PIECOIN REBOOT

[Haunebu81]

Yeah a nice, even 100k for a masternode sounds like a good number to me.

[luckytimes]

Pie coin volume and price going up again

[Ryuske]

Pie coin volume and price going up again

Because big news is expected soon!

[Delphinus]

Sold mine at the top, it does need to drop again so I can buy back in...

[Ryuske]

Sold mine at the top, it does need to drop again so I can buy back in...

You only hurt the growth of the Project by selling it this early on, I mean ya at the end of the day its all about the gains but then People looking to buy in see the chart and they see huge red lines and automatically call it CHC PnD Scam.

[tehMoonwalker]

i agree 100k for a 70m sup coin is crazy and screams "i will be worth nothing forever" imo

You sound frustrated that you didn't buy PIE a few months ago.

typical troll tactic, no arguments? just get personal ignore the brought up argument and attack the person

we are all early adopters and im very happy with my pie entry, you sound like a lucky bagholder from the start, nice for you.

your selfishness is actually hurting the coin, if you set the collateral 2 high people wont invest in masternodes and the coin cannot grow, also a 100k mn doesnt seem confident that the price will rise.

[TheKingInYellow]

i agree 100k for a 70m sup coin is crazy and screams "i will be worth nothing forever" imo

You sound frustrated that you didn't buy PIE a few months ago.

typical troll tactic, no arguments? just get personal ignore the brought up argument and attack the person

we are all early adopters and im very happy with my pie entry, you sound like a lucky bagholder from the start, nice for you.

your selfishness is actually hurting the coin, if you set the collateral 2 high people wont invest in masternodes and the coin cannot grow, also a 100k mn doesnt seem confident that the price will rise.

Wrong.

[2xjO9M3P]

If the MN requirement is above 10,000, that's going to put away a lot of people. IMO it should be either 5000 or 10000.

I agree with this. I think it's good for us to have a low barrier of entry for a masternode so that we can attract more investors. More masternodes more robust the community will become.

Yes I share the same opinion.

I'm thinking 25-50k for MN. 100k do seem slightly to the high side, considering the money supply.
But setting the barrier too low, can/should scare some investors away too. The lower the barrier, the more masternodes, the less profit for running a MN. And if there's no profit in running a MN, they will be shut down quickly again, and thus not help the network.
Take CHC as an example. CHC is now up to 2200 MN, meaning there's 60 hours between payouts. And this is with just ~14% of the money supply locked in.

This is more important with a PoS coin, as the MN reward on average should be higher than staking. So with too many MN, the reward for staking could be more profitable, and it's a hard sell to convince many to lock in their coins and make less profit.
CRM is in this situation now. Even though there aren't all that many MN yet, profitability between MN and staking is already quite close. Partly because MN are "only" rewarded 20% of stakes, and they're still in PoW+PoS phase.

Just my 0.02 PIE

edit, quote fix.

[2xjO9M3P]

After doing some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations, I might actually have changed my mind a little.

If we assume that MN and minter are paid the same amount out of each block (either 50/50 or 45/45/10 (mn/minter/devfund)), what is important is to find a level where there's slightly more coins staking than locked in masternodes. As long as this is fulfilled it would be profitable to run a MN.
Current net-stake-weight is ~28 million, so the tipping point where staking is more profitable than running a MN is: 140MN @ 100k collateral, or 1,400MN @ 10k

In other words, the smaller the collateral the more MN can be profitably supported by the network, as long as the amount of coins staking is larger than what is locked in masternodes.
So the golden number is whatever ensures that enough coins keep staking.

Anyways, enough of me thinking out loud.

PS. Another thought. If we want to make it possible for "everyone" to afford a MN, then restrict masternodes to run a specific port, like ARC. Considering the low cost, and the profit per MN, means that it's not profitable to rent a VPS to run a MN on, and thus limiting the number of total masternodes.

PPS and now I stop thinking for real.

[MrTotoro]

http://www.piecoin.info

The official website is coming 

[Gash]

Sold mine at the top, it does need to drop again so I can buy back in...

You only hurt the growth of the Project by selling it this early on, I mean ya at the end of the day its all about the gains but then People looking to buy in see the chart and they see huge red lines and automatically call it CHC PnD Scam.

I have examined the natures, characteristics and inherent qualities of many scams and am almost sure that this one doesnt smell even remotely close to what scam usually is. When u are calling someone out for being dishonest in public dont forget to pin the source where proof is presented to the top of ur post. Either this or gtfo.

[coiner21]

http://www.piecoin.info

The official website is coming 

why did they bother to make a new website about it being PIE when theyre about to rebrand?

[fishfishfish313]

http://www.piecoin.info

The official website is coming  

We are baking some pies.  Get ready to get you some slices.    

I am impressed with how this project is materializing.  Seems like a solid idea.  I'd be willing to do some work for the benefit of the coin.  After debacle after debacle lately in the space with low volume,  community driven MN coins (or maybe I'm just unlucky and investing in some crap  )  PIE coin has succeeded in getting my attention.

[MrTotoro]

http://www.piecoin.info

The official website is coming  

why did they bother to make a new website about it being PIE when theyre about to rebrand?

The change of name will not happen a priori. It will be confirmed.

[CryptoPlankton]

If the MN requirement is above 10,000, that's going to put away a lot of people. IMO it should be either 5000 or 10000.

I agree with this. I think it's good for us to have a low barrier of entry for a masternode so that we can attract more investors. More masternodes more robust the community will become.

Yes I share the same opinion.

I'm thinking 25-50k for MN. 100k do seem slightly to the high side, considering the money supply.
But setting the barrier too low, can/should scare some investors away too. The lower the barrier, the more masternodes, the less profit for running a MN. And if there's no profit in running a MN, they will be shut down quickly again, and thus not help the network.
Take CHC as an example. CHC is now up to 2200 MN, meaning there's 60 hours between payouts. And this is with just ~14% of the money supply locked in.

This is more important with a PoS coin, as the MN reward on average should be higher than staking. So with too many MN, the reward for staking could be more profitable, and it's a hard sell to convince many to lock in their coins and make less profit.
CRM is in this situation now. Even though there aren't all that many MN yet, profitability between MN and staking is already quite close. Partly because MN are "only" rewarded 20% of stakes, and they're still in PoW+PoS phase.

Just my 0.02 PIE

edit, quote fix.

After doing some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations, I might actually have changed my mind a little.

If we assume that MN and minter are paid the same amount out of each block (either 50/50 or 45/45/10 (mn/minter/devfund)), what is important is to find a level where there's slightly more coins staking than locked in masternodes. As long as this is fulfilled it would be profitable to run a MN.
Current net-stake-weight is ~28 million, so the tipping point where staking is more profitable than running a MN is: 140MN @ 100k collateral, or 1,400MN @ 10k

In other words, the smaller the collateral the more MN can be profitably supported by the network, as long as the amount of coins staking is larger than what is locked in masternodes.
So the golden number is whatever ensures that enough coins keep staking.

Anyways, enough of me thinking out loud.

PS. Another thought. If we want to make it possible for "everyone" to afford a MN, then restrict masternodes to run a specific port, like ARC. Considering the low cost, and the profit per MN, means that it's not profitable to rent a VPS to run a MN on, and thus limiting the number of total masternodes.

PPS and now I stop thinking for real.

If you are looking for quick profit on the short term, then indeed 5000-10000 coins for a masternode is too low, but if you are in for the long term it changes everything. You are talking about how profitable can be a masternode but in your calculations you don't take in account the price fluctuation. For example, let's say you set up a masternode for 10000 coins and it rewards you with 1000 coins a month. If the coins stay at the price you bought them at the first place, then it may not look really profitable indeed, but now if you add the price fluctuation factor to that : Let's do the maths, let's say you bought your 10000 coins for 0,01$ each, your masternode is worth 100$ and 1000 coins rewards per month would be worth 10$. But now, with the development going and the demand and supply changing, imagine that the coin is now worth 1$. If you have hold all your coins until then, you have a masternode which is worth 10k$, add to that all the rewards per months you got so far which are worth 1000$ each, not to mention that you probably put everything at staking and added other masternodes when you got enough to do so. Does it still look not profitable anymore ?
Personally I have already enough coins to set up some masternodes and I will run them on a vps h24 even if it cost me money at first. And I won't pay the vps with the masternodes rewards but with real money. This way I will hold all my coins and when they will be worth a lot more I will have a lot of money. As simple as that. It's a bet on the future, maybe the price won't increase much but maybe it will. In my opinion it will, and I'll do everything possible to make that happen. And I know that I'm not the only investor who plan to do that.

[alangmotor]

im just renewed Piecoin Block Explorer for 1 year..
still have long way to go..
long live PIE..!!

[CryptoPlankton]

im just renewed Piecoin Block Explorer for 1 year..
still have long way to go..
long live PIE..!!

Awesome Alang, thank you for your contribution and your hard work for the coin, take your time !

[Delphinus]

The countdown looks exiting!

I understand that everyone wants a masternode, even with minor investments, but it should remain profitable to have one. If there are thousands of master nodes, the reward per node will be minimal and not worth the effort and power. Only the "true supporters" will host master nodes in that case.

Since these "true supporters" can be expected to have at least 100k PIE anyway, I think we shouldn't go below 25k per node. It really wouldn't make a difference, except forcing the people with a lot of PIE (the people you really want to keep)  to spin up 20-30 master nodes or more. At 25k is still is affordable for anyone investing more than a "gamble" amount into PIE.

[hic78]

Hello i had bought 140 k piecoin a 8 satoshi what i should do now ^^

[Ryuske]

Hello i had bought 140 k piecoin a 8 satoshi what i should do now ^^

Its best if you hold onto it since theres development and goodies coming soon!