[ANN][SLR] SolarCoin | PoW to PoS v. 2.0 | Solar Proof of Generation (§1 = 1MWh)

[nickgogerty]

Could Someone help answer a few questions?

How many ''new'' coins will be in circulation after the first few days of POST? do we have an approximate value?
At the moment there are a little over 34 Million. How many will there be in 1 Year?
All of this was easy to calculate with POW but im curious to how this is with POST?
thank you

The target inflation rate (increase in circulating coins ) due to proof of stake reward is 2%. This target is approximately 720,000 coins / year based on a 34.1m current circulation.  The circulation target of an additional 720,000 coins a year due to POST is anticipated to carry on a go forward basis.  As more coins circulate due to granting to solar developers, the effective inflation rate due to POST 720,000 coins is anticipated to decline.

Nick

Thank you for explaining

here is the news item giving more details:  http://solarcoin.org/en/solarcoin-moving-from-pow-to-post-proof-of-stake-time/

[1714853036]

1714853036

[1714853036]

1714853036

[1714853036]

1714853036

[user_fred]

hi all,
I am just wondering ....
"SolarCoin move to POST ...Minimize carbon footprint".
How do we know that ? This is not the 1st time i am reading this assumption .
Do we have some math ?
how many miners versus users wallet opened behind a PC ?

By the way, i have a NAS, and i believe many of us have a NAS always powered on, would it be possible to have wallet compiled for ARM to really minimise carbon footprint ?
Another thought, what about cold storage if i cannot stake without my wallet opened ? What about security with POST ?

Thanks

[CryptoNick]

How is it that trades are taking place on Bittrex when the wallet is disabled? Anyone know?

I was going to say the same thing. Could Bots still buy and Sell their own positions? They are all small amounts and about the same too. This is the only thing I can think of, but even then it wouldn't post in a wallet.
Two 10,000 volume sells right before the wallet disabled too. Insider trade for sure...

Trades can still take place. Doesn't necessarily mean it's insider trading  I have a few SLR left on bittrex and i'm sure not everyone has withdrawn their slr before block 830000 even tough that would have been the smart move to stake...
Some people might have been unaware of the POST update and hence still have their slr on bittrex
but who knows

Oh I see it still allows internal trading. They locked out all the stakers pretty much. I have no liquidity now since I wanted to attempt to stake everything in PoST to see how well I fared against the big wallets out there. Well at least they are not dumping before I can get my investment back out.

[CryptoNick]

hi all,
I am just wondering ....
"SolarCoin move to POST ...Minimize carbon footprint".
How do we know that ? This is not the 1st time i am reading this assumption .
Do we have some math ?
how many miners versus users wallet opened behind a PC ?

By the way, i have a NAS, and i believe many of us have a NAS always powered on, would it be possible to have wallet compiled for ARM to really minimise carbon footprint ?
Another thought, what about cold storage if i cannot stake without my wallet opened ? What about security with POST ?

Thanks

The actual Claims will be automated no need to Stake. If you want to support the network you may have to turn on a computer. Or get a raspberry pi and download the linux wallet. I am pretty sure you can stake with it but not so sure about PoST and how much CPU it requires.

Considering how much power goes into Proof of Work the draw of power will be nil compared to the power required to Mine a BitCoin or even a Litecoin for that matter. So it is very green and carbon friendly, not to mention the fact that it represents what is on your roof also.

[solarcoiner]

How is it that trades are taking place on Bittrex when the wallet is disabled? Anyone know?

I was going to say the same thing. Could Bots still buy and Sell their own positions? They are all small amounts and about the same too. This is the only thing I can think of, but even then it wouldn't post in a wallet.
Two 10,000 volume sells right before the wallet disabled too. Insider trade for sure...

Trades can still take place. Doesn't necessarily mean it's insider trading  I have a few SLR left on bittrex and i'm sure not everyone has withdrawn their slr before block 830000 even tough that would have been the smart move to stake...
Some people might have been unaware of the POST update and hence still have their slr on bittrex
but who knows

Oh I see it still allows internal trading. They locked out all the stakers pretty much. I have no liquidity now since I wanted to attempt to stake everything in PoST to see how well I fared against the big wallets out there. Well at least they are not dumping before I can get my investment back out.

Yeah, I think you're not the only one who withdrew just before POST. The sell order book went from over 400k to under 270k in the last few hours before block 830000. Now we're back to a little over 300k.
it's important to remember that bittrex had no other choice than to suspend Withdrawals and Deposits. I think their wallet will be offline untill POST is successfully implemented.
It will be interesting to see in what direction SLR moves when the wallet comes back online

[nickgogerty]

hi all,
I am just wondering ....
"SolarCoin move to POST ...Minimize carbon footprint".
How do we know that ? This is not the 1st time i am reading this assumption .
Do we have some math ?
how many miners versus users wallet opened behind a PC ?

By the way, i have a NAS, and i believe many of us have a NAS always powered on, would it be possible to have wallet compiled for ARM to really minimise carbon footprint ?
Another thought, what about cold storage if i cannot stake without my wallet opened ? What about security with POST ?

Thanks

Hi User fred,

the general assumption behind the carbon footprint reduction is the computational overhead required. Generally speaking for BTC etc. and other POW coins, the amount of energy consumed can be estimated to be a function of the marginal returns of the block-chain reward. The net effect is that energy is burned relative to reward value. There is obviously a Capex element related to specialized hardware GPU/ASICs, but again, that hardware is a designed and deployed using energy for materials etc. so the marginal cost of the CAPEX (stored energy for hardward manufacturing) and ongoing energy to run the hardware is likely to equate to or approximate the marginal block-chain reward.  In purely rational terms, a person would be willing to spend $200 worth energy to gain a $250 coin.

So the greater the block-reward, the greater the energy burn.  currently BTC generates a lot of rewards and thus it makes sense a lot of energy is chasing it.

SolarCoin POST generally runs in the background and provides no incentive for running more intensive resources. There is a marginal energy drain on CPU's but it is a function that is not-related to the value of the network.

100 SLR holders with 100 CPU's could Mint SolarCoins with no incentive to burn more energy or deploy more resources to the effort. 100 users of BTC are incentivized to deploy resources up to the marginal value of the coin.  the "arms" race of greater hashing be definition is a "red queen" technical arms race that consumes resources up to and likely slightly above the marginal value of the expected block reward. 

It can be argued there is economic utility generated in the technological advancement created by greater ASIC's efficiency etc. but the counter arguments is that this increasing focused effort may have minimal economic payout beyond the mining function itself. 

I discuss evolutionary red queen competitions in my book, The Nature of Value and guest lecture on innovation and macro-economics at Columbia University. I am Happy to offer thoughts on this.

Remember every object manufactured or produced reflects embedded energy and information, which is crudely approximated by its cost, less profit margin.  Studies have even been doen tieing carbon intensity to cost, so if you want a lower carbon lifestyle it often pays to be cheap. SolarCoin mining likely uses a marginal percentage of a CPU that you may have had on in the background anyway.

In the future one could imagine individuals using SolarCoin Affiliate websites with slick front ends rather than clunky wallets. these websites would acting as online "banks" holding coins for people, handling staking and security the way exchanges do as these functions lend themselves to economy of scale. This will make the network even more carbon efficient.

Nick

[solarcoiner]

How sercure is it to leave your wallet open at all times? I'm asking since that's what needs to be done for staking when POST comes along... I understand that as of right now not many people know about Solarcoin, but that might change in the future. Wouldn't that be insecure to leave the wallet open and connected to the internet? (especially for large holders if solarcoin becomes more valuable)?

Have there been thoughts to implement something like NXT where you can lease your balance to another wallet, effectively giving the forging/staking power to another account? I really like that feature because it enables to stake without the risk of being connected to the internet with your main wallet.

[y_virtual]

Attention!  The Fork has a serious flaw in it. Many more coins are being created from staking than intended leading to an inflationary scenario.

I am reaching out to Steve the developer to do the following.


1. diagnose the scale, scope and cause of the problem.
2. identify the best case solution.
3. Propose and get consensus from the community that the solution is desired and effective.
4. Deploy the solution ASAP.

There may be multiple solutions.  Most likely the blockchain will be rolled back to block 830,000 so that all wallets and accounts are reset from that block.  I will keep you posted. Rolling back the blockchain was used with Bitcoin in the early days when a vulnerability was discovered leading to too many coins produced.

Steve, the developer with the handle: OnsightIT will likely post his diagnosis and proposed solutions on the forum today. We want to resolve this as quickly as possible so that the blockchain and transaction achieve stability rapidly.  I will be updating as things are discovered and solutions proposed.

Nick

"1. diagnose the scale, scope and cause of the problem."
Nick we haven't heard on the cause of the problem yet. Here we came up with several possibilities based on the expected vs. actual results. Non of these possible errors was proven as NOT true. Meanwhile a solution came out, so looks like the cause was identified - but it was never specifically named - can you please elaborate on that? This is really important for preparing further test plans.
Thanks!

[y_virtual]

There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1
See page 11 and 13 of link:

http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

"There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1"

There we go. So there WAS NO interest cap?!? The chart on page 11 (as well as common sense) goes up to 100%, the Interest numbers by the Staking circle went up to 99%.
BUT
"there was no interest rate cap" in the code means - what? No upper limit? A random number maxed at the specs of the variable integer used in the code?
It is important for someone to confirm this was the issue, so then we know any solution involving capping the interest rate at 10%, or even 100%, will really solve the problem for sure.

[corather]

There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1
See page 11 and 13 of link:

http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

"There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1"

There we go. So there WAS NO interest cap?!? The chart on page 11 (as well as common sense) goes up to 100%, the Interest numbers by the Staking circle went up to 99%.
BUT
"there was no interest rate cap" in the code means - what? No upper limit? A random number maxed at the specs of the variable integer used in the code?
It is important for someone to confirm this was the issue, so then we know any solution involving capping the interest rate at 10%, or even 100%, will really solve the problem for sure.

Post was based on assumptions that a majority of holders would stake at any given time. If you do the math it actually makes sense. I got the maximum stake reward of 7.5 million SLR. Obviously the chain was rolled back and those coins are not going to be confirmed, merely generated as orphans. If you divide 34 million by 7.5 million you get a lofty 4.53 SLR which would make sense if every one of those 34 million coins were staking at any given time. Placing a cap on this would more or less fix this issue.

[lfloorwalker]

Hey I'm a little bit late to all of this. I've noticed there is a new wallet now, I haven't updated mine for a while. I still have an old wallet on my system, do I need to completely remove it before installing the new one? I've backed up my wallet.dat file, would it just be a case of transferring this over when the new wallet is installed? Cheers

Make several backups of your wallet.dat!

You can install this one over the previous install. The installer will automatically detect the old install and delete it, but leave your wallet.dat intact.

Cheers for the help, yeah I have a bunch of backups on hard drives and USB sticks locked away in safes etc

Hi all,
I just want to cross-check before I reload our blockchain in the Windows wallet.
The windows wallet we have is version 2.0.1 but the chain was never loaded past block 830,000. I think it was synced at 814,000 or something similar.
Now, I just want to go ahead and download version 2.0.3 directly from the 2.0.1 wallet app as soon as I turn it on before it syncs up to 830,000. (That's the plan).

Do other people think this is the correct proceedure and what are (if there are any) risks involved here.
We have many backups of wallet.dat from the version 2.0.1 wallet on multiple media.

On another different question. What are people's experience with the Linux wallets? We are going to make some of those shortly as well running Ubuntu so that they are staking 24x7.

Thanking you,
lfloorwalker

[lfloorwalker]

There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1
See page 11 and 13 of link:

http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

"There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1"

There we go. So there WAS NO interest cap?!? The chart on page 11 (as well as common sense) goes up to 100%, the Interest numbers by the Staking circle went up to 99%.
BUT
"there was no interest rate cap" in the code means - what? No upper limit? A random number maxed at the specs of the variable integer used in the code?
It is important for someone to confirm this was the issue, so then we know any solution involving capping the interest rate at 10%, or even 100%, will really solve the problem for sure.

Post was based on assumptions that a majority of holders would stake at any given time. If you do the math it actually makes sense. I got the maximum stake reward of 7.5 million SLR. Obviously the chain was rolled back and those coins are not going to be confirmed, merely generated as orphans. If you divide 34 million by 7.5 million you get a lofty 4.53 SLR which would make sense if every one of those 34 million coins were staking at any given time. Placing a cap on this would more or less fix this issue.

Also can someone confirm that eqn 4. on pg. 12 has accomodation for a leap year (365 days in a typical year) but one time every 4 years there is actually 366 days. Therefore it is best to make this 365.25.

Or maybe I am missing something.

Best,
lfloorwalker

[syclone]

My coins are still on Trex... I think i'll just leave them there.  Should be ok right?

[y_virtual]

There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1
See page 11 and 13 of link:

http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

"There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1"

There we go. So there WAS NO interest cap?!? The chart on page 11 (as well as common sense) goes up to 100%, the Interest numbers by the Staking circle went up to 99%.
BUT
"there was no interest rate cap" in the code means - what? No upper limit? A random number maxed at the specs of the variable integer used in the code?
It is important for someone to confirm this was the issue, so then we know any solution involving capping the interest rate at 10%, or even 100%, will really solve the problem for sure.

Post was based on assumptions that a majority of holders would stake at any given time. If you do the math it actually makes sense. I got the maximum stake reward of 7.5 million SLR. Obviously the chain was rolled back and those coins are not going to be confirmed, merely generated as orphans. If you divide 34 million by 7.5 million you get a lofty 4.53 SLR which would make sense if every one of those 34 million coins were staking at any given time. Placing a cap on this would more or less fix this issue.

Of course I don't care about the orphaned interest payments, the solution Steve implemented to orphan them effectively fixed the wrong stakes everyone got.

But we need to know if there was ANY cap at all. If there was a cap of 100%, then no math can give me the ~12 million SLR I got for the ~700,000 wallet SLRs that got that interest, in which case the problem can NOT be fixed by just reducing the cap to 10%.

If there was no cap at all (as I assumed - like for instance any initial random number with a max depending only on the internal type of the variable used) - let's say interest going up to 32768%...or 256%... then the results we got make sense with that kind of "no cap" - and capping at 10% or even 100% will fix the problem.

BUT if there WAS a cap of 100% as measured by the Interest numbers showing by the Staking circle (those were going up to 99% only) - then that means the cause for the problem has NOT been identified, and capping at 10% will NOT fix the problem when we start staking again.

[y_virtual]

Hey I'm a little bit late to all of this. I've noticed there is a new wallet now, I haven't updated mine for a while. I still have an old wallet on my system, do I need to completely remove it before installing the new one? I've backed up my wallet.dat file, would it just be a case of transferring this over when the new wallet is installed? Cheers

Make several backups of your wallet.dat!

You can install this one over the previous install. The installer will automatically detect the old install and delete it, but leave your wallet.dat intact.

Cheers for the help, yeah I have a bunch of backups on hard drives and USB sticks locked away in safes etc

Hi all,
I just want to cross-check before I reload our blockchain in the Windows wallet.
The windows wallet we have is version 2.0.1 but the chain was never loaded past block 830,000. I think it was synced at 814,000 or something similar.
Now, I just want to go ahead and download version 2.0.3 directly from the 2.0.1 wallet app as soon as I turn it on before it syncs up to 830,000. (That's the plan).

Do other people think this is the correct proceedure and what are (if there are any) risks involved here.
We have many backups of wallet.dat from the version 2.0.1 wallet on multiple media.

On another different question. What are people's experience with the Linux wallets? We are going to make some of those shortly as well running Ubuntu so that they are staking 24x7.

Thanking you,
lfloorwalker

Regarding the update in Windows - all 4 wallets I am running got updated (directly from within the application) and synced successfully, then I also ran Wallet Rescans; all interest payments were orphaned; Spendable amounts were reset to initial (correct) values; all non-interest send/receive transactions between wallets and external addresses after block 830000 hanged in the Unconfirmed state for a while, then eventually all got confirmed (somewhere above 200 confirms).

[y_virtual]

There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1
See page 11 and 13 of link:

http://www.vericoin.info/downloads/VeriCoinPoSTWhitePaper10May2015.pdf

"There was no interest rate cap in v2.0.1"

There we go. So there WAS NO interest cap?!? The chart on page 11 (as well as common sense) goes up to 100%, the Interest numbers by the Staking circle went up to 99%.
BUT
"there was no interest rate cap" in the code means - what? No upper limit? A random number maxed at the specs of the variable integer used in the code?
It is important for someone to confirm this was the issue, so then we know any solution involving capping the interest rate at 10%, or even 100%, will really solve the problem for sure.

Post was based on assumptions that a majority of holders would stake at any given time. If you do the math it actually makes sense. I got the maximum stake reward of 7.5 million SLR. Obviously the chain was rolled back and those coins are not going to be confirmed, merely generated as orphans. If you divide 34 million by 7.5 million you get a lofty 4.53 SLR which would make sense if every one of those 34 million coins were staking at any given time. Placing a cap on this would more or less fix this issue.

Of course I don't care about the orphaned interest payments, the solution Steve implemented to orphan them effectively fixed the wrong stakes everyone got.

But we need to know if there was ANY cap at all. If there was a cap of 100%, then no math can give me the ~12 million SLR I got for the ~700,000 wallet SLRs that got that interest, in which case the problem can NOT be fixed by just reducing the cap to 10%.

If there was no cap at all (as I assumed - like for instance any initial random number with a max depending only on the internal type of the variable used) - let's say interest going up to 32768%...or 256%... then the results we got make sense with that kind of "no cap" - and capping at 10% or even 100% will fix the problem.

BUT if there WAS a cap of 100% as measured by the Interest numbers showing by the Staking circle (those were going up to 99% only) - then that means the cause for the problem has NOT been identified, and capping at 10% will NOT fix the problem when we start staking again.

Or may be someone wants to tell me that the cap was 100% on the 34 million, and if it was only me staking, I would get not 100% calced based on my balance - stake-time - coin age etc., but 100% of those 100% calced on the total in circulation? Which would be 34 million I would get for finding 1 block because I was staking alone. But that would be WRONG MATH all along, and if this is how the algorithm is implemented, then it is wrong, and capping at 10% will still not fix the wrong implementation.


Edit: It's one thing to say "there was no interest rate cap", and quite another to say:

Interest rate (i):  
i = t * 34mln / n
 
where-in interest rate (i) is the product of inflation rate (t) and the total Proof-of-Work initial                                
SolarCoin supply, divided by average network weight (n).
 
Inflation rate (t):  
t = (17*(log(n/20))/100

Apparently the interest cap would depend on the network weight (network stake weight - is it the same?); What would n be if there was only 1 staker? And if these formulas were implemented correctly, and the interest rate (i) could go above 100%, then why did the "Interest rate" number by the Staking circle show only up to 99%?

[y_virtual]

Staking started at 835000? Why is that?

[y_virtual]

Solarcoin notice

Hi
This is miningpoolhub.

Solarcoin pool is reverted to previous fork. (No hardfork)
We resumed solarcoin pool and mining is working well currently.
We will announce if things change.

Thanks.

Well looks like 2.0.3 started staking at 835000, and PoW mining in 2.0.3 is currently disabled. Now what?

[y_virtual]

Here is my choice as of now:
1. backup all current wallets, exit & uninstall 2.0.3;
2. Reinstall/restore 1.5, use 1.5 wallets from backup, check balances 1.5 vs 2.0.3 wallets, try to figure out any possible discrepancies;
3. Resume PoW mining on miningpoolhub or solo (if needed).

Edit:
I do have testing-only new (2.0.3) wallets with balances in them. Apparently staking that started at 835000 is on the same blockchain where 1.5 mining continues. So for these new wallets I will take the risk (no other option actually available) to add step 4:
4. (try to) Send 2.0.3-only wallet balances to 1.5 wallets, then fresh install 1.5 in place of the 2.0.3 application.

Edit2:
5. try using 2.0.3 wallet in 1.5

[solarcoiner]

Here is my choice as of now:
1. backup all current wallets, exit & uninstall 2.0.3;
2. Reinstall/restore 1.5, use 1.5 wallets from backup, check balances 1.5 vs 2.0.3 wallets, try to figure out any possible discrepancies;
3. Resume PoW mining on miningpoolhub or solo (if needed).

What the hell is going on?

Im sick of constantly keeping track of all my wallet.dat files.
Im going to lose something in all of this mess.
There are a lot of unanswered questions on the last two pages, it would be nice to get a few answers regarding this entire mess