[ANN] [PMC] Premine Coin | Rare | Mining Transaction Fee Proof of Concept

[dahme]

Please send me coins

1JXtQRvv6h9JJ54ZmvY7agPi4rHjpmLNke

[minime1]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

[annpaol]

Somebody can donate me premine? I've less than one now

17niboGjNqXxPikpt7qsdE29VW4hGCnGxA

Thanks for 1 coin donations, now I've 1,45 and donated 5,06 coins.

For more donation feel free to send 17niboGjNqXxPikpt7qsdE29VW4hGCnGxA

[yogibaer]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

[creditcoin_CRD]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

[subSTRATA]

Sell at 0.0002 is too much low...

i bought those

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

[minime1]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

[Nullu]

Stop giving away, there are too many greedy users here.

I think that in this manner we don't go far away

There is a faucet now. I would also rather create bounties now with the rest of the PMC I want to give away.

The miners need some love, now. This is my current task. 0.25 PMC per empty mined block awarded. Maybe even prizes for certain blocks.

As I said earlier I like that you coding this script and am willing to donate to for this project.
I think the 0.25 PMC per Block is too much. I try to explain why I think this way:

Take Bitcoin as an example.

The reward was 50 BTC per Block. That’s are 7200 BTC per day and 2,628,000 BTC per year.

That’s approximately 1/8 or 12,5% or the total supply per year.

If you transfer this to PMC that’s 62571 PMC p.a. and 171 PMC per day.

If we assume one Block per minute (what is the average of the last 5000 blocks) that’s 171PMC/1440=0,12 PMC per Block.

You could easily do this same with Quark (someone compared PMC with Quark in this thread)

Can you provide any statistics how many blocks are without fees and how much are with and how much fee is paid through transactions per day? This would be very interesting.
 

Drop me a PM linking to this post so I can look at it later when I get home. Yes, perhaps you're right. I can provide stats sure. I'll get the script to generate some in the next output.

[Nullu]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

[Mivexil]

Sell at 0.0002 is too much low...

i bought those

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

A market cap of 100BTC would put the coin at the very bottom of the Coinmarketcap list. I honestly think 0.001 (giving the coin 500BTC cap, somewhere in the middle) is not unreasonable.

[shanent]

Sell at 0.0002 is too much low...

i bought those

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

100 BTC after few days of life isn't bad but I think that the target could be more.
I'm too optimistic maybe but if is fixed the issue about the minimum tx fee and the net have a good hashrate this will be a good coin.
The real problem here is that are many, maybe too much, people that are sitted on their coins and don't do anything to assure the best for the future.

[creditcoin_CRD]

The dice game that is due to come online in a few hours could also help a great deal.

[minime1]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

Hm, I don't get it.  The value of a coin is volatile, so from what I see a fixed fee doesn't make any sense, since it would have to be changed continuously. A 1% fee for example would be always 1% no matter how much the actual value of the coin is.

[subSTRATA]

Sell at 0.0002 is too much low...

i bought those

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

100 BTC after few days of life isn't bad but I think that the target could be more.
I'm too optimistic maybe but if is fixed the issue about the minimum tx fee and the net have a good hashrate this will be a good coin.
The real problem here is that are many, maybe too much, people that are sitted on their coins and don't do anything to assure the best for the future.

You will find that with almost all cryptocoins people who have the most coins are the most lazzy ones. Incompetent people
who got in early, got lucky with buying huge pile of coins super cheap and so on. Similarity with the real world, where bankers
and others who are considered elite are actualy quite incompetent should come to no surprise here.

[Nullu]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

Hm, I don't get it.  The value of a coin is volatile, so from what I see a fixed fee doesn't make any sense, since it would have to be changed continuously. A 1% fee for example would be always 1% no matter how much the actual value of the coin is.

1% of what, though? How will you get the tx fee to adjust when the coin becomes more/less valuable, with something that doesn't have to be relied on externally? The network has to manage itself, so however you calculate the tx fee, it has to be figured out by the network activity. Also, if you make it variable, you also make it open to manipulation by the network, much in the way difficulty is manipulated now.

[Nullu]

Sell at 0.0002 is too much low...

i bought those

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

100 BTC after few days of life isn't bad but I think that the target could be more.
I'm too optimistic maybe but if is fixed the issue about the minimum tx fee and the net have a good hashrate this will be a good coin.
The real problem here is that are many, maybe too much, people that are sitted on their coins and don't do anything to assure the best for the future.

Look to NXT for a prime example of what you're talking about.
You will find that with almost all cryptocoins people who have the most coins are the most lazzy ones. Incompetent people
who got in early, got lucky with buying huge pile of coins super cheap and so on. Similarity with the real world, where bankers
and others who are considered elite are actualy quite incompetent should come to no surprise here.

I have a decent size stake and I am working hard to help develop this coin and promote it. Not everyone with a big stake is a lazy hoarder. This is why coins end up with several devs in some cases. A select few can see that their work will be rewarded.

[creditcoin_CRD]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

Hm, I don't get it.  The value of a coin is volatile, so from what I see a fixed fee doesn't make any sense, since it would have to be changed continuously. A 1% fee for example would be always 1% no matter how much the actual value of the coin is.

1% of what, though? How will you get the tx fee to adjust when the coin becomes more/less valuable, with something that doesn't have to be relied on externally? The network has to manage itself, so however you calculate the tx fee, it has to be figured out by the network activity. Also, if you make it variable, you also make it open to manipulation by the network, much in the way difficulty is manipulated now.

I agree. One would have to rely on an exchange API to determine "value" binding the coin to the value on one exchange is a bad plan. Let alone the potential for it to be exploited.

[Nullu]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

Hm, I don't get it.  The value of a coin is volatile, so from what I see a fixed fee doesn't make any sense, since it would have to be changed continuously. A 1% fee for example would be always 1% no matter how much the actual value of the coin is.

1% of what, though? How will you get the tx fee to adjust when the coin becomes more/less valuable, with something that doesn't have to be relied on externally? The network has to manage itself, so however you calculate the tx fee, it has to be figured out by the network activity. Also, if you make it variable, you also make it open to manipulation by the network, much in the way difficulty is manipulated now.

I agree. One would have to rely on an exchange API to determine "value" binding the coin to the value on one exchange is a bad plan. Let alone the potential for it to be exploited.

Exactly. A variable tx fee could only work like difficulty; the amount of tx fees generated per block or per x amount of blocks would determine the tx fee, whether it goes up or down. Like difficulty. However it's a pretty radical idea.

[creditcoin_CRD]

I'm not a coder and I have no idea about it but could it be possible to make that fee dynamically adjustable because I guess it's difficult to make everyone installing a new wallet once fees would change?

I was thinking the same - a relative fee..i don't know maybe 1-2% would be fair.

yes right. and this fee is automatically deducted from the balance upon sending coins.

This would be difficult to say the least.

Why is that?

Because the tx fee needs to be based on the coin's value, and that's determined by several contributing factors; price, coin movement, difficulty, popularity, etc. Anything that complicated would make the coin less appealing. Keep it simple.

Hm, I don't get it.  The value of a coin is volatile, so from what I see a fixed fee doesn't make any sense, since it would have to be changed continuously. A 1% fee for example would be always 1% no matter how much the actual value of the coin is.

1% of what, though? How will you get the tx fee to adjust when the coin becomes more/less valuable, with something that doesn't have to be relied on externally? The network has to manage itself, so however you calculate the tx fee, it has to be figured out by the network activity. Also, if you make it variable, you also make it open to manipulation by the network, much in the way difficulty is manipulated now.

I agree. One would have to rely on an exchange API to determine "value" binding the coin to the value on one exchange is a bad plan. Let alone the potential for it to be exploited.

Exactly. A variable tx fee could only work like difficulty; the amount of tx fees generated per block or per x amount of blocks would determine the tx fee, whether it goes up or down. Like difficulty. However it's a pretty radical idea.

Yes, I should clarify. It is a valid idea, just problematic to say the least.

[subSTRATA]

500,000 * 0.0002 = 100 BTC = almost 100,000 USD if MtGox price is used. You really think that is not too much for altcoin
that started few days ago and actualy is a mere clone of SHA-256 altcoins with the only thing different in the fact there is no
mining reward by default? I don't see why should the price be any higher than 0.0002 BTC except because of the speculation
which is BTW something one can do so much easier and with more liquidity with dozens of other cryptocoins and other stuff.

Premine has no inflation. There is no downward pressure to the price by the new coins mined. This is a huge advantage against most of the other coins.

True that but you are forgetting that PoW coins get their value from amount of money invested in obtaining them from digital
ground. Just like gold or silver in real world, price is bound to the costs of mining the resource. No one in the right mind will
pay 1,000 USD for something that costs 1 USD to be created. Some here are comparing NXT with PMC but there can't be much
said that satisfies both coins. They are both premined and that is the only similarity. Or you wanna tell me changing few lines
in Bitcoin code equalls creating the 1st ever PoS altcoin from zero? Get real. You wanna create 1+ million value by doing a bit
more work than pressing ENTER on your keyboard.