Topic: [ANN] New Piggycoin [PIGGY] | 3% interest | Web PiggyBank | Android PiggyBank - page 40. (Read 222654 times)

Neurocis, thank you for the clear and extended explanation! That is more than I could ask for. I haven't done the math this morning but a glance at some addresses shows the normalization occurring that you spoke of.

There's a lot to digest in this, but is one lesson here that a address doesn't have to stake constantly to get a full 3% "interest rate" from POS? It sounds almost as if you can sit offline most of the time, then turn on staking and get large stakes due to the coin-age.

Now, your next assignment is to simplify that explanation so it is suitable for grade schoolers learning about crypto. (Just kidding!)

(Hmm, that's the first time I've gotten to Verify a crypto key. It worked! And yes, I do trust you! :-)

Okay, quick answer first ... #4 pjbxSW had more coin-age (had not staked coins for some time) so rewards would "appear" larger. They would be the same if the coins were constantly staked the same as #3 psVEnG. Further, more blocks were awarded to #4 pjbSW because it had more splits (looking in the wallet that 18m was split out to over 1,500 UTXOs) ...

If, for example one were to enter the network with 1x1m coin UTXO that had 1 year coin-age (A) vs another with 10x100k coin UTXO w/same coinage (B) vs a third 1m coin UTXO w/6months coinage, I would expect to see something like the following to occur:

  (A) Wins 1 block, staking 1m coins which get split into 2x500k new UTXOs and awarded 30k.
  (B) Wins 5 blocks, each staking 100k coins which get split into 10x50k new UTXOs and awarded 3k in each block.
  (C) Wins 1 block, staking 1m coins which get split into 2x500k new UTXOs and awarded 15k.
  (B) Wins 5 blocks, each staking 100k coins which get split into 10x50k new UTXOs and awarded 3k in each block.

So (A) and (C) only won a block each, whereas (B) won 10 blocks due to splitting. (A) and (B) had a total award of 30k each, which is 3% because they had one year coinage coming into the stake. (C) was awarded 15k as coin-age was only 6mo.

In the above example if you took a sample that included the above vs. those claiming stakes every 10 or so hours they would all appear disproportionate, with (A) and (B) looking like they were earning 100% more than (C) and (C) earning 100s of % more than the rest of the network. One must take coin-age into account.

The real world, re interest differential:

Lets take a look at what appears to be a disproportionately large stake by pjbxSW and coin-age:

Block 426094: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/tx.dws?916597.htm
  Block Date/Time: 2015-03-15 00:14:18
UTXO Block 333745: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/tx.dws?722809.htm (In this block you can actually see the UTXO splitting as well.)
  Block Date/Time: 2015-01-10 01:17:01
  Approx. coin-age-days: 64 days
  Interest calculation: 125k * 3% / 365 * 64 days = 657.534 (actual reward 657.08988322 PIGGY)  - VALID.

Now psVEnG:

Block 426076: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/tx.dws?916561.htm
  Block Date/Time: 2015-03-15 00:06:57
UTXO Block 425031: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/tx.dws?914395.htm
  Block Date/Time: 2015-03-14 07:04:38
  Approx. coin-age-days: 14/24 = ~0.583
  Interest calculation: ~63.9k * 3% / 365 * ~0.583 days = 3.062 (actual reward 3.72962237 PIGGY) - VALID.

But if you were to extrapolate based on those two stakes without taking into account coin-age it would appear, as you noticed, that pjbxSW was earning interest orders of magnitude higher than psVEnG. From the above, it is not, you may verify any block manually this way.


Re percentage of network successful stakes:

You will notice now the network is normalizing again, and yes pjbxSW is being used to "test with purpose", "normalize" or secure the network as there is a (pre-existing) issue with stake-splitting (much thanks to greenmo for noticing this behavior TBH). Currently the wallet will split down to a minimum of 1,000 coins any successful stake that has a coin-age of less than 24 hours. In the case of PIGGY we have allot of believers w/ fair holdings mixed with lots of smaller addresses (32.4% are held by the top 10) and actually psVEnG concerns me the most, should it come to be controlled by a bad actor.

Staking is based on UTXOs ... So if I have a low stake network difficulty and I posses enough coins I could theoretically split my coins out to optimize my consecutive stakes. This is effectively what was done with pjbxSW with the view to increase network difficulty but preserve the 1 minute block times. In the example above we saw how 1m coins split out could, given the right conditions, be split to get close to 10 consecutive successful stakes in a row. Given 6 confirmations this is a reasonable attack vector. pjbxSW had been split into over 1,600 UTXOs pre-fork, then held unstaked for a time to insure its height post-fork when it was put to stake again giving the new chain a higher overall difficulty to entice at fork time clients to migrate to the new chain. When removed, the difficulty dropped again due to the splitting down to 1k UTXOs of stakes. A new wallet was compiled with a 256k lower split boundary (and consolidate coins) and pjbxSW was put to stake again raising the difficulty. A release will be made in the next week or so targeting a lower boundary of 48k, by my calculations, which seems to be the sweet spot to balance splits vs difficulty vs blocktime vs attack vector. As the number of coins increase and the percentage of stakers change, this will have to be adjusted, or a dynamic method implemented. Luckily the Team can to a degree influence this, and that was the case when, yes, pjbxSW held 70% of stakes for a while and "adjusted" the network difficulty. All I can say is there is much truth to Sunny Kings comments https://github.com/ppcoin/ppcoin/blob/master/src/wallet.cpp#L1215

Many words, and I hope some explanation ... and here is a signed message I hold pjbxSW6yFSbZAX5rjeN9n1c8EL8oULLwpY (I hope you trust me)   :

    Proof of holding. neurocis.
    H4jUUR/YfisqpL05JnhyZZQ1j5EhLm2GBWCZ5CzSlNqjiQwMIm5BS3qCcvHrfS7PHe6hnIBujL8q58iOmvkKT1I=

Cheers ... and of course Oink!!!

Thanks! I've been wondering and hoping I could learn more about how the POS staking works, as it is evidently not very simple/straightforward as I initially assumed. If anyone has any good general references (or info on how Piggycoin POS works), I'd appreciate it. I've been pouring over the staking data trying to make sense of it without much success.

animalroam has taken the PiggyFacts faucet offline for the time being -- It was being confused by orphan block storms from the old chain that were consuming the CPU.  v1.2.1.1 will address this.

Excellent ebeliever, glad there are others watching the chain! I possess that address and will post an analysis of what is going on when I get home tonight from the day job. Coles notes: It relates to stake splitting and network difficulty.

Is the testing being done with pjbxSW6yFSbZAX5rjeN9n1c8EL8oULLwpY by any chance? I'm curious why that address is suddenly staking so well. Yesterday it suddenly showed up on the Extraction page (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/#!extraction) in the #1 slot with large stakes and at a disproportionate rate. The stake amounts have now dropped a bit, but are still running quite high.

By my math, it should be earning ~62 PIGGY/hour for 3% interest, but is currently running at over 232 PIGGY/hour for the last 100 stakes as of this writing And that's much lower than yesterday. By comparison the #2 staker (psVEnGqj...) only ran 42 PIGGY/hour for it's last hundred stakes, below target of over 74 PIGGY/hour to hit 3% annually. I know there should be some variance in the results but this seems rather excessive.

Related question: How is it that the #1 staker is hitting 55% of stakes with only 18 million coins, while the #2 staker is only getting 16% with 21 million coins? Again, the #1 staker has been running disproportionately high for a good while, it's not just an hour or two of lucky stakes.

EDIT:

Pulled the CSV exports of the staking history of the two public keys listed above (current #3 and #4 on the Rich List - https://chainz.cryptoid.info/piggy/#!rich), and did some more comparisons:

Rich list #3 (psVEnGqj...)
Baseline analysis (March 13-14) - annualized interest rate of 3.16%
Staking today (3/16) - annualized interest rate of 1.31%
Stakes/hour on 3/16: 9.24 (so far)

Rich list #4 (pjbxSW6y...)
Staking today (3/16) - annualized interest rate of 15.18%!
Stakes/hour on 3/16: 29.22 (so far)

Something is out of whack. It's as if #4 on the rich list is staking at the once-proposed 15% interest rate, and is somehow crowding out everyone else and depressing their interest.

EDIT 2:

From 3/15/2015 21:17 to 3/16/2015 1:56, (pjbxSW6y...) staked 206 times (in 4.64 hours) for 5125 PIGGY, an annualized rate of 53.38%.

This won't be any kind of fork

We're now testing a v1.2.1 wallet which adjusts staking behaviour a little -- stakes were being split up too much, even before the hard fork, and it was slowing the wallet down -- amongst some other minor fixes and changes.  Hopefully it'd encourage people to stake a little more often ^oo^.

   Sounds good, thanks for looking into it.

Yes, I think it could be a good tool for teaching about public and private keys.

neurocis says:

I don't suppose there is a vanity address generator for Piggycoin? I was just thinking it would be fun for kids to be able to generate vanity addresses with their name in it, or whatever. (Don't make this a huge priority if there isn't anything and it is difficult, but if it's easy I think it'd be a good tool to help teach kids about public and private keys, in keeping with Piggycoin's mission.)

Neurocis has made a newer blockchain bootstrap file to help newbies get on the correct fork: http://www.mediafire.com/download/7353wqvu3coq48b/[email protected]

Instructions in OP.
--
Mo

qiwoman2 has been paid 200K PIGGY from the New PiggyCoin premine as a bounty for the article on bitbillions.net, plus some PIGGYs from some members of the PiggyTeam's personal funds.

This was the first use of the New PiggyCoin premine.

PiggyCoin is progressing!

Sure, didn't mean to dismiss the issue.  If PIGGY is to open new markets to crypto then they need to be protected from those kinds of mistakes.  Will see what we can do.

Perhaps also post a message to this effect (even if just in "fine print") on the wallet website? Like you said, it's a bad idea in retrospect - but that doesn't mean it won't be a common occurrence among teachers or parents with more than one kid.

Here's the .apk for the New PiggyCoin Android wallet.  It's feature complete.  The rest of the team is working on getting it on the app store; I don't know how that's going.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/99ygycpzllgdrh2/PiggyWallet-Mobile-release-Mar2015.apk

Great to read a positive article about PiggyCoin, thanks! 

This issue shouldn't really be a big deal to fix, I think.  It's just a matter of disabling the relevant Javascript when the account changes and showing a warning.  You shouldn't try to log into multiple wallets in the same browser, even in different windows -- Like most websites the same account session is shared between all windows of that browser.  But of course the website should help you out by showing a warning or whatever.

I really like what you are doing for kids..Her eis my new blog review for PIGGY..I hope to do more in the future to help..
http://bitbillions.net/2015/03/08/altcoin-review-new-piggy-coin-sets-the-pace-for-future-generations/