They're selling it now though, so that's completely pointless comment. It's not pointless at all actually. There is nothing on our web site to say that the customer will be mining with the same hardware for 5 years. Of course, if you were more transparent: Post pictures of your data center. Post your pool mining info, hash rates and BTC addresses. Post some hardware info, electric costs, efficiency, etc. Since you are buying hardware with the BTC used to buy contracts, mining BTC with it to make the payouts, this info should be fairly easy to provide. It wouldn't expose your business model or your physical address and passport. No one needs to know that info. Once you've done that, the ponzi FUD on this thread will (mostly) go away. |
|
|
|
It is my personal feeling that no one should be trading this coin. Increasing it's value is only going to help the largest holder, ZIPlibrary, the dev who ran with everyone's coin that was on his exchange.
That said, I am not going to tell anyone else what to do.
I am going to delete my wallet and sharexcoin 2FA token for good.
However, I have about 11k coins in my wallet. I will offer them to the first Jr Member or better BTT member that replies to this that they want the coin. If you are the first, PM me your share coin address and I will send the contents of my wallet to you.
After that, I am done with the coin and the two threads. If something comes of the recovery effort, great. But I only want my 4000 NXT, I don't care about the SHARE coin, I'm done with it. Written off and moving on.
I will take them if still available. Ok, they are yours. PM me your address. |
|
|
|
Quote from the whitepaper: The transaction fees will be awarded as follows:
Transaction fees will be 1% of the total transaction amount, paid by the merchant. If you transfer 100 Crypti from your account to another, you will charged a 1 Crypti fee to process the transaction. This is the basis of how Crypti will be able to reward users without inflating the total currency in circulation.
That 1% fee will be added to all other fees within that block, and 50% of the Tx fee will always go to the Forger. This is the person on the network with the highest current weight as a factor of Proof-of-Purchase (PoP) + Proof-of-Time (PoT). These will be explained in detail shortly.
The other 50% depends on whether or not the transaction was a purchase activity to a validated merchant, or simply a traditional transfer to another user or non-validated service (i.e. an exchange). If the transaction was a purchase activity (i.e. you bought something from a validated merchant), then this 50% of the transaction fee will be awarded to the merchant account that you purchased the goods from. If no merchant was involved, the entire 100% of this reward will go to the Forger. So, if I send crypti from my account to another normal (non-business) account, I will have to pay 1% to the forger. This is a disaster. Unacceptable. This would be the most hated coin in the world. If you want to correct this by charging lower fees for transactions of this type (to non-business accounts), then nobody will want to be a business account - it's better to pay lower fee than get back half of the business fee. So the whole idea seems to be flawed, no? Well for starters, you are being very melodramatic. While several have voiced opinions about 1% being too much, I have tried to explain the rationale and we are working on a solution to make this a little bit more bearable in the long term. But in regards to your specific complaints, I will try to answer them from my perspective. If you are sending money from one account to another, odds are that you are doing some form of transaction, such as selling Crypti, Moving it to an exchange, or buying something from someone online. Moving it from one account to another doesn't seem like something you should need to do very often just for fun and so I don't see where this would be an issue. To put this 1% fee in perspective, here are some typical fees to transfer money to other people from other services commonly used: - Walmart 2 Walmart : Starts at $4.50 - Money Gram: Starts at $4.75 - Western Union: Fee for $100 = $5.00 Now obviously these services aren't Crypto Currencies and so I understand the differentiation, but we are trying to build a coin that long term is appealing to forgers. Because no new coins are generated, we wanted to encourage people to run nodes. If the fees are too small, the rewards are as well and people will stop running nodes and in return deteriorate the network. I often try to remind people who are critical of the 1% fee that you yourself will be forging these fees as payment for running a node. It's highly possible that you could forge 5, 10, or even 20 blocks before you actually move any currency or pay a fee yourself, so in the long run, it creates a profitable market for forgers who choose to support the currency long term. You are going to have to choose what is important to you. An easy system where you simply run a node and forge substantial blocks that are created with a 1% fee, or a currency where you mine all day long to earn 1 fraction of half of 1/3rd of a penny. Our system requires you to pay absolutely $0 up front on equipment (like PoW), we require to own no currency in order to earn (like PoS), we simply require a 1% fee on transactions. Keep in mind that most exchanges charge transaction fees and almost any web service you use based on any crypto currency also charges fees. Your pools for mining take anywhere from 1%-4% on average on everything you mine, and it just goes in their pockets. Here we are taking all of those fees and funneling them back into the wallets of people who love Crypti. To me, this seems much more equitable than the other way. Not to mention that Bitcoin does have a transaction fee built into the protocol, we simply haven't really seen it in action much yet. It will be much more so once all of the coins are mined. All of that being said, we are discussing making the transaction fee scale based on network volume in order to decrease the fees as the network grows. This is something we believe keeps payments to forgers at an amount that will convince them to continue to run nodes, but also help make the fee more manageable for users. Again I will say, all of this is open to adjustment until the IPO and beta phase are complete and we go live. If the numbers just seem crazy off and everyone is of the opinion that it is too high or too low, etc, we will take all of that into consideration. I think once everyone sees it in action it will be worth it. These are just my thoughts from my perspective and are not indicative of everyone, so if I said anything crazy, just take it out on me! :-) I also think a flat 1% fee can be ok. But, I would temper that with a max fee. Why should a forger/miner/node whatever you call them get 1000 CRY for a block they generate because it happens to have a large transaction in it, vs another node gets .1 CRY for a block they generate cause it moved 1 CRY? The work done be each account was the same. The stake amount was perhaps the same, etc. I also do like the suggestion that a verified merchant account pays a 1% fee to receive a transaction while the sender pays say a 1 CRY fee for any transaction. Although, the bottom line is, espesially when sending to an exchange, you know it is the sender that is paying the 1%. Cause if I send say 10,000 CRY to BTER, and they get 9,900 you know they are going to credit my account with 9,900 not 10,000. I am glad to hear you are open to adjusting it based on transaction volume and other use cases though. |
|
|
|
What's mint?
He's talking about mintpal. Naut's been on Mintpal for quite a while now. Hence my confusion. He's talking about super being added to mintpal Yea, went back and see that now. Not sure why I expected we were talking about NAUT here.  |
|
|
|
BTW: Seems much faster today. Perhaps it was just on my side the other day. |
|
|
|
What's mint?
He's talking about mintpal. Naut's been on Mintpal for quite a while now. Hence my confusion. |
|
|
|
|
Is the payload of an arbitrary transaction encrypted so only readable by the receiver? Or is the payload public? Or, could it be a choice?
Will the color coin/asset have to be ubiquitous or can it be unique? In other words, will it be like next, where you create an Asset with X amount of shares/tokens. Or, is is possible to create tokens for unique items without having to spend an asset creation fee for each unique item?
|
|
|
|
|
It is my personal feeling that no one should be trading this coin. Increasing it's value is only going to help the largest holder, ZIPlibrary, the dev who ran with everyone's coin that was on his exchange.
That said, I am not going to tell anyone else what to do.
I am going to delete my wallet and sharexcoin 2FA token for good.
However, I have about 11k coins in my wallet. I will offer them to the first Jr Member or better BTT member that replies to this that they want the coin. If you are the first, PM me your share coin address and I will send the contents of my wallet to you.
After that, I am done with the coin and the two threads. If something comes of the recovery effort, great. But I only want my 4000 NXT, I don't care about the SHARE coin, I'm done with it. Written off and moving on.
|
|
|
|
Currently ASIC hardware efficiency is around 1w per GH/s, things like Terraminers much worse anyway so anyway 1w per GH/s... 1000GH/s = 1TH/s at PB's current price around $2000 ($2 per GH/s)...
1w per GH/s for how long? If it is 1w per GH/s and 1w is .001 kwh at .10 = .0001 per GH/s in electricity costs? 1000GH/s = 1000w x 87600hours (10years) = 87600 kwh x .10 = $876 / 1000 = .876cents per GH/s for electricity. Also, cloudhashing is going to be selling contracts at $1.99 per GH/s starting aug 1. Are you saying that doesn't even cover the electricity for the year of the contract? 1w per GH/s for how long? Doesn't make sense as a reply question... we know how long it's supposed to be 5 year contracts, why are you talking about 10years ? 1w per GH/s is the efficiency of the hardware, 1w of electricity per GH/s... Sooooo 1000GH/s uses 1000w (1Kw)... 1TH/s would use 1KW 1Kw at $0.10 per Kwh (Washington price) run for 5 years is over $4000 FACT.FOR ELECTRICITY ALONE. There is no such thing as free data centers and hardware to go along with that. It should be called PB mysterious payouts not 'mining' because they are not. Maths is quite well respected it's running the computer your reading this on and it clearly proves the utter impossibility to mine for 5 years with no further fees at $2 per GH/s. This assumes your per GH/s wattage is correct. I have no idea about that. I also know that Cloudhasing is going to start charging the same price. $1.99 per GH/s. Granted it is for 1 year, but still from your info not enough to pay the electricity. Are you saying they aren't mining either? Of course, there are places with cheaper electric in the world than the US. For example, in Kuait electricty is about .01cent per Kwh. In egypt it's pretty cheap too. |
|
|
|
Is this a good idea or not?
It would be more user friendly to have "remember secret phrase for this session" checked by default on login so the users won't have to enter the secret phrase sending a message/bid each time. If that isn't secure, maybe there could be a 4 to 6 digit pin number that the user could use instead of entering the whole password again. The app should disable the pin number and require full password after 5 unsuccessful pin numbers are used. So the login screen would look like this: "Remember password during this session" checked by default Under it, a text field that would say "pin number for the session" (only 4 to 6 numbers allowed) Nice Idea, Just keep it up. I will in fact revise this idea  Remove "Remember password during this session" totally and just have "pin number for the session" (only 4 to 6 numbers allowed) Meh... I just don't click the check box, and I use lastpass to fill in the password when I do a spend. No muss, no fuss. |
|
|
|
Currently ASIC hardware efficiency is around 1w per GH/s, things like Terraminers much worse anyway so anyway 1w per GH/s... 1000GH/s = 1TH/s at PB's current price around $2000 ($2 per GH/s)...
1w per GH/s for how long? If it is 1w per GH/s and 1w is .001 kwh at .10 = .0001 per GH/s in electricity costs? 1000GH/s = 1000w x 87600hours (10years) = 87600 kwh x .10 = $876 / 1000 = .876cents per GH/s for electricity. Also, cloudhashing is going to be selling contracts at $1.99 per GH/s starting aug 1. Are you saying that doesn't even cover the electricity for the year of the contract? |
|
|
|
Once we get the PoS ready we will need beta testers for sure!
Also, next is a mobile wallet...we need to have that.
i'm excited about PoS and a mobile wallet. We're all definitely here to help with testing  The difficulty of a mobile wallet with proof of stake is the obvious issue of mobile devices honestly not having a whole lot of processing power. So a staking mobile wallet is very difficult to guarantee will work. Ultimately what would have to happen is that it be a remote accessible web service and the mobile wallet be the only access to that remote web service. The best option here is that the mobile wallet NOT be a staking wallet, and the user only transfer NAUT to the mobile wallet when intending to spend it. (Sort of like a Checking vs. Savings Account idea as someone mentioned a number of pages back) Second option is the web service, but permanent storage on a non-local basis of a virtual currency (Meaning remote) is a risky option. As I said, Phone = Checking, Home-Computer = Savings So really it's hard to establish what would be best. Many coins are currently working on a fully functional PoS android wallet. When one finally succeeds in making it, it will be open source and available to all the other coins for re-purposing. I know this, a number of coins are looking at trying to do this, but the primary issue remains the same with all. Having the phone itself do the minting is honestly not the best option. Having minting operate remotely is much better, and having the phone just be a bridge to that wallet connection is more power/processor friendly. But at the same time, security becomes a risk. For now, the phone being a static wallet, and a computer being a minting wallet is still better than the security risk (if you ask me). As I (and someone else) said before, Mobile = Checking, and Home-Computer = Savings. Until such time a securely minting wallet can be created for Android (or other devices). NXT basically solved this with leasing. You can lease your balance to another ID for "forging" as they call it. So, you have two IDs, one on your PC, and one on your phone. You lease your phone ID to your PC ID, and the PC does the forging. |
|
|
|
I would like to hear more opinions about this change. If there is enough users against it we will try to find other ways. I'm just trying to heighten the security of our site, and by no means trying to leave a bad taste with anybody.
I assume before you allow an email address change, you send an email to the current email address to verify the change and also an email to the new email address to verify the address. You other thing, you have perfectly easy way to verify the account owner is making a change. Ask them to sign a message that contains a random token you generate for them with their BTC private key of the address they have on file. If they can do that, it's 99 % sure they have they are the owner of the PB minning address/acct. so, with the above in place in order for someone to change my PMMinning email address they would have to .... 1. Hack my email account. 2. Hack my BTC wallet. you could even make it more secure by using 2FA. This adds: 3. Have stolen my cell phone. But, I agree, not allowing an email address change is a bit draconian. |
|
|
|
Registered earlier today but seems the USD feature is not going yet. Same here. I created a NAUT "account". But see no way to fund it with USD. |
|
|
|
good coin, I want to buy some.
good time to get in. It still on the ground floor. |
|
|
|
Hi, any problem with the blockchain? transition to PoS?
I sent Nauts a few hours ago and 0 confirmations. My wallet donīt synchronize. (stuck in 7 hours back)
This is going to really hurt this coin. But, if we can't USE the coin because blocks are taking 10-12 HOURS rather than the 60 seconds of the spec, we can't transfer it, there is a problem. Alas, it won't be fixed until the transition to PoS which I understand. Forking to remove the failed digishiled code and then a week later again to go to PoS will put worse strain on the coin. |
|
|
|
Thanks Eadeqa, you got ahead of us in this thread :-) Web site seems pretty slow. I hope the wallet isn't that slow.
Which part of the site is slow? We have given special consideration to make it lightning fast. Just loading the page. Seems to take a bit before it start's downloading. My chrome tools timeline bears that out. http://screencast.com/t/HTHffnbkIQtThe waiting time before the HTML started loading was almost .5s. Look at all the waiting time on the .pngs. I know 3seconds doesn't sound like alot of time. But, to get such a basic web page, it is quite long. But, it seems mostly to be lag rather than load/render time. Also, the fontawesome css not minified? It looks like none of your CSS or JS is minified. Perhaps you are going this way while still in beta which is fine. But, it mostly seems to be the waiting time. Where is the server located? You might want to consider a CDN for the static resources. EDIT: I view the source of your page, it has a HUGE style block in it. Also, it looks like jquery is embedded in the page too. Those should be external references. Use the google api's cdn for jQuery. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm... just keep moving the decimal.
calculated in US.
40 sat = $0.0002359
x10 = 00.002359
x100 = 000.02359
x1000 = 0000.2359
Now in sat:
.0000004
x10 = .000004
x100 = .00004
x1000 = .0004
.0004 BTC for 1000 Qora
.0004 BTC = 0.2356 US$ according to Preev.com
Another way.
40 sat x 1000 = 40000 sat or .00040000
(edit, I see now you said 1000 NXT is $65 above)
|
|
|
|
qora,yes,the price were.too high for me now
42 sat. That's about 25 US cents for 1000. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
