looking at the suggested, there is only one real minor difference, and one difference so negligible it doesnt matter except for gui stuff.
id like to first make a note that my point about sending the coins to stake into the second kind of address wasnt a problem and i wrongly labeled it as one with my previous post so for that i apologize.
lets start with the first, the only real difference is you think the second type of address i supposed we should do shouldn't stake. i will state my point here that i disagree with this. i think it is important for exchanges to stake. staking allows them to sell the coins they stake. which yes, does drive price down. but it also allows them to make profits to continue their services. no i dont run an exchange or benefit from this at all but i still think it is an important aspect to the exchange economy. my point would be cryptsy. yes. it is doing bad right now. but it would have gone under a long time ago if they didnt stake. im sure we all remember those days when there was a bunch of fud about cryptsy cuz the balances were wrong. them being able to stake and sell staking coins helped them fix that without having to shut down after those issues without a lot of user fund losses.
The only other difference between the ideas (which is so negligible idk why im mentioning it) was that my proposal had the option for exchangewallet=1 to get the second type of address. yours does not. now you might say but only wallets in exchanges were supposed to run in exchangewallet=1, the response to that would be there was nothing stopping a normal user from doing it anyway so it was kinda a misleading name. but back to the point, the second type of addresses we proposed do exactly the same thing. send without fees. i think the exchangewallet = 1 idea is good to keep in the code purely for gui reasons. it stops people from accidentally creating the wrong type of address for their coins (since fee structures are different) since it has to be manually enabled. this wouldnt affect api calls because you have to know what you are doing to use those anyway. would also help exchanges to not accidentally generate a normal address for a user. which it is nice to have a safety on that aspect.
i think for usability with people less comfortable with crypto. this is a good idea. rule 1 of software engineering is assume the user is stupid. which is soo true because it helps with stuff down the road.
also the naming was different. i called it exchange address and normal. you called it staking and non staking. but who cares about that.
In Regards to your Point, it is important that exchanges stake,
Totally Disagree as this is what harms the price of PoS coins, causing a downward pressure.
You think verizon would put up with an exchange getting free shares and selling those shares hurting their shareholders, not likely.
But the point of this debate was to help the coin survive and prosper.
Exchanges surviving and prospering is another debate, in fact the answer to that is simple, they need to charge transactions fees per trade,
but what they are failing to do currently is what the normal stock exchanges do.
All Stock exchanges also charge a fee for you to be a member of their exchange before you can trade, even the low cost range from $8 to $20 per month.
Crypto exchanges need to do the same if they want to survive, ( $3 to $5 per month per member) to know I am trading on a stable reliable exchange, that is not shorting my investment to make money is a no brainer.
Problems with only an exchange being allowed to have non-staking addresses, is the following:
It does not let users store fly in paper wallet without suffering the penalty.
It does not allow any real commercial use of the coin ,without that its appeal will be limited.
One Important difference if you hold your coins in a non-staking address in your own wallet instead of leaving them on the exchange is, if the exchange goes under, your coins are not lost with it.
FYI:
One thing to point out , is the Antidumping fee is a large part of the reason for this coin, so any allowing of exchanges to stake for free is completely opposite to this coin's stated antidumping goals.
FYI2:
Mt Gox, Mintpal, and others , and possibly Cryptsy all tried to keep their exchange running with just trading fees,
it is not a valid business model, low membership fees are the only way future exchanges will survive when coin price take a tumble compared to fiat.
FYI3:
Your Comments above , make it seem like the only real issue left to decide is whether , Team Fly gives only the exchange a non-staking wallet or everyone.
In the interest of fairness and usability, I would recommend everyone should get it, not limited to just exchanges,
Will be interesting to see what Team Fly finally decides.
