★ ZEIT ★ [COMMUNITY & KNIGHTS] [ULTRA LOW INFLATION] [MICRO-PAYMENTS]

[uki]

And if we wanted to be REALLY extreme, we could even do a 100-for-1 reverse split. Bring our effective price to around 50-100 satoshi (which is far more preferable for trading purposes).

Combined with low inflation, I think this will be value added for our community, considering that...again....we would be able to transition from the litecoin market to the bitcoin market without affecting our actual overall market cap (which is meaningless anyways).

I think it is an idea that is really worth thinking. ZEIT has extremely big numbers which, I think, tend to confuse people. Cutting two or three zeros would bring us to the teritory where normal people can imagine the numbers and the value they represent. Bitcoin is already quite complicated with 8 digits after the decimal point, and having billions in front of the comma makes it completely blurry.

[uki]

I wasn't referring to changing interest rate, just adjusting the total coin supply lower/shifting the decimal to the left.

I don't really see any point of doing that.
Since Cryptopia keeps a track of their number of coins by an internal blockchain,
odds are it would break their accounting and cause a delisting anyway, since their decimal points would no longer align with our wallets.

 

FYI:
What we are doing is inflation control by reducing the interest rate , we are not decreasing anyone's current amount of coins.
 

It shouldn't be an issue, if the change (fork) is well prepared and announced. In the end of the day, the coin and its priorities should be put in the first place, over the exchange's priorities. Otherwise, we will be stuck at no-change-at-all area, because some exchange may delist us.
To be fully honest, with the current volume levels, it won't make much of a difference if one or the other exchange delists us.
What is important is, whether the changes we make would help us to gain the interest of new people (and thus new exchanges, with bigger volumes).

[trnpall]

Bitcoin is at $16B marketcap, so at the same cap it would be almost 50 cents per zeitcoin

[kiklo]

And if we wanted to be REALLY extreme, we could even do a 100-for-1 reverse split. Bring our effective price to around 50-100 satoshi (which is far more preferable for trading purposes).

Combined with low inflation, I think this will be value added for our community, considering that...again....we would be able to transition from the litecoin market to the bitcoin market without affecting our actual overall market cap (which is meaningless anyways).

I think it is an idea that is really worth thinking. ZEIT has extremely big numbers which, I think, tend to confuse people. Cutting two or three zeros would bring us to the teritory where normal people can imagine the numbers and the value they represent. Bitcoin is already quite complicated with 8 digits after the decimal point, and having billions in front of the comma makes it completely blurry.

It is an idea, a very bad idea.  

I think the part where I mention it would decrease Network Security is getting lost somewhere in our communications.  

If you want to see how little use a reverse swap can be, go over to Colossus coin , where they did a 20 to 1 reverse swap.
It made no difference for their coin whatsoever.

There are 7½ Billion People on the planet, I think having only ~4.9 coins per person is not an unreasonable stretch by any means.

 

FYI:
Why Reverse Splits in stocks are Bad.
http://www.mylocation.net/reverse_Split_information.htm

A reverse split is simply a maneuver to get a stock up above $1 and thus free of the danger zone that gets companies booted off an exchange.
Managers typically cobble together as many shares as it takes to get one share worth more than $5 to win their reprieve.

Though the intentions seem sound, it’s better to look at a reverse split as a flashing red light warning that you may need to kick a stock out of your portfolio.
As many as 75% of all stocks wind up trading lower after a reverse split.

[trnpall]

Total Coins for Zeit is fine, just have to get the marketcap to grow
Maybe a Pool that mines scrypt coins that pays out in zeit would help with trade volume

[darslander]

In 4 days will be no more pos and price will go till 5 sat maybe  . It will be nice time .

[kiklo]

In 4 days will be no more pos and price will go till 5 sat maybe  . It will be nice time .

Actually PoS will still be 5% until sometime around April of 2017.
Our Dev Rent_a_Ray is tied up until then.

So Stake now so you can get as much ZEIT as possible before the price starts rising.  

There will be a wallet update a few weeks, before the change happens.


 

[uki]

And if we wanted to be REALLY extreme, we could even do a 100-for-1 reverse split. Bring our effective price to around 50-100 satoshi (which is far more preferable for trading purposes).

Combined with low inflation, I think this will be value added for our community, considering that...again....we would be able to transition from the litecoin market to the bitcoin market without affecting our actual overall market cap (which is meaningless anyways).

I think it is an idea that is really worth thinking. ZEIT has extremely big numbers which, I think, tend to confuse people. Cutting two or three zeros would bring us to the teritory where normal people can imagine the numbers and the value they represent. Bitcoin is already quite complicated with 8 digits after the decimal point, and having billions in front of the comma makes it completely blurry.

It is an idea, a very bad idea.  

I think the part where I mention it would decrease Network Security is getting lost somewhere in our communications.  

If you want to see how little use a reverse swap can be, go over to Colossus coin , where they did a 20 to 1 reverse swap.
It made no difference for their coin whatsoever.

There are 7½ Billion People on the planet, I think having only ~4.9 coins per person is not an unreasonable stretch by any means.

 

FYI:
Why Reverse Splits in stocks are Bad.
http://www.mylocation.net/reverse_Split_information.htm

A reverse split is simply a maneuver to get a stock up above $1 and thus free of the danger zone that gets companies booted off an exchange.
Managers typically cobble together as many shares as it takes to get one share worth more than $5 to win their reprieve.

Though the intentions seem sound, it’s better to look at a reverse split as a flashing red light warning that you may need to kick a stock out of your portfolio.
As many as 75% of all stocks wind up trading lower after a reverse split.

I can give a few counter examples where a swap put life into a coin that before the swap was followed only by a small group of people, like ZEIT now.
Take XDE2 for example, as this one is very related to ZEIT situation: they changed the total coinage, adjusted PoS rates and did the swap. Before the swap there were only 100 coins and a tiny PoS.
They wanted to extend the number of coins, increase the PoS for a while and made the fork. It worked fine, and the group of people that follow the coin increased. Also they didn't get delisted from any exchange.

I can also give few examples, from FIAT world, of countries where cutting three or four zeros, brought back people's value perception to the normal levels.

Last but not least, talking about 5 per each person on Earth sounds very megalomaniac to me, if we struggle to get 1BTC volume on all exchanges combined on a stable basis. Sorry, but that is ZEIT's reality and it has been like that over a long time already. If we aim for MASS ADOPTION that is exactly the argument against having so many coins and big numbers: things that are successful in a big scale have to be simple enough so that many can easily understand them. There are plenty examples of nice things that were misunderstood by people and thus never have been adopted in mass, although the inventors were rock-solid convinced that this was the idea.

[kiklo]

I can give a few counter examples where a swap put life into a coin that before the swap was followed only by a small group of people, like ZEIT now.
Take XDE2 for example, as this one is very related to ZEIT situation: they changed the total coinage, adjusted PoS rates and did the swap. Before the swap there were only 100 coins and a tiny PoS.
They wanted to extend the number of coins, increase the PoS for a while and made the fork. It worked fine, and the group of people that follow the coin increased. Also they didn't get delisted from any exchange.

I can also give few examples, from FIAT world, of countries where cutting three or four zeros, brought back people's value perception to the normal levels.

Last but not least, talking about 5 per each person on Earth sounds very megalomaniac to me, if we struggle to get 1BTC volume on all exchanges combined on a stable basis. Sorry, but that is ZEIT's reality and it has been like that over a long time already. If we aim for MASS ADOPTION that is exactly the argument against having so many coins and big numbers: things that are successful in a big scale have to be simple enough so that many can easily understand them. There plenty examples of nice things that were misunderstood by people and thus never been adopted in mass, although the inventors were rock solid convinced that was the idea.

XDE2 is an interesting example, considering the XDE community voted against it , and Vegasguy did it anyway.  
He kind of completely ignored the votes & community.
When they swapped correct me if I am wrong , but did they not increase the # of coins instead of decreasing.
They also created special wallets (People could Buy) that had a higher staking rate than the standard free wallets, (You think that is fair, I don't).

They are on Yobit and they paid to be on it.
What is impressive, it is one of the few wallets on Yobit not in maintenance mode.
The original xde is in maintenance mode on yobit.

All a reverse split will do is hurt our market cap, there is no point to it.

People perception of the size of the coin is not a problem, the constantly refilling of our enemies Sell Walls is the problem, having too high an interest rate is the Problem.

Lowering the inflation rate alone will get us where we need to be.
Notice the only coin going up in value is BTC, because they make less than 2000 coins per day, when we make the switch we will only be making ~500 coins per day.
Our Price will rise, because our inflation will finally be under control and not crushing us at the exchanges.


 

FYI:
Simply Put,
Vote Yes , if you want ZEIT to Survive & Thrive , and your coins to have a growing value.

Vote No , and we die a slow death from hyper inflation, and your coins become worthless

[uki]

I can give a few counter examples where a swap put life into a coin that before the swap was followed only by a small group of people, like ZEIT now.
Take XDE2 for example, as this one is very related to ZEIT situation: they changed the total coinage, adjusted PoS rates and did the swap. Before the swap there were only 100 coins and a tiny PoS.
They wanted to extend the number of coins, increase the PoS for a while and made the fork. It worked fine, and the group of people that follow the coin increased. Also they didn't get delisted from any exchange.

I can also give few examples, from FIAT world, of countries where cutting three or four zeros, brought back people's value perception to the normal levels.

Last but not least, talking about 5 per each person on Earth sounds very megalomaniac to me, if we struggle to get 1BTC volume on all exchanges combined on a stable basis. Sorry, but that is ZEIT's reality and it has been like that over a long time already. If we aim for MASS ADOPTION that is exactly the argument against having so many coins and big numbers: things that are successful in a big scale have to be simple enough so that many can easily understand them. There plenty examples of nice things that were misunderstood by people and thus never been adopted in mass, although the inventors were rock solid convinced that was the idea.

XDE2 is an interesting example, considering the XDE community voted against it , and Vegasguy did it anyway.  
He kind of completely ignored the votes & community.
When they swapped correct me if I am wrong , but did they not increase the # of coins instead of decreasing.
They also created special wallets (People could Buy) that had a higher staking rate than the standard free wallets, (You think that is fair, I don't).

They are on Yobit and they paid to be on it.
What is impressive, it is one of the few wallets on Yobit not in maintenance mode.
The original xde is in maintenance mode on yobit.

All a reverse split will do is hurt our market cap, there is no point to it.

People perception of the size of the coin is not a problem, the constantly refilling of our enemies Sell Walls is the problem, having too high an interest rate is the Problem.

Lowering the inflation rate alone will get us where we need to be.
Notice the only coin going up in value is BTC, because they make less than 2000 coins per day, when we make the switch we will only be making ~500 coins per day.
Our Price will rise, because our inflation will finally be under control and not crushing us at the exchanges.


 

FYI:
Simply Put,
Vote Yes , if you want ZEIT to Survive & Thrive , and your coins to have a growing value.

Vote No , and we die a slow death from hyper inflation, and your coins become worthless

I brought XDE example on purpose as it is very similar to ZEIT. XDE Coin before the swap was in the same development stage as ZEIT is right now. I was one of the early holders who initially was voting in favour of that swap. I didn't agree on the implementation details (paid wallets, his payment) and how Vegas took over the coin, but he was right in one thing, namely, the coin needed changes to induce some life into it. He made the swap with 7:1 ratio (1 old coins got 7 new, increasing the number of coins), increased the PoS and increased the total coinage. Apart from that some development was made, although it was mostly wallet cosmetics. The end effect  was to have bigger community and more volume.

Regarding ZEIT, as I wrote in my previous post, we need some rudimentary development in the first place, the parameters of the coin are something secondary. Otherwise, we are one of the poorly developed coins that has not much to offer. If we, however, want to adjust the parameters, I would cut the total number of coins as well (we may put it on vote as well to see what the others think - till April there is some time left). 1:1000 swap would be a good compromise in my opinion.

As for the market cap. It is about the total volume, and not the product of total volume and the coinage, what is relevant and representative. This market cap term is just bull..t. Point. It is extremely important to understand the difference, and I see that you kiklo miss this point completely. Having 1 zillion of coins and the price on some minor exchange with 0.1BTC daily volume, doesn't mean that you will be able to sell all coins in circulation for that price. Meaning that the real market cap is MUCH LOWER THAN the product of the coinage and the current price.

[solarion]

Totally with kiklo here. A reverse split seems like a horrible idea both from a consistency and a security perspective.

[uki]

Totally with kiklo here. A reverse split seems like a horrible idea both from a consistency and a security perspective.

What is wrong with security, if you have a trusted third party for such a swap?

[solarion]

Was thinking about long term blockchain security not security during the process, but that's also an issue imo.

[kiklo]

Totally with kiklo here. A reverse split seems like a horrible idea both from a consistency and a security perspective.

What is wrong with security, if you have a trusted third party for such a swap?

This is the part you keep missing and one thing the original programmer did perfectly.
The more coins there are , the more protected a Proof of Stake coin is.


hashProofOfStake is what protects our blocks from being overwritten, by long or short range or history rewrite attacks.


hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]      
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

Example
Amount of coins in a staked block = 10000
Difficulty =2
Days in Stake = 5

[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
      50000 =   10000   x  5

hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]   
         100000         = 50000       x   2

If we decrease /reverse swap by 100 to 1
then the Amount of coins in a staked block = 100

[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
      500 =   100   x  5

hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]   
         1000         = 500      x   2

Instead of a hashProofOfStake of 100000 protecting the block, then our security will be 100 times weaker if we go with a reverse swap.
Which would make us more vulnerable to all kinds of nasty attacks that we are currently invulnerable too.

Reverse Swap is a bad idea on many different levels, security being the most important one.

 

[kiklo]

In the US is leaving Encryption Alone News 

http://themerkle.com/us-house-judiciary-committee-states-weakened-encryption-is-not-the-solution/

Weakening Encryption is Never The Answer

Shortsightedness and lack of understanding are two driving factors behind the war against encryption. Governments and law enforcement agencies seem to think of encryption tools as implications that facilitate terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as technology has no bias, nor is it created to favor criminality over normal behavior or vice versa.

Proposing measures to weaken encryption would not be in the national interest, according to the report. This statement cannot be echoed loudly enough, as weakened encryption opens the floodgates for more cyber attacks, hacking, and privacy invasion. Those are the least things that our information-driven society needs right now. A lot of information is falling into the wrong hands every month, mostly due to weak encryption or other sub-par security measures.

One thing a lot of government officials and law enforcement agencies tend to forget is how encryption exists well beyond their jurisdictions. The vast majority of encryption tools are globally available and used by millions, if not billions of people. Should their security and privacy be sacrificed to make a few additional arrests every year? The answer to that question should be a solid, “no”.

It is good to see the US House Judiciary Committee vote against backdoors, although it remains to be seen how the situation will evolve.

 

[6436346346]

I wasn't referring to changing interest rate, just adjusting the total coin supply lower/shifting the decimal to the left.

I don't really see any point of doing that.
Since Cryptopia keeps a track of their number of coins by an internal blockchain,
odds are it would break their accounting and cause a delisting anyway, since their decimal points would no longer align with our wallets.

 

FYI:
What we are doing is inflation control by reducing the interest rate , we are not decreasing anyone's current amount of coins.
 

The policy is around the blockchain itself, so if there is a change to historic transactions the coin needs to be relisted as we cannot change our internal blockchain, its immutable.

Because every transaction, trade, transfer deposit, withdrawal is stored in our ledger even a small change to the blockchain can have a butterfly affect on users accounts, there are a few reasons why we chose this method, mainly as there is no way to have a balance discrepancy as your balance is not a number in the database, but the sum of all inputs, outputs in the Cryptopia ledger, blockchain is perfect for exchange accounting

That being said, ZEIT has its own unique id in our ledger, so if there is a change to a chain that requires a swap or a change to historical operations it can be relisted because its a new coin, if you change a blockchain then its a entirely new coin with the same name, so we have to treat it the same way internally.


Anyway, rambling now...


The last think we want to do at Cryptopia is hinder a coins development with its policies.

So we are happy to relist ZEIT free of charge if you guys go ahead with a swap or whatever, ZEIT has been on Cryptopia for quite some time and has a strong community and we are happy to work with you guys


Cheers
sa_ddam213

[kiklo]

Thanks Sa_ddam213,

Due to the fact a reverse swap would seriously decrease our security & it would hamper our Marketcap growth, I sincerely doubt one will happen.

There will be a Hard fork sometime around April of 2017 with the following changes:

1.  Interest rate change to 0.0005% (0.000005) per year.  (Ultra Low Inflation)
2.  Minimum Stake Age Changed to 1 Day
3.  Blocks no longer Split after staking, stake amount just adds to the block amount.

I will contact you guys by support channels , in plenty of time before the fork takes effect.

Thanks again for all of your hard work. 

 

[igigme77]

What's the team speak id like to join and see if we can get a real life meet up going so I can meet some of the Knights personally.

I don't believe that team speak server is active anymore.
Many of the Knights revere their privacy, so I am not sure how well it will work out.
Plus considering how the price per coin will rise in the next few years & the fact many legal issues have yet to be resolved in all countries,
they may not want to give clues to their real id at the present time.

 

FYI:
Once the Knights numbers are near 300 , I can see us having a yearly get together,
my vote will be for Bali. 

Im interested in Bali and Id love to come but how can we get a direct line of communication going?

[kiklo]

Im interested in Bali and Id love to come but how can we get a direct line of communication going?

Just PM the ones you want to talk with.
But many of the Knights revere their privacy,
so if they don't do direct communications like skype, don't take it personally.

 

[kiklo]

In the Why the Government can no longer be trusted to Control FIAT News

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Venezuela-receives-more-new-banknotes--but-scarcity-persists_84885

Maduro’s announcement that the 100-bolivar notes would suddenly no longer be legal tender provoked long lines of people trying to change them, and looting and rioting in some areas, resulting in four deaths.

In the Liquid FIAT News ?   
https://news.co.cr/cuba-seeks-pay-international-debt-rum/54485/

Last week, AOL.com reported that the Cuban government wants to settle a debt with The Czech Republic in a rather alternative,
but perhaps attractive way: with liquor.

Apparently a bit short on cash as the country emerges out of decades of communist rule,
Cuba hopes to pay off this Cold War debt with none other than their famous rum.

According to Bloomberg News, the debt is estimated at $270 million.

Cuba has already sent about $2 million worth of last year’s rum production to the Czechs, but there is no official “yes” response to Havana officials on the proposed deal.

With over $268 million remaining to be settled, Cuba better hope the Czechs start guzzling those Cuba Libres, or it could take more than a century to settle the debt, said AOL.