Thanks for the inputs, cryptonit. I can see your points; however, I'm afraid that this would suppress the miners' interests:

1) I always believe that staking should not be a major channel of minting coins, and never..

2) Though we have issues in PoW, we have to find solutions, instead of dropping it off...

Magic, you sure? I hope we will not burn your time, and burn it permanently. You know, I had a hard time, and have to take time to recover. Anyway, let's discuss. I'll also need to discuss with you about the PoI rule. Let's not put any launch time until we discuss and fully get ready.

Bud, totally NO offense.

You had good suggestions, much appreciated; my point is not standing on something in confusion that the general users who come to this thread will pick. As a Dev (for now), I certainly want to clear that out. Hope you understand. There are some good points / plans belonging to DMD that you may want to keep in your DMD thread alone, IMHO, as we're taking different PoS approaches. I try to avoid incompatibility.

My questions then is what happens to stakes with coin values of 50 XMG?

I would do

Bud, I have to say again this is still a thing secondary, not a fundamental solution. IMO, what's needed is to break up the proportionality between the PoS mining force, and the number of coins and staking time. When you put max coin age 30 days, after limit is reached that seems something like blackcoin.


I don't think coins would usually put max age.

Hope everything is going to be fine. Take your time.

Yeah, I just read.

I can neither give a direct connection of the combining / splitting to difficulty thing, nor imagine that would lead to something of significant concern.

What's matter is securing the block chain and to avoid likability of attack to the block chain. This is rather important than anything else.

From this point of view, the original ppc design encourages splittings, and any other PoS coins with similar staking principle should do so too. Of course splitting into dust is not what one would like to see.

So there is a reason that the coin splitting age is set to 30 days too.

IMO, the splittingthreshold and combinethreshold in the general PoS coins could cause potential risks. Imagining that the whole network keep combining coins into big ones; For those who have big stack in staking, they can rather readily make unintentional attacks compared to those who have less coins. The reason is that one who has a number of coins has big coin age too, and can easily mine blocks via PoS. It's analogy to one having huge mining force in PoW mining. You cannot avoid this potential consequence in general PoS design, though it could rarely take place, it could. Unfortunately, splittingthreshold and combinethreshold are not consensused by the network, so any one can make changes to them. These are basically the reasons why I believe they relate to the security concern; the other consequences are really the minors. My suggestion is that coins with the general PoS design should NOT play around splitting/combing too much; it is certainly completely fine if one has the security design in mind.

Fortunately, MAGI have made a change to avoid the consequence that one having a number of coins has big coin age (mining force). As I mentioned in the prior post, I'd revisit the PoS implementation to make it even safer.

goldlabel, considering you're expert on the image stuffs, I am wondering if you could be able to make some changes to the new logo:

http://coinmagi.org/files/logo/version-2/

It's a simple design originally by GIMP (.xcf). The current appearance is little bit dazzling. I like it be gentle but stay distinct even at 16x16 pixels. Much appreciated. 

p.s., the original version is here: http://coinmagi.org/files/logo/version-1/

It's Proof of Stake, an alternative way of mining coins to your regular CPU mining; google search "Proof of Stake".

I'm very glad that you're happy with the new Qt wallet. It isn't my intention to put some rich information into the client which functions effectively from a coin point of view. I like to have an alternative wallet containing information unrelated to the coin implementation, but something like coin markings etc. If you have any suggestions regarding the present interface, let me know. I could make these into the stable wallet in about two weeks if I have time to accomplish the changes.

I usually work with linux and didn't notice this issue. However, when I compiled and ran the wallet, this issue came up. I'll set up Qt debug in Windows to see what's going on, and fix the issue.

Thanks for the work. I'll check out; we'll contribute some coins for your hard work, if it does work as you stated that there is no risk of losing coins from users side.

As you may notice, "Transaction greater than the threshold is being splitted" for splitthreshold; "less than" will combine for combinethreshold. I don't see difference between mine an your description.

"wont split coin pile below splitthreshold size" = split when coins greater than splitthreshold

"merge below splitthreshold size together into a combinestreshholdsize pile" should be "merge below combinethreshold"

splitthreshold and combinethreshold are two different things. If your intention is to combine those coins with values less than splitthreshold, I think this is not what splitthreshold is supposed to be.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

Regarding the numbers, when following number are set:


What happens is that if there are transactions of 200 XMG going through stake, these transactions will merge since they < stakecombinethreshold, and in the mean time they satisfy splitting too since they > stakesplitthreshold.

If you look at the actual code implementation: https://github.com/magi-project/magi/blob/1.3.0rc/src/wallet.cpp#L1660, once splitting is initialized, splitting will be done definitely. In other words, whatever transactions to be merged (as inputs), they will split into two equal outputs too; so merging & splitting take place in the same time. This also means stakecombinethreshold is not so effective, since coins with values < 1000 still split. For the above reasons, I believe splitthreshold should be greater than combinethreshold; then coin values > splitthreshold (> combinethreshold too) will split (no combing), and coin values < combinethreshold (< splitthreshold too) will combine (no splitting); no mixing at all.

The goal is that, once coins combined, the final value should be between combinethreshold and splitthreshold, so that ultimately they will neither split nor combine, but stay stable and staking.

This is what I understood. I have no actual stakings for above verification; if you see something different, let me know.

Speeding was already implemented; took me about half minute to load up the wallet. Let me know after your testing.

I'll get daemons included at the stable release (didn't have enough time to get all things perfectly ready, bit rush); if I have enough time, I like to have some handy features such as block rewards, staking time/weight put under a mint menu too.

It's kinda heavy to handle. PoI inspired me of a charity channel in the coin.

I understand your concern, and that's mine too. Though I don't think the way we should take that straightforward, there are alternatives to get around.

Please do share any ideas/suggestions for anything else.