Bitcoin Forum
June 27, 2019, 11:35:08 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Would You like a design a new logo competition? There will be a bounty for a professional designed logo and the bounty will relflect this!
yes i think we need a better logo
No i like our logo and want it to stay the same
We should pay a professional to do it from community funds

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 »
  Print  
Author Topic: MULTIWALLET/Trusted-Cryptos group/Multiple Coin Support/MultiShift/Fiat Trading  (Read 107372 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
mdtspain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1081
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 08:10:47 AM
 #601

I agree ... Bittrex Poloniex and Cryptsy should be enough for now

Yeah for the beginning it should be enouth, or mabye you could implement one of the big chinese exchanges ?  bter maybe ?  

Do you already thought about implementing a trading bot system into the wallet in the future? This functionallity could be coupled to the possession of a cerain amount of MWC Smiley  This way you could keep a big amount of MWC off the exchanges.

We have been talking about adding BTer to the in-wallet trading and it's my favorite to add. I also think that If we add Bter, we should find some reliable person to translate the main functions of the wallet into one of the main chinese languages.

Adding a trading bot into the wallet, we will need to discuss that. Trading bots can make you money, they can also loose your money if you don't configure them well or if others start to understand how your bot works. This means that if we would add one, that the user needs to configure it to HIS/HER needs.

Does it need to be a simple bot? Does it need to trade using Technical Indicators or just some simple settings? Should there be abitrage for the different exchanges? etc,etc....we really need to discuss this with all of us

Michael
1561635308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561635308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561635308
Reply with quote  #2

1561635308
Report to moderator
1561635308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561635308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561635308
Reply with quote  #2

1561635308
Report to moderator
1561635308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561635308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561635308
Reply with quote  #2

1561635308
Report to moderator
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561635308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561635308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561635308
Reply with quote  #2

1561635308
Report to moderator
stacey2911
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 08:26:04 AM
 #602

I agree ... Bittrex Poloniex and Cryptsy should be enough for now

Yeah for the beginning it should be enouth, or mabye you could implement one of the big chinese exchanges ?  bter maybe ?  

Do you already thought about implementing a trading bot system into the wallet in the future? This functionallity could be coupled to the possession of a cerain amount of MWC Smiley  This way you could keep a big amount of MWC off the exchanges.
Soooo, copy Quatloo trader?
mdtspain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1081
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 08:41:57 AM
 #603

I agree ... Bittrex Poloniex and Cryptsy should be enough for now

Yeah for the beginning it should be enouth, or mabye you could implement one of the big chinese exchanges ?  bter maybe ?  

Do you already thought about implementing a trading bot system into the wallet in the future? This functionallity could be coupled to the possession of a cerain amount of MWC Smiley  This way you could keep a big amount of MWC off the exchanges.
Soooo, copy Quatloo trader?

IF we add a bot, we won't copy any one
doc12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1284
Merit: 1042


View Profile
October 14, 2014, 06:12:34 PM
 #604

Hi , any news today Smiley ?
MiningMinion
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 225
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 15, 2014, 02:44:51 AM
 #605

Hi , any news today Smiley ?

mintpal is dead
Griffith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 15, 2014, 05:12:07 AM
 #606

I agree ... Bittrex Poloniex and Cryptsy should be enough for now

Yeah for the beginning it should be enouth, or mabye you could implement one of the big chinese exchanges ?  bter maybe ?  

Do you already thought about implementing a trading bot system into the wallet in the future? This functionallity could be coupled to the possession of a cerain amount of MWC Smiley  This way you could keep a big amount of MWC off the exchanges.
Soooo, copy Quatloo trader?

IF we add a bot, we won't copy any one

Quatloo trader isnt a bot, it doesnt trade for you, its just an api system that will make pre programmed trades when coniditions are met. and is a bit junky tbh. source is kinda messy. could be the way i got it to read out though. so not sure. but its not a bot.
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 15, 2014, 10:37:46 AM
 #607

As you guys all know we are developing the in-wallet trading for 4 Exchanges. Our original idea was Bittrex - Cryptsy - Mintpal - Poloniex ,the full selection of trading pairs.

As you all know Mintpal looks like it's going down, so we have to change that or delete 1 Exchange.

If you can let us know what Exchange you would prefer to be added in the place from Mintpal, then we can make a selection and see which one would be the best substitute

Michael


My top choice would be BTC-e but I am more under the impression that they don't want to add new markets so that would be out so really the only other option would be BTER.

I think CCEDK is a good choice as well but would be better as a supplementary exchange.

Can we start trying to get listed on Poloniex? focused efforts yield faster results and everyone can agree on Poloniex
mdtspain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1081
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 15, 2014, 12:01:58 PM
 #608

As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )

This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.

Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.

As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.

My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.

Michael
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 15, 2014, 08:36:44 PM
 #609

As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )

This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.

Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.

As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.

My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.

Michael


If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform.

People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking.

My ideal currency would have

7-21 day max weight
5% inflation a year
high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher)
percent of Stake going to development
all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+)

Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking.
Griffith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 15, 2014, 10:08:44 PM
 #610

As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )

This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.

Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.

As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.

My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.

Michael


If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform.

People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking.

My ideal currency would have

7-21 day max weight
5% inflation a year
high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher)
percent of Stake going to development
all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+)

Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking.

@Cresitington - almost off the exchanges disable staking due to common sense that if they have a majority of the coins they could possibly fork the network.


on another note:
in the newer versions of the wallet i will be discussing with the rest of the team the idea of possibly doing what my other coins does (ECCoin) and that is fees are destroyed by the network rather than stored for later. as for now id like to ask for a general thought from the community on this matter. the fee rate would stay the same. you wouldnt see any difference when sending or receiving coins, it would just instead cause the total coin count to not raise as quickly so that we can see that there is a rise in demand to meet the rise in supply. let me know what you think.
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 16, 2014, 05:41:05 PM
Last edit: October 16, 2014, 05:53:37 PM by Crestington
 #611

As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )

This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.

Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.

As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.

My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.

Michael


If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform.

People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking.

My ideal currency would have

7-21 day max weight
5% inflation a year
high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher)
percent of Stake going to development
all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+)

Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking.

@Cresitington - almost off the exchanges disable staking due to common sense that if they have a majority of the coins they could possibly fork the network.


on another note:
in the newer versions of the wallet i will be discussing with the rest of the team the idea of possibly doing what my other coins does (ECCoin) and that is fees are destroyed by the network rather than stored for later. as for now id like to ask for a general thought from the community on this matter. the fee rate would stay the same. you wouldnt see any difference when sending or receiving coins, it would just instead cause the total coin count to not raise as quickly so that we can see that there is a rise in demand to meet the rise in supply. let me know what you think.

The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion, coins with higher supply tend to do better because people like to deal in full coins and will trade more often, plus it creates stronger walls. If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value.

There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling.

Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins.

All transactions also cost the network, whether it is ring signatures, fast block times, or combining large amounts of inputs. There is no difference in terms of size of one input whether it is 100 or 1,000,000 coins but sending 1,000 coins which need to combine 100 units contains more data than one input of 1,000,000.

Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake?

Also, check this out by YACoin on split combine thresholds https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206577.1965;wap2

If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following

0.02 Coin fee which goes to into Staking
Split combine threshold set to 10,000 coins, at 0 days as default

The reason is that 0.02 coins would not be too restrictive and if at a value of $1 per coin it would represent 2 cents per transaction with a threshold that will better favor smaller holders better. Thresholds are only active within the wallet, not on the protocol level and reduces the amount of total inputs considerably.
Griffith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 07:39:31 PM
 #612


Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake?   

this maximum stake weight wont cause a problem because exchanges dont stake coins. it is bad for them and the coin and business, so they dont do it out of common sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion.  If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value.

this statement is just wrong. if you have double the coins and half the price. it market CAP is the same. but the value is half. cuz the price is halved. the price of something is how much it is worth. which is the value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling.

there is an incentive for people to stake off of exchange. thats what PoS is. the incentive is free coins. as far is over 10% PoS rate. that is not rampid. My other coin ECC is 25% a year. the coin is doing just fine since i took over and its price is actually going up quite a lot. so MWC 5% PoS is fine for this coin.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins.

fees paying back to the coin holders is not needed. this is the exact function PoS provides. there is no point in doing it twice. PoS pays the holders for holding and keeping there wallets open. this seems like a suggestion for a service that already exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following...

we are asking for input on the fees going back to the blocks as opposed to being destroyed. the only difference people would see is that the total coin supply raises slightly slower if fees are destroyed. we are not changing the fee amount any time soon as there is no need because this coin is not valued at 400$ a coin like BTC. BTC is the only coin with that issue.
Pickleninja
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 08:10:48 PM
 #613

Hey Griffith,

Would it be feasable to do a dynamic coin supply?

One of the biggest problems with crypto is that nobody can see to find a good volumn for a coin. 100 billion coins = basically worthless coin people throw at each other. 100 coins and you get an expensive coin that nobody really wants to trade.

Would it be possible to create a system that would split and merge coins (like the stock exchange) based upon a voting system?

Example:

Say there's 1000 people who each have 1 coin worth $10. Over time the number of people grows to 2000 people. We now have a situation where everyone couldn't own a single coin. Thus the majority agree that the coin needs to be split, and for every wallet that has a balance, the number of coins is effectively doubled.

Now we have 2000 coins worth roughly $5 a piece.

I have no idea how feasible this is, but it seems like this would add a tremendous amount of value to the coin and allow us to tailor the volume of the coin to fit the coins situation.



Just a thought Smiley


-Pickle
doc12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1284
Merit: 1042


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 08:54:23 PM
 #614

WOW somebody just dumped 1M coins  Shocked
mdtspain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1081
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 09:07:27 PM
 #615

WOW somebody just dumped 1M coins  Shocked

And they are in my wallet... Grin Just for everybody to know, I have now 5.2 mill coins. They won't go back to the exchange untill MWC is worth 1 USD.

This means that instead of 27 mill coins in roulation, there are only 22 mill in roulation.

Thanks,

Michael
sovie
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 17, 2014, 01:11:55 AM
 #616

Not to be outdone you can add my 2mil to the total for only 20mil in rotation, wallets and exchnages  Wink
and mums the word on what the other members totals, so i venture to
guess that those that just gifted us these lovely gifts
will rue the day as our goals come ever closer to fullfillment.
 Grin
 
dirtyboots77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 255
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 04:35:24 AM
 #617

WOW somebody just dumped 1M coins  Shocked

And they are in my wallet... Grin Just for everybody to know, I have now 5.2 mill coins. They won't go back to the exchange untill MWC is worth 1 USD.

This means that instead of 27 mill coins in roulation, there are only 22 mill in roulation.

Thanks,

Michael

any plans to set up another buy wall with that new found million?
mdtspain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1081
Merit: 1003


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 10:02:55 AM
 #618

WOW somebody just dumped 1M coins  Shocked

And they are in my wallet... Grin Just for everybody to know, I have now 5.2 mill coins. They won't go back to the exchange untill MWC is worth 1 USD.

This means that instead of 27 mill coins in roulation, there are only 22 mill in roulation.

Thanks,

Michael

any plans to set up another buy wall with that new found million?

On this moment I am not setting up any buy walls. With those 1 million MWC I could only set up a sell wall, as you can see in the orderbook that is not done either. Those coins are NOT on the Exchange any more.

My focus is now set on realizing the in wallet trading and after that the Multicoin Support.
Crestington
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1020



View Profile
October 17, 2014, 10:28:17 PM
 #619


Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake?  

this maximum stake weight wont cause a problem because exchanges dont stake coins. it is bad for them and the coin and business, so they dont do it out of common sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true and most reputable exchanges do not Stake and Bitjohn and Mullick from Cryptsy have stated on multiple occasions that they do not Stake coins but the point is more about what can be done to make sure that there is no funny business (Mt. Gox, Cryptorush, Moolah etc.)

The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion.  If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value.

Quote
this statement is just wrong. if you have double the coins and half the price. it market CAP is the same. but the value is half. cuz the price is halved. the price of something is how much it is worth. which is the value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The price would unlikely to be half it's price because proof of stake encourages more active participation.

There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling.

Quote
there is an incentive for people to stake off of exchange. thats what PoS is. the incentive is free coins. as far is over 10% PoS rate. that is not rampid. My other coin ECC is 25% a year. the coin is doing just fine since i took over and its price is actually going up quite a lot. so MWC 5% PoS is fine for this coin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't really saying that the 5% inflation is an issue, quite the contrary. I was more saying that destroying fees are not needed in order to reduce the amount of inflation because inflation will never be an issue.


Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins.

Quote
fees paying back to the coin holders is not needed. this is the exact function PoS provides. there is no point in doing it twice. PoS pays the holders for holding and keeping there wallets open. this seems like a suggestion for a service that already exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well if exchanges are not Staking then that fee is rewarded to people Staking. Secure Linux IOS within the cloud is the way forward IMO

If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following...

Quote
we are asking for input on the fees going back to the blocks as opposed to being destroyed. the only difference people would see is that the total coin supply raises slightly slower if fees are destroyed. we are not changing the fee amount any time soon as there is no need because this coin is not valued at 400$ a coin like BTC. BTC is the only coin with that issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think fees going back into the blocks are better and higher fees are better because it encourages the need to build a more secure Staking platform, accessible anywhere and on any device. Also you can link to multiple wallet.dats so higher fees (that go into Staking as it does now) would benefit the major holders (the devs) and more so once the multiple exchange support gets under way.

Say for example the fees are raised to 0.02 coins (as I suggested), If Multiwalletcoin does well and is worth as much as Blackcoin you would see approximately 2-3k Transactions a day and with input combines you might see an average of 200-300 coins a day generated through fees along with Stake so assuming MDTspain and Sovie hold onto their coins and Stake, they would receive 5% a year, plus up to an additional 50k coins a year (assuming Stake participation is around 60% as in Peercoin and most POS coins).

If you hold on exchanges then you lose 5% a year, if you Stake sometimes you would gain 5-6% and if you Staked often you may gain 7-8%
doc12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1284
Merit: 1042


View Profile
October 18, 2014, 05:18:07 PM
 #620

Hey MWC-Team !  Any development going on ? What about TOR and the new logo ? 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!