Bitcoin Forum
January 18, 2019, 04:56:38 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 [905] 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 ... 1038 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]  (Read 1343443 times)
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
 #18081

If my assumptions are correct it will have no impact on RAM or on CPU.

Although it hashes the first 60 hashes * the amount of mature unspent outputs you have, those hashes are all destroyed the second the code leaves the scope of CheckKernelStakeHash(), as this is how c++ works.

The current code hashes the first 60 seconds, then hashes timestamp 61 after one second passes, then 62 after two seconds pass, etc. Not 60 hashes each time (or else if it is doing so, it is not designed to be this way).

MINT has a very very old codebase, that hasn't been updated much in terms of efficiency, as well as a huge blockchain. The pool of unspent outputs for the entire network is stored in your RAM, thus this means a large amount of ram for an old chain with lost coins or lots of cold storage outputs. The CPU usage is probably a combination of all these items.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
1547830598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547830598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547830598
Reply with quote  #2

1547830598
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1547830598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547830598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547830598
Reply with quote  #2

1547830598
Report to moderator
1547830598
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547830598

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547830598
Reply with quote  #2

1547830598
Report to moderator
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
 #18082

so to reduce the RAM usage we need everyone to consolidate there outputs into bigger less numerous outputs.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 09:36:57 PM
 #18083

If my assumptions are correct it will have no impact on RAM or on CPU.

Although it hashes the first 60 hashes * the amount of mature unspent outputs you have, those hashes are all destroyed the second the code leaves the scope of CheckKernelStakeHash(), as this is how c++ works.

The current code hashes the first 60 seconds, then hashes timestamp 61 after one second passes, then 62 after two seconds pass, etc. Not 60 hashes each time (or else if it is doing so, it is not designed to be this way).

MINT has a very very old codebase, that hasn't been updated much in terms of efficiency, as well as a huge blockchain. The pool of unspent outputs for the entire network is stored in your RAM, thus this means a large amount of ram for an old chain with lost coins or lots of cold storage outputs. The CPU usage is probably a combination of all these items.
What do you recommend to improve efficiency specifically how to cut back on RAM usage? I've noticed this too that very gradually the RAM usage has tended to rise.

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 10:00:43 PM
 #18084

If my assumptions are correct it will have no impact on RAM or on CPU.

Although it hashes the first 60 hashes * the amount of mature unspent outputs you have, those hashes are all destroyed the second the code leaves the scope of CheckKernelStakeHash(), as this is how c++ works.

The current code hashes the first 60 seconds, then hashes timestamp 61 after one second passes, then 62 after two seconds pass, etc. Not 60 hashes each time (or else if it is doing so, it is not designed to be this way).

MINT has a very very old codebase, that hasn't been updated much in terms of efficiency, as well as a huge blockchain. The pool of unspent outputs for the entire network is stored in your RAM, thus this means a large amount of ram for an old chain with lost coins or lots of cold storage outputs. The CPU usage is probably a combination of all these items.
What do you recommend to improve efficiency specifically how to cut back on RAM usage? I've noticed this too that very gradually the RAM usage has tended to rise.
Would creating a new Genesis block  help with this and cut down the RAM?

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 10:08:52 PM
 #18085

If my assumptions are correct it will have no impact on RAM or on CPU.

Although it hashes the first 60 hashes * the amount of mature unspent outputs you have, those hashes are all destroyed the second the code leaves the scope of CheckKernelStakeHash(), as this is how c++ works.

The current code hashes the first 60 seconds, then hashes timestamp 61 after one second passes, then 62 after two seconds pass, etc. Not 60 hashes each time (or else if it is doing so, it is not designed to be this way).

MINT has a very very old codebase, that hasn't been updated much in terms of efficiency, as well as a huge blockchain. The pool of unspent outputs for the entire network is stored in your RAM, thus this means a large amount of ram for an old chain with lost coins or lots of cold storage outputs. The CPU usage is probably a combination of all these items.
What do you recommend to improve efficiency specifically how to cut back on RAM usage? I've noticed this too that very gradually the RAM usage has tended to rise.

There may be a few areas in the code that have some unpatched memory leaks, but these are fairly small leaks, and the bulk of the RAM usage is not really reversible. Its the fact that there are so many unused outputs in the RAM. So its my opinion that the majority of the RAM consumption will be here to stay, unless you go chain swap which in my opinion should be a last resort reserved for emergencies or disfunctionally large chains.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 10:22:49 PM
Last edit: July 01, 2015, 10:42:00 PM by Derek492
 #18086

Yeah. In my opinion the RAM issue is less critical. I think we do need to patch the timewarp issue and maybe increase the confirmations at this point. Probably anything else can wait for now. Beefing up the security of the coin is the main thing. Is everyone in agreement on that?

I think 15 second hashdrift with 30 second timedrift, and bumping up from 4 to 40 confirmations sounds good to me. I would only increase the confirmations required for new coins that are staking from 50 to maybe 100 confirmations, or it will take over an hour to use any newly minted coins.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
 #18087

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 11:37:58 PM
 #18088

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 11:56:43 PM
 #18089

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
coolbeans94
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 613
Merit: 500


Mintcoin: Get some


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:25:10 AM
 #18090

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.

(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all our powers, as
individuals and as members of society.
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:34:57 AM
 #18091

I don't really love "PoS2.0". I think stake weight is a well though out system, and when it is properly implemented it is quite safe.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
I2S2SI
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 12:44:48 AM
 #18092

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:06:23 AM
 #18093

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:07:14 AM
 #18094

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

It takes them 20 days to become mature for minting.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
I2S2SI
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:10:52 AM
 #18095

How long before my coins in wallet start minting?

They been maturing for 2 days now

It takes them 20 days to become mature for minting.

Fucking hell...

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 01:11:15 AM
 #18096

I don't really love "PoS2.0". I think stake weight is a well though out system, and when it is properly implemented it is quite safe.

Don't you think that PoS 2.0 is a self managing system by creating right incentives? You don't have to worry about implementing it properly.Am I right?

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 02:47:27 AM
Last edit: July 02, 2015, 03:09:10 AM by Derek492
 #18097

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.
Actually when you don't stake in a cycle, your network weight is NOT preserved, and there is no guarantee you will ever eventually have enough weight to stake. Your weight caps out. With mintcoin it is the 40 day mark, 20 days worth of weight. People with very low amounts of coins will never stake. There are some coins that are setup that have no cap on your weight, but this is not secure, because someone could possibly setup an attack on the network by hoarding their weight for several years, or whatever period of time needed to control and overpower the network weight for an extended period. The cap is needed because it actually helps to bring balance to the difficulty over time too.

Note: The coin weight is not to be confused with the coin age. Coin age doesn't have a cap, so in the event it does take someone say, 4 months to stake, they will get a good chunk in their reward, granted the block reward is based on a % based rate.

EDIT: Using your stated logic, why not then just make the minimum stake time 5 minutes? Do you see the problem with that?

I have been able to stake with 1000 mintcoins before, took around 40 days though, but it's happened. That is about .0000005% of the total supply. It just makes it easier for people with fewer coins to "mint" and get a reward if they choose to participate. Not everybody has a lot of money to invest. Should we punish the poor, and only reward the rich?


Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
presstab
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


Blockchain Developer


View Profile
July 02, 2015, 04:30:11 AM
 #18098

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Projects I Contribute To: libzerocoin | Veil | PIVX | HyperStake | Crown | SaluS
sambiohazard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:19:38 AM
 #18099

+1 from me. Security is of utmost importance. Also I would like to hear Presstab's thoughts on POS 2.0 adoption as it is also related to security.
The reason I am against that is because it involves lowering the minimum waiting time in order to stake. I would much rather increase confirmations instead, which increases security without compromising stakabilty.

I am not sure how low waiting time compromises staking. You get smaller but more frequent rewards. Its all about how you see it. For those who are looking at it as a long term investment which they will sit on would like current scheme but if you want to spend your coins then having long wait times will compromise your overall rewards as you spend. Also, there is issue of people not staking 24x7 but still getting rewards for it. When you are offline you are not securing the network/adding to network weight.
It compromises the number of people or the number of balances that are able to stake.
You only stake if you find a block and are only so many blocks in a given period of time. If you lower the waiting period before you can stake again, then it queezes out people with lower balances from being able to stake and get a block. With a 20 day waiting period, it allows for roughly 57,600 stakes before those same coins can stake again, (30 second block time x 20 days). If we lowered it to say 1 day, then only the top 2,880 coin weights would stake, then it will cycle over again, and likely be those same 2,880 addresses once again that stake.
I think that PoS 2.0 is a more fair system. It rewards those who secure the network. If you have more coins i.e. big investment in coin you are rewarded more frequently for your investment risk. If you have less coins, you are rewarded less frequently as you invested less & have smaller risk or less support towards coin. Also when you don't stake in a cycle your network weight is preserved and you will eventually gain enough weight to stake. It is not like people with less coins never stake. I posted it a few pages back that how i get a fairly proportional amount of stakes on Blackcoin with some 0.003% of total coins. It is just like solo mining, your chances increase as you increase your participation.

Also with current system, network weight which determines network security fluctuates wildly between <2% to 10-15%. There is no incentive for people to remain online and stake, but just come online every 20 days to get rewards for not securing the network. Also what if a lot of people have mature coins at same time while at other times there are no/less mature coins, it will make no sense for people to keep there wallets open while they don't have mature coins and thus we see <2% coins staking. With smaller time to mature coins, people remain online more often and thus support network more. I am still learning about these systems, so if i am wrong please do correct me. So far people have been giving me same reasons to avoid PoS 2.0. I have replied to there concerns but still they seem happy to keep status quo going. I am not an authority on PoS 2.0 that's why i asked presstab's view so that i can see why PoS 2.0 is not a good idea to implement.
Actually when you don't stake in a cycle, your network weight is NOT preserved, and there is no guarantee you will ever eventually have enough weight to stake. Your weight caps out. With mintcoin it is the 40 day mark, 20 days worth of weight. People with very low amounts of coins will never stake. There are some coins that are setup that have no cap on your weight, but this is not secure, because someone could possibly setup an attack on the network by hoarding their weight for several years, or whatever period of time needed to control and overpower the network weight for an extended period. The cap is needed because it actually helps to bring balance to the difficulty over time too.

Note: The coin weight is not to be confused with the coin age. Coin age doesn't have a cap, so in the event it does take someone say, 4 months to stake, they will get a good chunk in their reward, granted the block reward is based on a % based rate.

EDIT: Using your stated logic, why not then just make the minimum stake time 5 minutes? Do you see the problem with that?

I have been able to stake with 1000 mintcoins before, took around 40 days though, but it's happened. That is about .0000005% of the total supply. It just makes it easier for people with fewer coins to "mint" and get a reward if they choose to participate. Not everybody has a lot of money to invest. Should we punish the poor, and only reward the rich?

My point is that 20 day waiting time deters people from remaining online while they gain nothing, this makes n/w less secure. Is this correct? If yes then changing waiting time to say 1 day will incentivize people to keep there wallets open as they will be staking and getting rewards. I am not vouching for lowest waiting time but for a balanced reduction so that people are online most of the time.

I am aware that there is max cap to weight but it is large enough that you can easily stake if you have any amount of coins that are significant. If you just want everyone even with a single coin to stake while its not good for the network then i don't get your logic. Security of network is more important than making sure that everyone get their rewards. If having a lower cap is inevitable to secure the network what should we choose?

Do you think there is not a problem of low network weight right now? Am I just making it up so that i can argue about introducing PoS 2.0? I would be more than happy if we can solve the problem w/o going to PoS 2.0, its just my opinion that it is a better system. I have suggested other ways previously of solving this problem that i see. So, if you are not worried about rocking the boat then please try to see my point of view.

@presstab I am just asking your informed opinion about PoS 2.0 so that if i have any delusions or unaware of some fault in it then i get to know about it. Nothing about implementing it.

Rent Rigs @ MiningRigRentals: https://www.miningrigrentals.com/register?ref=9685 | Mine Zcash, X11, ETH, BTC, LTC hashrate available @ Genesis Mining: 9yx2ib (Promo Code for 3% off)
Sell & Buy/Rent hashing power @ Nicehash.com: https://www.nicehash.com/?refby=63551
Trade BTCINR on Coinsecure.in (Global trade available: http://blog.coinsecure.in/post/153309186530/coinsecure-goes-global-by-reducing-the-barrier-for): https://coinsecure.in/signup/z5ehHIOLvHN5sWAq3wTu
Derek492
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 357
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 02, 2015, 05:38:41 AM
 #18100

I don't think going blackcoin is really on the table at the moment. And honestly if it is, someone can add that on top of my commits.

So what we now need to decide is if the final decision is 15 second hashdrift/interval and a 30 second timedrift allowance. The other item that will need to be decided is when this fork will occur. MINT is large enough and has enough people and companies running nodes, that it should be at a few weeks from now. This will be a hard fork, so a protocol change cutting off nodes that haven't updated. If we don't cut off all old nodes, then they will get on an incorrect chain and will still be connected to the real chain's nodes and will exhaust their resources by requesting the same thing over and over. Its possible to pull this off in a "soft" approach, but the memory and bandwidth exhaustion is not nearly worth it.

Yep.

So basically, we release an updated wallet right now for everyone to upgrade to that will cause a the change (fork) to take effect starting in a few weeks from now. Right?
15 second hashdrift/search interval and 30 second timedrift sounds good to me.
What about increasing the confirmations? I think it would be a good idea. If we did do 40 that would be high enough that we wouldn't need to lower the minimum waiting period to stake, thus allowing more people to mint, but still maintain good security.

Stop Mining.   Start Minting.   Mintcoin  [MINT]
5% annual minting reward. Mintcoins don't wear out like mining gear. They keep on minting!
Pages: « 1 ... 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 [905] 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 ... 1038 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!