[ANN][RSU]█ ReserveShare █ NXT AE | FAIR distribution | First POR| UNIQUE Source

[bee7]

The maximum reward per block is a good thing and I was going to discuss it as well, I just waited until we finish with other parameters. The main purpose of having the maximum reward per block is not the inflation control but the network security enforcement: this maximum keeps people from merging their inputs into a single one and running a wallet once per staking period.

Layman term please.  

The txout is an output of any transaction that credits its destination address with some value.

The PoS works this way: The wallet iterates through all available txout's that are not spent. For each txout it calculates its Proof-of-Stake hash value that is a function of several data elements associated with this particular txout. If the calculated hash value divided by that txout's coinage is less than the current PoS difficulty then the so-called PoS kernel is found, so a wallet constructs a PoS block using this txout and submits a block to the network.

When the txout is spent its coin age is reset to zero be it a PoS block generation transaction or regular spent transaction.

Thus, the less unspent input transactions you have, the less blocks you could create. Provided that the unspent txout becomes eligible for PoS block creation not sooner than it gets 7 days old (the period we are going to select) and the target time is 1 minute, we need to have at least 10080 txouts to sustain the target time of 1 minute at the base PoS difficulty. The difficulty is a measurement of a network security, the more txouts eligible for staking a network has the more is networks security and the more complicated it be to make an attack on a network.

If every of the initial 170 holders would merge its coins into a single txout then the network would generate 170 blocks in a week period.

Thus, to ensure that a network creates at least 10080 blocks in a week period we need to force holders to keep their stakes split enough. The only possible way to achieve this is to limit the maximum reward per PoS block. Hence the maximum reward per block should corresponds to the txout value of ~100 coins (1000000/10080). To make some reserve for difficulty to decrease we need to lower that value even more. I would propose to set this limit to the value that corresponds to the 50 coins input at its age of 30 days (the maximum coin age after which the probability to find a block is not growing anymore).

To 'bootstrap' the network initially, so the holders would not need to split their stakes manually, the coins distribution script that I have to develop will generate the series of transactions per holder address.

Okay finaly i understood something. Since this is the initial parameters, we can test your proposal out. Shouldnt be a problem imo.

Yes, the max reward is not as fundamental as other parameters and it is possible to change it later if the picked now value not serve well.

Edit:

For starters, we will only use the characters "RS" as the logo.

fixed

[DarkhorseofNxt]

Cool!

[ROBERTO]

Takeover? Cool..

What happen for people don't claim their share?

Can still receive it at launch?

Good luck new team!

[josegines]

Takeover? Cool..

What happen for people don't claim their share?

Can still receive it at launch?

Good luck new team!

There is not shares to distribute, the dev sold all of them when it left the project.

Now there is a new project and they cannot be given if the people who trusts in the project are risking his money buying.

[Arambol]

nice to see some progress. Good luck new development team!

[dukektm]

nice to see some progress. Good luck new development team!

yea.. support RSU good luck new development team..!!!!
 

[kora2]

These are Hyperstake's vital statistics:
-X11 PoW blocks already phased out
-Proof of Stake Blocks Only
-90 Second Block Time
-Minimum Age - 8.8 days (rounded)
-Maximum Age - 30 days
-Annual Interest Rate - 750%
-Maximum Stake Subsidy - 1,000 HYP
-Recommended Block Size - 1,000-4,000 HYP

The timing specs we already have are quite close to the ones of HYP.

My personal opinion about HYP - it is a ponzi scheme: in a year the total supply would be ~13 times bigger than now with no real value behind this figure. You may consider my opinion as FUD in regard of HYP or as it has to be considered, i.e. as a critical view - it is up to you.

The maximum reward per block is a good thing and I was going to discuss it as well, I just waited until we finish with other parameters. The main purpose of having the maximum reward per block is not the inflation control but the network security enforcement: this maximum keeps people from merging their inputs into a single one and running a wallet once per staking period.

@Darkhorse & bee7 - I support EVERYTHING you guys are doing, so my suggestion regarding Hyperstake is just that - a suggestion

I might get shot for saying this on BTT, but I think some inflation is good, and that's why I'm interested in HYP. Maybe the founders of HYP are interested in the $$ only, but what they're doing is still interesting as an economic experiment with crypto.

Arbitrary inflation from fractional reserve banking system & quantitative easing is BAD, but inflation serves many useful purposes, and with crypto it can be set in stone by the coin algorithm. IMO coins with fixed supply appeal to early adopters for obvious reasons, but if you think from the view point of someone 3-5 years from now, they will look at the price chart of coins like bitcoin and see too much volatility. Inflation that increases coin supply at a rate that's similar to adoption can *potentially* keep the price stable, and that will appeal to crypto users in the future. Unless people in the future 'accept' a coin (i.e they choose it over another option, there will be many IMO), the coin will die.

Algorithmically controlled Inflation that matches adoption growth is what HYP is experimenting with IMO. Let us say that:

value = price * quantity

If the coin supply/quantity is fixed, and value goes up, price MUST go up. Price constantly going up isn't good for a crypto CURRENCY IMO, people want price stability (although it does make a good store of value, so a good crypto commodity).

If there is some built in inflation, 'value' can go up, BUT the 'price' can go up more slowly, because some of the 'value' is present in higher 'quantity'. This is a very simple explanation, but I think it captures the essence. Price stability is better for day-to-day use (i.e my bread & milk stay the same 'price' roughly), and 'value' can still go up because of built in inflation - holders of the coin get more coins from staking/interest.

This is what eMunie project is trying to do, have the EMU holders get their 'value' increase through more coins at the same price, not higher price for same number of coins. eMunie will probably be the first attempt at a true crypto CURRENCY, not a fixed supply crypto COMMODITY.

I'm happy for RS to pursue a different path, but high inflation controlled by an algorithm IS NOT like high inflation caused by fractional reserve or QE, and that's why I think high stake coins are about to be the next big crypto 'craze'. Inflation of fiat is always prone to manipulation that destroys value, but with crypto inflation WE KNOW the rules at the start, so it is fair, and maybe quite effective.

If you expect rapid adoption eventually, and you want to have price stability to attract new users, high inflation is possible solution.

We can take RS in a different direction though.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

I am thinking of controlled inflation by yearly? Would you think that would be a good solution. I do understand the word controlled will be branded as centralisation but maybe we can work something towards that.

[bee7]

value = price * quantity

This assumption is wrong, the correct representation is:

price = value() / quantity

where the value() is a function. The value is created only when any goods or services are produced.

[kora2]

value = price * quantity

This assumption is wrong, the correct representation is:

price = value() / quantity

where the value() is a function. The value is created only when any goods or services are produced.

I agree that,

price = value() / quantity

,  is a better way to think in terms of what happens in the 'real' economy, I was thinking more from an accounting point of view almost. I probably should have used:

market cap = price * quantity

A currency has the ability to 'map' to something real, like the GDP of a country. If the currency supply is fixed, and 'real' GDP increases, prices MUST increase to compensate. Obviously price increases can be very disruptive (everyone spends effort trying to avoid getting 'caught out' by rising prices, and stop trying to do productive things).

IMO the crypto movement is dominated by trading culture that likes to see price increasing as the 'reward', but I think that hurts adoption in the future. Better for everyone if 'reward' is in more coins, not higher prices.

- Stable prices are good
- Increasing 'market cap' is good
In order to achieve both of those quantity increasing through controlled inflation is the optimum.

How money supply effects the actual creation of 'real' value is an economy/society is something crypto community will start to address more in the future. When that happens fixed supply cryptos will be seen more as commodities than currencies.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

MV = Py, is what i learnt today.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

value = price * quantity

This assumption is wrong, the correct representation is:

price = value() / quantity

where the value() is a function. The value is created only when any goods or services are produced.

I agree that,

price = value() / quantity

,  is a better way to think in terms of what happens in the 'real' economy, I was thinking more from an accounting point of view almost. I probably should have used:

market cap = price * quantity

A currency has the ability to 'map' to something real, like the GDP of a country. If the currency supply is fixed, and 'real' GDP increases, prices MUST increase to compensate. Obviously price increases can be very disruptive (everyone spends effort trying to avoid getting 'caught out' by rising prices, and stop trying to do productive things).

IMO the crypto movement is dominated by trading culture that likes to see price increasing as the 'reward', but I think that hurts adoption in the future. Better for everyone if 'reward' is in more coins, not higher prices.

- Stable prices are good
- Increasing 'market cap' is good
In order to achieve both of those quantity increasing through controlled inflation is the optimum.

How money supply effects the actual creation of 'real' value is an economy/society is something crypto community will start to address more in the future. When that happens fixed supply cryptos will be seen more as commodities than currencies.

This actually raises a goos question. Is a high valued crypto is any good. From crypto owner's point of view, it is good. But from a new adopter's point of view, its expensive.

There is a reason why dollar needs to be strengthen and why yen and rmb needs to be weakenend every now and then. What sort of mechanism will be best to do this in terms of crypto? We are talking about replacing fiat, so we need to also talk about this.

[bee7]

This actually raises a goos question. Is a high valued crypto is any good. From crypto owner's point of view, it is good. But from a new adopter's point of view, its expensive.

There is a reason why dollar needs to be strengthen and why yen and rmb needs to be weakenend every now and then. What sort of mechanism will be best to do this in terms of crypto? We are talking about replacing fiat, so we need to also talk about this.

I am not an economist, unfortunately - I was told that inflation is good for economy. But I believe that the HYP parameters are bad: the total supply will be 13 times bigger than now in a year with nearly no effort as PoS minting requires much much less energy than PoW, so no real investment to be done. There is a completely different situation with the RS: yes, it is to be issued now (a million at once) but with some real value invested, so people would not dump it immediately at any price. With HYP you get your investment back in less than a month and then you could dump whatever you get from PoS at any current price with profit. I can't imagine what has to be done to maintain the price stable in these conditions: I see it impossible.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

This actually raises a goos question. Is a high valued crypto is any good. From crypto owner's point of view, it is good. But from a new adopter's point of view, its expensive.

There is a reason why dollar needs to be strengthen and why yen and rmb needs to be weakenend every now and then. What sort of mechanism will be best to do this in terms of crypto? We are talking about replacing fiat, so we need to also talk about this.

I am not an economist, unfortunately - I was told that inflation is good for economy. But I believe that the HYP parameters are bad: the total supply will be 13 times bigger than now in a year with nearly no effort as PoS minting requires much much less energy than PoW, so no real investment to be done. There is a completely different situation with the RS: yes, it is to be issued now (a million at once) but with some real value invested, so people would not dump it immediately at any price. With HYP you get your investment back in less than a month and then you could dump whatever you get from PoS at any current price with profit. I can't imagine what has to be done to maintain the price stable in these conditions: I see it impossible.

RS is not for pump n dump. That should be the priority.

[DarkhorseofNxt]

Bee, for the account limit, what about the idea of a multiple accounts in a single client. Like you have a main account, then you can create a supplimentary account x, z. That way a person could use them for multiple purpose, lock account 1 for reserving, account 2 for spending, account 3 saving etc...

[va1o]

Good luck for the new team! A heared more about ReserveShare 
It will be cool!

[bee7]

Bee, for the account limit, what about the idea of a multiple accounts in a single client. Like you have a main account, then you can create a supplimentary account x, z. That way a person could use them for multiple purpose, lock account 1 for reserving, account 2 for spending, account 3 saving etc...

I already mentioned that per-address limits implementation imposes quite heavy load in verification functions on each node. These functions are activated when any tx is received to memory pool by the node or when a new block is received.

Though some account functionality has been implemented in the original bitcoin client and it allows to bind multiple addresses to an account, this functionality has broken balances calculation in the PoS code. Also it does not distinguish the change addresses between accounts and does not 'physically' isolates one address coins from another.

The easiest and safest possible way to implement what you asking for is to enable a multiple wallet file operation of a wallet app, so each wallet file would correspond to an account.
The base code I chose to clone (the latest stable NVC) has some provisions for multiple wallet operation but this functionality is incomplete. The necessary functions has to be implemented to allow a user to pick a wallet to send the transaction from, e.t.c.

I would propose to postpone this development to the later time, when the network is already launched.

[escrowman]

Been away for a while, good to know someone is willing to take up the project. But my concern is will earlier stakeholders like me, who have not claimed their RSU will get a share of the project, or we have been kicked out of the project....

Anyone who currently hold an RS asset will get his share of coins. The list of all current holders to be composed by Darkhorse. The final date to submit claims will be announced in advance.

What about users that did not take NXT assests? I was the one who waited for wallet release?

I am sorry, but the current idea is to use the Nxt AE stake holders. If you want to be involved, you can get your share there. Current selling price in AE for 1000 rs apprx. 128 nxt. Of course you have time now until the wallet release, cannot guarantee the price will stay at that when the redeem point comes.

thats unfair.

if so .let it die....

 


some Speculators apply for RSU earlier to sold out and buy as a very lower price ,but really investors hold theirs coins and always think dev can bring future for this project ,  why Speculator can get it but really investors get nothing?

you tell me why?

[escrowman]

by the way ,we can apply for release "Reserveshare" s account and lets see who have been taken their share from "Reserveshare" and who still not.

[josegines]

Have you thought to open a new thread for the project? every day appear the people who wants that they give them coins because they will not have informed yet that this has been one defraud and the dev went out running with the money that could.

With a new thread and the first exact post to the new project, perhaps do not write any more messages to ask for coins.

It looks like a prank of bad taste, after having lost our money, that begin to ask for his gifts: but that gifts? if the original project does not exist already.