[ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]

[sambiohazard]

+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.

[1713964542]

1713964542

[1713964542]

1713964542

[1713964542]

1713964542

[1713964542]

1713964542

[1713964542]

1713964542

[sambiohazard]

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.

[I2S2SI]

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...

[sambiohazard]

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?

[Derek492]

+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?

[presstab]

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.

[sambiohazard]

+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.

[Derek492]

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.

[Derek492]

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.

I understand your point, but I would rather increase confirmations to increase security, than reduce the amount of people able to mint. Confirmations is the other way to accomplish the same security goal.  Mintcoin is about minting, and if people cannot stake/mint then I think you will lose a lot of potential users right there.

[sambiohazard]

I understand your point, but I would rather increase confirmations to increase security, than reduce the amount of people able to mint. Confirmations is the other way to accomplish the same security goal.  Mintcoin is about minting, and if people cannot stake/mint then I think you will lose a lot of potential users right there.

Thanks for understanding. The issue you are discussing is timewarp attack which will be solved by discussed adjustments. I am talking about low network weight which wont be solved by these adjustments. We need people to remain online to strengthen the network.

[sambiohazard]

Here is why i don't like the current arrangement of people coming online once in 20 days or expecting rewards for keeping coins in their wallet while not securing the network. Also this explains why who invest more should be rewarded proportionately.

http://shreysfinanceblog.com/2015/06/24/why-socialism-fails/

[cryptomommy]

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.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.

[litemaster]

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...

I know right?? I have answered this question a few time myself on here. The site need to put this featured more prominently or something.

[Derek492]

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.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

[coolbeans94]

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

[RJF]

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.

Agreed - We have allot of work to do on top of the fork in order to ensure that we provide the best possible user experience for the community during the transition to the new wallet. Once PressTab has completed his changes we will need to test out the changes in a private group - during that time supasonic has volunteered to add the GUI modifications for the following:

make repairwallet easier to find (under Help)
When the wallet opens it would be nice to have the client choose between import wallet or create new wallet.
Require verification of password when sending mintcoins - if password option is enabled

He is also researching this comment:

As for syncing time, dooglus from CLAM has made a very interesting commit this last week that I want to play around with. It has to do with bootstrap files that are not all in one file. For example a bootstrap that is block 1-100k, 100k-200k, etc. This adds the ability to start with the appropriate bootstrap file if you are partially synced. I haven't toyed around with it enough yet, but it shows promise.

Once those changes are implemented and tested we will need a mass distribution to exchanges and community members.

The fork will need to be out long enough to ensure we complete all of these tasks for the community members to ensure there are minimal bad vibes during the upgrade.

Do you think 30 days is enough time for the fork for exchanges & community members?

We can send the exchanges a heads up now with a fork estimated date so they can plan ahead and ensure the manpower is available to make the change.

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Seems reasonable, go for it....

[coolbeans94]

I'm positive if we pull this off mintcoin is going to soar and may one day even overtake bitcoin itself.

[presstab]

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

Yes I looked, sorry forgot to reply to this particular issue. It looks like it is as I expected, and the "max coins" doesn't have anything to do with controlling rewards at a particular point in time, and is simply a cap on the maximum transaction amount allowed for the network.

[Flyskyhigh]

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

Yes I looked, sorry forgot to reply to this particular issue. It looks like it is as I expected, and the "max coins" doesn't have anything to do with controlling rewards at a particular point in time, and is simply a cap on the maximum transaction amount allowed for the network.

So basically it will just be 5% gain per year forever. Cool. I actually think that is better because it will always motivate people to keep minting. Like a goid savings bond not too low, but not too high. BTW, Mintcoin just hit a new all time high.  80 sats! ^ ^

[coolbeans94]

At least get in contact with the exchanges, and probably ask them how much time they need to make the upgrade.

So to confirm, is everyone in agreement on changing the hashdrift/search interval to 15 seconds, the timedrift to 30 seconds, and the confirmations to 40? This will greatly bulletproof the security of Mintcoin.

Sounds good to me.

Presstab, have you had a chance to look at the code and verify the situation regarding any coin cap?

Yes I looked, sorry forgot to reply to this particular issue. It looks like it is as I expected, and the "max coins" doesn't have anything to do with controlling rewards at a particular point in time, and is simply a cap on the maximum transaction amount allowed for the network.

If that is the case, we need to update the announcement page to be clear, and any place that gives the coin description.

Edit: I updated it on Reddit.