Proof of Stake with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

[kiklo]

Let say we create a Proof of Stake Coin with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) ,

With such a low rate, many would say there is no incentive to stake.
However at such a low rate, with a little investment it's price per coin can be made very stable or pushed to new heights.

So what would make you stake such a coin?

1.  Would you accept payment in that coin on a monthly basis to maintain a node 24x7 that stakes?

2.  Would you stake just to secure the network and protect your investment while the Price per coin gets higher.
    (Blocking someone else from securing what little interest their was.)

3. Nothing at all make you stake such a coin.

Any other Ideas, what would make you stake such a coin.

Thanks.


FYI:
Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

[1714828304]

1714828304

[cryptohunter]

Let say we create a Proof of Stake Coin with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) ,

With such a low rate, many would say there is no incentive to stake.
However at such a low rate, with a little investment it's price per coin can be made very stable or pushed to new heights.

So what would make you stake such a coin?

1.  Would you accept payment in that coin on a monthly basis to maintain a node 24x7 that stakes?

2.  Would you stake just to secure the network and protect your investment while the Price per coin gets higher.
    (Blocking someone else from securing what little interest their was.)

3. Nothing at all make you stake such a coin.

Any other Ideas, what would make you stake such a coin.

Thanks.


FYI:
Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

I was thinking about this before. If you had enough vested interest in the coin then would you stake or help stake just to secure it. I think people would but then they may get lazy and just rely on others for a while to take the strain. Eventually there would be an issue. Would it be possible though to put some alert in the wallet to show when too few people are starting to stake so that would again increase your incentive to stake.... like a percentage of people staking and it needs to stay in the green of perhaps 50% of wallets staking.... it starts to flash yellow or red as this number decreases below that threshold.

How about if you don't stake at least x% of the time you coins slightly decrease and go to the top stakers or get burned? could that work?

It's kind of weird psychologically. Like if i had a bank that paid me 2% and there was another bank paying me 2.5% I may well not bother to move my money. However if my bank started saying they will take .5% of my money as a fee to use it and there was another bank that was free to use I will move it straight away. I know mathematically that is not exactly the same net gain and loss but I hope you can see what I mean. People do not like their wealth taken by force.

Even then I think there would need to be very good reason to hold or buy this pos coin in the first place. Either the tech or the plans for adoption would need to be very strong.

[kiklo]

I was thinking about this before. If you had enough vested interest in the coin then would you stake or help stake just to secure it. I think people would but then they may get lazy and just rely on others for a while to take the strain. Eventually there would be an issue. Would it be possible though to put some alert in the wallet to show when too few people are starting to stake so that would again increase your incentive to stake.... like a percentage of total wallets currently staking and it needs to stay in the green of perhaps 50% of wallets staking.... it starts to flash yellow or red as this number decreases below that threshold.

How about if you don't stake at least x% of the time you coins slightly decrease and go to the top stakers or get burned? could that work?

I imagine something could be setup to flash , by monitoring the # of active connections & the Difficulty #.
But just watching the active connections and the difficulty would be an accurate indicator.

Noble uses a system where there is a decrease if people don't stake every 2 weeks or so, but their regular rate is 8% ,
Someone else did one where you actually lost coins, it was a major flop.

A Penalty for not staking, leaves a bad PR view,
A reason to stake aside from excessive coin inflation is the goal without a penalty if someone just chooses not too.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[kiklo]

One thing that just came to mind , would be staking games.

On a weekly basis,
whoever stakes a Block with the highest Difficulty # get a $1 in the Ultra Low coin
whoever stakes a Block with the most transactions in one block for the week would also get $1
whoever stakes a Block with the smallest amount per block would also get $1


Would the above entice anyone to stake an Ultra Low interest coin?

 

[J1mb0]

A POS coin with an incredibly low rate of interest?

The question is; is it for a store of wealth or to be used as a currency.

If it is to be used as a currency then inflation in the range 1 - 5% seems appropriate.

If it is to be used as a store of wealth you can achieve low, effective stake returns and stability of supply (neither inflationary or deflationary). WAVES is one such platform - stake rewards are from transaction fees.

[kiklo]

A POS coin with an incredibly low rate of interest?

The question is; is it for a store of wealth or to be used as a currency.

If it is to be used as a currency then inflation in the range 1 - 5% seems appropriate.

If it is to be used as a store of wealth you can achieve low, effective stake returns and stability of supply (neither inflationary or deflationary). WAVES is one such platform - stake rewards are from transaction fees.

The question is; is it for a store of wealth or to be used as a currency.

Actually Both.


 

[Cryptotraider16]

There is great coin with solo pos 10-20%!
http://www.leocoin.org/WhatisProofofStake.aspx

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/leocoin/#markets

I hold 100k so i got approx 55 LEOcoin a day and keep sale! I buy them atv0.06$ and 0.10$!

[kiklo]

There is great coin with solo pos 10-20%!
http://www.leocoin.org/WhatisProofofStake.aspx

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/leocoin/#markets

I hold 100k so i got approx 55 LEOcoin a day and keep sale! I buy them atv0.06$ and 0.10$!

Leocoin is a rich get richer coin,
LEOcoin Balance    Approximate annual percentage reward
0 - 999.9999              0%
1,000 - 4,999.9999    10%
5,000 - 49,999.9999    15%
50,000+                    20%

This discussion is about staking incentives for coins with ultra low interest rates.

 

[ttookk]

Here's a crazy idea I had a while back:

Think of a coin with fixed supply, but inactivity is punished: Every X number of blocks, a wallet that hasn't been active in some way (i.e. mentioned on the blockchainfor in one of those blocks, either by transactions or staking) loses a small percentage of it's holdings, until a certain minimum amount of dust is reached, which vanishes after the next X blocks, leaving the wallet empty. The amount lost will be paid out to those who stake.

Of course, this would have a lot of implications, some good, some bad:

- People would stake just to keep their coins from disappearing.
- Cold wallets wouldn't really be a thing.
- You probably wouldn't need transaction fees.
- Coins won't get lost in wallets whose privkeys are unknown.
- …

[blackhawk101]

INTEREST?  PPFFTT

ONLY CARE BOUNTY

[J1mb0]

Here's a crazy idea I had a while back:

Think of a coin with fixed supply, but inactivity is punished: Every X number of blocks, a wallet that hasn't been active in some way (i.e. mentioned on the blockchainfor in one of those blocks, either by transactions or staking) loses a small percentage of it's holdings, until a certain minimum amount of dust is reached, which vanishes after the next X blocks, leaving the wallet empty. The amount lost will be paid out to those who stake.

Of course, this would have a lot of implications, some good, some bad:

- People would stake just to keep their coins from disappearing.
- Cold wallets wouldn't really be a thing.
- You probably wouldn't need transaction fees.
- Coins won't get lost in wallets whose privkeys are unknown.
- …

Cold wallets could lease unspendable balance to an on-line wallet - this would improve security of the network without disadvantaging folk who genuinely need to keep large balances off-line for obvious reasons. You could limit the lease period to 30 or 60 days to stop the coins being left on a dvd+r and ensure the owner 'engaged with the network' periodically. You could also make the lease a 'one to one' deal - ie The hot wallet with public key A can only stake leased coins from one cold wallet with public address B.

[ttookk]

Here's a crazy idea I had a while back:

Think of a coin with fixed supply, but inactivity is punished: Every X number of blocks, a wallet that hasn't been active in some way (i.e. mentioned on the blockchainfor in one of those blocks, either by transactions or staking) loses a small percentage of it's holdings, until a certain minimum amount of dust is reached, which vanishes after the next X blocks, leaving the wallet empty. The amount lost will be paid out to those who stake.

Of course, this would have a lot of implications, some good, some bad:

- People would stake just to keep their coins from disappearing.
- Cold wallets wouldn't really be a thing.
- You probably wouldn't need transaction fees.
- Coins won't get lost in wallets whose privkeys are unknown.
- …

Cold wallets could lease unspendable balance to an on-line wallet - this would improve security of the network without disadvantaging folk who genuinely need to keep large balances off-line for obvious reasons. You could limit the lease period to 30 or 60 days to stop the coins being left on a dvd+r and ensure the owner 'engaged with the network' periodically. You could also make the lease a 'one to one' deal - ie The hot wallet with public key A can only stake leased coins from one cold wallet with public address B.

Yeah, I was thinking about some way to implement a certain class of addresses, where you could circumvent the not-having-a-good-long-term-holding-solution. But if you make that too easy, everybody is going to use just that and won't bother with the "normal", money-losing kind.

Your idea isn't a bad solution to that issue. Other solutions could be a ticket-style approach like Decred or Hodl-coin(or whatever its name was), where you lock up your funds for a period of time.

Big holders would probably set up a system in which dust amounts are sent to their cold wallets to keep them active, so finding an alternate solution seems pretty important.

A big problem this coin would have to deal with would be its massive overhead: You would have to check a big part of the blockchain for inactive addresses, then perform transactions on them. This alone could probably fill up transaction limits, if not implemented the right way.

[TillKoeln]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

[ttookk]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

[Cryptotraider16]

There is great coin with solo pos 10-20%!
http://www.leocoin.org/WhatisProofofStake.aspx

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/leocoin/#markets

I hold 100k so i got approx 55 LEOcoin a day and keep sale! I buy them atv0.06$ and 0.10$!

Leocoin is a rich get richer coin,
LEOcoin Balance    Approximate annual percentage reward
0 - 999.9999              0%
1,000 - 4,999.9999    10%
5,000 - 49,999.9999    15%
50,000+                    20%

This discussion is about staking incentives for coins with ultra low interest rates.

 

Yeah,can you imagine for exchanges how happy they are since if they hold at least 50k in cold storage they can stake every single coin that is on his exchange and receive 20% LOL this is crazy.
exchnages that not add LEOcoin are most stupid exchanges if you ask me,but ok,they think they are smart but they are not!

[AeonFlux]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

I think users are too stupid to make good decision. Having votes is ok but people are very bad at making decisions that serve their long term interest (look at election!)

[Cryptotraider16]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

I think users are too stupid to make good decision. Having votes is ok but people are very bad at making decisions that serve their long term interest (look at election!)

YES! you are right here.

[ttookk]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

I think users are too stupid to make good decision. Having votes is ok but people are very bad at making decisions that serve their long term interest (look at election!)

There are studies implying, that the more proficient someone views themselves and less proficient they see others in a given technique, the less proficient they usually are. I'm not quite sure whether this is necessarily applicable to intelligence as well. Let's see if we can find out

Seriously, though, the concept of collective intelligence is, that a single person may be wrong, but a group usually isn't, especially in a field, that doesn't really have to do with knowledge, but for example with finding a given number. I've read somewhere about an example being the "how many beads in a jar" question, where participants are supposed to guess how many beads a glass jar contains. Interestingly enough, if you take as many guesses as possible, the individuals are mostly wrong, but the median is extremely close to the real number.

I think we have a similar case here for a few reasons. One of them is, that there is no "optimal" number, because every number falls victim to a conflict of interests. Plus, while you can exclude really high interest rates, optimal inflation is not a physical constant. The system itself can adapt to it.

The question whether or not you want few experts to decide on a number or the collective is almost a philosophical question, until you apply it: once you create a coin, that has votable interest rates, users will vote on whether they like this idea or not by adapting the coin or not. This in itself is pretty much an application of collective intelligence
Coincidentally, this is actually happening all the time.

[Ayers]

i think you have a good idea here because with such a low interest people are more forced to buy insted of hoarding on their interest, and this will make the price stronger and the coin not die after few months from the launch

[Cryptotraider16]

i think you have a good idea here because with such a low interest people are more forced to buy insted of hoarding on their interest, and this will make the price stronger and the coin not die after few months from the launch

Yeah you are right here!
For excample that altcoin LEOcoin lounch 2014 and now live almost 3 years and community keep rise!
Guys keep attack and say scam but community is bigger and bigger and 1 year ago 2 exchanges trade it now 8-9 trade this coin!
Now when they fork coin 01.07. 2016 on solo pos from pow/pos then community is evdn bigger and coin value keep slow rise!
In 2017 some new dev stuff will happen with that coin!
But i like coin becouse pos,big community and know founders that are supported by uk and usa goverment 👍🏼

[ttookk]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

[Cryptotraider16]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

i am sure that LEOcoin is still best POS coin!

[kiklo]

Shills incoming… yawn.

Isn't NXT basically a PoS coin without inflation? Nodes earn only transaction fees, don't they? Looks like it's working ok for them.

i am sure that LEOcoin is still best POS coin!

Well you're the only one, if you can't at least stay on topic don't post here.
Otherwise , I will just lock the thread because you are making it pointless with your false advertising.

Topic
Re: Proof of Stake with an Ultra Low Interest Rate


 

[kiklo]

Let say we create a Proof of Stake Coin with an Ultra Low Interest Rate

Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) ,

With such a low rate, many would say there is no incentive to stake.
However at such a low rate, with a little investment it's price per coin can be made very stable or pushed to new heights.

So what would make you stake such a coin?

1.  Would you accept payment in that coin on a monthly basis to maintain a node 24x7 that stakes?

2.  Would you stake just to secure the network and protect your investment while the Price per coin gets higher.
    (Blocking someone else from securing what little interest their was.)

3. Nothing at all make you stake such a coin.

Any other Ideas, what would make you stake such a coin.

Thanks.


FYI:
Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

[presstab]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

[ttookk]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

[Lauren Smith]

That sounds pointless. What impact will such a little make ? None that's what. It will change nothing. I honestly dont see your point of this thread. Why would anyone do that ? May as well make it just a pow coin.

Its like saying what will happen if you get a hipos coin like 10000000000% which is the opposite of having it really low. It would die both ways. You need balance. Going to the extreme in either way is a bad idea.

[Loepuenkyou]

i think is very low reward
is POS coin only can get reward
Yearly Interest Rate is only .0001% (.000001) same without reward

[kiklo]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

[presstab]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do beleive it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

[kiklo]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

[kiklo]

Interesting article On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

What could go wrong? The mining gap
Without a block reward, immediately after a block is  found  there  is  zero  expected  reward  for  mining but nonzero electricity cost,
making it unprofitable for any miner to mine.

Which is why Proof of Stake will succeed Proof of Work,
because an the end of the day , it will cost abundantly less to keep a coin network running with PoS verses PoW.

The Problem is the mindset , that PoS is supposed to pay interest like a Bank,
instead of just the fact it is the most economical way to run a coin network.


 

[ttookk]

Just a quick note,
Users Buy & Hold BTC with 0 interest ,
if a PoS coin would increase in value, why would it not receive the same treatment?

Because staking consumes resources. Having a utxo held by an address on bitcoin network does not, unless you are running a full node or something.

Additionally, having a staking wallet is a vulnerability. If Bitcoin turned to PoS tomorrow an I had, say, 1000 BTC, I for sure wouldn't stake them. They would be staying on their offline generated addresses.

What you COULD do, is a system, where people can stake with some means and send the coins to an offline address. But then, your staking weight couldn't reliably be the same as your wallet size.

Unless you'd create a system, in which people could stake "in the name of" a given address (with all staking rewards getting sent to that address of course), without ever proving that they hold the private key. This would make for an interesting experiment for sure.

You'll have to explain that one, how is a staking wallet more of a  vulnerability in your opinion than a BTC Wallet?
I don't follow your logic on that one.


 

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do beleive it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

My point was more that you can, or at least should not be a 100% sure, that a device you are online with hasn't a  vulnerability. It is good and common practice to keep big amounts of coins on offline wallets to keep them safe.

That doesn't work if the wallets you use are staking.

That sounds pointless. What impact will such a little make ? None that's what. It will change nothing. I honestly dont see your point of this thread. Why would anyone do that ? May as well make it just a pow coin.

Its like saying what will happen if you get a hipos coin like 10000000000% which is the opposite of having it really low. It would die both ways. You need balance. Going to the extreme in either way is a bad idea.

AFAIK, NXT has 0% interest and is still a PoS coin.

[kiklo]

My point was more that you can, or at least should not be a 100% sure, that a device you are online with hasn't a  vulnerability. It is good and common practice to keep big amounts of coins on offline wallets to keep them safe.

That doesn't work if the wallets you use are staking.

Hmm,
Ok your reference is more to the security issues of all Online Devices, (which would be a danger to PoW or PoS equally.)

You can use paper wallets with either staking or non-staking coins.  

And with an ultra low rate staking coin, there is not much incentive to stake, so you could store them all offline if you wished.

Incentives to stake , is what I am mainly looking for.
I have discovered that many would agreed to accepting payment in the Ultra low inflation coin to Stake 24x7 to secure the network.
Only problem with it , is the payment for the incentive will come out of my pocket for the 1st year or 2.  
By the 3rd year all of the Incentives need to come from the amount of transaction fees and constant increases in the Coin Value verse Fiat & BTC.
Which due to PoS low economic costs may become profitable somewhere in that time frame.


 

FYI:
By the way Decred has an Offline Cold Staking for Proof of Stake coins like what you mentioned in your earlier post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.0
Cold staking and decentralized stake pooling - The ability to generate new coins without the risk of having your coins online when PoS mining. The PoS mining system has also been engineered with distributed, decentralized stake pooling in mind, so that even those with small amounts of stake can participate in network validation.

[presstab]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

[ttookk]

Why would you need any kind of PoS reward (other than transaction fees) really? Couldn't you keep a PoS blockchain running with transaction fees alone? Maybe have an ultra high interest phase at the beginning for initial distribution.

This would mean, that less people would stake, because there wouldn't be a lot to gain from it. This is contraproductive in decentralization terms, but if, let's say, a high two digit number can still stake with profit, we can assume that the network is going to be safe.

[kiklo]

you should Keep in mind that PoS was designed to secure the blockchain and confirm Transaction
as some Kind of energy efficience method ...  compared to Mining via PoW.

and not for generating coins or giving x% interest per year as Marketing idea.

You are right and this is a big problem with PoS-coins:

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.
- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Finding the sweet spot seems like an almost impossible task. Here's a crazy idea: what would happen, if users could vote on interest rate regularly, let's say, quarterly? You take all numbers proposed and find the median. Some will state crazy high rates, others zero, hopefully, a lot of people would be sensible enough to realize that choosing the right amount secures the future of their coin, so maybe, it would be a way to apply "collective wisdom" (I'm not necessarily a big fan of that concept in general) to this problem.

Problem is people are not sensible , the higher % will always be choosen by the short sighted , Higher Interest Rate even at the destruction of the coin.
Just look at Sprouts and Tekcoin, for verification of the above statement.

 

[kiklo]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

Say I run a Business where I have hundreds of BTC transactions sent out everyday, would this address not also be susceptible?


 

 

[presstab]

In the case that in the future there is some type of computation attack that will be able to solve a privkey based on previous signed transactions. The more you stake from one address, the more vulnerable it would be. It has been a long while since I read about that one, but I do believe it was one of the reasons that change addresses are used in bitcoin.

Hmm,

From the sound of his post he made it seem like it was something specific to only Staking wallets, but after seeing your reply ,
would it not be more accurate the number of transactions signed is what they are worried about , otherwise why would BTC  a non staking coin care?

 

Yes it is number of transactions signed. So if you have a wallet that has been staking and signing lots of transactions, it would be more susceptible to that type of attack.

Say I run a Business where I have hundreds of BTC transactions sent out everyday, would this address not also be susceptible?


 

That is why change addresses are used, at least on of the reasons why. And yes it would if it accumulates lots of transactions. Not sure what you aren't understanding here, for this particular attack, the more tx on an address the more susceptible. Its that simple. Absolutely nothing complicated about it. Some of my staking wallets have upwards of 50k tx's. I have seen staking wallets with over 100k. This is one of the fundamental problems about how lots of us manage our wallets.

That being said, this is not an attack that is really possible with today's computation.

[kiklo]

That is why change addresses are used, at least on of the reasons why. And yes it would if it accumulates lots of transactions. Not sure what you aren't understanding here, for this particular attack, the more tx on an address the more susceptible. Its that simple. Absolutely nothing complicated about it. Some of my staking wallets have upwards of 50k tx's. I have seen staking wallets with over 100k. This is one of the fundamental problems about how lots of us manage our wallets.

That being said, this is not an attack that is really possible with today's computation.

Never said it was hard to understand, just wanted the point made it ,
that either PoW or PoS can be affected, as it is number of transactions and not a direct staking only issue.
And you helped me accomplish that. 

Like you, I don't really see it being a problem for the foreseeable future.

 

[kiklo]

Why would you need any kind of PoS reward (other than transaction fees) really? Couldn't you keep a PoS blockchain running with transaction fees alone? Maybe have an ultra high interest phase at the beginning for initial distribution.

This would mean, that less people would stake, because there wouldn't be a lot to gain from it. This is counterproductive in decentralization terms, but if, let's say, a high two digit number can still stake with profit, we can assume that the network is going to be safe.

I think focusing on the transactions fees , may be the solution.

After the coin is rolled out, the client's wallet , has a variable flag set with either 0 , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Every 24 hours, that staking has been turned off , that # increases by 1.

Wallet comes online , once online , 2 conditions have to be met 
1st Condition Wallet has to be in Sync
2nd Condition Wallet has to be in Staking mode

If both conditions are met , then for every hour the wallet is synced & staking , the variable flag subtracts 1 until it reach 0.

If you are at 0 , then you can send coins without any transaction fees,
If you are at 1, then you can send coins at 1X the transaction fees.
If you are at 2, then you can send coins at 2X the transaction fees.
If you are at 3, then you can send coins at 3X the transaction fees.
If you are at 4, then you can send coins at 4X the transaction fees.
If you are at 5, then you can send coins at 5X the transaction fees.
If you are at 6, then you can send coins at 6X the transaction fees.
If you are at 7, then you can send coins at 7X the transaction fees.

So if you have been offline for 7 Days, you have to be online for 7 hours to avoid the higher transaction fees.
It is also an incentive for People to Want Exchanges to stake, so their withdrawal fees are lower.

Anyone see any problems with this model?

 

[presstab]

That is why change addresses are used, at least on of the reasons why. And yes it would if it accumulates lots of transactions. Not sure what you aren't understanding here, for this particular attack, the more tx on an address the more susceptible. Its that simple. Absolutely nothing complicated about it. Some of my staking wallets have upwards of 50k tx's. I have seen staking wallets with over 100k. This is one of the fundamental problems about how lots of us manage our wallets.

That being said, this is not an attack that is really possible with today's computation.

Never said it was hard to understand, just wanted the point made it ,
that either PoW or PoS can be affected, as it is number of transactions and not a direct staking only issue.
And you helped me accomplish that. 

Like you, I don't really see it being a problem for the foreseeable future.

 

Yes exactly. It is not at all related to PoS. It is related to how us stakers handle our staking

[funkenstein]

Take a look at NXT.

Proof of stake with no interest. 

The trouble here is that 1) you need 100% premine, distributed to your phriends 
and 2)  there is no incentive to mine

You would think that condition 2) would mean your coin is DOA, however -- look at NXT. 
There is some incentive to mine - for the phriends. 

This is called centralization, you basically have ripple here. 

You have a centralized token system.  At least the supply is public, so it's still a huge step up from the pure fraud which is charitably referred to as fiat. 

[kiklo]

Take a look at NXT.

Proof of stake with no interest.  

The trouble here is that 1) you need 100% premine, distributed to your phriends  
and 2)  there is no incentive to mine

You would think that condition 2) would mean your coin is DOA, however -- look at NXT.  
There is some incentive to mine - for the phriends.  

This is called centralization, you basically have ripple here.  

You have a centralized token system.  At least the supply is public, so it's still a huge step up from the pure fraud which is charitably referred to as fiat.  

Actually I have looked at Nxt , and I don't care for it, too much centralization for my tastes.
They are trying to be a platform to add value, I just want to create a coin that is stable and let others create a platform around it , not have it be the platform itself.

Their price has done nothing but drop, no floor in sight.
Nxt does not have that potential. It is merely a Pump & Sale with no end in sight to its drop.
I am designing one that it will never be able to drop below 1 penny.  
It is going to do to BTC, what BTC has been doing to the alts.  Weapon of Choice will be Ultra Low inflation.


 

[ttookk]

Why would you need any kind of PoS reward (other than transaction fees) really? Couldn't you keep a PoS blockchain running with transaction fees alone? Maybe have an ultra high interest phase at the beginning for initial distribution.

This would mean, that less people would stake, because there wouldn't be a lot to gain from it. This is counterproductive in decentralization terms, but if, let's say, a high two digit number can still stake with profit, we can assume that the network is going to be safe.

I think focusing on the transactions fees , may be the solution.

After the coin is rolled out, the client's wallet , has a variable flag set with either 0 , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Every 24 hours, that staking has been turned off , that # increases by 1.

Wallet comes online , once online , 2 conditions have to be met 
1st Condition Wallet has to be in Sync
2nd Condition Wallet has to be in Staking mode

If both conditions are met , then for every hour the wallet is synced & staking , the variable flag subtracts 1 until it reach 0.

If you are at 0 , then you can send coins without any transaction fees,
If you are at 1, then you can send coins at 1X the transaction fees.
If you are at 2, then you can send coins at 2X the transaction fees.
If you are at 3, then you can send coins at 3X the transaction fees.
If you are at 4, then you can send coins at 4X the transaction fees.
If you are at 5, then you can send coins at 5X the transaction fees.
If you are at 6, then you can send coins at 6X the transaction fees.
If you are at 7, then you can send coins at 7X the transaction fees.

So if you have been offline for 7 Days, you have to be online for 7 hours to avoid the higher transaction fees.
It is also an incentive for People to Want Exchanges to stake, so their withdrawal fees are lower.

Anyone see any problems with this model?

 

That feels too random for the average user.

To be honest, I think every way to essentially punish those who don't stake (including my option I mentioned earlier) will prevent Average Joe from using your coin.

You have to keep your target audience in mind. If you want to create a nerds dream, fine, go ahead. If you want to battle Bitcoin, you have to reach people who are not interested in tech and schemes. Everything needs to look crystal clear. People might understand on a rational basis why they have to pay more transaction fees, but emotionally, it will feel random to them and they'll feel treated unfairly.

[kiklo]

That feels too random for the average user.

To be honest, I think every way to essentially punish those who don't stake (including my option I mentioned earlier) will prevent Average Joe from using your coin.

You have to keep your target audience in mind. If you want to create a nerds dream, fine, go ahead. If you want to battle Bitcoin, you have to reach people who are not interested in tech and schemes. Everything needs to look crystal clear. People might understand on a rational basis why they have to pay more transaction fees, but emotionally, it will feel random to them and they'll feel treated unfairly.

Hmm,

I will explain it to them , Like So.

If you stake for 1 hour every day, you never pay a transaction fee.
The longer you go with out staking , the higher the transaction fees.

If they can't grasp that , they have other issues.  

Or

You Stake Daily , You No Pay.
You Don't Stake Daily , You Pay More.  

 

FYI:
Actually the goal is not to punish the people , it is to give them incentive to stake.
Since the 1 hour of  staking time is equal to 1 day of not staking, it seems pretty fair to me.
I prefer it if they all staked and no one paid any fees.

FYI2:
We have to include a line that says Transactions Fee Multiplier with the variable # beside it, and it will need to update itself so they know exactly how long they need to be in stake mode , before they can send at 0 costs. They see 1 , they know it is not safe to send until it says 0.

[J1mb0]

- If the interest rate is too low, people will go to some other coin, where it is higher.

Well, I think there are other factors that exhibit positive feedback - things like ubiquity of valid tender and popularity as a currency AND store of wealth. For example, for most BTC users the effective rate of interest is 0% But we all use it! However in this current time and stage of ALT POS you are right.

- If it's too high, the coin will die at some point.

Indeed! 

[Derek492]

In my opinion I think MINT has the best configuration of balance. 5% PoS reward with only 3% money supply inflation. It's the perfect balance. The sweet spot.

I think don't think  can punish people for not staking frequently, only the richest will be able to stake every hour.
Too low of inflation of the money supply will eventually create fungibility problems. Bitcoin will have this problem if the price goes too high.

[kiklo]

In my opinion I think MINT has the best configuration of balance. 5% PoS reward with only 3% money supply inflation. It's the perfect balance. The sweet spot.

I think don't think  can punish people for not staking frequently, only the richest will be able to stake every hour.
Too low of inflation of the money supply will eventually create fungibility problems. Bitcoin will have this problem if the price goes too high.

I would agree with that , except for one issue.

I watched Mint have over $150,000 pumped into it's market cap and it soared to near 30 satoshis per coin.
Because of it's inflation, it is now ~ 4 satoshi.
5% rate on a coin with ~ 24 billion coins is 1.2 Billion per year.
Let's cut that in ½ to only 600 million new coins generated per year. (2½% inflation)
Meaning 1.64 million new coins generated per day.
Even if no one ever sells even 1 Mint, You still need $50.80 per day or $355.60 per week or $1524 per Month to cover your inflation alone ,
The drop in price from ~30 sat to now ~4 sat, it due to the coin not receiving that input amount on a daily basis.

Sadly Mint and my favorite ZEIT are in the same boat
CPA explained it best, True Value has to be created to match or be higher than inflation, if you want your price to be steady or rise.

Compared to BTC generating less that 2000 coins per day, and Mint generating 1.64 million coins per day.
There is almost no way for your coin to rise verses BTC at such numbers.

We either generate more coins or more value per coin by controlling inflation.
BTC has chosen more value , which is why their price keep increasing.

 

FYI:
In regard to punishing, the users can stake for a few hours and pay no transaction fees,
so it is not punishment, they are working for the coin to help cover its costs.

[funkenstein]

Take a look at NXT.

Proof of stake with no interest.  

The trouble here is that 1) you need 100% premine, distributed to your phriends  
and 2)  there is no incentive to mine

You would think that condition 2) would mean your coin is DOA, however -- look at NXT.  
There is some incentive to mine - for the phriends.  

This is called centralization, you basically have ripple here.  

You have a centralized token system.  At least the supply is public, so it's still a huge step up from the pure fraud which is charitably referred to as fiat.  

Actually I have looked at Nxt , and I don't care for it, too much centralization for my tastes.
They are trying to be a platform to add value, I just want to create a coin that is stable and let others create a platform around it , not have it be the platform itself.

Their price has done nothing but drop, no floor in sight.
Nxt does not have that potential. It is merely a Pump & Sale with no end in sight to its drop.
I am designing one that it will never be able to drop below 1 penny.  
It is going to do to BTC, what BTC has been doing to the alts.  Weapon of Choice will be Ultra Low inflation.


 

Well then tell me, how do you intend to make an incentive for others to mine (proof of stake or whatever)  your coin?  We need new blocks to transact..  and if it's only the original dudes who took a premine, then you have your centralization.  So why would I want to come in and help secure the network? 

[kiklo]

Well then tell me, how do you intend to make an incentive for others to mine (proof of stake or whatever)  your coin?  We need new blocks to transact..  and if it's only the original dudes who took a premine, then you have your centralization.  So why would I want to come in and help secure the network?  

hmm,
maybe because I am going to pay them to stake & protect the network.  
(With any luck within a year or so the price alone , will make people want to stake & protect the network.)

Anyway simple payment it is the final conclusion I have to come too,
the local variable idea changing transaction fee met a snag and requires a centralized system to monitor ,
so unless someone figures out a decentralized way , it is not something I would want.