Sorry that you feel that way bholzer.

However, ultimately, you invested in the coin. So you just made my point, that not only did the name NOT MATTER, but even though you didn't like it, or see any interest in it, you mined/invested in it? (Because the name didn't actually matter. Bit = small, coin = cheap. See, doesn't matter. If you keep changing the name, it will matter. Looks like a hostile takeover or indecision. Also hard to find it... what is it called now? This week?)

Throw the coins on cryptsy. I'll buy them when I get the funds, or others will.

The low value is not real. There are like 20-200 coin chunks and zero sell volume. I raised the price from 0.00000989 to 0.000022 with 0.3 BTC, another 2 BTC and I could have taken it up to 0.00015 again. It is bots buying at 0.00001 and selling at 0.000011. The majority of coins are all in everyones hands, because they are not selling that low, because that isn't the value of the coin. Those who didn't care, just sold to get BTC as it rose. Like they did on every other coin. (Funny, the bots even buy other bots coins, or their own low bids, to make it look like it is falling, to get more cheaper. Then they do the opposite, to sell more for more money. Pump-bots with no actual volume are easy to destroy... lol, just buy all their low volume, like I did.)

There is more than 20Khs mining, because I have 12Khs mining myself, and I am not getting more than half the coins. There may be 20Khs on your pool of choice, or estimated by some off-value, but there is more like a constant 50Khs+ here, at this diff-level. More for you, if you mine. Where did they go? They went to chase dreams of hitting the mother-load mining new scam-pump coins, and will all be victims of loss. Since they are not "in the loop" on the scam. They will continue to chase their tails and collect coins that die, and complain that alt-coins are dead. (I was there once, in the beginning. Quickly changed to about five real coins, four were scams that just lived through the scams and pumps. Now I only focus on MNC, WDC, LTC, DGC, CAP, FTC and still favor CAP over all the others. The others don't have enough volatility to make money fast enough. They are too high or don't drop enough or have too much volume to contend with.)

Just be aware, that selling now is only a loss to you. It is a major gain to someone else. They won't feel bad for your surrender or loss, they will be glad they got a great deal and ride it to the moon.

There was only one issue with forking, which was resolved months ago, within less than a month. All coins have forking issues at some point. There were many forks, but it was all the same single issue, which has not been seen since then. BTC had hundreds of forks and thousands of drops. We had one major drop, which is less than 2% of the volume, because 98% are holding or selling higher than the 2% of idiots selling so low. I don't know why you can't see that, as an investor. As a user and an investor, it is great. Cheap coins to buy!

Did you buy many BTC when it fell from 250 to 100? Then rose back to 350? You had months to buy those, or trade coins for that drop, knowing the ASIC herd was eventually going to demand more from their value/losses/investments. Heck, right now you can get a whole new rig for half-price, if you had gotten BTC when it was low. Now bottlecaps are low. (Seeing the point?)

When you see 80% of the volume listed for the asking price now, that is when you get scared and jump ship. (Like the other alts, where almost 90% are listed for trade.) Even BTC is only trading like 7% volume at these prices.

I thought that too, about the assembly of smaller coins... However...

I moved all coins to a fresh wallet, in chunks of 500. Thus, no small coins. The app still froze just opening, as it always has. Sending 500, which is one solid coin, still sends two/three (the 500 chunk, 0.01 from one of the 500, and the remaining 499.99 goes back as one new tx, with the 0.01 removed. Well, that is random too, the split is sometimes odd, like 234 and 265.99... again, random dustmaker. Which we get fined for as a tx-fee.)

Would be nice if every deposit just added to the previous volume as a new tx. That would be a one-time dust-eater. But that is another whole story that is an issue back at the root of the original coins horrible design. (Not a CAP thing, that is an all-coin thing.)

I have no choice but to mine with the same computer as the wallet. There is no fighting of resources on this computer. I have 8GB ram, with all cards running and the client, I only use 3GB at the most. The CPU is 80% idle, even when POSing. However, an option to pause POSing, for uninterrupted operation, when needed, without shutting-down the wallet or locking it up, would be nice. First though, I think the hang-ups should be looked at, and the addition of "Unlock for XXX minutes", without going into the console. Those would be my two major wishes. (Along with the text correction of the service where it mentions use of FEES being payment for those processing the transactions.)

Just add a console-box to the page when they click on the lock-icon, or a popup to unlock and select time.

Remember, you don't want to strip the "mining" ability from the client... or they can't POS mine at all. (Not that POS minting is real taxing at the diff level it is at. Which should be a little higher, so less "solutions" flood the system all at once. Being easy to solve just makes thousands of "solutions" get thrown at the network to "check". Make it a little more difficult, and only 100 get thrown at the network to check, and reduce all the waste.)

Instead of retargeting after every single fast block, why not every Nth block? 1:8 and 1:10 are easy enough to calculate and wouldn't detrimentally hurt the coin by sticking someone with an uber high diff if multi or other large hoppers start jumping back into the coin.

On the note of name-change... I agree that this is an established coin, with a brand-name now. None of the users question that it is a coin, but new users don't care what the name is. They care about the "things they can use it for". Investors don't care if it is called "crap-coin", if it has potential for investment. If they do, they are poor investors.

This isn't a scam-coin or a pump-coin, that is why it doesn't get pump-scams. You don't want those guys here anyways. The biggest selling point is that this is a coin that processes fast, is reliable on delivery, has had few attacks (if any), is still actively supported by the community, and never seems to be on the bottom. (Unlike scam-coins that jump from bottom to top, over and over, with the hoppers and pumpers.)

I'll see if I can setup an "official website", since that seems to be the only other issue I can help with. I have a hard time still "searching", for "bottlecaps", or "bottlecap coins", because google keeps leading me to actual bottlecaps and coins made from bottlecaps. Having a website with good google-targeted relevance to the search will help a LOT! That is easy for me to do. Even if it just links to all the relevant forum posts and services.

Might want to see about making a hot-link in the wallet, once the site is done. Or, at-least a selectable (copy/paste) text to lead them to the "source of the coin".

One thing to remember...

This is by my observations of trades. CAP coins are being held the longest. (Compared to crap coins, that are all sold ASAP with every BTC move.) Thus, only those few short-sellers are listing to get rid of them for the rising BTC. Funny thing is, they are devaluing the coin 10x to get the 2x gain on BTC. Thus, morons. lol.

Not to mention, this is the ONLY client I quickly get 15+ connections to.. thus, a lot of people are "POSing" the investments, not mining.

I have swiped up 48,000 coins at a steal, on cryptsy. This lowered the loss from my 27,000 I purchased when the coins were high. Now my average coin price is 0.000045 as opposed to the 0.00015 I paid for the initial 27,000 coins. Not including all that I am continually mining, to keep out of the hands of short-sellers. I keep buying every short-sale I can. (BTC I earned from trading and investing in mcxNOW and mcxFEE-shares.)

Thus, buy every short-sold coin, at your gain, and their loss. The coins will rise like mad when BTC starts to fall. However, BTC will fall only about 50% while CAPs rise back up 1000%, to the previous ground. That is a lot more BTC you can buy at that point, selling at the higher level.

Now, if I could just find a reliable source to sell me hardware or art supplies, for BTC.

Trade tip... Now that BTC is high, and CAP are low, you buy CAP with BTC, not sell. lol. When BTC drops and CAP rises, that is when you sell... Selling again when BTC rises, to buy more CAPs. Until you own everything!

Still, I am having the major issue with the client not even showing for almost five minutes, after it has started. (Doesn't show on the screen, but the icon is there, frozen.) Sending transactions seems real tedious, as it does the same slow-down. Though only takes about a minute for the (not responding) frozen program to begin working and let me know it didn't just crash, before I can send the next transaction.

Might just be a windows thing, something like compile optimized settings wrong or database bottlenecking, on a windows system.

Personally, I like "Bottle Caps".

However, if you are going for a more serious name, (Moving away from caps, by rebranding), I suggest the following...

CAP (Keeping the trade symbol)
- Capricoin (Because I am a capricorn. 10th sign in zodiac. Ram with fish tail. Earth-sign, ruled by Saturn.
- Coin App (Removing identification and hijacking commonly searched terms)
- Check App (Implying these are like a form of bank-check)
- Coin Amp (Suggesting that it amplifies... "grows")
- Capital Pay Coin
- Capital Coin
- Currency App Coin


If the CAP isn't important...

Aero Coin (It's in the cloud. It's streamlined.)
Net Coin (Implying internet or "net gain")
Trade Coin (Implying trade-investments and/or trade-job)
Digital Check (Blunt) or Digi-check or e-check

Just filling space now.. lol.

Ok, back to my corner.

I think the slow start-up should be fixed before anything. That might be why people are not using it. Takes too long just to even show on the screen. Longer just to send a transaction from a wallet full of transactions, as the chain grows. (Even the new empty wallet I unloaded all 30,000 coins to, is taking forever just to load and send. This is on the windows compiled version.)

Also note...

The "Confirm transaction fee" warning still says...
"This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of ____ CAP, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?"

However, it DOES NOT go "to the nodes that process your transactions", it DOES "get destroyed", as you stated earlier. (False advertisement of operation of the services. But that should simply be fixed to state the following. "..., which will be removed from circulation, to stimulate and maintain coin value.")

Also note... "over the size limit"... What limit? Size of what? Where does it show the "transaction size". Why is is not sending my large transaction and one small transaction? Why does it seem to collect and send the dust, making it "over the size limit", beyond our control.

Besides, sending 1000 micro-transactions which turn into ONE lump transaction, should not be taxed. You already taxed the prior sender, who sent me the dust. Oh wait, you didn't, because the dust is the dust YOU created by the POS coins of 0.01 and mined coins of 10, which the system created, which now costs me 0.01 - 0.04 to send. That is ass-backwards. We should be rewarded for turning those 1000 micro transactions into one large TX of 500 coins, since "this does not go to the nodes processing the TX's".

Tax the poor! lol

Sorry, just venting again.

Would be nice to see what "would not be a TX over the size limit", so we can just send those, then re-send them again, into a consolidated TX. (Oh wait, that would create more TX's which would slow down the network and fatten the chain, as opposed to the ones that consolidate thousands into one.)

I am sure that theory sounded good on paper, or in someones head... but in reality, the practice of hidden uncontrollable charges for things we didn't do, is just poor service. But that is my complaint with most coins.

Since there is no "processing fee/reward", it won't be worth running the computer, processing transactions, for the low POS return, which we can't adjust. (Well, we can, by merging all the dust into large tx's of 500 coins, provided we have enough coins for profit of processing all the networks incoming tx's.)

Would be better, in the long-run, to have less POS rewards, and have them consolidated into "whole coins, or more", before creating that return-coin TX. (The mined POS coin).

Eg, taking 200 total as 20 of 10, not 20 as 2 of 10... then rewarding the POS after ten blocks as 1 coin, as opposed to 0.01 - 0.003 after 20. (Thus, reward the POS as the single lump of 200.1 to 200.03) This would make the network constantly "reduce the dust, free of charge".

P.S. I am up to being charged 0.048 now, sending only 500 coins at a time, to myself. How high is this going to go when I am down to 3000 TX's of 0.001 - 0.01? All the POS rewards from my mined coins.

I like that... send 1000, it asks for 0.03, which I canceled... sent it as 500 and 500 instead, it took 0.01 and 0.01... How does that work? That would have been 0.02 to send the 1000... This is so random and inconsistent for fees.

Just a note...

The wallet seems to be getting real slow and clunky the more transactions I get. I am moving the coins to a fresh wallet, but it is ignoring my "-mintxrelayfee=0.00000001 -mintxfee=0.00000001" settings, still trying to charge me 0.01 to send 500 coins (Which is hundreds of "stake coin rewards" of 0.01, mixed with actual 10 coin earnings.

The wallet keeps "not responding", in attempts to send (on the send tx page), when canceled... since I cancel, because it is trying to charge me an unacceptable price (one I didn't set), to the transaction. Charges that only exist, due to the "programs operation, creating dust-coins", not charges that exist because "I created dust-coins".

(Eg, the whole dust transaction fee should not exist for "system created dust", which is unavoidable and beyond the users control. We don't tell it to create dust, it just does it by itself. As opposed to us sending a tx of 0.001 thousands of times. Which should be charged a reasonable fee of 0.001% for those small transactions of man-made dust.)

Also, takes about ten minutes to open the wallet, since it is still doing that "check-wallet" (hard coded), every time it opens. Not to mention it consumes over 117,000 KB in memory. (As much as 3x a web-browser when it has many tabs open.)

Good to see the coins at a new low. Great time to buy with the high value of BTC. Even better to mine, since the hoppers are no longer jumping in and out of the coins.

Love the new look of the coins first-post.

Still need an official website?

I updated, downloaded the whole chain again, from scratch... it keeps throwing me on the taller chain.

Those not updated, or just continuing to mine, are stuck on the smaller of the two updated chains...

A: Tallest ~138,000 (correct?) {updated wallet, updated sync} Me and everyone who updated wallet, and also re-synced chain.
B: Short ~137,000 {updated wallet, running on isolated chain with others} Block-crawler and most pools who ONLY updated wallet.
C: Old-Short ~136,000 {old wallet, isolated chain with few people} Coin choose and some pools.

Although B was the majority... pools are disconnecting, due to seeing the orphans, leaving solo miners and pools on the correct chain, A. When they re-sync, they are moving to this taller chain, only if they also delete the old block-chain data... otherwise they keep going back to chain B, the wrong one.

The program should just assume that with every update, the data from the last checkpoint was invalid, and auto-rebuild. Instead, it just keeps building off invalid data, since it can't rebuild with the correct data from an invalid block.

EG...
If you are at block 300,000 when you updated but didn't delete the invalid blocks (delete the old block-data and rebuild the DB also)... thus the last 1,000 are invalid... (Because everyone else updated 1,000 blocks ago.) it just keeps going, to 300,001 300,002 remaining invalid. As opposed to removing 1,000 and building off-of, 299,000 or getting the correct 2,000 blocks that were built off 299,000 making the new block-height 301,000 not 300,000 which it keeps building on, isolated from the rest of the world.

There are three forks...

Those still using the old wallet 1.5, and two for 1.5.1...

138200 is the tallest height I have now... Diff 123K (1.87184028)

Connections:

addnode=24.249.152.169
addnode=162.211.225.175
addnode=193.106.92.5
addnode=66.58.170.165
addnode=198.211.116.19
addnode=91.154.90.163
addnode=216.158.85.123
addnode=72.78.100.7

I did notice one connection that came-up was completely invalid... On block-crawler's list of connections.

node showed as "[2001", not valid IPv6 format... "[2001:0:........." Just the 2001 part.

That is not valid, and was killing my connections, until I manually connected to a chain without that invalid relayed node ID, which was killing any prior nodes connections that followed that one bad node ID.

The block-chain is on the wrong chain, and Multi may be on the correct one. The list of connections on block-crawler is refusing all my connections. Even starting from scratch, again. Though it says he has orphans, he is getting that info from the wrong chain, as the slower chain builds to smother his valid blocks, turning them into apparent orphans. (The third chain.)

This is the same issue as before, which wasn't addressed. Where the program sees the taller chain, but it isn't moving to it. (Either because it is rejecting our connections, making us branch, or because of invalid communications that just can't be processed by the person trying to connect.

It should NEVER reject a "read-only" connection. (Getting block data is read-only.) It should only reject "submit data", if submission data seems "bad". However, we are flat-out being rejected, just trying to download the correct height. Topping that off with the wallet not correctly "fixing itself" with the corrected data, once found and gotten. Which indicates it is a communication issue with TCP. (Again, over IPv4-IPv6 and IPv6-IPv6, where wallets are talking to headless daemons from pool servers. {windows -> linux})

Multi, can I request a "portfolio value" for a total at the bottoms of the places where it shows our earnings.

Similar to how you have the "24 hour Profit Snapshot", but also include... (Total mined value, estimate), and (Current holdings estimate), again, based on the current market values.

A bonus would be to show us the "highest value" and "lowest value" for the last 60 days, or 90, also. Thus, we get a good idea when is a good time to sell. Eg, knowing it is 0.000302 value is useless, if we earned it when it was 0.001233 at a high. However, knowing that high, we can assume that we should hold, if it is that low, at the moment.

Just thinking of things that could help to add more function, without causing too much more programming difficulty. (That could be done with simple PHP, or even javascript, if needed.)

Love that page by the way. The profit snapshot... would be better to see 24-hr, 7-day, and 1-month totals too. (Assumed off the "actual time mined", since in 24-hours, there may not actually be 24-hours of actual work.)

This is starting to feel like a professional investment and mining portfolio tool now. If it just had the ability to deposit, and trade coins among ourselves, internally... it would make a great multi-trader platform too. (For the coins it provides mining ability towards. Thinking of the coins I could care less about, which I would rather trade for bottlecaps, without having to go through a middle-man.)

I am buying more and more, with each coin I mine from other denominations.

Having it on multi-pool, for better or worse, is a good thing overall. Even if it only limits coins that are available to sole-miners like myself, which makes us demand higher prices. It is going to happen anyways. I would rather it happens on a pool I mine at. I have no problem mining other easy coins, to trade-in for the purchase of bottlecaps. The price of BTC is irrelevant to my trades.

Just noticed I am getting mined POS rewards of unique ammounts now. Not sure how that happened, but now I see this...

0.008343
0.010212
0.009342
0.009233
0.008763
0.012333

as opposed to this...

0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01

This is what I was sort-of expecting to see, but it is odd in a way. I would later expect to see this from the POS blocks that were rewarded, and now coming back a second time... Thus not being 10, but now being 10.01 and 10.02 and 20.01 and 20.02, etc... I might be there now... not sure if it is at that point for my wallet yet... coins don't show the dates that they created the POS from, and being POS now, you can't tell which ones it took.

Again, not a complaint, just an observation. Floating point issue again?

"Why banks don't LEND ALL YOUR MONEY."
https://simple.com/blog/Banking/why-banks-dont-lend-all-your-money/

Banks (financial institutions) DO loan out deposits/savings/holdings, which is regulated and insured, thus FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and US-Treasury department regulations. That is why cypress bank, and many others, didn't have enough money to let everyone withdraw all at once. That is also why banks go bankrupt. How could they go bankrupt if they "had all your money". Because they lent it all out, that is why.

I am not sure what world you live in, but that was the whole purpose of banks and bank bail-outs. They don't "create money" for every loan, only the "federal reserve" is allowed to "create money", and that has nothing to do with loans. (Here in the USA.)

They wouldn't have to "reserve" anything if they were not lending it out. Yes, they use ledgers to "track the lendings". (Lending it to a corporate branch is still lending.) All money goes to the corporate branch, to be lent-out, based on individual banks "loan approvals", except for a percentage which is held on location. The biggest bank frauds is giving yourself loans, approving your own loans for funds you can't ever pay back, using payments from other loans as "proof" of payments to get more. You get your customers money, and money from other banks corporate customers, for those loans. Which is why there are laws regulated by FDIC and FTC and US-Dept Treasury. Limiting those bad banks from doing real damage.

1000 people deposit $1, 10 withdraw $1 now, $1 later, $1 later-on, $1 after that... The rest stays in savings or is "backed" (non-existent, but accepted as existing, based on future loan-payments coming in.) You never get back your dollar, you are getting a dollar that was lent-out and just now paid-back by someone who just paid-back a loan from the bank, or borrowed from another accounts savings that was just deposited.

Value only increases with loss. You borrow $1000, but you have to pay back $1200, thus, you LOST $200 on something that should have only cost you $1000. Thus, there are now $200 extra value for the bank to distribute or "claim" as payment. Devaluing is when the government "creates money from nothing". Which is a still not that much. (Most "bills from nothing", are replacements for damaged, or retired bills/coins. The rest is "over-printing", which adjusts for population and SOME losses. Including reprinting bills that others are holding illegally, which have not been recorded as in "circulation". Because if China held all our physical paper money, we would have nothing left to physically circulate. Bills are just "notes of funds", generic "checks", that represent held funds or funds that have been lent.)

There MAY be some banks that don't do standard banking, but I don't know of any who don't operate like this. That would be a deposit-box bank only, or a reserve-only bank. They HAVE to lend your money, or charge you to hold your money.

Credit lenders are NOT the only place to get loans. They are just bigger risk-takers than banks are. Which is why they have higher fees than banks have. You have to have a lot of assets and perfect credit to get a loan from most banks. Credit card lenders, lend money acquired from investors and borrowed money that they got on loans, only require a signature in many cases. Banks use "credit services" to provide additional security to the credit lenders, and to provide us with credit we can actually obtain. The loss is still towards the credit lender, not the bank. Which is why banks often use Mastercard or Visa for a credit lender service. They have no actual ties to MC or Visa themselves. They are simply pushing the risk to an outside source, because they don't want to assume those potential losses which places other customers at risk, by giving YOU their accounts funds. Why, when they can just "hook you up" with someone-else that is willing to take that loss.

Multi, can you turn-on CAP again, on multi-port... or are you doing that to help stop the coin from flooding-out?

The orphan issue, due to POS, has long been resolved, by itself.

Ok, back to my corner of the world... it's dark here... and damp...

That is only because banks "loan out your money", once you deposit it... they only keep 10% (or more), so that the majority of individuals can instantly "withdraw". In the event of "declared bankruptcy", if a bank has had that much in funds held (or whatever FDIC states), they will "back a majority of those funds", until the bank can collect and return "the remaining majority".

Pools don't lend out your dollars, nor do exchanges... (Well, not the ones only trading in coins. The ones trading in dollars may spend your money as personal loans to themselves, paying back with the expected trade-volume as you cash-out and as others add funds.)

Besides, exchanges are not banks/lenders, they are exchanges. Though a bank can be an exchange, exchanges are not banks.

Just saying... (Not that I don't like the idea of them having an "additional" 10%, to cover fraud-losses, gained from the income they make through the volume of exchanges... but they surely cash-out their interests above ours, first.)

^^^ About POS returns...

Gotcha, it is functioning normally...

But why "split" the reward across two POS blocks. Why not just give the 0.05% on each block. That, I don't understand.

This will be fun when it hits my purchases of 10,000 coins as a solid POS block! That will be 5 instant coins. (I thought it was always going to just strip 10 coins out, for POS.)

Now I see how it "secures" the coin... Though, that is not "security". A better phrase would be, "Secures that transactions continue to be processed". That has nothing to do with the way it is being implied, "Secure/Security: To protect something of value.", it is "Secure/Security: To ensure function or stability." (The implied security, in the mention of 51% attacks and "theft" and "abuse", is not the same.)

To reduce confusion, stop saying that POS "adds security" to the coin which is vague, instead say that POS "helps to keep the transactions moving, after POW is dead." Since an attacker can generate POS and POW, there is no "security" from POS. However, if the coins that were staked, stayed staked for 90 days, that would add little "security" to the wallets. That is money that can't be stolen and spent or traded, at least not until they expire and return to the wallet. But these POS don't last 90 days, like the "documentation of how POS works", which you keep directing us to, as the example. (Which is why we are all getting confused.)

Personally, any currency that has a "limit", is bad... (Or one that does not grow with demand, except in value.)

Worst case, lots of coins get lost in wallets that never get used or unlocked, or destroyed by hard-drive failures. Then transactions fees eat-up faster than POS generation. Or worse... people just don't leave the wallets OPEN and UNLOCKED, due to security reasons, and there just isn't enough coins left to buy, because everyone is holding, and no-one uses wallets, they just use paper-wallets or use web-hosted-wallets which don't give returns. Since, after all, pools will be dead once POW stops and exchanges drop coins that people are not trading. (Which is just dumb, but not unexpected.)

POS at this low return, will help to ensure it lasts longer than not having POS... That I agree with.

If the reward is going to be constant like that...

You might as well just make every POS block reward 0.005 coins, since that is all it is doing... besides holding 10 of our coins for 25 confirms moving them back so they don't appear "stake ready", (a few minutes), each time. (Which, by the way, is a lot of dust transactions of 0.01 you are going to burden us with. It will cost us more in tx-fees to send what we ever earn.)

Also, if POS is done that fast, and causing trouble by being fast... then why have it fast/easy... Apparently there is plenty of time for POS to be found. Why have it choke the network at all, unless there is TONS due, thus, it needs to be done faster. (Seems backwards now)

BTW, the low orphan rate is better, partially because of the POS rush over, and greatly because the DIFF went over 90K (1.37) That is a sweet spot. Lower (around 0.65) and the orphans will be many again, with or without POS. That is just how fast-coins are, when they don't propagate fast enough. Luck is not linear with DIFF, and time is the major "issue". There needs to be a non-linear curve to match the DIFF target, and a minimum DIFF, to stop the "time" factor from being less than 1 minute. (As opposed to a target of 1 minute.) But again, this works equally as well as the other coins. Which all also have that flaw by design.

(Just adding... I am getting more, as usual, at 1.78 {117K} diff than 1.37 {90K}, and way more than 0.80 {53K}. Thus, my observation mentioned in the above. Which is true of all fast coins... but after 1.78 {117K}, I begin getting less, as expected. {Total blocks accepted, orphans and rejects.})

For those who are still unaware...
Orphan = submitted, because no other block was "found" as far as your wallet knows... but rejected by the network, because a block was found, you just didn't get it fast enough.
Rejected = not submitted, because you were still "working" on your solution in your miner, but your wallet had gotten a new block, and you were just not finished with your "workload size", before you submitted it. EG, you were still busy looking for a solution after your wallet discovered there was already a solution posted. Thus, you had to scrap that work and get the new hash, to build off that new block and start working again on a new solution.

Thus, my reason for using the smallest workload size on fast coins. (Has no impact on slow coins, because the time between coins is longer and solutions are further apart.)

So this is how POS works in my wallet...

I find a POS block, it removes 10 coins from my wallet(POW) and creates 10 as "Stake"... Stays that way until 25 confirms... Once it hits 26 confirms, it removes itself from "stake", and comes back as 10 deposit as a normal coin.

After the second POS block, it removes 10 coins from my wallet(POW) and creates 10.01 as "Stake"... Stays that way until 25 confirms... Once it hits 26 confirms, it removes itself from "stake", and comes back as 10.01 deposit as a normal coin.

Thus, it removes 20, which comes back as 20.01... All within 25 blocks, or about 25-60 minutes.

This is where I am confused...

I thought the "staked" coins were going to stay "staked" for 90 days... Then, on each new stake-block, it would look at the qty of "stake", and reward 0.02% of the "total staked"...

Thus... It would do this... as described by POS documentation.

10 POS
10 POS (20 total) Reward 0.01 (0.01 total)
10 POS (30 total)
10 POS (40 total) Reward 0.02 (0.03 total)
10 POS (50 total)
10 POS (60 total) Reward 0.03 (0.06 total)
10 POS (70 total)
10 POS (80 total) Reward 0.04 (0.10 total)
10 POS (90 total)
10 POS (100 total) Reward 0.05 (0.15 total)
-10 moved, (90 total) ** 90 day mark... here... so it removes these 10 staked back to wallet
10 POS (100 total) Reward 0.05 (0.20 total)
-10 moved (90 total) **
-10 moved (80 total) **
-10 moved (70 total) **
10 POS (80 total) Reward 0.04 (0.24 total) ... lost 4 expired stake, gained 2 more POS blocks

However, we are getting this... Which would NEVER replace POW, ever. Not at 0.05% reward on only 20 coins, each time.

10
10 reward 0.01 (10 moves back)
10 (10.01 moves back)
10 reward 0.01 (10 moves back)
10 (10.01 moves back)
10 reward 0.01 (10 moves back)
10 (10.01 moves back)
10 reward 0.01 (10 moves back)
(10.01 moves back)

resulting in 0 staked

I have had over 4000 coins move to stake, but they nearly instantly move back, resulting in 2 coins of total reward. Currently 10.01 staked now, but that will be gone in 5 more confirms, moved back to normal coins. I would imagine that I would have 4000 staked for 90 days, since it has not been 90 days since they became staked. (They became staked after the 30 day mark.)

I have had up to 60.06 staked, but reward is always 0.05% of 20, not 0.05% of "total staked coins" which would be 60.06, with an expected reward of 0.03 to add to the 60.06, making it 10.03 + 60.06 = 70.09

In relation to orphan-losses...

Like I stated a few dozen posts back...

1: The POW diff is real low. Thus, it is easy to find blocks. (Due to orphans killing valids and POS not counting towards diff-adjustments.)
2: There are lots of POS being created, because POS is behind, due to us limiting POS for the last few days.
3: POW has to "reset" work, when a POS or a POW block is found. (That can be changed with two chains, or by forcing the POW to use only POW-hashes.)

Thus, the final result is a cluster-fuck of orphans and "rejects" and work-resetting, causing the rough patch. It will balance-out in time, but it will never be as idea as when it was only POW mining, because the POS is uber-low difficulty and mixing/stacking with the POW chain.

This is a flaw of design of POS, not a flaw in this coin. Other coins, when they were this low, had similar issues. The only resolution is to wait for the hiccup to turn into a burp of relief, or simply recalculate your VALUE of the coins you are mining. (You need to get more money for your fewer coins, so demand more. Just like you would do with 0-orphans and high-diffs that result in the same low volume of coins rewarded.)

Two were orphaned... Eg, you didn't find them before another block was found, and the other block was accepted by more people first, over your block.

Eg, you found one at 12:00:15 and the other block by another miner was found at 12:00:10... and it had 6 confirms before yours got 5... You were just too far away to be "updated", as the block navigated the rooms. When that one got 6 confirms, your wallet removed your invalid coins from the "pending" status, and didn't deposit them into your wallet. Thus, you lost that lotto-drawing.

Remember, your miner talks to your own wallet faster than it talks to the network. After your miner finds a valid block, it passes it to the wallet, which then checks to see if it is actually valid, then it attempts to pass it to the network... then it has to be checked by 6 other wallets on the network, before any other block is sent from anyone else... That all takes time.

That is why I use a 64 workload size... I submit found blocks faster. Because I am not waiting 4x longer for a 256 workload to "finish", before I can submit it to my wallet for confirmation. Plus, workload 64 makes my miners run faster, on average. (I have low RAM. Like only 2GB total.)