Very unlikely that you use the correct wallet - it used to get stuck there TWO HARDFORKS ago.. - so probably still the original...

Sorry, but isn't that a typo? 3'000'000 during the bonanza would be a bit few...

Sorry to get a bit annoying...

The first one is correct... The second one doesn't exist on the network... The third one never held more than 2 ECA...

But its possible to trace the majority of the Premine to: EVggmyfsA7krt7XsCYyh5DVe5JxDbVs5cZ

definitely is... #15 on the Richlist (actually) was the original Premine address (**see note A)

It was reorganized on July 7, when #6 on the list was created as a spinoff (starting with just ONE huge block).

#8 actually has a very similar structure (huge blocks), was as well reorganized on July 7, but the source of the coins is more complicated... but this could easily be a address of the dev as well, if he participated in mining during the bonanza - solo or via pool.

If all of them are different addresses in the same wallet, this would explain why they perform quite a bit better than average (large weight in the network - far larger inputs than average, so staking frequently - but not VERY often, but getting large rewards..) (but actually starting to fall behind as well now, with inputs getting smaller due to frequent splitting).

**note A - this Address is still used by coinmarkets-cap to calculate the difference between "total supply" and "circulating supply" - they just wanted to exclude the pre-mine from the circulating supply - but as this address is staking as well, and the amount is (due to the aforementioned reorganization) much lower than the original premine, that doesn't really make any sense anymore...

This is just an unverified claim.. without knowing his address, we can't really know - but the claim seems implausible...

Actually, the reward is calculated correctly for 50 % (actually more if you include possible compound interest) - but the intervals are growing (the coin-age of the average block getting reward goes still up.. - and so goes the network weight) - which means that you get your reward LATER (and might miss out on compound interest) - and that smaller wallets will have to wait even longer.
So if some people would actually take their wallet offline for a few days, this might help (reducing network weight - but once they go online again, they will still get reward according to their coin-age - that has been building up offline... / that, of course, is not actually what is the intend of POS...)


Dream on... - the wall at one satoshi is still standing strong (>3 Billion ECA). Their has been an outlier at the DOGE market, but someone probably made a typo and over-payed - so that there was a short time when the DOGE/ECA price was actually over 1 satoshi... (but for very small quantities only...)

(just checked again - only half of the 3 Billion ECA is on sale for 1 satoshi - the other half hoping for higher prices - so the wall has come down just a little bit...)

The fact that not everybody is staking should not increase reward over time - it should just mean that the maximum supply will be reached later....

But my question adressed the fact that I couldn't find an account for which your claim (1/600) is valid over an extended period of time (say since August 1.). All accounts received clearly LESS than 1/730 - so you would either have to be a special case OR your looking at a to narrow time window...(without knowing which ECA-Adress we are talking about, I can't check... )

Well - 1/730 should be correct (the reward formula is (CoinDays x 0.5 / 365))(Or just plain and simple (CoinDays / 730). Most adresses I checked got between 50 to 70 % of that - not because of a different formula, but because there are to many inputs waiting for reward, and so the network weight is still building up. (Splitting of inputs goes still on, although there are already far to many staking inputs) IMHO, an average staking time of 3 to 9 days per input would likely be optimal, so the network would need about 1200 - to 1600 staking inputs - there are certainly many more...

But if you get 1/600 per day, you must be a special case - so we would have to look at the relevant details - for that we would need to no what adress your refering to...

Wondering how much of that is just due to my searching for the rules of staking... - several 100 hits a day certainly...


There are still quite a few people who feel that staking is slowing down to much... but it's not remarkable for everyone to the same extend... (see below).


Well - let's summarize what I got from digging so much with the explorer...

There are by far not all adresses staking...

From the top 8 on the Richlist:

#1, #5 and #7 aren't staking at all (about 22 % of all ECA combined...)
#2 + #4 (combined >10%) are staking permanently - these accounts are already broken down in to many relatively small segments. This has the effect, that although they get many blocks, they are more and more falling back - they get significantly less reward than would be appropriate, because they would need more blocks - OR LARGER INPUTS -. But the BIAS of the system to SLOW DOWN still occasionally splits relatively small inputs (reward them EARLY - so that they have not to big maturity to split) while rewarding much larger inputs LATER - maturity is often >20 days...

#3 - an account with initially rater large blocks (solo mining during bonanza) was offline from July 14th to August 4. On coming online August 4, it started to catch up (large blocks with huge maturity - therefore many extra coins - and only later, those large blocks started to get split - so this account still gets a lot of reward with relatively few blocks, due to still large inputs...

#6, #8 and #16 - of which at least 2 - if not all 3 - are likely to be controlled by the dev - started out with inputs of XXL or XXXL size. While they stake regularly, the lag behind far less than #2 and #4 - because they have still - on average - much larger inputs - which reach lower maturity before staking - and than usually still split... (So those accounts suffer less from the slowing down due excess splitting - yet) So - if im correct about those (at least partly) - being the accounts of the dev - he would feel this less - at least at the moment...

Generally, the network weight is still climbing significantly, a clear sign that the lag is increasing, making it more an more difficult to get a fair reward.

(I haven't been a able to trace the staking FORMULA, although I tried to find it in the source code... - so im doing guessing from observation only...)

And to "Kiddo" - re-arranging the inputs BEFORE they stake probably (except with very small inputs) doesn't help much - it just resets the counter to zero...

While the little action is disappointing, claims about a scam /or pump seem unjustified..

How can it be a (successful) scam if practically no one is buying - you cant buy cheap on Novas LTC, DOGE or ETH markets and dump high at 1 satoshi on the BTC market, because the queue for dumping is so long..(almost 1.9 Billion ECA - or just <10% of total supply...). OTOH - that there are still occasionally people buying (low quantities) at the BTC market either means: they do no math / just don't like to convert their BTC in something else first... - and are looking for something wich is not that clearly an OBVIOUS SCAM - like most highly rated coins on Nova actually are (I'm not talking of BTC,LTC,DOGE or ETHER here...-but much of the rest...). For a pump it looks to meager / diletantic - the buy wall is to high to overcome it on NOVA - or you would have to really invest (about 20 BTC) - so you would have to buy-out the minor markets (2 BTC would do there) and than move to another exchange (small quantities - allowing the HODL group to mainly buy and sell to each other...)...

So no - no scam, and not really a pump - just a little bit to little activity....

It seems that the miners can't agree which way to go - wait long enough to trigger further difficulty reductions - or just sabotage this (by inserting empty blocks minutes before the trigger) - to kill BCH/BCC.
Without a higher block frequency you wont ever get a stable network - so that there wasn't an easier way for re-targetting from the beginning of the fork seems a major oversight. It shows the dependency of BTC et all from large commercial mining pools, - a form of centralization...

The way will get clearer within a few days - if a week after the fork, BCC is again above Ripple in Marketcap, and has a stable network with sufficient blocks - the way up to the moon is open. If later on the Bitcoin Core / Segwitt supporters have a second fallout - BCC could emerge as the REAL Bitcoin by the end of the year.

OTOH - if it's below or around Litecoin, and the network is still slow - and will get worse if there is not a difficulty adjustment just in time - BCC will be on it's way to oblivion. In that case it will not have any advantages over LTC and a few others, but will have lost the goodwill brought by the BTC-Name. So it will then fall out of the top10 marketcap very soon, with the network still instable - and with high difficulty and low price likely to get worse - transfers are still difficult, exchanges remain isolated islands, and will eventually de-list. In that case, the BCC price will be far below $1 at the end of the year...

Well, the System seems to have a bias to slow rewarding down... When a wallet has accumulated sufficient staking weight to get the next block, the preference seems to go to the input with the lowest reward, as long as this input can still be split in 2 outputs..(that is: has coin age below somwhere between >11 and <12 days).

Small rewards keep the weight of the staking wallet high, so allowing for higher staking frequenzy - and smaller inputs require more blocks..

But probably this has gone a bit to far..

IF - and only IF - the observed possibility to auto-merge inputs upon reward only considers maturity (and not only applies to very small inputs), this should iron out eventually... But probably somwhere around an average maturity of 25 days..

I'm afraid you misread.. that was most likely a suggestion and not an announcement..

Doesn't work... If i buy at Nova, i'd have to buy the many millions at low price first...

And if we make a private deal somehow - it wont be noticed by third parties, and thus not influence the public price...

So what I might consider is buying some millions more at low price - as a private deal - so you don't have to wait on the sell wall...

well - it only goes up and down as a result of the method coinmarketcap calculates marketcap...

Every time a "Hero-Investor" - or Micro-pumper - spends a fraction of BTC buying at the price of the massive sell-wall of 1 satoshi - the "price" jumps up.

Whenever the very few buys at that price drop out of the statistic, the price collapses, because it then is calculated on the very low price on the LTC market only.
(Both LTC, DODGE and as well ETH and ESP markets have prices FAR below one Satoshi..)

So what a real rise would need... Pumpers/investors would have to buy the LTC/DOGE/ETH markets at Nova up until they reach satoshi level - would involve investing 2-3 BTC or about 5-10 k $

Then they could move to another exchange, sell the few ECA's the transferred to each other at high prices (get coinmarketscap to notice the higher price at other exchanges). With a much higher price on other exchanges visible, the sell-wall at nova might crumble, the low volume would be gone - and some other people might get attracted to a "fast rising coin..".

But such a move would afford a real investment - several BTC or several K $ (or € or whatever) that someone is really ready  to put at risk...

Seems the network is recently accepting more stakes by really OLD inputs, even if they are relatively small (even below 100K). But the bulk still goes to a few top adresses, even if they now also need much more time, due to quite a lot of many relatively small inputs (broken down by earlier stakings).

At least i noticed that the possibility to AUTO-MERGE small inputs seems to exist, although I only saw it with inputs of less than 100 k and maturity well over 20days... (And not for me... - have no so old / small inputs - but I staked a few times when my staking wight was >70 Mio - now with >130 Mio - im still waiting...

(but this is probably because network wight has more than doubled in the meantime - so there is still a lag building up...)

Yes.. and no..

Still one of the best NAMES (at least IMHO), sufficient supply, relative fair Distribution.

It just needs a decent pump, a few more exchanges, a better website - and a dev Plan.

(I'd suggest: masternodes, android and IOS light wallets, a strategie to get some major retailers on board - in several important countries)

May be an (open—End?) prolongation of the POS stage-probably with lower , but still significant reward..

Could still have more potential than >95% of all the other shit-coins.. But most likely wont...

Where? there is an ecessive supply at Nova.. Sell wall @ one Satoshi still more than 1.6 Billion..

So some private Deal?

For me it always worked fast.. Did you send to the right adress? Did you confirm the E-Mail? (For withdrawels from Nova you always have to confirm by clicking a link in an E-Mail within 6 hrs - or your withdrawel will be canceld - but then your coins should be at your Nova Balance again..

Unfortunately.. if my guess of auto-splitting slowing down staking is correct..

The solution would to have:
a) generate (much) more blocks - - or -
b) reward several inputs at once, and then auto-merge them in to larger inputs...

BUT - both would require another Hard-Fork...

The estimate will come down... When I first started, It gave me >37000 days, so just slightly more than 100 years .. With 100k coins.. but it did come down..

When I was waiting for my first staking reward (ca. 10 days with a bit more than 8 Mio coins) I did some digging with the Explorer (than still updating). My impression: autosplit of staking inputs creates to many small input fractions in larger wallets, so slowing time to get reward for all, and making it particulary difficult for relatively small wallets to get started.. (small in that context: <25 mio)