top, top priority.

The real worrysome part, though is the "not too much bigger number". Again, it is a hugely bigger number in fact and, so far, we have no idea how such a huge number staking is not going to produce an inflation way superior to 2.5% annually. That is a MAJOR concern, not a mole hill. And, quite frankly, I don't believe the devs actually know how that network weighted stake is going to en up affecting the actual number of coins produced. We, the average investors, certainly do not. You are probably not an average investor and maybe you do know how 28+ million coins staking are going to produce less than 2.5% interest in half that amount of coins. If you do, I'd appreciate enormously that you explain it to me and to all here in layman's terms more or less. To me if 10 million coins stake for a year, the maximum number of new coins produced would be 250k. Now if those same 10 million are indeed REALLY staking, but the phantom figure is 20 million instead, the resulting amount of coin s produced at the end of the year would be 500k instead, thus resulting in a 5% inflation instead of the 2.5%.

I'm sure I'm making my rudimentary calculations erroneously, but I am equally sure you, the devs and other gifted mathematicians can clear fast and easily my error and set me on the right track within seconds. I'll be waiting.

Oh I am sorry but your questions skipped my less and less frequent visits to this cemetery. I never thought there were still anyone actually posting questions here. It's pathetically funny, actually.

What the OP states is simply a copy/paste of what has been the leit motiv of every momentum new coin coming to the market in the last few months, and I am talking SERIOUS projects, with original coding, not copy/paste hackjobs like this one. To put that in the OP is, actually, part of the con: Promise something they know they have no means to deliver.

That said, I have never posted that PESA is a scam. It is a con, which is slightly different: the former is a scheme designed to rob your money; the later is a scheme created to fool you... and lose your money voluntarily. The end is the same but the means are slightly different.

The way I see it, that kid, Max, not to bright that he is, figured that he could somehow lure people capable of delivering what he promised along the way through bounties of donations. It had "worked" somehow before so he figured he could duplicate (always copy-paste) what others have done in the past. So he conned the people into believing those things would be, eventually, a reality and therefore will pump the coin to a point where not only him but all investors in PESA would make money. Now, all of you are realizing, even the most recalcitrant of you, that you were conned and that there's nothing but Alex and thus nothing but what you have that will be ever brought to PESA.

I hope this answers your questions.

I don't think I am hard at all simply putting out very obvious concerns of everyone that is invested in this coin. I mean, I have been stating many times during the past weeks how strong this community is in support of the coin, based on those staking numbers and now I have discovered they are absolutely meaningless. Not only that, while not-too-sharp choir boy socal and other fan boys put on the tin foil to "explain" the spiral in price, the apparent growth of staking figures made almost impossible for anyone to have any coins at the exchanges. And a lot of people do. And a lot of people, is, obviously, selling. Much more than buying (that's why the price goes down). So I believe I have been actually quite mild in clearing up a bit -still far from being quite clear, by the way-, the mess of the "fake" numbers (for lack of a better word).

Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake). Patrick has kindly try his best at explaining that somehow, even though they are staking, the whole interest to be created, yearly, will not increment to more than 2.5% annually. That's reassuring but certainly it doesn't look even remotely that way from what we now know... which is very little.

This divergence between the real coins and the Phantom coins staking, according to Doug, the wallet man, would not be "too much bigger"... I hope I have demonstrated clearly that the difference can be as significant as to actually DOUBLE the number of the real coins: My contention is that while the Phantom number reached over 28 million yesterday, they real number could be, in fact, half of that. Or even less. And I explained why: The amount of coins currently deposited in the exchanges and NOT STAKING, in my opinion would be at least 6-8 million, probably more. Add to that the "in transit" coins or otherwise not live (staking) coins -they need a minimum of 8 hours to begin staking-, and you can end up with a lot of coins that are not staking and therefore are not part of of those record 28+m.

Finally, additionally, 28+ million coins staking stake quite a bit of coins. Those staked coins are not PHANTOM coins, they are real. So real that, after 8 hours, they stake themselves, thus increasing the total number of coins in existence. Again, Patrick insisted that no more than 2.5% will be staked by any coin in any year. That's, again, reassuring, but the reality of the picture I just put, again, in perspective, makes it quite difficult to really believe.

I believe these are matters of great significance and need to be clear out completely so investors know where they have invested and retain their confidence in the project. Much more important that the spiral of the price that I have pointed out many times already is not VRC's affair but every other similar coin out there.

As for the not-so-sharp, bots are not market manipulators, bots are machine traders programmed to buy and sell minimal amounts for minimal profits. They don't manipulate the price at all. If a bot buys 800 sat below the previous price, 20 VRC, that's not manipulating anything, just following a program. The bot will buy just the same if the price is propped up by a big buyer. And will sell it likewise, regardless of the price. Once again: The price is going down for the simplest and always true of reasons: There are more sellers than buyers.

Also clarifying for the not-so-sharp, volume is quite different from inflows. The former indicates there's trading taken place; the later indicates there's investing occurring. If one or more traders take it to VRC and they buy and sell a lot, not only they do it but the bots also do it -that's what their program does-, thus resulting in very high volume... and not necessarily any real movement in price; on the other hand if a lot of people buys VRC but don't sell it, it is called inflow and means people is investing, buying VRC, bringing new money to it. And the price, mathematically, goes higher. In technical terms, it is called hitting the bid (dumping) or hitting the ask (pumping). Clear now Will?

Not only it isn't changing the subject it is, actually, a nice aside for perhaps some would assume that the proceeds from the mining pool somewhat increase the total number of VRC. That would be a WRONG assumption since the proceeds of the mining pool are simply VRC that is bought in the open market -therefore taken from the exchanges deposits- and transferred to the miner's VRC wallets. It doesn't increase the total number of coins until (and through it) they start staking.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

Well thank you Doug for finally getting my point AND doing something about it since, it is painfully obvious that the current numbers are, in fact, totally meaningless because, as I edited added to my previous post, the current given numbers could be in fact so staggeringly out of touch with the real ones that it could approximate or even surpass DOUBLE those real numbers.

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

Oh and Patrick, I don't have to ask Sunny King anything. I ask you because I have invested in you... one of the reasons for it being that I was under the impression that the "dynamic" interest was actually an improvement in the POS distribution model of Sunny King, one that would allow everyone to know, at any moment, the EXACT amount of coins that were staking in the network and the exact amount of total coins in existence. Hopefully, the new iteration of the wallet will provide that sooner rather than later. I will (im)patiently wait...  

And yes I remember that post and given that I have a very good memory, most of all others. Feel indeed free to correct me if I stated in error the numerical order of your alma mater... I expected you to come with some sensible explanation as to what effect did you really wanted to have placing sell order with your 200k coins, really. That doesn't require a special level of intelligence, does it? If you sell, the pressure that you put is towards sending the price down; if you buy, the pressure goes on the other direction. Pretty simple, really. Even for anyone not having studied in an university ranked below 23rd or even community college and I would even say basic education at a very early level, so it would be nice to know exactly what it was that you were trying to achieve... correction, how were you trying to achieve that nobody but you "... would lose anything".

What would you consider "too much bigger" Doug? We have had a high of over 28 million just in the past 24 hours and I believe it would be quite safe to assume that at least 6 or more million of the total 26.8 million are deposited currently in the different exchanges, quite probably significantly more than 6 million, so if the maximum REAL number was, for instance, 20 million coins -and I DO NOT believe that many have been staking, not even close-, and the weighted coin age network number surpassed 28 million, you would still think the number would not "be too much bigger"?

And, by the way, you just contradicted Patrick -and the choir boys- making abundantly clear what is even more abundantly obvious: That you can indeed know THE EXACT number of coins staking at any given moment, the REAL number of coins. It would be quite nice if any, at least Patrick, would  acknowledge it, don't you think?

Edit to add: Besides the significant numbers mentioned above, there's the additional consideration of the coins that are actually being transferred at any given moment and that are not staking at all... for instance: If someone buy's X amount of VRC at Bittrex and transfer them to his wallet, they will not be staking until after a period of 8 hours... provided the wallet is OPEN, many more hours/days, if the wallet does open at any other time in the future, so the numbers that we know are really not only "too much bigger" but I'd venture to say "staggeringly too much bigger" indeed.

Well Patrick I cannot know where you may have answered that question before but as far as I know -and many others- you haven't answered it HERE, on this forum, where the question has been posed a few times. It is still a bit flimsy, if you ask me, what you just answered... You transferred 200k VRC to bittrex to put on SELL orders ONLY. You have not said here -again, to my knowledge- that you put any BUY orders -like you just have said a moment ago-. I didn't think you would have a bunch of BTC hanging around to do that...AND, more importantly, I still FAIL to see what the "stabilizing" point was to have 200k VRC FOR SALE... It just doesn't make any sense. Let me see the picture that you paint in a bit more detail: Youy transferred 200k of YOUR COINS to bittrex and put up several SELL orders with them "becauser you did not wanted anyone but you to lose anything". You are a bright kind and you will see that that makes absolutely no sense at all, right? If anything, your sell orders would take the price down, more or less significantly. Now, since NOW, you claim to have also put some BUY orders in, how many BTC dis you put in play? And at what levels? Because a lot of people were trying to sell indeed... Depending on the amount of BTC -sorry but my understanding is that you are a man of very small financial resources-, BUYING orders would have helped indeed to prop up the price. And, if so, how come you have never mentioned, much less in specific details, until now?

You would understand that I would qualify the "explanation" as "flimsy", right?

I'll tell you what, why don't you just jump right out on your bright pal "socal"'s bandwagon and call me a fudster and you can continua not answering at all or answering selectively, in place and in subject matters?

This is not looking very good Pat, not at all.