|
The new formula will require 10x block number instead of 2x
This is because when the fork originally was made, we were at about half the supply we are at now. This has been raised since supply got much higher than expected
I will also push the chain forward right away so this fork kicks in quickly and people don't have to stake negative to reach it
I understand this was not what was stated earlier, but you must understand that a lot changed in the two months between 2.0 being posted and now (mainly the moneysupply being way higher than anticipated)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be posting an updated wallet with another fork at block 1.01m to move to a straight coinage-styled formula
|
|
|
|
hi spots so whats the minimum block size we need.
To be able to guaranty positive stake in 24 hours based on your formula.
And is there a way to calculate this cheers.
Depends on stake rate for that particular input If you were to stake at 1%, you would need a coin age of around 400m If you were to stake at 500%, you would need a coin age of 7.4m (Both examples are using 100,000 as maximum possible reward) |
|
|
|
So how long do I need to keep the wallet locked with 2.2M blocks?
Depends on stake rate. If you get a 500% rate, you need a lot less time than if you were going to hit a 1% It's impossible to predict what you will receive until time of stake. Therefore, it might be best to just use one giant input if that amount can make you stake higher than the maximum reward per block |
|
|
|
|
Basically, you need to stake above the maximum reward possible to get a positive stake, which will be squished to the maximum reward. This system is designed to reward large or long holders and punish those trying to stake fast and sell
|
|
|
|
That said.. changing to a straight coinage-styled system is not hard to do, but please do not take this decision lightly as it requires a LOT of time and work to get all sites and wallets updated and a lot fewer coins will be burned
What are people complaining about? Needing a much higher coinage than expected. I did not explain it clearly earlier |
|
|
|
|
That said.. changing to a straight coinage-styled system is not hard to do, but please do not take this decision lightly as it requires a LOT of time and work to get all sites and wallets updated and a lot fewer coins will be burned
|
|
|
|
Ok, I need to do some clarifying here. We are going to break down a few lines from this function so I can explain it as clearly as possible Original: int64 nMinReward = nHeight * .0011; Last fork: nMinReward = nMinReward * 10; This fork: nMinReward = nMinReward * 10; my bad, i didn't notice another "nMinReward = nMinReward * 10;" in previous IF block. this makes things even worse, positive stakes may occur only for coinage of 8.035...4017.67 * blockheight depending on lottery outcome practical result is all stakes negative from block 1mil up to now, check Annualized Stake Rate http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CUBE/Correct, I gave a bad explanation of the system. I should have gone in-depth earlier |
|
|
|
Ok, I need to do some clarifying here. We are going to break down a few lines from this function so I can explain it as clearly as possible int64 GetProofOfStakeReward(int64 nCoinAge, int nHeight)
{
static int64 nRewardCoinYear = 2000 * CENT;
int64 nVariableStakeRate = ((nCoinAge % 500) + 1) * CENT;
int64 nSubsidy = nRewardCoinYear * nCoinAge * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8);
int64 nMinReward = nHeight * .0011;
int64 nMaxReward = nHeight * .01;
int64 nSquish = nSubsidy / 1000000;
if (nHeight > 500000) {
nSubsidy = nRewardCoinYear * nCoinAge * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8);
if (nSquish > nMaxReward) {
nSubsidy = nMaxReward * COIN;
}
if (nSquish < nMinReward) {
nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
}
}
if (nHeight > 620000) {
nSubsidy = nRewardCoinYear * nCoinAge * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8);
nSquish = nSubsidy / 1000000;
nMinReward = nMinReward * 10;
nMaxReward = nMaxReward * 10;
if (nSquish > nMaxReward) {
nSubsidy = nMaxReward * COIN;
}
if (nSquish < nMinReward) {
nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
}
}
if (nHeight > 1000000) {
nSubsidy = nVariableStakeRate * nCoinAge * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8);
nSquish = nSubsidy / 1000000;
nMinReward = nMinReward * 10;
if (nSquish > nMaxReward) {
nSubsidy = nMaxReward * COIN;
}
if (nSquish < nMinReward) {
nSubsidy = (nCoinAge - (nCoinAge * 1.1)) * COIN;
}
}
return nSubsidy;
} The part that matters is this: if (nSquish < nMinReward) {
nSubsidy = (nCoinAge - (nCoinAge * 1.1)) * COIN;
}Follow nMinReward back, so we know the value needed to not hit this section: Original: int64 nMinReward = nHeight * .0011; Last fork: nMinReward = nMinReward * 10; This fork: nMinReward = nMinReward * 10; So now, nMinReward is (nHeight * .11), meaning that in order to stake for a positive amount, the actual stake reward must be higher than 11% of the block number in order to receive a positive stake. The number needed to maintain this amount will be different, based on that input's stake rate. This means that stakes will be hitting the maximum reward If this system proves to not be as easy to use as intended, we can fork to make it a bit easier later and use a straight coinage-dependent formula. The way this is now designed is made to burn coins as much as possible (at least for a little while so supply gets to a more manageable amount), while still providing incentive (or a chance for incentive). If there is a large percentage of people that prefer a straight coinage-style formula, we can update to that if we have to. However, changing now means inflation will continue, although not as extreme as before Sorry for the confusion, I could have explained this a little better earlier. It may have been an oversight on my part not to switch formulas right away and keep the new formula based on the old stake rate, but it is what it is. We have a lot of wallets and nodes that need updating if we decide to switch, so please do not take this decision opportunity lightly because it is a lot of work getting everyone everywhere to update |
|
|
|
I think i see some coins burning  ) 1,248,011,759 is block 1m 1,247,307,055 is 25 blocks later |
|
|
|
|
"blocks" : 1000001,
"moneysupply" : 1247983308.29256511,
|
|
|
|
|
DIGICUBE V2 IN 1000 Blocks
|
|
|
|
These are all the transactions for that address in August Date In Block Transaction ID Sent Received Total Minted Total Change
05 Aug 2016 984465 4e762a05cfb8e79e755d8a7371dd238f2d0c09bfb21d2217aa20158820f665af 274,493.7182 (0.000 BTC) 0.0000 (0.000 BTC) 0.0000 (0.000 BTC) -274,493.7182
05 Aug 2016 984465 53e3c775190d60231f8eca940b29b9d2b2931d04f16e2c28800026fb2f42872d 274,493.7100 (0.000 BTC) 0.0000 (0.000 BTC) 0.0000 (0.000 BTC) -274,493.7100
05 Aug 2016 984385 9bd74aea88d44036e3aceb9acfcb03b0aa97c4b2c3343f02c9105cbf6ba423f2 450,557.4282 (0.000 BTC) 548,987.4282 (0.000 BTC) 98,430.0000 (0.000 BTC) 98,430.0000
01 Aug 2016 970829 143a73394881c1b839937156e617a23e934ef268cc6323b3e3a13097ace932e3 449,556.4282 (0.000 BTC) 450,557.4282 (0.000 BTC) 0.0000 (0.000 BTC) 1,001.0000
01 Aug 2016 970606 ee1b1b05d9f00ca64a74abdb678be942ec1f229a228ddbf817da7afda585802c 352,496.4282 (0.000 BTC) 449,556.4282 (0.000 BTC) 97,060.0000 (0.000 BTC) 97,060.0000 The last coins were sent out on the 5th |
|
|
|
|
Then that is not the correct address
|
|
|
|
Guys please help 07:53:32  repairwallet 07:53:33  { "mismatched spent coins" : 1, "amount affected by repair" : 603471.24798000 } Now, my transactions are being rejected  Did I lose all my cubes? No. What is your address? Cdc23qtSJTbjim89JXY3Hn9kKrtGqpikEs here you go my original cubes are 603471.24798 but right now in my wallet it is showing "1603471.24798" This address has a balance of 0 - The coins were sent elsewhere on August 5th |
|
|
|
Lol, step 2 is funny. If BTC is going to be the auxilliary, then who's the parent?
Why even move this thread, just delete this clueless bullshit..
Bitcoinix merged with bitcoin. Why can't bitcoin fork and add mege mining to one of the chains and merge with itself? That's even worse |
|
|
|
Guys please help 07:53:32  repairwallet 07:53:33  { "mismatched spent coins" : 1, "amount affected by repair" : 603471.24798000 } Now, my transactions are being rejected Did I lose all my cubes? No. What is your address? |
|
|
|
DIGICUBE V2 IN
1500 Blocks
How many hours is that? Sometime within the next 12 hours, for sure |
|
|
|
|
DIGICUBE V2 IN
1500 Blocks
|
|
|
|
it has come to my attention that many ppl here who want to get rich without work through altcoins (they think BTC made ppl rich so now its their turn) think that they could actually become wealthy with cryptocurrency. Reality beyond the delusion is: they dont even earn US minimum wage.
What keeps people here ? ?
- u most likely cant get rich or wealthy - unless u r dan and invented the Steem money generating scheme for example.
U can get some beer money or pocket spending money participating in those schemes if u r a regular user.
But thats about it.
So like the Spoetnik has pointed out correctly, in general, a job at the McDonalds in fact makes u truly richer than participating in the altcoin hoax.
~CfA~
People are mostly here for speculation. Gambling with altcoins on several exchanges is what makes this market running. I'm doing this as well.And if you know what you're doing, and don't get greedy and don't take too much risk, there is some money to make. However alts are not good for longterm investments.Trade them on a short term to make profits in fiat or use them to increase your BTC stash. This attitude is what killed altcoins |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
