Bottlecaps 2.1 UPDATE REQUIRED - HARDFORK JULY 4 2014 to 200% Annual PoS

[mullick]

EDIT: You can get larger POS blocks. Just move your coins in a larger transactions. Although you will receive the same % and you are securing the network more by keeping the tx sizes small and generating more blocks

Network secured by inputs, not by coins as is. I.e. 100 coins input less useful for network, in comparison with 10x10 inputs. Because this input is able to generate only one block instead of 10 blocks.

Yep thats what I meant. If tx's are kept small more blocks will be generated therefore being more usefull

Just worded wrong

[butjust41day]

I've kept my reserve balance higher than my wallet contents during this round of POS blocks. I will gradually lower that reserve as the month goes on slowly releasing my high aged coinage to be available for stake. I think if others do that as well the time span to reduce large creation of POS blocks as we've seen recently will be reduced and we'll see smaller peaks every 30 days in the upcoming months and the network will return to it's intended design.

[Balthazar]

Stake inputs shouldn't be merged while maximum age isn't reached. This is required due to security reasons.

And again, PoW cycle will be forced to end much sooner. Just like any other clone-coin maintainers, original developer has no idea about dynamics of such systems.

[butjust41day]

Stake inputs shouldn't be merged while maximum age isn't reached. This is required due to security reasons.

And again, PoW cycle will be forced to end much sooner. Just like any other clone-coin maintainers, original developer has no idea about dynamics of such systems.

Okay I think I understand. Your saying as the quantity of those staked coins increases POS takes over the network. Is the end of POW cycle unpredictable then? Based on the unknown amount staked across the network by various individuals? Or does the POW cycle just become to expensive (because blocks created by POS cause difficulty to increase) to continue and miners stop hashing?

[Balthazar]

Stake inputs shouldn't be merged while maximum age isn't reached. This is required due to security reasons.

And again, PoW cycle will be forced to end much sooner. Just like any other clone-coin maintainers, original developer has no idea about dynamics of such systems.

Okay I think I understand. Your saying as the quantity of those staked coins increases POS takes over the network. Is the end of POW cycle unpredictable then? Based on the unknown amount staked across the network by various individuals? Or does the POW cycle just become to expensive (because blocks created by POS cause difficulty to increase) to continue and miners stop hashing?

It's hard to predict the exact deadline. Anyway, it will happen smoothly. PoW mining profitability will go down due to difficulty and orphans.

[John Eden]

More stores accepting Bottlecaps every day!

Want to buy Itunes, Playstation, Steam, Ultimate Game Card, Zynga, Spring PCS, Boost Mobile Cards for Bottlecaps?
http://cryptopcs.com

• iTunes Gift Card (USA)
• Playstation Network Card(USA)
• Steam Gift Card
• Ultimate Game Card
• Zygna eCard
• Pay Sprint PCS bill
• Boost Mobile Refill

[digitalindustry]

Stake inputs shouldn't be merged while maximum age isn't reached. This is required due to security reasons.

And again, PoW cycle will be forced to end much sooner. Just like any other clone-coin maintainers, original developer has no idea about dynamics of such systems.

this is concerning....

should be interesting.

[John Eden]

Buy your Crypto Miners & HashCat Password Cracking Clusters Supplies
http://coincable.com

[ISAWHIM]

^^^ About POS returns...

Gotcha, it is functioning normally...

But why "split" the reward across two POS blocks. Why not just give the 0.05% on each block. That, I don't understand.

This will be fun when it hits my purchases of 10,000 coins as a solid POS block! That will be 5 instant coins. (I thought it was always going to just strip 10 coins out, for POS.)

Now I see how it "secures" the coin... Though, that is not "security". A better phrase would be, "Secures that transactions continue to be processed". That has nothing to do with the way it is being implied, "Secure/Security: To protect something of value.", it is "Secure/Security: To ensure function or stability." (The implied security, in the mention of 51% attacks and "theft" and "abuse", is not the same.)

To reduce confusion, stop saying that POS "adds security" to the coin which is vague, instead say that POS "helps to keep the transactions moving, after POW is dead." Since an attacker can generate POS and POW, there is no "security" from POS. However, if the coins that were staked, stayed staked for 90 days, that would add little "security" to the wallets. That is money that can't be stolen and spent or traded, at least not until they expire and return to the wallet. But these POS don't last 90 days, like the "documentation of how POS works", which you keep directing us to, as the example. (Which is why we are all getting confused.)

Personally, any currency that has a "limit", is bad... (Or one that does not grow with demand, except in value.)

Worst case, lots of coins get lost in wallets that never get used or unlocked, or destroyed by hard-drive failures. Then transactions fees eat-up faster than POS generation. Or worse... people just don't leave the wallets OPEN and UNLOCKED, due to security reasons, and there just isn't enough coins left to buy, because everyone is holding, and no-one uses wallets, they just use paper-wallets or use web-hosted-wallets which don't give returns. Since, after all, pools will be dead once POW stops and exchanges drop coins that people are not trading. (Which is just dumb, but not unexpected.)

POS at this low return, will help to ensure it lasts longer than not having POS... That I agree with.

[Lauda]

Good news for CAP 

[paulsltc123]

Orphans will come back 30 days later, for a longer period... And every next period will be longer than previous. Process will continue and eventually period borders will overlap. This process should take 7-12 months approximately.

Is this going to be completely accurate? If so, why?

[Balthazar]

Because it's required by design, PoW is not a security provider here. PoS should replace PoW to provide enough trust score into chain. Otherwise such chain can't be used in production, it will be insecure without checkpoints.

[BitcoinFX]

So I have that long to attempt to fix.

I don't think that you need to fix anything, that's not a problem. Proof-of-Stake is a security provider in this network, it should replace Proof-of-Work eventually. Otherwise this design has no sense.

when they set their wallets a reservebalance is around the time it cleared up.

They shouldn't do anything like this, because such action will make network weaker. Reservebalance is your enemy.

Instead of this you need find the way to stimulate users hold the stake in their own wallets, not exchanges.

From 'Modern Money Mechanics':

A 'Bank' must: "maintain legally required reserves equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." This is usually no more than 10%

This theory could and should be employed by institutions and exchanges for PoS generation on 'hot' wallets etc.

Ofc at least 10% of total customer deposits held and a reservebalance= %

PoS generation can be more interesting this way on personal balances too i.e. 10% , 20% , 30% to 90%, although perhaps not literally  

As I described before a: 'Frequency of proof-of-stake', prescribed by a % of eligible stake balance.

You don't need to generate all eligible stake at once, in terms of the network, it's in fact better if you don't, as we have seen recently.

This can help to avoid PoS clustering and smooth difficulty ?

[ISAWHIM]

From 'Modern Money Mechanics':

A 'Bank' must: "maintain legally required reserves equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." This is usually no more than 10%

That is only because banks "loan out your money", once you deposit it... they only keep 10% (or more), so that the majority of individuals can instantly "withdraw". In the event of "declared bankruptcy", if a bank has had that much in funds held (or whatever FDIC states), they will "back a majority of those funds", until the bank can collect and return "the remaining majority".

Pools don't lend out your dollars, nor do exchanges... (Well, not the ones only trading in coins. The ones trading in dollars may spend your money as personal loans to themselves, paying back with the expected trade-volume as you cash-out and as others add funds.)

Besides, exchanges are not banks/lenders, they are exchanges. Though a bank can be an exchange, exchanges are not banks.

Just saying... (Not that I don't like the idea of them having an "additional" 10%, to cover fraud-losses, gained from the income they make through the volume of exchanges... but they surely cash-out their interests above ours, first.)

[ISAWHIM]

Multi, can you turn-on CAP again, on multi-port... or are you doing that to help stop the coin from flooding-out?

The orphan issue, due to POS, has long been resolved, by itself.

Ok, back to my corner of the world... it's dark here... and damp...

[digitalindustry]

Finacial institutions do not " loan out deposits" .

They loan new money into existence, the reserve balance is just a "genral guide"

If a bankruptcy occures , the account is moved from one "general ledger" to a "default ledger"

There are many other useless little regulation Inbetween.

The point to remember is that the signature authority gives power to create new money to be loaned I to existence the reserve only is referenced to the "guide" of a reseve ratio .

Don't think too much about this otherwise you may realize your whole life is a lie and end up like Anonymint.
Let me help you ....

Every peice of new money created means you will have a lower standard of living , if you work and get a wage you will be the working poor in the future , because we are at or near the end of the supercycle , ....

Individuals will never have a higher standard of living unless you can invest in a transferable wealth vehicle.

[ISAWHIM]

"Why banks don't LEND ALL YOUR MONEY."
https://simple.com/blog/Banking/why-banks-dont-lend-all-your-money/

If reserve requirements were too high, banks wouldn’t have money to lend or invest in the economy, and we’d be in big trouble. Too low, and there would be no reason for banks not to lend or invest all the money we deposit.

Banks (financial institutions) DO loan out deposits/savings/holdings, which is regulated and insured, thus FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) and US-Treasury department regulations. That is why cypress bank, and many others, didn't have enough money to let everyone withdraw all at once. That is also why banks go bankrupt. How could they go bankrupt if they "had all your money". Because they lent it all out, that is why.

I am not sure what world you live in, but that was the whole purpose of banks and bank bail-outs. They don't "create money" for every loan, only the "federal reserve" is allowed to "create money", and that has nothing to do with loans. (Here in the USA.)

They wouldn't have to "reserve" anything if they were not lending it out. Yes, they use ledgers to "track the lendings". (Lending it to a corporate branch is still lending.) All money goes to the corporate branch, to be lent-out, based on individual banks "loan approvals", except for a percentage which is held on location. The biggest bank frauds is giving yourself loans, approving your own loans for funds you can't ever pay back, using payments from other loans as "proof" of payments to get more. You get your customers money, and money from other banks corporate customers, for those loans. Which is why there are laws regulated by FDIC and FTC and US-Dept Treasury. Limiting those bad banks from doing real damage.

1000 people deposit $1, 10 withdraw $1 now, $1 later, $1 later-on, $1 after that... The rest stays in savings or is "backed" (non-existent, but accepted as existing, based on future loan-payments coming in.) You never get back your dollar, you are getting a dollar that was lent-out and just now paid-back by someone who just paid-back a loan from the bank, or borrowed from another accounts savings that was just deposited.

Value only increases with loss. You borrow $1000, but you have to pay back $1200, thus, you LOST $200 on something that should have only cost you $1000. Thus, there are now $200 extra value for the bank to distribute or "claim" as payment. Devaluing is when the government "creates money from nothing". Which is a still not that much. (Most "bills from nothing", are replacements for damaged, or retired bills/coins. The rest is "over-printing", which adjusts for population and SOME losses. Including reprinting bills that others are holding illegally, which have not been recorded as in "circulation". Because if China held all our physical paper money, we would have nothing left to physically circulate. Bills are just "notes of funds", generic "checks", that represent held funds or funds that have been lent.)

There MAY be some banks that don't do standard banking, but I don't know of any who don't operate like this. That would be a deposit-box bank only, or a reserve-only bank. They HAVE to lend your money, or charge you to hold your money.

Credit lenders are NOT the only place to get loans. They are just bigger risk-takers than banks are. Which is why they have higher fees than banks have. You have to have a lot of assets and perfect credit to get a loan from most banks. Credit card lenders, lend money acquired from investors and borrowed money that they got on loans, only require a signature in many cases. Banks use "credit services" to provide additional security to the credit lenders, and to provide us with credit we can actually obtain. The loss is still towards the credit lender, not the bank. Which is why banks often use Mastercard or Visa for a credit lender service. They have no actual ties to MC or Visa themselves. They are simply pushing the risk to an outside source, because they don't want to assume those potential losses which places other customers at risk, by giving YOU their accounts funds. Why, when they can just "hook you up" with someone-else that is willing to take that loss.

[paulsltc123]

^^^ this is basically how it works.

How Digital industry thought that banks don't lend out money that is deposited into banks is beyond me and couldn't be further from the truth!

[Walking Glitch]

Apparently no one is interested in selling their CAP at a profit anymore. lol

[paulsltc123]

Multi, can you turn-on CAP again, on multi-port... or are you doing that to help stop the coin from flooding-out?

The orphan issue, due to POS, has long been resolved, by itself.

Ok, back to my corner of the world... it's dark here... and damp...

You seriously want it on Multi port? Why? I'm glad it is not! Do you think it is beneficial Isawhim? Please explain