HoboNickels - HBN - High Fast Stake - Version 2.0! More Secure, Less Intensive

[PressF1]

I think we all can agree that the HyperStake experiment really develops in an amazing way. Despite of an enormous increase of its money supply there seems to be no end to its rise in price.

But these are only very recent events of a very young coin. With the number of HYP-coins out there doubling every 6 weeks, it can easily go down as fast as it goes up. That's why it's so interesting right now. Just wait and see. And decide whether you feel most comfortable at HBN, CAP, TEK or HYP-levels of POS and if you like, invest or mine accordingly.

[1715294381]

1715294381

[1715294381]

1715294381

[1715294381]

1715294381

[Majormax]

I think we all can agree that the HyperStake experiment really develops in an amazing way. Despite of an enormous increase of its money supply there seems to be no end to its rise in price.

But these are only very recent events of a very young coin. With the number of HYP-coins out there doubling every 6 weeks, it can easily go down as fast as it goes up. That's why it's so interesting right now. Just wait and see. And decide whether you feel most comfortable at HBN, CAP, TEK or HYP-levels of POS and if you like, invest or mine accordingly.

Agreed.

It's a democratic 'vote with your money'.

The result is indicated by a rise in value (but the value is not the end result).

The trend is , so far, with HYP, and has continued for a number of weeks.

[Tranz]

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to set expectations, that I don't plan to change the PoS % now or ever. It would be completely unfair to change the rules in that way, especially considering we are over 1 year old.  I can understand the reasoning why we would want to, but its not in the cards for me here.

Perhaps a bootstrap fork in the future could be done.   

[breakbeater]

+1 Tranz
HBN is fine as it is, those who are looking for a quick buck (profits) should look elsewhere.

[Majormax]

+1 Tranz
HBN is fine as it is, those who are looking for a quick buck (profits) should look elsewhere.

Definitely not about a quick buck, this.

I fully understand the argument relating to continuity. I have had similar discussions all of this year, in the threads of a dozen or so different coins (which I hold still).

95% of community members don't see the need for higher stake, that's fine.

Even after all that, I am still stubborn enough to believe that ultra-high stake could be the way forward for distribution. A real Ponzi scheme, if you like, but one which could be the only way smaller coins can gain the publicity and recognition of Bitcoin (after all WTH, Bitcoin only got big by speculation for profit : a ponzi sceme in its inflationary stage)

I hope I am wrong, and that the fundamentally good and stable coins will all be 'discovered' and make it to the big time without dodgy gimmicks.

[Majormax]

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to set expectations, that I don't plan to change the PoS % now or ever. It would be completely unfair to change the rules in that way, especially considering we are over 1 year old.  I can understand the reasoning why we would want to, but its not in the cards for me here.

Perhaps a bootstrap fork in the future could be done.  

Yes, understand that. PoS is all about wallet function and issues. You have great skill, experience and consistency.

I am not 100% sure which is the best way : Just wondering what exactly would be unfair about changing PoS % ?  Does it not still give a level playing field for every current holder, as well as for the new buyers ?

[Majormax]

Please consider this carefully :


Is it now time to increase the % stake ?


HBN is in the 'High Stake' group, and has reasonable distribution, but needs a lot more trade volume.

Anyone who has been watching Hyperstake in the past 6 weeks will have noted the steadily increasing trade volume, along with price. That is distributing, and strengthening the network.

I believe that other PoS coins will increase their % as this benefit becomes clearer, and HBN should be one of the leaders in this.


I believe high PoS is going to be the 'next boom' and we are in the early stages, but only those coins with really high % will benefit. It will be like a % bidding war, but the upper limits will be determined by trial and error.

This makes sense because the 100's of dying coins out there are all needing network support,and fiat trade is not going to help them individually because of the dilution in the broad market. High PoS will be seen as a driver of activity generally, and therefore a lifeline for the fading (and a boom for the real leaders)

"Coin creation" isn't necessarily the appropriate term. I think of high PoS as continuous stock splitting. We have a coin network, say HBN, with 10,000 "shares/coins" representing it. If there are later 1,000,000 "shares/coins," but it still represents the same network, has anything really happened?

What is really happening is that liquidity is increasing since each old share of the network can be split into more shares, allowing for more fine tuning of the price.

What I see in HYP is the first high PoS coin with an *active community*. There are well over 100 people in the IRC coming up and executing plans, playing games, or just having fun. This has never been seen before. Honestly, it is the most "fun" crypto I've seen in a long while.

Doge has shown us that technology isn't the only factor that matters. Heck, BTC is the same since most 2.0 coins would argue it's suboptimal.

Good points.

It may be the case that those coins increasing their PoS right now will be able to capture the core market for this scheme. Others will copycat later but will miss the boat.

[Tranz]

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to set expectations, that I don't plan to change the PoS % now or ever. It would be completely unfair to change the rules in that way, especially considering we are over 1 year old.  I can understand the reasoning why we would want to, but its not in the cards for me here.

Perhaps a bootstrap fork in the future could be done.  

Yes, understand that. PoS is all about wallet function and issues. You have great skill, experience and consistency.

I am not 100% sure which is the best way : Just wondering what exactly would be unfair about changing PoS % ?  Does it not still give a level playing field for every current holder, as well as for the new buyers ?

Its unfair because people bought into the coin with certain expectations.  Changing the parameters this late in the game, just to chase the next big thing doesn't make sense.

[ElTomeko27]

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to set expectations, that I don't plan to change the PoS % now or ever. It would be completely unfair to change the rules in that way, especially considering we are over 1 year old.  I can understand the reasoning why we would want to, but its not in the cards for me here.

Perhaps a bootstrap fork in the future could be done.  

Yes, understand that. PoS is all about wallet function and issues. You have great skill, experience and consistency.

I am not 100% sure which is the best way : Just wondering what exactly would be unfair about changing PoS % ?  Does it not still give a level playing field for every current holder, as well as for the new buyers ?

Its unfair because people bought into the coin with certain expectations.  Changing the parameters this late in the game, just to chase the next big thing doesn't make sense.

Agree. Stick to the plan dev.

[tokyoghetto]

I am glad that Tranz has agreed to stick to the plan set out when the coin was first launched.

[Majormax]

I am glad that Tranz has agreed to stick to the plan set out when the coin was first launched.

There was never any question that it would be changed. We just had a hypothetical discussion on the benefits of High PoS.

[Tranz]

I have noticed that when i send some coins and my wallet is locked sometimes after sending my wallet stays open and I have to manually lock it again. Does anyone else encounters this behavior too? I use 1.4.8.0. It's not a big deal of course but I though it would be good to report it.

It should re-lock, but I will take a look and make sure that is working correctly. Thanks!

Found this bug.

If you unlocked the wallet for PoS, and then later locked the wallet. The flag to tell the wallet to relock, upon sending, was not set.

This one line should fix it.
https://github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels/commit/0b67b4db03783d05f512028d1251c1f930cc1b7a

Thanks for the bug report. Post and address, as I usually pay a bounty for them.

[Tranz]

I am glad that Tranz has agreed to stick to the plan set out when the coin was first launched.

There was never any question that it would be changed. We just had a hypothetical discussion on the benefits of High PoS.

I think that all the different PoS % have distinct advantages and disadvantages.  Eggs should be placed in different baskets, with care.

What would be great would be an ETF type fund that used a basket of PoS coins and moved up and down based on the % it held and how each coin was doing. It would smooth out the ups and downs of individual coins, and help add liquidity as well.

It would require an exchange and min 25-50 btc. It should hold at least 5-10 different coins. It could even pay out a dividend based on the staking.

I would have it hold the following, just some quick picks:

A few low coins like PPC, BC.
A few medium HBN, CAP, NVC.
and some high % like HYP,ORB

.

Some/all of the coins would stake as normal, those would be paid out in dividend to the buyers. The ETF would have to buy/sell coins and raise/lower the price, based on buyer/sellers of the fund and the market of each coin in the basket, respectively.

The staking can be done very securely, in fact the wallet would never have to touch the internet to stake. It would only need a few trusted peers that are on a secure intranet. Those peers(on the intranet and internet) would connect to worldwide peers and the protected peer. The protected peer would only connect to the intranet peers.  

So the protected peer would contain the wallet that would stake, and would never have to be on the internet!  

Anyway just some food for thought.

[Biomech]

I am glad that Tranz has agreed to stick to the plan set out when the coin was first launched.

There was never any question that it would be changed. We just had a hypothetical discussion on the benefits of High PoS.

I think that all the different PoS % have distinct advantages and disadvantages.  Eggs should be placed in different baskets, with care.

What would be great would be an ETF type fund that used a basket of PoS coins and moved up and down based on the % it held and how each coin was doing. It would smooth out the ups and downs of individual coins, and help add liquidity as well.

It would require an exchange and min 25-50 btc. It should hold at least 5-10 different coins. It could even pay out a dividend based on the staking.

I would have it hold the following, just some quick picks:

A few low coins like PPC, BC.
A few medium HBN, CAP, NVC.
and some high % like HYP,ORB

.

Some/all of the coins would stake as normal, those would be paid out in dividend to the buyers. The ETF would have to buy/sell coins and raise/lower the price, based on buyer/sellers of the fund and the market of each coin in the basket, respectively.

The staking can be done very securely, in fact the wallet would never have to touch the internet to stake. It would only need a few trusted peers that are on a secure intranet. Those peers(on the intranet and internet) would connect to worldwide peers and the protected peer. The protected peer would only connect to the intranet peers.  

So the protected peer would contain the wallet that would stake, and would never have to be on the internet!  

Anyway just some food for thought.

I've been thinking the same thing, and in some detail.

I'll soon be in a position to set such a thing up. Anyone interested, please let me know. In the near future, should there be sufficient interest, I'll start a new topic for it, get some people together to administer it, and get the ball rolling.

I agree with Tranz's initial picks, though of course I'd add TEK Yeah, it's a personal bias.

[Tranz]

...
I agree with Tranz's initial picks, though of course I'd add TEK Yeah, it's a personal bias.

These were just off the top of my head, quick picks. In reality there would be more, and all thoroughly vetted.

I like TEK and thundertoe. I rather see it have a little more solid, cleaner, development work.  Lots of issues over there right now.  But definite potential.

[Biomech]

...
I agree with Tranz's initial picks, though of course I'd add TEK Yeah, it's a personal bias.

These were just off the top of my head, quick picks. In reality there would be more, and all thoroughly vetted.

I like TEK and thundertoe. I rather see it have a little more solid, cleaner, development work.  Lots of issues over there right now.  But definite potential.

He and I have discussed me taking a more active role in it's development, though so far it's just been talk from both of us It remains my favorite, followed by HYP and HBN, no particular order on second place TEK was my introduction to high POS, so it kind of sticks with me.

[PressF1]

This is an interesting discussion. I just want to set expectations, that I don't plan to change the PoS % now or ever. It would be completely unfair to change the rules in that way, especially considering we are over 1 year old. 

Couldn't agree more.

I have noticed that when i send some coins and my wallet is locked sometimes after sending my wallet stays open and I have to manually lock it again. Does anyone else encounters this behavior too? I use 1.4.8.0. It's not a big deal of course but I though it would be good to report it.

It should re-lock, but I will take a look and make sure that is working correctly. Thanks!

Found this bug.

If you unlocked the wallet for PoS, and then later locked the wallet. The flag to tell the wallet to relock, upon sending, was not set.

This one line should fix it.
https://github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels/commit/0b67b4db03783d05f512028d1251c1f930cc1b7a

Thanks for the bug report. Post and address, as I usually pay a bounty for them.

Don't bother about bounties, I am glad to help out improve the wallet a bit.

[Zels]

Perhaps a little bug, not a big trouble

When I tried to add my own address in address book, wallet tell me that it's already there, but as in pic, book is empty

I'm using coin control to combine my block, and in the input the first time, i set my add in "Pay To", a label for the wallet to save it in address book.
Since them wallet won't add my address to the book, but when I paste mine in coincontrol, he auto fill the Label.
Perhaps I did something wrong, who know ^^

[Tranz]

Perhaps a little bug, not a big trouble

When I tried to add my own address in address book, wallet tell me that it's already there, but as in pic, book is empty

I'm using coin control to combine my block, and in the input the first time, i set my add in "Pay To", a label for the wallet to save it in address book.
Since them wallet won't add my address to the book, but when I paste mine in coincontrol, he auto fill the Label.
Perhaps I did something wrong, who know ^^

This is working as designed.  That address is in your Receive Coins Tab.  This is done to prevent the user from putting their own address into the "Sending" portion of the address book, to prevent confusion.  The code could be changed to over-ride this safety net, but I am not sure it is a great idea to do so.

[Arsenay]

.....
Linux amd64 platform
1.4.99 from github.com/Tranz5/HoboNickels

did fast hack fix, diff is here http://pastebin.com/Jh0GA75L

thank you, excuse me, but did not have time to check
but that's not all 
next:

In file included from src/qt/charitydialog.cpp:2:
build/ui_charitydialog.h: In member function ‘void Ui_StakeForCharityDialog::retranslateUi(QWidget*)’:
build/ui_charitydialog.h:120: error: ‘class QLineEdit’ has no member named ‘setPlaceholderText’
build/ui_charitydialog.h:124: error: ‘class QLineEdit’ has no member named ‘setPlaceholderText’
build/ui_charitydialog.h:130: error: ‘class QLineEdit’ has no member named ‘setPlaceholderText’
build/ui_charitydialog.h:135: error: ‘class QLineEdit’ has no member named ‘setPlaceholderText’
build/ui_charitydialog.h:156: error: ‘class QLineEdit’ has no member named ‘setPlaceholderText’