Topic: [ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained] - page 226. (Read 1369788 times)

Mintpal Trading on 8-05-2014
Sent some zeitcoin to trade for Mintcoin on Mintpal 8 hours ago
and Mintpal still lists deposits as pending
Send some to Cryptsy and was there in 15 minutes.
Left the support tickets at mintpal , no response over 8 hours old
They seem to be having some issues.
 

It has been ridiculously low for 3-4 month now.
Only trade was the dumped premine.

that be a bit hard to explain, "Mintpal delisted Mint"

https://i.imgur.com/off6HBO.png

i wonder if mintcoin will be removed from mintpal.com, it's trade value is too little

can you post a screen shot of the transaction list in your client?

It is all on that one address.
If you look at the bottom of the Transaction ID: http://mint.blockexplorer.cc/tx/97f746e941a593ac053963215cc2a88c037829a8d6d62662cfe501c4e0bfcf52#o0

https://i.imgur.com/UIaCAn2.png
It shows it has not been redeemed...which means it is still all on that 1 address. (coins have not moved/minted yet)

look in your transactions and see if you used more than one address

I will discuss that with the block explorer owner and get back to you.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Question:

I bought about 28.5-million Mintcoins the other day and sent them to my wallet.... I am wondering why my address not showing up on either of the block explorers under the rich lists?

My address has exactly 28,457,314.05362 coins.
According to http://mint.blockexplorer.cc/richlist/ I should be ranked at about #108.
According to http://mint.blockx.info/richlist/ I should be ranked at about #114.
Why are the two Rish Lists showing different information???

When I look it up on the block explorer, everything is fine in the details. I just don't get why this information isn't getting updated on the rich lists.

Here is a link to the address showing my balance is valid and confirmed.
http://mint.blockexplorer.cc/address/Mn4DD5eSVvf8VQzWfx6RYNTWXjHgUQf2Lw

So why wouldn't it be showing up on the Rich Lists???

I'm sure I can't be the only one this is happening to,
It's a little confusing,
Thanks.

One of the main reasons why I am not in favor of eliminating the coin cap by having 1.5% 3% or 5% to replace lost of stolen coins is because I don't believe it is even really necessary. Here is why:

For one thing, we are a very long time away from reaching the coin cap and I'm sure a plethora of new crypto-innovative technologies will have advanced by that time to address any and all concerns about the deflationary "problem". In fact there already are enough happenings that it is not an issue.

Let's assume that we keep everything the same. 70B max coins, with only fees payed to minters.

As coins become lost/stolen the value of Mintcoin becomes more rare and rare and more valuable, but this is not a serious problem.

Let's say Mintcoin value goes up to $1,000 per mintcoin. If transaction fees and micro-payments became a problem, at this point, third parties could establish "off-blockchain" services. What I means is, that Mintcoin should be used as the financial services "core". A deflationary financial asset from which other financial services in the future will run on. Mintcoin will be the standard of value, and most transactions in the future will not actually run on the Mintcoin blockchain itself.

What will happen in the long-run is we will eventually go off blockchain.

For example: coinbase, inputs.io, blockchain.info etc. for small amounts/daily purchases. Technologies like these that will enable people to transact in fractions of a satoshi, allowing people to to transact still in BTC valuations, but these are transactions that will not go over the actual blockchain.

In the long-run we will still be using the Mintcoin blockchain, but only for larger, rarer, important transfers. Hence all these scaling problems just don't exist. MINT is just even better than BTC in this regard....because the larger, rare, important transfers are secured by PoS, rather than only PoW like Bitcoin. Going off blockchain with Bitcoin will not solve their energy usage problem and 51% attack issues from a security standpoint in the long run. If you only use BTC for large, rare, important transfers, how will you be able to pay the miners enough money in fees to keep them mining? In Bitcoin there will be less people mining, to support those larger, rare, important transfers, which will cause an increased security risk as time goes on. This is why Mintcoin's proof-of-stake aspect is so important for long-term sustainability. The parameters of the coin such as the coin cap, is at a good place, and should never be changed; it is irrelevant, long-term. The scalability is not an issue, long-term!

If Mintcoin becomes "too expensive" for small payments, then the only thing we need to do is lower the transaction fee from time to time, and just continue to extend out decimal places like BTC is doing already.

Eventually, if Mintcoin becomes that successful, we will ultimately have to move into off-blockchain systems at some point anyway as I believe Mintcoin is limited to about 1.5 million transactions per day. (This is an improvement over Bitcoin which is limited to about 75,000 transactions per day.) Good news is there will probably always be many active crypto currencies with floating exchange rates so the transaction limit problems are highly mitigated.

But I am trying to think long-term, not short-term. What we need to envision is an entirely different financial system landscape. Mintcoin will be a store of value, and as coins are lost/stolen the each coin will become more rare and valuable. What we will do is build other financial systems and services around the Mintcoin core, that will be able to facilitate the transactions of many micro-payments, and day-to-day transactions at an even faster rate. Just take time to think bigger.

And finally I want to say, I am not totally against eliminating the 70B cap. I just definitely believe it is waaaaay too early in crypto-history to know what a good rate will be once the cap is reached. The problem with using a percentage rate, is we don't know how many coins we really need to be replaced every year. It could be that a fixed amount would be better, a set amount rather than a % rate. For example, it may be 250,000,000 new coins per year fixed every year would be a better option. If you go with a % rate, then you run the risk of the compounding interest being too much, resulting in overly excessive increases in the money supply, and then what you will get is inflation, and potentially "runaway" inflation. But, I still think that a the hard limit coin cap is ultimately the best for valuations. All we need to do is just keep pushing out the decimal places and lowering the transaction fee from time to time.

If the POS is like Peercoin, then it is based on a 360 day year...so the payout is "slightly more". (360 / 20) = 18 twenty day periods...which means at the most 1.1111% every twenty days (assuming the minting takes place immediately, on the mark every time, which is unlikely).

The actual rate per 20 day period is 1.095% as there are 18.25 20 day periods in each year. Second year will be .821% per 20 day period, third year will be .547% and forth and subsequent years the interest will be .273% per 20 day period.

so from 90 million we are down to 16 nice 

Since day 1

Hi ,

The Exchanges may not be as big an issue as they first appeared.
I went back and redid my calculations.
And came up with this simple version , which is not 100% accurate but a best guess estimate:
Since Mintcoin is 20% this year , I divided 20 by 12 (12 months) and got 1.667 , so I am guessing it would be ~ 1.667% (I know that is not 100% accurate but close enough for my needs) .

So If the exchanges had the following amounts in a hot wallet gaining interest
(Have not seen an exchange with over 1,000,000,000 total.
1,000,000,000 mintcoins x1.667% = 16,670,000 mintcoins per month
500,000,000   mintcoins x1.667%  = 8,335,000 mintcoins per month
250,000,000   mintcoins x1.667% =  4,167,500 mintcoins per month

So their influence is not as bad as originally thought. Odds are they are not holding it all in a hot wallet anymore , especially since one got hacked last month.

If anyone has the exact formula for calculating the stake , please add it, but this was close enough to end my concerns over it.
Thanks.
 

Outstanding development team! Glad I jumped on the bandwagon... Thanks for the answers.

I read earlier in the thread one of the original devs is working on another coin. This often happens in cryptocurrencies - devs chase the quick buck pumping out another coin for a few days or weeks of glory and profit.

Mintcoin has made public the real names of "Team Mint". http://mintcoin.cc/official-mintcoin-team/. This ushers in a new era of accountability and transparency in the altcoin scene. In short, Mint is not a scam coin and is here for the long run.

You can be well assured I loaded up on Mint at these low prices.

If you want to guard against exchanges selling the POS interest then why not make the maximum block size 100,000 coins and any transaction above that will use the oldest transaction according to coinage? anything lower than the 100,000 limit could also be the opposite where it will use the newest transaction or combine two sets of blocks to make the transaction?

Then anytime people are moving mid size blocks out of mintpal etc, it will disrupt staking and shrink their largest/oldest transaction blocks.


Just saying because there would be no way to simply tell people that they should withdraw their coins from the exchanges so it would be better to make it where the exchanges can only ever stake a very small amount.

Yup, full POS. Hashco.ws pays out also in MINT.