[ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released

[altcoinUK]

Just sit and hold tight. We will get there

and by sitting and holding tight the value will go up how? i love those slogans, just repeat them from time to time and everything will be ok 

Exactly, that's what I was trying to argue yesterday, but the cheerlading brigade argument is that if you hold the coin then the value will increase, so it seems that's the main strategy for growth.

[1714173137]

1714173137

[altcoinUK]

It seems from the discussions and brain storming during the week in this thread that many of us strongly believe the blockchain 2 development could save this coin and start increasing the price in this difficult altcoin market. It's quite clear that the blockchain 2 development is very important for many bag holders, investors and probably potential investors as well. EffectToCause dev indicated in this thread yesterday that a white paper is coming from the devs on the subject. Would be it possible to know when the white paper will be published please? I am not asking definite due date, but are we talking about days, weeks or months regarding the time frame of blockchain 2 white paper release?

[Shinraven]

It seems from the discussions and brain storming during the week in this thread that many of us strongly believe the blockchain 2 development could save this coin and start increasing the price in this difficult altcoin market. It's quite clear that the blockchain 2 development is very important for many bag holders, investors and probably potential investors as well. EffectToCause dev indicated in this thread yesterday that a white paper is coming from the devs on the subject. Would be it possible to know when the white paper will be published please? I am not asking definite due date, but are we talking about days, weeks or months regarding the time frame of blockchain 2 white paper release?

For the past few days, the communication between the community has been positive, I know people have questions and they should since they invested. I really love how the devs have been coming here to clear the air and layout upcoming plans. 

[Xosihc]

2. Interest is compounded continuously with consideration of the 8 hour "cooldown" period after a successful stake. Essentially, it's compounded at every ~8 hours or so, on average.

Hey, thanks for the quick reply! So from my understanding if one was to stake 24/7 the compounding period would be every 8 hours. So the difference between staking once a year vs. 24/7 would be as follows?

Staking once a year: (FV) = 100,000*(1+0.0225) = 102,250 VRC
Staking 24/7 (FV) = 100,000*(1+(0.0225/(365*3)))^(365*3))= 102,275.5

So you basically get an extra 0.02% of interest  

Yes this on average would be correct. Also however if you have your wallet open 24/7 you would also earn the transaction fees for every stake block you get. So the transaction fees earned will be more numerous if open 24/7 as the coinage will be more continuous.

Ohhh that's right, I forgot to calculate transaction fees. Well thank you very much for taking the time to break this down (as well as for PNosker for his time). I appreciate the response and am happier for now knowing more about how it works. 

[altcoinUK]

It seems from the discussions and brain storming during the week in this thread that many of us strongly believe the blockchain 2 development could save this coin and start increasing the price in this difficult altcoin market. It's quite clear that the blockchain 2 development is very important for many bag holders, investors and probably potential investors as well. EffectToCause dev indicated in this thread yesterday that a white paper is coming from the devs on the subject. Would be it possible to know when the white paper will be published please? I am not asking definite due date, but are we talking about days, weeks or months regarding the time frame of blockchain 2 white paper release?

For the past few days, the communication between the community has been positive, I know people have questions and they should since they invested. I really love how the devs have been coming here to clear the air and layout upcoming plans. 

Yes, I fully agree. The coin is basically the devs and it is very important how the devs handle the communication with the community. If there is an impression that the coin is developed by an elitist, arrogant dev team that attitude is that this our coin, we do what we want and we don't have to say anything for bag holders then that probably isn't the best selling point for the coin. If the coin developed by a team that don't mind to spend 5-10 minutes a day to communicate with the community here (which seems is the case in the last 1-2 days) then that sends a nice message to potential investors.

I had a lot and still have viacoin and I don't mind at all the 240 BTC volume there and I could realize very reasonable BTC profit with viacoin in the last 24 hours, but as a vericoin bag holder it breaks my heart that at least a good portion of that viacoin money could come here if the community-devs communication would be a bit better, the cheerleading brigade would stop spreading the usual nonsense and the devs would put more focus on developing blockchain 2 features.

[pnosker]

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

26.8M coins exist (26,811,507 right now to be exact). http://chainz.cryptoid.info/vrc has a realtime count of coins in the blockchain. There is no discrepency with the total coins in existence-- just that you didn't understand that network stake weight is not exactly the same as total coin count.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

I think Barrabas you have raised a very valid point (usually you do) by questioning the difference between the network weight and number of actual staking coins. It's quite encouraging that the devs made effort to address the issue by answering here and have listened you, and then EffectsToCasuse said a new function will be in a new release to provide users with the number of actual staking coins.

To go forward I would suggest don't be so harsh with the devs please. I have been also very critical with the devs, but these young guys obviously aren't scammers. I guess under pressure people make unwise moves like moving 200k to bittrex, but the fact that Pnosker disclosed this info himself indicate that it wasn't a malicious action. Pnosker is trying his best to address all rumours about him and he made clear that he didn't buy any BMW M3 from the vericoin money, he is still committed to the project, he is not dumping his coins, he didn't move the 200K to bittrex to dump it. Plus these guys offer a very transparent process for investors by putting their name in the public domain.
In my opinion there is a very positive change in the last 1-2 days, namely that the devs started to talk to the community in this thread and instead of just communicating with their cheerleading brigade they started to interact with the investors, bag holders, potential new investors of this thread as well. I guess we shouldn't alienate the devs from this process, let's keep the momentum going, let them deliver something that hopefully change the down trend.

I don't even have an M3... just a 2008 135i ($16k on the used market now) :-p. Also, I've been dealing with a lot of stuff over the past couple of weeks and have been quite preoccupied by it. Sorry for being somewhat absent. I'm back now, though!

[altcoinUK]

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

26.8M coins exist (26,811,507 right now to be exact). http://chainz.cryptoid.info/vrc has a realtime count of coins in the blockchain. There is no discrepency with the total coins in existence-- just that you didn't understand that network stake weight is not exactly the same as total coin count.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

I think Barrabas you have raised a very valid point (usually you do) by questioning the difference between the network weight and number of actual staking coins. It's quite encouraging that the devs made effort to address the issue by answering here and have listened you, and then EffectsToCasuse said a new function will be in a new release to provide users with the number of actual staking coins.

To go forward I would suggest don't be so harsh with the devs please. I have been also very critical with the devs, but these young guys obviously aren't scammers. I guess under pressure people make unwise moves like moving 200k to bittrex, but the fact that Pnosker disclosed this info himself indicate that it wasn't a malicious action. Pnosker is trying his best to address all rumours about him and he made clear that he didn't buy any BMW M3 from the vericoin money, he is still committed to the project, he is not dumping his coins, he didn't move the 200K to bittrex to dump it. Plus these guys offer a very transparent process for investors by putting their name in the public domain.
In my opinion there is a very positive change in the last 1-2 days, namely that the devs started to talk to the community in this thread and instead of just communicating with their cheerleading brigade they started to interact with the investors, bag holders, potential new investors of this thread as well. I guess we shouldn't alienate the devs from this process, let's keep the momentum going, let them deliver something that hopefully change the down trend.

I don't even have an M3... just a 2008 135i ($16k on the used market now) :-p. Also, I've been dealing with a lot of stuff over the past couple of weeks and have been quite preoccupied by it. Sorry for being somewhat absent. I'm back now, though!

I understood you don't have and it was very kind of you answering and dealing with that nonsensical rumours at the time when it was mentioned. I can imagine you did not start this process to deal with this all kind of nonsenses, but on the other hand when people losing so much money like they do with vericoin only you can explain that everything is legit and you did it, and thanks for that. Thanks for doing the project and hopefully your team can continue to develop the coin, and then we bag holders feel a bit better about holding and even buying more.

[barabbas]

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

26.8M coins exist (26,811,507 right now to be exact). http://chainz.cryptoid.info/vrc has a realtime count of coins in the blockchain. There is no discrepency with the total coins in existence-- just that you didn't understand that network stake weight is not exactly the same as total coin count.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

I think Barrabas you have raised a very valid point (usually you do) by questioning the difference between the network weight and number of actual staking coins. It's quite encouraging that the devs made effort to address the issue by answering here and have listened you, and then EffectsToCasuse said a new function will be in a new release to provide users with the number of actual staking coins.

To go forward I would suggest don't be so harsh with the devs please. I have been also very critical with the devs, but these young guys obviously aren't scammers. I guess under pressure people make unwise moves like moving 200k to bittrex, but the fact that Pnosker disclosed this info himself indicate that it wasn't a malicious action. Pnosker is trying his best to address all rumours about him and he made clear that he didn't buy any BMW M3 from the vericoin money, he is still committed to the project, he is not dumping his coins, he didn't move the 200K to bittrex to dump it. Plus these guys offer a very transparent process for investors by putting their name in the public domain.
In my opinion there is a very positive change in the last 1-2 days, namely that the devs started to talk to the community in this thread and instead of just communicating with their cheerleading brigade they started to interact with the investors, bag holders, potential new investors of this thread as well. I guess we shouldn't alienate the devs from this process, let's keep the momentum going, let them deliver something that hopefully change the down trend.

I don't think I am hard at all simply putting out very obvious concerns of everyone that is invested in this coin. I mean, I have been stating many times during the past weeks how strong this community is in support of the coin, based on those staking numbers and now I have discovered they are absolutely meaningless. Not only that, while not-too-sharp choir boy socal and other fan boys put on the tin foil to "explain" the spiral in price, the apparent growth of staking figures made almost impossible for anyone to have any coins at the exchanges. And a lot of people do. And a lot of people, is, obviously, selling. Much more than buying (that's why the price goes down). So I believe I have been actually quite mild in clearing up a bit -still far from being quite clear, by the way-, the mess of the "fake" numbers (for lack of a better word).

Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake). Patrick has kindly try his best at explaining that somehow, even though they are staking, the whole interest to be created, yearly, will not increment to more than 2.5% annually. That's reassuring but certainly it doesn't look even remotely that way from what we now know... which is very little.

This divergence between the real coins and the Phantom coins staking, according to Doug, the wallet man, would not be "too much bigger"... I hope I have demonstrated clearly that the difference can be as significant as to actually DOUBLE the number of the real coins: My contention is that while the Phantom number reached over 28 million yesterday, they real number could be, in fact, half of that. Or even less. And I explained why: The amount of coins currently deposited in the exchanges and NOT STAKING, in my opinion would be at least 6-8 million, probably more. Add to that the "in transit" coins or otherwise not live (staking) coins -they need a minimum of 8 hours to begin staking-, and you can end up with a lot of coins that are not staking and therefore are not part of of those record 28+m.

Finally, additionally, 28+ million coins staking stake quite a bit of coins. Those staked coins are not PHANTOM coins, they are real. So real that, after 8 hours, they stake themselves, thus increasing the total number of coins in existence. Again, Patrick insisted that no more than 2.5% will be staked by any coin in any year. That's, again, reassuring, but the reality of the picture I just put, again, in perspective, makes it quite difficult to really believe.

I believe these are matters of great significance and need to be clear out completely so investors know where they have invested and retain their confidence in the project. Much more important that the spiral of the price that I have pointed out many times already is not VRC's affair but every other similar coin out there.

As for the not-so-sharp, bots are not market manipulators, bots are machine traders programmed to buy and sell minimal amounts for minimal profits. They don't manipulate the price at all. If a bot buys 800 sat below the previous price, 20 VRC, that's not manipulating anything, just following a program. The bot will buy just the same if the price is propped up by a big buyer. And will sell it likewise, regardless of the price. Once again: The price is going down for the simplest and always true of reasons: There are more sellers than buyers.

Also clarifying for the not-so-sharp, volume is quite different from inflows. The former indicates there's trading taken place; the later indicates there's investing occurring. If one or more traders take it to VRC and they buy and sell a lot, not only they do it but the bots also do it -that's what their program does-, thus resulting in very high volume... and not necessarily any real movement in price; on the other hand if a lot of people buys VRC but don't sell it, it is called inflow and means people is investing, buying VRC, bringing new money to it. And the price, mathematically, goes higher. In technical terms, it is called hitting the bid (dumping) or hitting the ask (pumping). Clear now Will?

[Xosihc]

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

26.8M coins exist (26,811,507 right now to be exact). http://chainz.cryptoid.info/vrc has a realtime count of coins in the blockchain. There is no discrepency with the total coins in existence-- just that you didn't understand that network stake weight is not exactly the same as total coin count.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

I think Barrabas you have raised a very valid point (usually you do) by questioning the difference between the network weight and number of actual staking coins. It's quite encouraging that the devs made effort to address the issue by answering here and have listened you, and then EffectsToCasuse said a new function will be in a new release to provide users with the number of actual staking coins.

To go forward I would suggest don't be so harsh with the devs please. I have been also very critical with the devs, but these young guys obviously aren't scammers. I guess under pressure people make unwise moves like moving 200k to bittrex, but the fact that Pnosker disclosed this info himself indicate that it wasn't a malicious action. Pnosker is trying his best to address all rumours about him and he made clear that he didn't buy any BMW M3 from the vericoin money, he is still committed to the project, he is not dumping his coins, he didn't move the 200K to bittrex to dump it. Plus these guys offer a very transparent process for investors by putting their name in the public domain.
In my opinion there is a very positive change in the last 1-2 days, namely that the devs started to talk to the community in this thread and instead of just communicating with their cheerleading brigade they started to interact with the investors, bag holders, potential new investors of this thread as well. I guess we shouldn't alienate the devs from this process, let's keep the momentum going, let them deliver something that hopefully change the down trend.

I don't think I am hard at all simply putting out very obvious concerns of everyone that is invested in this coin. I mean, I have been stating many times during the past weeks how strong this community is in support of the coin, based on those staking numbers and now I have discovered they are absolutely meaningless. Not only that, while not-too-sharp choir boy socal and other fan boys put on the tin foil to "explain" the spiral in price, the apparent growth of staking figures made almost impossible for anyone to have any coins at the exchanges. And a lot of people do. And a lot of people, is, obviously, selling. Much more than buying (that's why the price goes down). So I believe I have been actually quite mild in clearing up a bit -still far from being quite clear, by the way-, the mess of the "fake" numbers (for lack of a better word).

Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake). Patrick has kindly try his best at explaining that somehow, even though they are staking, the whole interest to be created, yearly, will not increment to more than 2.5% annually. That's reassuring but certainly it doesn't look even remotely that way from what we now know... which is very little.

This divergence between the real coins and the Phantom coins staking, according to Doug, the wallet man, would not be "too much bigger"... I hope I have demonstrated clearly that the difference can be as significant as to actually DOUBLE the number of the real coins: My contention is that while the Phantom number reached over 28 million yesterday, they real number could be, in fact, half of that. Or even less. And I explained why: The amount of coins currently deposited in the exchanges and NOT STAKING, in my opinion would be at least 6-8 million, probably more. Add to that the "in transit" coins or otherwise not live (staking) coins -they need a minimum of 8 hours to begin staking-, and you can end up with a lot of coins that are not staking and therefore are not part of of those record 28+m.

Finally, additionally, 28+ million coins staking stake quite a bit of coins. Those staked coins are not PHANTOM coins, they are real. So real that, after 8 hours, they stake themselves, thus increasing the total number of coins in existence. Again, Patrick insisted that no more than 2.5% will be staked by any coin in any year. That's, again, reassuring, but the reality of the picture I just put, again, in perspective, makes it quite difficult to really believe.

I believe these are matters of great significance and need to be clear out completely so investors know where they have invested and retain their confidence in the project. Much more important that the spiral of the price that I have pointed out many times already is not VRC's affair but every other similar coin out there.

As for the not-so-sharp, bots are not market manipulators, bots are machine traders programmed to buy and sell minimal amounts for minimal profits. They don't manipulate the price at all. If a bot buys 800 sat below the previous price, 20 VRC, that's not manipulating anything, just following a program. The bot will buy just the same if the price is propped up by a big buyer. And will sell it likewise, regardless of the price. Once again: The price is going down for the simplest and always true of reasons: There are more sellers than buyers.

Also clarifying for the not-so-sharp, volume is quite different from inflows. The former indicates there's trading taken place; the later indicates there's investing occurring. If one or more traders take it to VRC and they buy and sell a lot, not only they do it but the bots also do it -that's what their program does-, thus resulting in very high volume... and not necessarily any real movement in price; on the other hand if a lot of people buys VRC but don't sell it, it is called inflow and means people is investing, buying VRC, bringing new money to it. And the price, mathematically, goes higher. In technical terms, it is called hitting the bid (dumping) or hitting the ask (pumping). Clear now Will?

Can you please add a tl;dr to the end of that so I can get the sum of what you're saying without wasting 10 minutes of my time? Thanks in advance!

[lootz]

Noob at trading here - but I am looking o invest more in vrc at this price but need some help. Is it better to put buy orders in in many ranges or would it be better to just assist in creating a bigger buy wall at 11k  ?

[Reavon]

Barb... it took me 2 sec of googling that stakeweight is different from total coins are staked it happens that the more coins are stake the higher the stakeweight is. Some  community members, including me, have talking about "12 million coins staked" in the past that was because of lack of understanding or maybe it happend that due to coinage that it was acctually the staked coin amount. But because now many moved their coins to their wallet from exchanges and stake them . those coins have a high coinage -> which leads to higher stakeweight  
High stakeweight means strong network and less sell pressure .

So you dont have to bring people in uncertainty , if i would guess i would say you wait for btc from another coin to finaly buy good so low right now and accumulate there for you. But just my oppinion.

I also wanna say something for mid term trader. Regardless of the development of this coin , vericoin is on some midterm alltime low.
there are people who invest in coins by only looking at the charts and a alltimelow is a buy indicator , maybe the strongest one.

You just need to know 3 things:

Alltime low
+
Obviously serious coin
+
Active devs
=
Buy

I dont even dont know why i am telling you guys , i for myself waiting for my paycheck to buy vericoin at those prices damn :/.

[ScottAllyn]

[...]Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake)[...]

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are no fake numbers, unless you count the ones that you fabricated in your post while attempting to make some point. The stake weight number, which factors in both the quantity AND age of the coins in a block, is a valid number and it's a crucial part of the PoS system.

The crux of the matter is the fact that, while the sum total of the stake weight for every block that's staking is useful for getting a relative feel for how many coins are staking, it can obviously be a misleading number. It would make more sense to the end user for the wallet to display the actual number of coins staking, but as pnosker stated and effects elaborated upon, there is currently no function in place to display that number.

So what should we do? Should we ignorantly shout, "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!" and allude to suspicious behavior on the part of the devs? Or should we perhaps try to understand what that number actually represents and/or ask the devs if they can provide us with a different number that is a more accurate representation of the number of coins staking? I vote for the later.

It sounds like this feature can be added and that effects actually intends to add it to a future build. Let's not beat a dead horse.

[FryguyUK]

things are looking veribad at the moment

[Spoetnik]

it has to triple in value to reach what it was before in value..
i bet a LOT of guys have lost a LOT of money so far..

[InvestorPerson]

it has to triple in value to reach what it was before in value..
i bet a LOT of guys have lost a LOT of money so far..

it will rebound, don't you worry

why? because

-summertime  
-because TA voodoo tells so  
-altcryptos are serious business and not about catching the next pump  
-because "insert name of coin you baghold" will be the next crypto messiah  
-other stupid arguments to keep them bagholders bagholding. or buying more (how evil)


 

edit

almost forgot the evil manipulations that are occuring on all coins across the market

...what else. it's not the lack of interest or new money flowing into the market, no it's manipulating bots

[Xosihc]

Noob at trading here - but I am looking o invest more in vrc at this price but need some help. Is it better to put buy orders in in many ranges or would it be better to just assist in creating a bigger buy wall at 11k  ?

You're definitely better putting in limit orders down the books. I'm actually about to head out for a few hours but I'd be happy to give you a little trading 101 if you're interested PM me.  

Edit: I would suggest right now waiting to see if it can break 10k if it does that then there is a chance it could go a low as 6.5k (which is the previous low)

[luisb]

I am not a mathematician, obviously, but my common sense tells me bundles about the potential repercussions of such a huge number of fictitious coins staking at any given moment, but I'll patiently wait for that update in the wallet that allows everyone to actually know the real number of coins that VRC has for the 26.8 mill given by Patrick is obviously an approximation I don't know based on what... 30 (or more) million coins staking can produce a significant number of additional coins by the day.

26.8M coins exist (26,811,507 right now to be exact). http://chainz.cryptoid.info/vrc has a realtime count of coins in the blockchain. There is no discrepency with the total coins in existence-- just that you didn't understand that network stake weight is not exactly the same as total coin count.

Well it isn't just that I "didn't understand...". It is more like we all are finding out that you really don't know what the wallet can do and that Doug, the wallet man, has a "loose" concept, to say the least, of what "too much bigger (a number)" actually is. And since I hope I have demonstrated the staggering nature of the difference in numbers, it is IMPLIED that it has an equally staggering influence in the number of coins being "mined" through staking.

This is very significant since it all seems -and I certainly hope to be 100% wrong in my assumption- to be so ahead of the "limit" of approximately 2.25% yearly maximum total interest that it's not funny at all. There will be time, very soon indeed, to address the repercussions of those hugely bigger numbers staking, so I won't anticipate anything hoping, indeed, to be somewhat as out of touch with the final interest as Dough is regarding the "too big a number" statement.

I think Barrabas you have raised a very valid point (usually you do) by questioning the difference between the network weight and number of actual staking coins. It's quite encouraging that the devs made effort to address the issue by answering here and have listened you, and then EffectsToCasuse said a new function will be in a new release to provide users with the number of actual staking coins.

To go forward I would suggest don't be so harsh with the devs please. I have been also very critical with the devs, but these young guys obviously aren't scammers. I guess under pressure people make unwise moves like moving 200k to bittrex, but the fact that Pnosker disclosed this info himself indicate that it wasn't a malicious action. Pnosker is trying his best to address all rumours about him and he made clear that he didn't buy any BMW M3 from the vericoin money, he is still committed to the project, he is not dumping his coins, he didn't move the 200K to bittrex to dump it. Plus these guys offer a very transparent process for investors by putting their name in the public domain.
In my opinion there is a very positive change in the last 1-2 days, namely that the devs started to talk to the community in this thread and instead of just communicating with their cheerleading brigade they started to interact with the investors, bag holders, potential new investors of this thread as well. I guess we shouldn't alienate the devs from this process, let's keep the momentum going, let them deliver something that hopefully change the down trend.

I don't think I am hard at all simply putting out very obvious concerns of everyone that is invested in this coin. I mean, I have been stating many times during the past weeks how strong this community is in support of the coin, based on those staking numbers and now I have discovered they are absolutely meaningless. Not only that, while not-too-sharp choir boy socal and other fan boys put on the tin foil to "explain" the spiral in price, the apparent growth of staking figures made almost impossible for anyone to have any coins at the exchanges. And a lot of people do. And a lot of people, is, obviously, selling. Much more than buying (that's why the price goes down). So I believe I have been actually quite mild in clearing up a bit -still far from being quite clear, by the way-, the mess of the "fake" numbers (for lack of a better word).

Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake). Patrick has kindly try his best at explaining that somehow, even though they are staking, the whole interest to be created, yearly, will not increment to more than 2.5% annually. That's reassuring but certainly it doesn't look even remotely that way from what we now know... which is very little.

This divergence between the real coins and the Phantom coins staking, according to Doug, the wallet man, would not be "too much bigger"... I hope I have demonstrated clearly that the difference can be as significant as to actually DOUBLE the number of the real coins: My contention is that while the Phantom number reached over 28 million yesterday, they real number could be, in fact, half of that. Or even less. And I explained why: The amount of coins currently deposited in the exchanges and NOT STAKING, in my opinion would be at least 6-8 million, probably more. Add to that the "in transit" coins or otherwise not live (staking) coins -they need a minimum of 8 hours to begin staking-, and you can end up with a lot of coins that are not staking and therefore are not part of of those record 28+m.

Finally, additionally, 28+ million coins staking stake quite a bit of coins. Those staked coins are not PHANTOM coins, they are real. So real that, after 8 hours, they stake themselves, thus increasing the total number of coins in existence. Again, Patrick insisted that no more than 2.5% will be staked by any coin in any year. That's, again, reassuring, but the reality of the picture I just put, again, in perspective, makes it quite difficult to really believe.

I believe these are matters of great significance and need to be clear out completely so investors know where they have invested and retain their confidence in the project. Much more important that the spiral of the price that I have pointed out many times already is not VRC's affair but every other similar coin out there.

As for the not-so-sharp, bots are not market manipulators, bots are machine traders programmed to buy and sell minimal amounts for minimal profits. They don't manipulate the price at all. If a bot buys 800 sat below the previous price, 20 VRC, that's not manipulating anything, just following a program. The bot will buy just the same if the price is propped up by a big buyer. And will sell it likewise, regardless of the price. Once again: The price is going down for the simplest and always true of reasons: There are more sellers than buyers.

Also clarifying for the not-so-sharp, volume is quite different from inflows. The former indicates there's trading taken place; the later indicates there's investing occurring. If one or more traders take it to VRC and they buy and sell a lot, not only they do it but the bots also do it -that's what their program does-, thus resulting in very high volume... and not necessarily any real movement in price; on the other hand if a lot of people buys VRC but don't sell it, it is called inflow and means people is investing, buying VRC, bringing new money to it. And the price, mathematically, goes higher. In technical terms, it is called hitting the bid (dumping) or hitting the ask (pumping). Clear now Will?

And you must be the *sharpest* vrc investor in this thread for raising doubts publicly about the total number of coins and the integrity of the devs instead of reassuring yourself asking them kindly IN PRIVATE FIRST to clarify this to you via PM and to everyone else in a public post... so either you are

A) really ''smart'', you dumped your vrc and bought cloak or some else shitcoin, so you have an agenda coming here to spread fear and doubt like bobSLOB and smoothtard

B) seriously retarded, a possibility that I personally doubt but don't exclude, after reviewing your rants and deducing you obviously use at least half your brain

In any case you should be the #1 enemy of vrc in that list, worst than bobSLOB and smoothRETARDATION, but hey on the other hand we really enjoy your trading and english lectures please keep em coming...

[barabbas]

[...]Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake)[...]

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are no fake numbers, unless you count the ones that you fabricated in your post while attempting to make some point. The stake weight number, which factors in both the quantity AND age of the coins in a block, is a valid number and it's a crucial part of the PoS system.

The crux of the matter is the fact that, while the sum total of the stake weight for every block that's staking is useful for getting a relative feel for how many coins are staking, it can obviously be a misleading number. It would make more sense to the end user for the wallet to display the actual number of coins staking, but as pnosker stated and effects elaborated upon, there is currently no function in place to display that number.

So what should we do? Should we ignorantly shout, "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!" and allude to suspicious behavior on the part of the devs? Or should we perhaps try to understand what that number actually represents and/or ask the devs if they can provide us with a different number that is a more accurate representation of the number of coins staking? I vote for the later.

It sounds like this feature can be added and that effects actually intends to add it to a future build. Let's not beat a dead horse.

Well it is not an easy thing to understand... especially if if it not put bin the proper perspective, so there's no beating any dead horse, it is, in fact, a very alive horse no matter how you choose to look at it. And pretending that this is making a mountain out of a mole hill is NOT, definitely, the proper perspective. Whatever this is, is something neither Patrick nor Doug quite understand, which in itself is very worrysome. I think we all agree that it is an immediate need to have a wallet that tells us how many REAL coins are staking at any and all times, that doesn't need repeating and should be implemented as a very top, top priority.

The real worrysome part, though is the "not too much bigger number". Again, it is a hugely bigger number in fact and, so far, we have no idea how such a huge number staking is not going to produce an inflation way superior to 2.5% annually. That is a MAJOR concern, not a mole hill. And, quite frankly, I don't believe the devs actually know how that network weighted stake is going to en up affecting the actual number of coins produced. We, the average investors, certainly do not. You are probably not an average investor and maybe you do know how 28+ million coins staking are going to produce less than 2.5% interest in half that amount of coins. If you do, I'd appreciate enormously that you explain it to me and to all here in layman's terms more or less. To me if 10 million coins stake for a year, the maximum number of new coins produced would be 250k. Now if those same 10 million are indeed REALLY staking, but the phantom figure is 20 million instead, the resulting amount of coin s produced at the end of the year would be 500k instead, thus resulting in a 5% inflation instead of the 2.5%.

I'm sure I'm making my rudimentary calculations erroneously, but I am equally sure you, the devs and other gifted mathematicians can clear fast and easily my error and set me on the right track within seconds. I'll be waiting.

[tazmania]

Do people still use http://vrcstake.ticonerd.com/ as an accurate source of information?

24hr high (%105.16)

28,194,512.391

Total Coins

26,812,034.002

[pnosker]

[...]Perspective: A max of 28+ "coins" were staking yesterday at some point. Historical maximum. Now, since the total coins in existence were 26.8 mill, we have found there are somewhat "ghost", "fake", whatever "coins" that appear in that tracking tool that don't really exist (I am still struggling with how those appear and, more worrysome, DO stake)[...]

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are no fake numbers, unless you count the ones that you fabricated in your post while attempting to make some point. The stake weight number, which factors in both the quantity AND age of the coins in a block, is a valid number and it's a crucial part of the PoS system.

The crux of the matter is the fact that, while the sum total of the stake weight for every block that's staking is useful for getting a relative feel for how many coins are staking, it can obviously be a misleading number. It would make more sense to the end user for the wallet to display the actual number of coins staking, but as pnosker stated and effects elaborated upon, there is currently no function in place to display that number.

So what should we do? Should we ignorantly shout, "THIS IS BULLSHIT!!" and allude to suspicious behavior on the part of the devs? Or should we perhaps try to understand what that number actually represents and/or ask the devs if they can provide us with a different number that is a more accurate representation of the number of coins staking? I vote for the later.

It sounds like this feature can be added and that effects actually intends to add it to a future build. Let's not beat a dead horse.

Well it is not an easy thing to understand... especially if if it not put bin the proper perspective, so there's no beating any dead horse, it is, in fact, a very alive horse no matter how you choose to look at it. And pretending that this is making a mountain out of a mole hill is NOT, definitely, the proper perspective. Whatever this is, is something neither Patrick nor Doug quite understand, which in itself is very worrysome. I think we all agree that it is an immediate need to have a wallet that tells us how many REAL coins are staking at any and all times, that doesn't need repeating and should be implemented as a very top, top priority.

The real worrysome part, though is the "not too much bigger number". Again, it is a hugely bigger number in fact and, so far, we have no idea how such a huge number staking is not going to produce an inflation way superior to 2.5% annually. That is a MAJOR concern, not a mole hill. And, quite frankly, I don't believe the devs actually know how that network weighted stake is going to en up affecting the actual number of coins produced. We, the average investors, certainly do not. You are probably not an average investor and maybe you do know how 28+ million coins staking are going to produce less than 2.5% interest in half that amount of coins. If you do, I'd appreciate enormously that you explain it to me and to all here in layman's terms more or less. To me if 10 million coins stake for a year, the maximum number of new coins produced would be 250k. Now if those same 10 million are indeed REALLY staking, but the phantom figure is 20 million instead, the resulting amount of coin s produced at the end of the year would be 500k instead, thus resulting in a 5% inflation instead of the 2.5%.

I'm sure I'm making my rudimentary calculations erroneously, but I am equally sure you, the devs and other gifted mathematicians can clear fast and easily my error and set me on the right track within seconds. I'll be waiting.

I'm not sure how many times we can say this, but no, there's no "hugely bigger number" of staked coins vs coins. There can never be more than the coin count staked at once. The weight of some of the coins can be slightly higher, say 10% higher, for example. But in no way is this hugely bigger and it's simply how staking works. Every PoS coin has this. I'm not sure where you get your 10M-250k vs 20M number, but that's not possible. The interest rate is the interest rate is the interest rate. There's no fake coins or pseudo coins hovering around. The rate is slightly higher than the real coin count right now because some of those coins weren't staking before and now are so they are gaining the interest from when they were last spent, resetting their coin age.

Imagine this scenario:

You have 1000 VRC, continuously staking. They stake 1095 times a year roughly (365*8 hrs compounded) and earn 1/1095*0.023 (2.3% interest) or 0.0109785203 VRC per stake.
Your friend has 1000 VRC, staking for the first time in 1 month. That means they earn 30*8/1095*0.023 (30 days * 8 hr cycles at 2.3% interest) or 5.04109589 VRC per stake.

For that time when the 1000 VRC staked for the first time in a month is staking, they are earning that month's worth of interest and making the net stake weight slightly higher until their stake is complete.

This is how staking works. This is why the network stake weight is inflated beyond the coin count right now because some coins are staking often due to not having a large coin age. No other PoS coin has ever gone above the total coin count in my memory so nobody has ever noticed this phenomenon before.

But either way, no interest is being earned beyond the ~1.5-2.5% per year. You are full of silliness claiming that there's a "hugely bigger number" of coins staking.