Thanks for all the responses.
It appears that making a whole "hive" of say 10 wallets won't produce any more coins than lets say 1 or two?
"If its more coins, you are better off resetting network weight on certain batches of coins inside one wallet every week."
I would like to understand the above and why?
My reason for attempting to make a Hive of staking wallets was the assumption it would give a slightly better return (more of an even staking)
From the dialog I assume that that assumption was wrong.
I also wanted to attach an extra 1.8" SSD to one of the office repair PC's that run 24/7
Don't really want to spend money on a Pi ...
It appears that making a whole "hive" of say 10 wallets won't produce any more coins than lets say 1 or two?
"If its more coins, you are better off resetting network weight on certain batches of coins inside one wallet every week."
I would like to understand the above and why?
My reason for attempting to make a Hive of staking wallets was the assumption it would give a slightly better return (more of an even staking)
From the dialog I assume that that assumption was wrong.
I also wanted to attach an extra 1.8" SSD to one of the office repair PC's that run 24/7
Don't really want to spend money on a Pi ...
Hey George,
Here is the rundown….
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) is an alternative to PoW first introduced in Peercoin. The resource used by PoS is “coin age”: currency amount times holding period. Similar to energy, coin age as a resource is expensive to amass in huge quantity. For an attacker to accumulate enough coin age to attack the distributed network, he either has to buy on open market a large amount of the very currency he’s trying to attack, driving up its price during the process and diminishing his economic incentive, or hold coins for a very long time, reducing the frequency of his own attacks. One useful feature of PoS is the significant saving in energy consumption. Another main feature is the better alignment of incentives between miners and stakeholders because miners are now the stakeholders.
The entire PoS network depends on coin age as the scarce resource. Coin age can only be earned by holding coins. To earn coin age at a higher rate than others, one must hold more coins. Coin age is consumed when a coin is spent in a transaction. PoS mining requires a user to repeatedly send coins to herself, thus consuming his reserve of coin age in exchange for probabilistic winning a PoS block reward without reducing the size of the holding. Coins spent in transactions facing other users also have their coin age reset to zero but this consumption of coin age is outside the scope of PoS mining, unqualified for block rewards and is considered a “waste” by most PoS stakeholders.
It now becomes clear that PoS has been designed to encourage hoarding and discourage spending. Some PoS coins, such as Peercoin, openly declare their philosophy to “function more as a long-term store of value than medium of exchange.” In this sense, PoS coins are created to be collectibles rather than currencies. Scarcity is a necessary but insufficient condition for collectibles to have value. Collectibles must also offer some form of utility such as aesthetics and historic significance. Considering the fact that anyone can access and mod- ify the source code of PoS coins and potentially offer an improved version, in theory there is infinite supply. The scarcity condition doesn’t hold. It remains an unsolved puzzle where PoS coins marketed as collectibles derive their value from.
PoS transforms all stakeholders into miners. All they need to do to collect interest rate is to leave their wallets running and connected to the PoS network and participate in the confirmation of transactions. Wallets which stay online for extended periods of time are called full nodes. Staying online seems to be a rather simple requirement. So it comes as quite a surprise that PoS coins tend to suffer from insufficient number of full nodes. This seeming paradox can be explained by two reasons.
First, coin age equals number of coins times holding period. It doesn’t matter whether a wallet is connected to the PoS network during the holding period. An offline wallet accumulates coin age at the same rate as an online one. The only difference is that an always-online wallet receives block rewards in a fashion that’s more evenly spread out over time while an occasionally-online wallet receives block rewards in a few concentrated clusters. This difference alone is insufficient to encourage most stakeholders to stay online.
Second, it’s commonly perceived by average PoS stakeholders that running wallets and staying connected for long periods of time significantly increases security risk. This was a particularly grave concern when early versions of PoS wallets didn’t support wallet passphrase during mining. Since then there has been workaround to reduce the security risk.
By considering the two reasons above, an average PoS stakeholder tend to make the rational decision of connecting to PoS network only sporadically. The lack of sufficient number of full nodes can result in higher risk of security breach on PoS networks.
Like Jc12345 said, POS is somewhat like an art. Each person has their own way of staking.
