|
Hey you should do something like HoboNickels and put in a minimum/maximum adjustable threshold in the wallet for Staking.
Letting users adjust their own stake thresholds could be very good for proof of stake. When you have a very large wallet, you don't want to have millions of coins staking very small amounts. These small inputs created through splitting Stake all need to be recombined for new transactions so if you Staked often, you would have so many inputs that it becomes costly to the network in terms of data addition into the Blockchain. If you can set your minimum and maximum thresholds for blocks to combine or split, the rate at which the Blockchain grows can be shrunk considerably.
It could potentially be very good because you could create adaptive controls for presets so you can set your wallet to have more inputs if you are going to be using it for a lot of small transactions for say websites, exchanges, or less inputs if you are using it more as an investment and won't be spending many inputs.
Stake thresholds aren't part of the protocol level, just active within the wallet so it can be changed anyways just by changing and compiling the code. For a large balance, it might be better to target your Stake split and combines for 40-50 inputs, where if you own a smaller balance it may be better to have 4-5 inputs to give yourself a better chance at Staking sooner. The minimum Stake threshold is the minimum time at which your balance within an address will split every block that Stakes and the minimum threshold amount is the amount that multiple inputs under the amount designated with combine so for example if the Stake threshold is set at 0 days and 10,000 coins all inputs will combine if under 10,000 coins (you may receive a block of 13,000 coins if two blocks of 6,000 and 7,000 combine), and all inputs above 10,000 will split so in the next block that block would Stake it would split into two blocks of 6500.
Also, what about combining the multishift along with Staking and what HoboNickels uses as Stake for Charity so that when you Stake it generates a random address it seems to Stake from and you can even set a variable random amount of your Stake splitting into another address so that if your Stake splits that you could have somewhere in the range of say 10%-80% go to a designated address and the rest back as change. Something like that could be very handy in helping create better anonymity since you would never really be able to tell if the Stake was going back to you or to someone else.
|
|
|
|
has there been any investigation into blocknet integration? Seems like a native technology for MWC bridging multiple blockchains...
I was about to ask the same question. Will it benefit mwc? What is Blocknet? sounds interesting |
|
|
|
NEWS OF THE WEEK Hello all fellow multiwallets! Yes we are still on schedule and following the road map as published. There should be more news on this in the coming few days! Please don't forget that anonymous came along very unexpectedly and is a real accomplishment for any coin considering it was one of the last things we were to originally implement.  This puts us in the very top category of altcoins as far as i'm concerned, as well as the plans allready announced, we do however ask for a reasonable amount of patience, as when we are finished we will surpass everybody currently arround, and yes this incudes litecoin and darkcoin, and all those who do not understand this or rather don't believe it are 1 simply ignorant, or 2 have not comprehended what our roadmap spells out and exactly what it is your wallets will achieve, not only in the short term but in the final eventuality. Although we have accomplished much in 4 weeks, we can't expect something new every week to be rolled out thats just simply not how the crypto industry works or can work and rather than promising rubbish or rhetoricwhich means nothing or very little we will only announce real developments when and if they are ready to be launched. However I do have a little bit of fact for you all to ponder on. As we move ever closer to our goals I wish to stress that there are only 27 million MWC coins in existance BUT.....as we have pointed out before I can officially confirm that there are as of today infact only 18 million MWC officially not in the possesion of 5 of the multiwallet foundation members, with 2 as yet to report their assets. We have already pledged not to put these coins onto any markets before the price reaches the equivalency of $1 per MWC and reaching that number it would make very little sense to sell such a valuable asset in any case on such a rise! I for one will continue to accumulate at this stupendous price for a fully proven and workable anonymous coin whenever I am able. So the news of the week is that there used to be 27 million coins available and now there are only 18 million available to the public which alone represents a staggering 30% drop
in the total number of coins available for those of you who want to buy in and indeed considering what everyone knows what we have achieved, and want to achieve I find it hard to believe there are hardly many much more available out there willing to sell at this point. In my opinion that would be just plain foolish, but who am i to judge after all we all have our jobs  Multiwallet only 18 million coins are available to trade and be bought and sold publically and falling weekly!These are the facts and reality!! 
At this point i want to share a Big Thank You to the community! You guys pushed and motivated us a lot in the last weeks and we are very happy to see that. The Future of Multiwallet gonna be bright as we have various things to announce when projects will become mature..very soon.
be patient and stay tuned :-)
cheersI sent you a message about my friend that wanted to do some promo videos but no reply, he sent you a message too. Let us know what you want with it, I am assuming you are wanting to wait until the next release but if you can give a general layout, the majority can be done to coincide with a stable release. |
|
|
|
Kinda hard to work in the Crypto space when there is a lynch mob waiting around every corner.
A lynch mob around every corner is an entirely appropriate response given the flood of criminals that have swamped this place. Hey technically lynch mobs are legal up until the point of the lynching... OK well maybe not. Well here's the thing: I'd like to believe that if you're honest, you have nothing to worry about. If you're a liar, you deserve whatever pain and misery you bring upon yourself. I understand its not that simple ALL the time and there is vicious, ruthless competition out there (check out my new sig), but let's face it, this place has been completely overrun by scammers. I make alterations to my portfolio rarely these days but when I do I recognize the above fact. I agree because you cannot hide from people so if you are out there to screw people you should know that the truth will always come out. |
|
|
|
|
I think it will get better in time, there has been a big rally from the community the last 4-5 months to clean things up and stay decentralized.
|
|
|
|
Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake?
this maximum stake weight wont cause a problem because exchanges dont stake coins. it is bad for them and the coin and business, so they dont do it out of common sense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is true and most reputable exchanges do not Stake and Bitjohn and Mullick from Cryptsy have stated on multiple occasions that they do not Stake coins but the point is more about what can be done to make sure that there is no funny business (Mt. Gox, Cryptorush, Moolah etc.) The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion. If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value. this statement is just wrong. if you have double the coins and half the price. it market CAP is the same. but the value is half. cuz the price is halved. the price of something is how much it is worth. which is the value. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The price would unlikely to be half it's price because proof of stake encourages more active participation. There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling. there is an incentive for people to stake off of exchange. thats what PoS is. the incentive is free coins. as far is over 10% PoS rate. that is not rampid. My other coin ECC is 25% a year. the coin is doing just fine since i took over and its price is actually going up quite a lot. so MWC 5% PoS is fine for this coin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wasn't really saying that the 5% inflation is an issue, quite the contrary. I was more saying that destroying fees are not needed in order to reduce the amount of inflation because inflation will never be an issue. Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins. fees paying back to the coin holders is not needed. this is the exact function PoS provides. there is no point in doing it twice. PoS pays the holders for holding and keeping there wallets open. this seems like a suggestion for a service that already exists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well if exchanges are not Staking then that fee is rewarded to people Staking. Secure Linux IOS within the cloud is the way forward IMO If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following... we are asking for input on the fees going back to the blocks as opposed to being destroyed. the only difference people would see is that the total coin supply raises slightly slower if fees are destroyed. we are not changing the fee amount any time soon as there is no need because this coin is not valued at 400$ a coin like BTC. BTC is the only coin with that issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think fees going back into the blocks are better and higher fees are better because it encourages the need to build a more secure Staking platform, accessible anywhere and on any device. Also you can link to multiple wallet.dats so higher fees (that go into Staking as it does now) would benefit the major holders (the devs) and more so once the multiple exchange support gets under way. Say for example the fees are raised to 0.02 coins (as I suggested), If Multiwalletcoin does well and is worth as much as Blackcoin you would see approximately 2-3k Transactions a day and with input combines you might see an average of 200-300 coins a day generated through fees along with Stake so assuming MDTspain and Sovie hold onto their coins and Stake, they would receive 5% a year, plus up to an additional 50k coins a year (assuming Stake participation is around 60% as in Peercoin and most POS coins). If you hold on exchanges then you lose 5% a year, if you Stake sometimes you would gain 5-6% and if you Staked often you may gain 7-8% |
|
|
|
Investigations and interests are being put together for a possible class action law suit against an exchange/ exchange operator that withheld btc and closed down
I'm fairly certain you're talking about me, which is laughable if so. You can laugh, you can assume it's you. But until you get served I guess you never know. lol, serve me over 3 btc? it's laughable. i'm out less than 12 btc at the moment all told, counting the 10 btc invested. not that i think its funny, but the fact you would try to threaten me and claim that i withheld btc. hilarious. if you are owed some money you can contact me like a man and say so. refunds are first come first serve. I don't think it's you unless you go by Ryan Gentle, https://docs.google.com/document/d/10JYJZ8-e_0SIXsDz_b2MYJxq8fVZ37PsOK689e4Bnng/pubYour exchange got hacked? Atleast you are paying people back. Kinda hard to work in the Crypto space when there is a lynch mob waiting around every corner. |
|
|
|
Yep.. I'm sure your reputation as a shitcloner, scammer and blackmailer will not affect your credibility what so ever !  You sent me a letter ? Do tell.  I also stockpiled my freezer with meat and throw out a piece every time you post. So all that good vego work you do is useless, you are now responsible for the slaughter of innocence animals. I'll keep doing it forever, every time you post. Just sent another 5 ltc to a random address😆 tx codes plzz..  You must be dense if you think any of this bothering me. lol My only purpose here is to warn people about you and your craptsy sweatshop of horrors.  Man your getting expensive, Just threw out a whole chicken. lol, you should make Vegancoin and use the proceeds to buy more meat. That's hilarious. Made my day crest. Better yet, call it MeatCoin instead  |
|
|
|
Yep.. I'm sure your reputation as a shitcloner, scammer and blackmailer will not affect your credibility what so ever ! You sent me a letter ? Do tell. I also stockpiled my freezer with meat and throw out a piece every time you post. So all that good vego work you do is useless, you are now responsible for the slaughter of innocence animals. I'll keep doing it forever, every time you post. Just sent another 5 ltc to a random address😆 tx codes plzz.. You must be dense if you think any of this bothering me. lol My only purpose here is to warn people about you and your craptsy sweatshop of horrors. Man your getting expensive, Just threw out a whole chicken. lol, you should make Vegancoin and use the proceeds to buy more meat. |
|
|
|
Investigations and interests are being put together for a possible class action law suit against an exchange/ exchange operator that withheld btc and closed down
Maybe this is of interest? This was passed on to me by another member on Moolah.io *Word of warning, I have not used Moolah or know much of their dealings but seems worth looking into since someone took alot of time to put together evidence. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10JYJZ8-e_0SIXsDz_b2MYJxq8fVZ37PsOK689e4Bnng/pub |
|
|
|
As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )
This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.
Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.
As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.
My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.
Michael
If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform. People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking. My ideal currency would have 7-21 day max weight 5% inflation a year high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher) percent of Stake going to development all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+) Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking. @Cresitington - almost off the exchanges disable staking due to common sense that if they have a majority of the coins they could possibly fork the network. on another note: in the newer versions of the wallet i will be discussing with the rest of the team the idea of possibly doing what my other coins does (ECCoin) and that is fees are destroyed by the network rather than stored for later. as for now id like to ask for a general thought from the community on this matter. the fee rate would stay the same. you wouldnt see any difference when sending or receiving coins, it would just instead cause the total coin count to not raise as quickly so that we can see that there is a rise in demand to meet the rise in supply. let me know what you think. The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion, coins with higher supply tend to do better because people like to deal in full coins and will trade more often, plus it creates stronger walls. If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value. There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling. Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins. All transactions also cost the network, whether it is ring signatures, fast block times, or combining large amounts of inputs. There is no difference in terms of size of one input whether it is 100 or 1,000,000 coins but sending 1,000 coins which need to combine 100 units contains more data than one input of 1,000,000. Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake? Also, check this out by YACoin on split combine thresholds https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206577.1965;wap2If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following 0.02 Coin fee which goes to into Staking Split combine threshold set to 10,000 coins, at 0 days as default The reason is that 0.02 coins would not be too restrictive and if at a value of $1 per coin it would represent 2 cents per transaction with a threshold that will better favor smaller holders better. Thresholds are only active within the wallet, not on the protocol level and reduces the amount of total inputs considerably. |
|
|
|
As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )
This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.
Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.
As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.
My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.
Michael
If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform. People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking. My ideal currency would have 7-21 day max weight 5% inflation a year high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher) percent of Stake going to development all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+) Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking. |
|
|
|
As you guys all know we are developing the in-wallet trading for 4 Exchanges. Our original idea was Bittrex - Cryptsy - Mintpal - Poloniex ,the full selection of trading pairs.
As you all know Mintpal looks like it's going down, so we have to change that or delete 1 Exchange.
If you can let us know what Exchange you would prefer to be added in the place from Mintpal, then we can make a selection and see which one would be the best substitute
Michael
My top choice would be BTC-e but I am more under the impression that they don't want to add new markets so that would be out so really the only other option would be BTER. I think CCEDK is a good choice as well but would be better as a supplementary exchange. Can we start trying to get listed on Poloniex? focused efforts yield faster results and everyone can agree on Poloniex |
|
|
|
|
Fantastic, keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Everybody,
As you can see we have upgraded the buy support to 300 Sat today. Later this day the buy support will be made stronger (more BTC)
We have received great news, but our partner in this don't want us to tell about it for now (If he wants to announce it here, feel free to do it). It is also the reason why we are putting more buy support, we want to buy more of our own coins.
In the past week I have been buying ~10% of all the coins in roulation on this moment, and will continue to buy more.
These coins are in my wallet, staking. The will not appear on the exchanges untill we reach 1USD
I have contact with the owner of CCEDK and we can apply to get listed there, the cost is 4 BTC and would be one of the more important exchanges to be listed on. Before we go about getting listed there we should tackle the little things I mentioned, plus do a whole revamp of the look of the wallet as in new logo, new splash, new icons and some color to the wallet. I've sent an email to Bitlinares, a good designer I knew a little while back but he's been inactive for some time so I don't know if he'll respond, he's really good though. 4 BTC seems a bit expensive, and no harm intended, but I never even heard about CCEDK... What's the volume on this one? No offense taken, CCEDK was the first exchange to list Nubits which is important in itself because a MWC/NBT pairing would be the same as a USD pairing. The exchange is fairly young (4 months) but I've talked to the exchange owner on and off over the last couple weeks and I think it would be beneficial because he has a long-term view on adding coins and working with the community rather than just based on volume. My view on exchanges is that we should not look to get listed on 20 exchanges but 5-6 top notch exchanges based on security, potential and customer service. CCEDK is one possibility but also Mintpal, Poloniex, Cryptsy, BTER are among the top exchanges. |
|
|
|
Good Morning Everybody,
As you can see we have upgraded the buy support to 300 Sat today. Later this day the buy support will be made stronger (more BTC)
We have received great news, but our partner in this don't want us to tell about it for now (If he wants to announce it here, feel free to do it). It is also the reason why we are putting more buy support, we want to buy more of our own coins.
In the past week I have been buying ~10% of all the coins in roulation on this moment, and will continue to buy more.
These coins are in my wallet, staking. The will not appear on the exchanges untill we reach 1USD
I have contact with the owner of CCEDK and we can apply to get listed there, the cost is 4 BTC and would be one of the more important exchanges to be listed on. Before we go about getting listed there we should tackle the little things I mentioned, plus do a whole revamp of the look of the wallet as in new logo, new splash, new icons and some color to the wallet. I've sent an email to Bitlinares, a good designer I knew a little while back but he's been inactive for some time so I don't know if he'll respond, he's really good though. |
|
|
|
When providing the next update there are a couple of things that should be looked at and would be good to discuss them a bit beforehand.
When using the IRC within the wallet, if you type in anything in the "console/pm" field other than /PRIVMSG the QT will crash. This is present in the Windows and Linux wallet and talking to MDTspain, it does not seem present on the Mac.
Also, the minimum fee is much too low at 0.00001 Coins per transaction and presents a bloat issue where it is virtually free to send alot of meaningless transactions. Peercoin has a very similar coin float and the fee there is 0.1 coins (or approximately 10 cents per transaction), the larger fee has helped keep the size of the Peercoin Blockchain to approximately 380 mb after 3 years.
Taking into consideration the float value and size, I think the minimum fee should be in the neighborhood of 0.1 - 1 Coins, higher being better until the point where the distribution and value is high enough that it needs to be lowered.
A higher fee is better because it also provides more Coins through Stake. In every Block all transactions are gathered up and the sum of all fees within that Block go to whoever Stakes that Block. The amount of Blocks a person would Stake is proportionate to the amount of Coins Staking on the network and the amount of Coins in the transactions.
In order to further reduce the amount of transactions and size, a Stake split threshold can also be introduced. This is present in Blackcoin and several other POS only coins and is the point at which when you Stake, it will not split your transaction into 2 parts. For Blackcoin, the threshold is 1000 coins so if you have a Block of 1000 coins or less that Stake, you do not have to spend the amount of the TX fee in order to re-combine those transactions into a larger Block.
A couple other things that can be done as well going forward is look to get listed on exchanges that offer interest bearing accounts for POS coins. There are several exchanges that have begun to offer this option and would be good to be on the lookout for exchanges that are able to offer POS interest while keeping coins on the exchange.
Also, Whitecoin has been working on their own Operating System. Basically it is the Wallet compiled within the Ubuntu operating system and something like this is good because a POS only coin should have as many people Staking as possible so instead of just trying to secure the wallet, it would be better to secure the entire operating system around the wallet. With a secure Linux operating system within the cloud, you can SSH into your wallet from anywhere and on any system so you don't need to have a wallet for Windows, another for Mac and another for Android because you can access it through something like VNCviewer.
I like the idea about stake split threshold as also for exchanges that offer interest bearing. Let's discuss more on #mutliwallet channel or here with our devs to see what is possible to realize. Thanks for your contribution, all ideas that bring additional value to MWC are warmly welcome I have been looking into fees and interactions for some time because there should be the incentive to Stake (higher security, faster sync times) but a high amount of inflation becomes negative over time because you cannot keep a high rate of inflation forever. High inflation is also more of a negative for investors because you cannot accurately predict what the money supply will be over time so then the only option then is the approach of fee sharing. Fractalcoin even took fees in a different direction by trying to do 0.5% fee of the transaction input but encountered the issue that stops coins from implementing it, all the fees gathered go directly into the next Block. POS and especially electrum wallets only compute from the last Block but for something like percentage fees to work, you would need all fees to spread out over a large number of blocks so that it creates a base amount to Stake for on top of the inflation per year. In fact, if fees could be spread out over a large number of Blocks (1000 or even 10k Blocks), if you were to send an extremely high fee it would be akin to a share giveback and spread more evenly between active Stakers within the period. |
|
|
|
|
When providing the next update there are a couple of things that should be looked at and would be good to discuss them a bit beforehand.
When using the IRC within the wallet, if you type in anything in the "console/pm" field other than /PRIVMSG the QT will crash. This is present in the Windows and Linux wallet and talking to MDTspain, it does not seem present on the Mac.
Also, the minimum fee is much too low at 0.00001 Coins per transaction and presents a bloat issue where it is virtually free to send alot of meaningless transactions. Peercoin has a very similar coin float and the fee there is 0.1 coins (or approximately 10 cents per transaction), the larger fee has helped keep the size of the Peercoin Blockchain to approximately 380 mb after 3 years.
Taking into consideration the float value and size, I think the minimum fee should be in the neighborhood of 0.1 - 1 Coins, higher being better until the point where the distribution and value is high enough that it needs to be lowered.
A higher fee is better because it also provides more Coins through Stake. In every Block all transactions are gathered up and the sum of all fees within that Block go to whoever Stakes that Block. The amount of Blocks a person would Stake is proportionate to the amount of Coins Staking on the network and the amount of Coins in the transactions.
In order to further reduce the amount of transactions and size, a Stake split threshold can also be introduced. This is present in Blackcoin and several other POS only coins and is the point at which when you Stake, it will not split your transaction into 2 parts. For Blackcoin, the threshold is 1000 coins so if you have a Block of 1000 coins or less that Stake, you do not have to spend the amount of the TX fee in order to re-combine those transactions into a larger Block.
A couple other things that can be done as well going forward is look to get listed on exchanges that offer interest bearing accounts for POS coins. There are several exchanges that have begun to offer this option and would be good to be on the lookout for exchanges that are able to offer POS interest while keeping coins on the exchange.
Also, Whitecoin has been working on their own Operating System. Basically it is the Wallet compiled within the Ubuntu operating system and something like this is good because a POS only coin should have as many people Staking as possible so instead of just trying to secure the wallet, it would be better to secure the entire operating system around the wallet. With a secure Linux operating system within the cloud, you can SSH into your wallet from anywhere and on any system so you don't need to have a wallet for Windows, another for Mac and another for Android because you can access it through something like VNCviewer.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, I want to share with you my analysis about the potential price of MultiWalletCoin. http:// http://prntscr.com/4srwpkData was based on prices of September 30. In summary, my scenarios are: Pesimistic 0.00388800 USD Moderate 0.01000000 USD Optimistic 0.09000000 USD Price of MWC in September 30 was 0.00102400 USD Of course, there are more potential growing, but I think it would be very nice to reach out those levels. Donations accepted here : MHR6N4EwaLKv6arkstN9PWuSUpcGGbCjjs Have a nice day! thanks for contributions maltrox :-) I personally think those calculations are pretty reasonable and fair. Seems like the pesimistic calculation means that the price is going to increase by 375% (current price is 0.001034 USD) (Pesimistic: 0.00388800 USD). So a price of about 1050 satoshi. your Optimistic calculation would mean a price increase by about 1000% to a price of about 2700 satoshi. In my opinion those market prices should be reached very soon since we have a few more interesting news to announce soon. By the way re check the post from Mtspain from yesterday. He mentioned a more interesting price longterm In order to provide a transparent development for Multiwallet (technical development and Marketing/PR activities) we are going to update a Google Document by reporting our current ongoing activities towards MWC so all of you guys are able to follow our current work easily :-)Document will be posted here by this evening GMT time.have a great day:-) cheers Great to see such a devoted team, looking forward to all the new innovations to come |
|
|
|
why no one is willing to help i have no idea. i've done the biggest share of the work. i just havent had time to test it since uni's dragging me down :/
What do you need to test? Send me some links and I'll go through it and help look for any potential bugs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
