[RE-ANN] GrowthCoin PoW/PoS - 100% per year - Version 1.3.0.1

[unick]

I would like to know how you guys feel about the current PoS interest rate, among other things?

We will need to hard fork the chain in order to fix the bug to get minimum coin age back to 5 days. So why not get creative and suggest changes to the network that also require a hard fork

on the menu we could discuss

• min/max stake age
• yearly % rate
• max PoS block reward
• Network speed (45 second block too fast/slow?)
• is PoW reward halving satisfying
• Transaction fees: Too low/High? should they go to miners or be destroyed?
• Other? ...

Also, current Proof of Stake rewards should be diminishing with difficulty rising, but the way it's been setup is wrong and doesn't take into consideration the diff.  I believe this is an important point.  While High PoS is good and beneficial in the early stages of adoption, it certainly isn't in the long run when adoption is more spread and coin supply is larger.

I would like to get the pulse of the community. I would also like this to be some kind of a brainstorm.  

I think GrowthCoin is pretty awesome the way it is, but improvements are always welcome and discussions alway encouraged

[1714122580]

1714122580

[1714122580]

1714122580

[1714122580]

1714122580

[1714122580]

1714122580

[unick]

A gift from me to GRW community. Built 5 minutes ago from most recent commits.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v95nuqz1lg3xbw4/GrowthCoin-Qt.exe

Ohh, did you change any of the version numbers? I changed at least 3-5 of them. Let me see.

Okej, it's still very much 1.3.0.0 AFAIK.

The only thing I did was put a proper .ico in there, other than that exactly how it is from github.

Thanks PressTab, you're awesome

just wondering if you made a git pull in the directory?  because I'm pretty sure I updated all reference to the .ico file and uploaded a correct version a few commits back. so if it still doesn't work, let me know and I'll fix it.

Not the .ico was corrupted or something. Or maybe it didn't download properly I am not sure at the moment.

ok don't sweat over it, I think I remember it being corrupted or something at some point, but I also changed it.

Make sure you are updated (or clone a clean copy to make sure) and if it's still don't work let me know.

[SolidStateSurvivor]

I would like to know how you guys feel about the current PoS interest rate, among other things?

We will need to hard fork the chain in order to fix the bug to get minimum coin age back to 5 days. So why not get creative and suggest changes to the network that also require a hard fork

on the menu we could discuss

• min/max stake age
• yearly % rate
• max PoS block reward
• Network speed (45 second block too fast/slow?)
• is PoW reward halving satisfying
• Transaction fees: Too low/High? should they go to miners or be destroyed?
• Other? ...

Also, current Proof of Stake rewards should be diminishing with difficulty rising, but the way it's been setup is wrong and doesn't take into consideration the diff.  I believe this is an important point.  While High PoS is good and beneficial in the early stages of adoption, it certainly isn't in the long run when adoption is more spread and coin supply is larger.

I would like to get the pulse of the community. I would also like this to be some kind of a brainstorm.  

I think GrowthCoin is pretty awesome the way it is, but improvements are always welcome and discussions alway encouraged

I have no view on the POS and such, but the halving has occurred when there were just a few people mining it, at diff under 0.2, most of the time. When I mined it solo it was 0.01 or so. Coins with long/high block time, are just a pain in the neck, leave it as it is. Maybe you could lower the transaction fee a little, to say 0.1 and 0.2 max, depends on the value, but also on the block size. I mean who wants to use a coin if the block size is 12.5 and the fees is 0.1 or 0.5 just to use it, in the long run? Min stake age of 5 to 7 days is fine I guess.

After all, this is Growthcoin, after all, it wouldn't be called that if it didn't have a large growth, now would it? Also have to keep up with PHS, HBN and CAP, otherwise it will be left to dry without anyone using, or buying it.

[presstab]

Can someone upload an archive of the latest chain? 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

Can someone upload an archive of the latest chain?  

Let me see if my block chain corresponds with the block explorer.

Is there no way of getting it from grw.blockx.info?

[unick]

Thanks to presstab, you can find the windows Qt with latest commit here

keep in mind this is a pre-release build. It's still safe to use.

https://github.com/iamunick/growthcoin/releases


Let me check for that blockchain file

[unick]

Can someone upload an archive of the latest chain?  

There you go, this is the blk0001.dat renamed to bootstrap.dat for convenience

http://grw.blockx.info/grw_bootstrap_20140711.zip


for anyone wanting to use this file, just copy it over into your datadir, and start your client. The client will read from this file before connecting to other nodes.  If you have a corrupted database this is a quick fix rather then redownloading the whole blockchain.

Just delete the blkindex.dat file and use this bootstrap.dat (or rename your own blk0001.dat file to bootstrap.dat to save some bandwidth )

[unick]

After all, this is Growthcoin, after all, it wouldn't be called that if it didn't have a large growth, now would it? Also have to keep up with PHS, HBN and CAP, otherwise it will be left to dry without anyone using, or buying it.

You are right about being growthcoin, I believe it should GROW but not only the supply, the value too

speaking of PHS, HBN, CAP and others...


PHS has 50% rate
HBN has 100% rate
CAP has 200% rate
TEK has 400% 500% rate
and now HYP has 750% rate


with HBN at 100% and GRW at 100%, it's like we ride the same bus... so we could crank up the volume a tiny bit to 150% or be crazy and jump it to 1000% just for the sake of Grrrrowing

if we decide to go to 1000%, I think we should cap it in some way to keep the inflation at a minimum.

I'm not sure about 1000%, at least not at the stage that we are right now (meaning having already ~30 millions coins in circulation).  but then again it could be a fun thing to try!

[Jamesco]

Wow great work, I also think if a hard fork is on the cards we should get brainstorming about some new ideas we could implement. We also know that GRW has ALOT of unused accounts and we want as many active people in the community as possible. I was wondering would there be any way to to program the client to reject X account from staking or rejecting X client from connecting to the network if its coins are too old(over 1 year+) or something of the like? Manual readdition could also be possible if the community wanted it as well.

I know this sounds over the top but if there was such a way to do this we could set up creative ways for a coin to keep its community members active. I mean hypothetically if we really got a lot of community development going, raised the coins value with some good true hard work, theres nothing stopping an old dormant holder realising after all this time, great ill cash in on the community and crash the price. Maybe it could be a way as such to reward active community development because while I know Unick is adding constant value developing, getting a nice community together to help out would be a nice touch as well!

Anyway this is just a random idea, if we are going to fork we could have come cool possibilities thrown into the mix!

Edit: Just read your idea Unick about the 1000% stake, interesting but I think would only work with a decrease in current supply, would this be possible? Like a trade in 4-1 or something of the like?

[noise23]

with HBN at 100% and GRW at 100%, it's like we ride the same bus... so we could crank up the volume a tiny bit to 150% or be crazy and jump it to 1000% just for the sake of Grrrrowing

1000% probably will kill GRW value very fast. Increase to 150% or so could be a good idea though

[presstab]

After all, this is Growthcoin, after all, it wouldn't be called that if it didn't have a large growth, now would it? Also have to keep up with PHS, HBN and CAP, otherwise it will be left to dry without anyone using, or buying it.

You are right about being growthcoin, I believe it should GROW but not only the supply, the value too

speaking of PHS, HBN, CAP and others...


PHS has 50% rate
HBN has 100% rate
CAP has 200% rate
TEK has 400% rate
and now HYP has 750% rate


with HBN at 100% and GRW at 100%, it's like we ride the same bus... so we could crank up the volume a tiny bit to 150% or be crazy and jump it to 1000% just for the sake of Grrrrowing

if we decide to go to 1000%, I think we should cap it in some way to keep the inflation at a minimum.

I'm not sure about 1000%, at least not at the stage that we are right now (meaning having already ~30 millions coins in circulation).  but then again it could be a fun thing to try!

TEK is 500%, and yes HYP is 750%. I made HYP 750% as first and experiment, and second to have a lot of fun. I am not sure if passed 750% can work or not.

GRW already has a fairly big coin supply. I think it might make sense to add a extreme PoS only if you make the stake age something like 50 days. So you get a large reward, but you have to have proof of commitment.

Also I would just get rid of the NovaCoin diff adjustment, I think it is garbage that is inconsistent. I mean GetKernalPoS() isnt even accurate it seems like.

Just some really random thoughts from me ha ha.

[unick]

Wow great work, I also think if a hard fork is on the cards we should get brainstorming about some new ideas we could implement. We also know that GRW has ALOT of unused accounts and we want as many active people in the community as possible. I was wondering would there be any way to to program the client to reject X account from staking or rejecting X client from connecting to the network if its coins are too old(over 1 year+) or something of the like? Manual readdition could also be possible if the community wanted it as well.

I know this sounds over the top but if there was such a way to do this we could set up creative ways for a coin to keep its community members active. I mean hypothetically if we really got a lot of community development going, raised the coins value with some good true hard work, theres nothing stopping an old dormant holder realising after all this time, great ill cash in on the community and crash the price. Maybe it could be a way as such to reward active community development because while I know Unick is adding constant value developing, getting a nice community together to help out would be a nice touch as well!

Anyway this is just a random idea, if we are going to fork we could have come cool possibilities thrown into the mix!

Edit: Just read your idea Unick about the 1000% stake, interesting but I think would only work with a decrease in current supply, would this be possible? Like a trade in 4-1 or something of the like?

These are legitimate concerns that you have there Jamesco about the "unused" accounts.  I was thinking the same thing about what would happen if suddendly those people just woke up suddendly realized a big gain in value and decided to dump all on the exchanges.

The first and simplest thing I can think of that would limit the damages and still acknowledge those people their share of profit would be to cap the max block reward to X amount.  That way, if the guy has 1M GRW for almost 1 year sitting there, he wouldn't just wake up to 2 M GRW  and dump the second million on the exchanges.

If that same person has 1M GRW and wants to maximise his investments, it would require some work in splitting his blocks (using coin control) and for me that is legitimate work and is fine by me.

There is still a yearly 100% max reward, so this concerns only affect a small percentage of holders, (the top ones of the rich list) since having 1000 or 10k GRW sitting there for one year, wouldn't do too much harm to the market IMO and would only truly only affect the market if everyone wanted to dump at the same time (over witch we don't really have control except giving people a reason to use the coin for something else than buying BTC...).

If we decide to cap the reward, leaving enough time between the decision to do so and the fork should leave the time necessary to the people actually supporting the coin to reorganize their wallets in order to maximise their returns, if they see fit to do so.


about the 1000% PoS reward and decreasing the current supply. It actually crossed my mind to find a way to reduce the current supply. I'm not even sure it's possible in a way to be fair for current "active" members.

Maybe, and I'm saying this on the top of my head, if it's possible to target specific tx in the code, we could say that if people that are from the first generation community open their wallet for stake for more than 1 year, they could see negative block rewards instead of positive block rewards. The threshold could be > 1 year.

We shouldn't forget that PoS is first meant to protect and carry on the blockchain, so if someone never opens their wallet to support the blockchain, he could be "taxed" for it.

Meybe this needs to be think through, maybe it's not good at all!

Alternatively, the 1000% return could be left for an entirely new block chain like SuperGrowth and we could just crank actual GRW to 150% or 250 %... just a thought

[unick]

TEK is 500%, and yes HYP is 750%. I made HYP 750% as first and experiment, and second to have a lot of fun. I am not sure if passed 750% can work or not.

True 500% not 400%

I think high PoS rewards should decrease overtime, when a certain threshold of velocity and supply is reached.  It's certainly not sustainable with a large supply (price stability).

GRW already has a fairly big coin supply. I think it might make sense to add a extreme PoS only if you make the stake age something like 50 days. So you get a large reward, but you have to have proof of commitment.

See my previous post about the supply but it is a concern IMO at this level, but large stake age like 50 days is a market liquidity killer. plus the ONLY reason to use the coin is to get the stakes... what if you need to move your money at 40 days for some reason! the network didn't get a block, you didn't get a reward... I personally don't like extremely long min age and extremely short (just a few hours) either. Maybe the reward rate should increase towards the maximum age to reward those that are committed, but still help the network and reward users with more short term usage of the coin. just a thought

Also I would just get rid of the NovaCoin diff adjustment, I think it is garbage that is inconsistent. I mean GetKernalPoS() isnt even accurate it seems like.

Just some really random thoughts from me ha ha.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to as being inconsistent, but I'm more than inclined to discuss this with you

[noise23]

We shouldn't forget that PoS is first meant to protect and carry on the blockchain, so if someone never opens their wallet to support the blockchain, he could be "taxed" for it.

Maybe it's a good idea to base PoS reward on wallet online time?
e.g. if during block maturity period wallet was online 24/7 all the time it gets 100% of PoS reward but if wallet was offline for some time reward decreases accordingly.

For example if PoS rate is 150% and wallet was online all the time block gets full 150% PoS reward, but if it was online only 6 hours/day it gets only 37.5%, etc.

People will be motivated to keep their wallets online and also we will be safe from sleeping "millionaire" accounts sudden huge pos reward dump.

[noise23]

btw, do we need one more faucet? I set up one few weeks ago and forgot to announce   http://grw.faucet.be/

[presstab]

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to as being inconsistent, but I'm more than inclined to discuss this with you

I have seen a few people complain and post about how their stake weight is higher than the network stake weight reported by the client.  I have seen this on a few different coins.

[unick]

We shouldn't forget that PoS is first meant to protect and carry on the blockchain, so if someone never opens their wallet to support the blockchain, he could be "taxed" for it.

Maybe it's a good idea to base PoS reward on wallet online time?
e.g. if during block maturity period wallet was online 24/7 all the time it gets 100% of PoS reward but if wallet was offline for some time reward decreases accordingly.

For example if PoS rate is 150% and wallet was online all the time block gets full 150% PoS reward, but if it was online only 6 hours/day it gets only 37.5%, etc.

People will be motivated to keep their wallets online and also we will be safe from sleeping "millionaire" accounts sudden huge pos reward dump.

This is not a good idea from a security point of view. Or should I say, it's prone to manipulation (sending fake connection times).

How would I base the connection check process? each client should have their own unique ID and then what happens when a client bugs, ID is tampered with, or whatnot... If it's base on IP, what do you do about changing IPs? I can see this becoming messy real quick!

Plus, there is no real contribution (beside relaying transactions/replication) about just keeping your wallet online.  It's really the block creation that we are looking for. both from the user and the network standpoint.

The more I think of it, the more I think an progressive reward base on time is much more "smooth' for the network and natural to implement.

If my style/habits are to leave the client open 24/7 I get smaller rewards, but more frequent and benefit of compound interest much more, if I don't connect that often I get larger rewards but less compound.

And we could maybe try to inverse the relation, so to incentivize people to keep their wallet online more often, start with max reward % at min age and decrease the reward up to Max age.  so more infrequent user would get less % (but more days behind the belt) and people that support the network would get higher % and more compound effect.

These are just raw ideas that I'm throwing on the table, but I think I like the inverse reward scenario.  Maybe some test would reveal a sweet spot so the ROI is kind of levelled out throughout the network and would reduce the impact of large chunk of PoS reward once a year (witch I think has negative impact to some degree for the market AND the network) while providing an healthy and secure network.

[unick]

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to as being inconsistent, but I'm more than inclined to discuss this with you

I have seen a few people complain and post about how their stake weight is higher than the network stake weight reported by the client.  I have seen this on a few different coins.

oh is that so... yes I noticed that too!

I haven't dug into this but it really is 2 different things and I agree is confusing for the end user.

NetStakeWeight gives an aggregate of n last PoS network transaction while your own wallet's coin weight is base on the actual age of the coins (witch is IMO the correct thing to measure).

so they are not related what's so ever !

[unick]

btw, do we need one more faucet? I set up one few weeks ago and forgot to announce  http://grw.faucet.be/

Lol, yeah good thing you shared this

Added your link to the first page of this thread and I'll send a little something right away

EDIT: There, sent 500 GRW
http://grw.blockx.info/get/tx/7a2baa8d32b2a00549d6c33704cd38127ec211ff21148321eb902ef1fd753191

[noise23]

btw, do we need one more faucet? I set up one few weeks ago and forgot to announce  http://grw.faucet.be/

Lol, yeah good thing you shared this

Added your link to the first page of this thread and I'll send a little something right away

EDIT: There, sent 500 GRW
http://grw.blockx.info/get/tx/7a2baa8d32b2a00549d6c33704cd38127ec211ff21148321eb902ef1fd753191

Excellent, thanks