The masternode count went down from 2100 to 1500, now the count is higher than before the mandatory update, we have now about 2200 masternodes. I really wonder who buys in for a masternode at that price level. Now you have to spend 40.000 $, wich is quite a lot for a masternode.
Maybe those people bought in some time ago and never set up a masternode before. Several weeks ago I bought enough PIVX to setup 2 masternodes, sofar I only used the coins for staking because this gives me almost the same reward but with a higher reward frequency. When more people start staking and staking becomes less profitable I will switch to MN. |
|
|
|
Are there problems with the blockchain at the moment?
At height 793881 the blockchain stalled for a while, and when I look at the cryptoid block-explorer the height is totally off.
Atm. cryptoid shows height 794093 and my wallets show height 794041, it looks like a fork.
this can happen when a significant amount of masternodes are offline (see posts above) you just need to resync cheers Well, I don't understand why this could happen when there are some master-nodes offline, there were still ~1100 MN online which should be more than enough. My guess is that it has something to do with some people or master-nodes still using the old wallet, probably cryptoid is still using the old wallet as well. This still doesn't explain why the blockchain stalled for a while at height 793881. the devs are aware of the problem with the mn drop. we had the same problem before. for more information please visit slack.... Thanks, I will visit slack. |
|
|
|
Are there problems with the blockchain at the moment?
At height 793881 the blockchain stalled for a while, and when I look at the cryptoid block-explorer the height is totally off.
Atm. cryptoid shows height 794093 and my wallets show height 794041, it looks like a fork.
this can happen when a significant amount of masternodes are offline (see posts above) you just need to resync cheers Well, I don't understand why this could happen when there are some master-nodes offline, there were still ~1100 MN online which should be more than enough. My guess is that it has something to do with some people or master-nodes still using the old wallet, probably cryptoid is still using the old wallet as well. This still doesn't explain why the blockchain stalled for a while at height 793881. |
|
|
|
|
Are there problems with the blockchain at the moment?
At height 793881 the blockchain stalled for a while, and when I look at the cryptoid block-explorer the height is totally off.
Atm. cryptoid shows height 794093 and my wallets show height 794041, it looks like a fork.
|
|
|
|
The developers seem inclined to not just implement the zerocoin protocol, but to also be 200% sure beforehand that it is bugproof.
Only the developers know when zerocoin will go live. However, when it does, be sure to fasten your seatbelts, 'cause we will be going to da moon
Yes, that's how releases should be treated. Testnet is for testing, mainnet for launches. And when it launches, it really launches. When will be that? What are yours prediction? next year, even the devs think that next year is soon. Since it is already running on testnet it is just a matter of resolving bugs, probably it will take a few weeks. Personally I expect that PIVX with zerocoin will be released next month. Of course I'm not clear-sighted and only the devs can tell for sure. |
|
|
|
A couple of days ago I noticed this as well, I didn't look at the source but it is possible that the seesaw algorithm has been changed in v2.3.0 and that the payment stats are still based on the older algorithm. The number of MN decreased considerably from ~2200 to ~1550, that might explain the lower reward for staking, I guess a number of people switched from MN to staking because that was more profitable the last 5 weeks. |
|
|
|
Can someone explain me in which timeframe the SeeSaw Alog adjusts the payout for staking and for masternodes?
This seems to be very constant:
Reward from last Block for Miners/Stakers: 2.21 PIV
Reward from last Block for Masternodes: 2.29 PIV
As i read in this forum, it seems that with the same amount of pivx, u get higher reward than a masternode.
I just dont understand that, cuz this clould only happen, if the rewards % for stakers has not been adjusted for long time?
Everyone knows how often the percantage is adjusted? Daily? Weekly?
Thanks
It seems the seesaw algorithm adjusts after each block, my guess is that the number of MN vs stakers doesn't change much over time. I remember seeing 2.25 / 2.25 a couple of days ago, so it changes, but not by much. The reward for stakers also depends upon the number of people staking and the number of coins in their wallets, when there are just a few people staking the frequency in which you receive stakes can get very high. Everything was already explained in this thread a few days back. There is a big variance in frequency in which I receive stakes, sometimes I get 4 stakes in 1 day and sometimes I get just 1 stake in 2 or 3 days. I don't know what causes this behavior, considering the number of blocks generated per day I would expect the variance to be less. |
|
|
|
ALSO: Sneak peak: There are over 650 PIVIANS in our Chinese QQ (this is the main hub used in China for communication). They are finalizing a translated/new Chinese focused block explorer and working already on more Chinese exchanges  Thanks Snappy, good to know! It is very important to have access to the Asian market especially the Chinese one. Since I believe PIVX has a very bright future ahead I will buy some more and setup two master-nodes to support the network. Any idea about how the Zerocoin-protocol integration is progressing? |
|
|
|
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html is correct. Note that the payment is only estimated for masternodes there, NOT for staking. There's a reason for that. Let me explain this with an example: 1: Let's assume (for ease of computation) we'd have exactly 1440 masternodes. 2: there are (on average) 1440 new PIVX blocks per day, each worth 5 PIV, minus 10% for the PIVX budget is 4.5 PIV per day for masternodes and stakers 3: from 1: and 2: it's pretty clear that on average each masternode gets one reward per day 4: the amount each masternode will get depends on PIVXs seesaw algorithm: if there are a lot of stakers and few masternodes, the masternodes get more, if there are lot's of masternodes and few stakers the stakers get more. Right now stakers get 2.16 PIV per block, masternodes 2.34 PIV 5: since we know the exact number of masternodes (here: 1440) and therefore the number of rewards they get per day (here: 1) we can exactly compute how much each masternode will get per day, 2.34 PIV in this example. 6: but, we don't know how may people are staking, and which amounts of their PIV are used for staking. If only ONE single person would be staking he would get 1440 * 2.16 PIV per day, if there are 1440 people who stake (assuming they stake with the same number of coins, which they don't) each one would get 1 * 2.16 PIV per day. Easy to see that because we have 3 variables (number of people staking, amount used for staking from each, and the time the wallet actually IS online and staking) it's not possible to predict how much PIV each staker will get per day. Thanks for the excellent explanation! I didn't read the white-paper but assumed already that the high reward had something to do with a low number of people staking. So when the number of people staking is low it can be more profitable to stake instead of running a master-node. Are wallets (when they are online and staking) supporting the network in the same way as master-nodes do? |
|
|
|
Same over here, 10,000 PIV and made ~105 PIV staking in one month, so I think these numbers are correct. That's a ~$200 reward in one month, not bad I'm running my PIVX client on my VPS, together with other wallets and a Waves Node. Makes me wonder why staking seem to be rewarded more frequently than expected. I run my wallets on 2 small N3700 PC's located in my meter cupboard, drawing together about 15W. They are on separate IP's, I only need some extra PIV to get 2 master-nodes running. If i look at those figures, it shows much less: http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.htmlTrue, the reward is more than twice of what it should be, it can just be luck, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the number of people actually staking. I will stake for another month before setting up my MN, just to see what happens. |
|
|
|
Same over here, 10,000 PIV and made ~105 PIV staking in one month, so I think these numbers are correct. That's a ~$200 reward in one month, not bad I'm running my PIVX client on my VPS, together with other wallets and a Waves Node. Makes me wonder why staking seem to be rewarded more frequently than expected. I run my wallets on 2 small N3700 PC's located in my meter cupboard, drawing together about 15W. They are on separate IP's, I only need some extra PIV to get 2 master-nodes running. |
|
|
|
Wow, I'm very happy I'm staking 6000 PIV for almost 1 month now and made 66 PIV That's $145 worth I've been staking 11000 PIV for 1 month and 3 days now and I made 127 PIV, this is in the same ballpark. I'm thinking about getting another 9000 PIV and setting up two master-nodes, It's a pity that I didn't hear about PIV earlier because atm. one has to invest quite some money to get a master-node running. |
|
|
|
I have the same feeling as you about VIA. Back in 2014..... I decided to sell all my VIA because it is my feeling that this was a one time event and that VIA will not reach that level again, whether it was a wise decision or not time will tell. Welll I wish I had that ICO money. That would have been really great, too bad I don't have it either. (Yes there was an ICO in 2014 but that's not a hidden premine like some stated) The roadmap is the roadmap, if you think it's nothing unique you already knew that because you saw the roadmap months before you invested. But if you are planning to make a coin or something unique that will blow Bitcoin out of the water, let me know ! I just think it's a bit unfair to call Via a scam. I say what it is about, have a roadmap with the details. I'm not claiming like other coins to be the Ethereum killer. and people invested in (2k sat, 3k sat, 6k sat, 10 or 20k sat) and it went all the way to 80k sat.... Scamming you in profits? But I'm learning like I said. I don't have a 50 million dollar ICO. Sure Joost, keep screaming scam. I knew when I started, being a free coin developer is gonna be one of the most unthankful jobs to do I never said that VIA is a scam, but there were a lot of investors feeling betrayed because a lot of development was promised, every three months a major update etc. but in the end almost nothing happened. Anyway this has nothing to do with you, I was talking about 2014 and 2015 when you were not involved with VIA at all. Nobody seems to know what happened with the ICO, but in the old announcement thread btcdrak clearly says that he is going to transfer the VIA-funds to you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.msg16184863#msg16184863Maybe I interpreted his message in a wrong manner, but I got the impression that he was going to transfer the remains of the ICO-fund, either being it fiat or VIA-coins to you. Personally I'm not interested in making a coin at all, most of them are just Ponzi schemes, some people are getting very rich and most others are losing a lot of money, the money has to come from somewhere, you cannot create money out of thin air like the FED and ECB do. |
|
|
|
I have the same feeling as you about VIA. Back in 2014 BTCdrak and Peter Todd were working on VIA, this gave me the expectation that VIA was going to be a mainstream coin so I decided to invest some money in it. In 2014 I bought a lot of VIA when it was at ~12K sat. and I mined a lot of VIA when it was still profitable. However, in contrary to all that was promised there was hardly any development going on, the only thing added was AuxPOW, after this the coin slowly died. Since there were 10 million coins pre-mined and sold by BTCdrak as ICO to support further development of the coin a lot of investors felt that they were scammed. Romano states that VIA is not pre-mined, this is not true, 10 million coins were pre-mined and sold as ICO, what actually happened with the ICO-money nobody seems to know, it is my impression that some leftover part of the ICO-money is transferred to Romano to support further development of the coin. At the moment VIA is Litecoin with a shorter block-time and AuxPOW added, nothing new or exiting at all. You may wonder whether we need VIA at all when there is already Litecoin accepted by a large community? The last months VIA was hyped and pumped a lot because SegWit was going to be added, there are already several other coins with SegWit activated and most of them are implementing off-chain payment and LN, so this is not very special or unique at all. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1777136.0 Two months ago when VIA got between 60K and 80K sat. I decided to sell all my VIA because it is my feeling that this was a one time event and that VIA will not reach that level again, whether it was a wise decision or not time will tell. |
|
|
|
Basically merge mining works like this:
When a miner mines a block for LTC, it will get LTC rewards. If he is merge mining for VIA, that solved block hash is accepted by VIA blockchain as ProofOfWork (not 1:1, depending on the hash complexity, e.g. solving 1 LTC block grants you 3 VIA blocks - this is ultra simplified, just for giving a rough idea!).
So even if the reward from VIA goes near zero, it is actually still cool for a miner to do merge with VIA cuz he doesnt have to use any resources to get a small additional reward (plus the fees).
Yes, I understand what merged mining is, what I don't understand is why solving 1 LTC block grants you 3 VIA blocks since both coins are using the same hash function, but lets say this is by design, maybe this has something to do with the difference in block-times. When the mining rewards are getting very small I don't think that miners are very interested in keeping the coin alive when they have to make changes to their code-base to keep things working. You already see this happening right now, it takes very long before f2pool starts signaling segwit for VIA, it gives me the impression that it has not a high priority for Wang Chun (if any) otherwise it would have worked already (assuming the bugs in 0.13 are solved by now). |
|
|
|
It seems the mining rewards for VIA have changed quite a lot, originally it was: int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 0;
int tHeight = 5256000; // reduction frequency: 3600 * 365 * 4
// different zero block period for testnet and mainnet
// mainnet not fixed until final release
int zeroRewardHeight = Params.AllowMinDifficultyBlocks() ? 2001 : 7001;
int rampHeight = 43200 + zeroRewardHeight; // 4 periods of 10800
if (nHeight == 0) {
// no reward for genesis block
nSubsidy = 0;
} else if (nHeight == 1) {
// first distribution
nSubsidy = 10000000 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= zeroRewardHeight) {
// no block reward to allow difficulty to scale up and prevent instamining
nSubsidy = 0;
} else if (nHeight <= (zeroRewardHeight + 10800)) {
// first 10800 block after zero reward period is 10 coins per block
nSubsidy = 10 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= rampHeight) {
// every 10800 blocks reduce nSubsidy from 8 to 6
nSubsidy = (8 - int((nHeight-zeroRewardHeight-1) / 10800)) * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= tHeight) {
// first 4 years
nSubsidy = 5 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= (2 * tHeight)) {
// next 4 years
nSubsidy = 4 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= (3 * tHeight)) {
// next 4 years
nSubsidy = 3 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= (4 * tHeight)) {
// next 4 years
nSubsidy = 2 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= (5 * tHeight)) {
// next 4 years
nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
} else if (nHeight <= (6 * tHeight)) {
// next 4 years
nSubsidy = 0.5 * COIN;
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
|
|
|
|
Viacoin Block Reward Halving happened !
Reward per block: 0.3125 $VIA
So when will we hit 23million? And what happens next? Hashrate down to almost zero? you might as well have asked "what will happen when bitcoin hits 21million" you should read up on how real crypto works, where do you think transaction fees go, etc In short, once block reward stops with cryptocoins, the network is hopefully so busy by that time that the transaction fees are high enough to keep mining interesting. I have no clue how this coin (or any coin for that matter) works in general, but does the transaction fee really go to the miners? Or is it sent elsewhere, maybe to an address owned by the developers? Of course all the transaction fee goes to the miner who solved the block. Maybe I'm mistaken but I always thought that transaction fee and miner rewards are two totally different things, and that miner rewards are created out of thin air, otherwise how can there be coin inflation? Of course you can program this in every way you want, to know what is really going on you have to examine the source-code in detail and that is something I never did. Hoi Joost (you're Dutch right?) That assumption is correct. I would recommend to read up a bit on it, because you're really asking very basic questions which are just a matter of putting a little bit of effort in (being inquisitive is good as long as your questions are about insight, otherwise it just seems a bit lazy). I would recommend reading this article on transaction fees: https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/12/15/bitcoin-transaction-fees-what-are-they-why-should-you-care/ (If you end up not being Dutch, I'm sorry for being so direct  ) You are right in stating that I'm Dutch. What I mean that things holding for Bitcoin doesn't necessarily have to hold for another coin like VIA. It is not very difficult to build a coin by slightly modifying bitcoin core and give the coin a totally different behavior, everybody with basic understanding of C++ and public key cryptography can do this. The only way to determine how a coin really works is by examining the source of the specific coin, and yes I'm too lazy to do this because it doesn't interest me enough. |
|
|
|
Viacoin Block Reward Halving happened !
Reward per block: 0.3125 $VIA
So when will we hit 23million? And what happens next? Hashrate down to almost zero? you might as well have asked "what will happen when bitcoin hits 21million" you should read up on how real crypto works, where do you think transaction fees go, etc In short, once block reward stops with cryptocoins, the network is hopefully so busy by that time that the transaction fees are high enough to keep mining interesting. I have no clue how this coin (or any coin for that matter) works in general, but does the transaction fee really go to the miners? Or is it sent elsewhere, maybe to an address owned by the developers? Of course all the transaction fee goes to the miner who solved the block. Maybe I'm mistaken but I always thought that transaction fee and miner rewards are two totally different things, and that miner rewards are created out of thin air, otherwise how can there be coin inflation? Of course you can program this in every way you want, to know what is really going on you have to examine the source-code in detail and that is something I never did. |
|
|
|
Wait so there's a .3125 reward per VIA being distributed? I own some VIA how will I get my reward? I have it at Polo currently.
When you solve a block you will get the reward of 0.3215 VIA, with the current difficulty there is very little chance for a solo miner to solve a block, even with a very large ASIC miner it will take a lifetime. |
|
|
|
Viacoin Block Reward Halving happened !
Reward per block: 0.3125 $VIA
So when will we hit 23million? And what happens next? Hashrate down to almost zero? you might as well have asked "what will happen when bitcoin hits 21million" you should read up on how real crypto works, where do you think transaction fees go, etc In short, once block reward stops with cryptocoins, the network is hopefully so busy by that time that the transaction fees are high enough to keep mining interesting. I have no clue how this coin (or any coin for that matter) works in general, but does the transaction fee really go to the miners? Or is it sent elsewhere, maybe to an address owned by the developers? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
