Topic: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN - page 450. (Read 782382 times)

I sent Presstab a message. I paid for the.first year already, so I'm sure is just a glitch or something.

Nope, the others are expired. Even though they were approved. They are no longer eligible.

I noticed that there are 3 different untraceable TX proposals.

"truly-untraceable-tx" : {
        "Name" : "truly-untraceable-tx",
        "URL" : "bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg14588778#msg14588778",
        "Hash" : "fd20f751b02a9fba43164fb661cfa28571b2e4726ad02b1f5ead16a02dd8d880",
        "Yeas" : 129,
        "Nays" : 0,
        "TotalPayment" : 500000.00000000,
        "MonthlyPayment" : 500000.00000000,

"truly-untraceable-tx" : {
        "Name" : "truly-untraceable-tx",
        "URL" : "bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg14119948#msg14119948",
        "Hash" : "b7e9e0561bf317026e72993a83972805103da3cbca7f69769629a4b30f9cfde9",
        "Yeas" : 149,
        "Nays" : 21,
        "TotalPayment" : 250000.00000000,
        "MonthlyPayment" : 250000.00000000

"untraceable-tx" : {
        "Name" : "untraceable-tx",
        "URL" : "bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg14588778#msg14588778",
        "Hash" : "7ab87af4eb15979b0e542e389a37022feedf0455abf0494bb3df2fcadab210eb",
        "Yeas" : 235,
        "Nays" : 0,
        "TotalPayment" : 500000.00000000,
        "MonthlyPayment" : 500000.00000000,

As far as I know, the last one is the most recent and valid version of the dev's proposal.
But all 3 of them have over 10% votes and they total up to 1.25 million DNET payment.
Does that mean all 3 will get paid to the devs even though they are all for the same thing?

http://dnet.presstab.pw/    is down as of 23:30 utc

I really respect the work of the dev team but i do not get some of the arguments against supply reduction too.

“Value is not related to total coin supply”.
This is just not true. Sure features, adoption and other stuff is very (if not more) important but the total supply defines the price too. 
In the end all aspects are important for the value (do not forget trust level for the dev team and other things).

Look at the low price for oil/gas atm. The Opec is not able to find an agreement for "conveying restriction".
Result: price is falling deeper. Price will go up a soon as the iran will agree to cut the production too. That’s for sure.

The Whales will dump DNET as soon as profit is at the desired level no matter what. If they will dump because of a short-term pump after the reduction, i will call this good thing.
In my experience, DNET has a much better chance to recover from a massive dumps (now and in the future) if the total supply is lower.
This is just a deflation/inflation law.

I also agree with fedmahnkassad for the statement about competition. it, internet and especially blockchain tech is moving very, very fast.
 
I am not sure about the reward for mn/miner/stakeholders and I will stay out of this discussion, but I only see advantages for supply reduction short and long term.

Just my 2 cents.
Cheers

At least, they won't accumulate more below 400 sats. And if MM wants to pump&dump, he will do it with any news. If there won't be supply reduction then on release of some new tech. So it isn't the reason why we shoudl'nt implement this proposal.


The system is ballancing itself: mining becomes less profitable -> miners leaving this coin -> more profit to miners who are still mining. At the other hand: less coins supply -> higher price -> more miners want to mine this coin. So the network won't suffer. BTW, DASH masternodes are getting 50% of mining rewards with less then 4 coins generated per block.

The statistics is talking for itself:
"Yeas" : 373
"Nays" : 88
And price too:

I don't get the "fewer coins is bad for POS" concept. People can stake one coin, ten coins, one thousand coins etc. what matters is the proportional distribution of the coins and the amount of staking wallets not if there are total of 50 mil, 100 mil or 500 mil.

Also guys here are acting as if there is no competition at all and you have all the time in the world to develop the coin and gain popularity.

There are tons of new coins coming up and will continue to come up. You need to decide if you want to be a predator or bottom of the food chain dweller.

ive read and repeated twice. im not sure what im missing. how do you open that port on the masternode?

I am guessing you didn't take the time to read the OP or you would have read that you "Must have port 51472 open on the masternode"

Thank you. You really said many of the things I was thinking. I would like to add one or two more things to it, though.

First, cutting the supply now will leave fewer coins when we switch to PoS, and as I said before, for a PoS coin each coin can be looked at as an individual mining machine. For PoS fewer coins is the equivalent of a lower network hash rate, especially considering that a portion of those coins will be locked up in masternodes unable to contribute to the security of the blockchain side of the network. While lowering the number of coins being introduced daily now may have an effect on the day to day price per coin now, it will certainly lead to a less secure network in the future, which will not help the long term value of the coin. The "fix" that is proposed is only going to push the price drop that we are experiencing now into the future. Features and usability are the only way to maintain a stable price, this coin is not even 3 months old, and the market is still looking for a stable price point. When you arbitrarily cut coin production as a crutch to catch a falling price it will only be a temporary solution.

All of the coins being mined each day could be bought for 1.26 BTC at 500 satoshi, or 2.52 BTC at 1000 satoshi. There has been consistently more daily volume than that, meaning that a good portion of the buying and selling going on is being done by day traders, miners dumping are not the primary cause for the price drop, they are allowing those with a real interest in this coin and no way of mining themselves to get coins at a reasonable quantity and price. If you go to the DNET page on Bittrex and click the distribution button right above the chart you will see that the top 5 addresses on Bittrex hold over 3 million coins, and keeping an eye on them shows steady accumulation over time. There is only a bit more than 4 million for sale on Bittrex. Do you really think that those wallets won't pump the price when there is a bit of what may seem good news, namely supply reduction, and then dump those 3 million coins. When that happens you will really see the dramatic price drop you are trying to prevent with this ill conceived plan.

The other thing that really bothers me about the current reduction proposal is the split between miners and masternode owners. So that there is no confusion, I have somewhere around 100 masternodes, and would love to be getting paid half of the block rewards for maintaining them. On the other hand, I am also mining a large number of DNET, and that would totally stop given the reward structure as laid out in this proposal. There is no way I am going to continue to invest the time and money I am currently for 25 DNET per block, that would just be plain irresponsible of me, especially considering the fact that I believe that the long term prospects of DNET would be completely decimated by this proposal. I don't think you will find very many other miners who would continue to mine DNET either. The strength of our PoW network is spectacular, to disregard the importancy of that is a huge mistake.

Before I close with my final point I also just want to second everything EleanorZ said, reread his words once more and think about it.

Again, I will code the change, even if it is against my better judgement, if the proposal is approved according to the predetermined rules and numbers. For the sake of clarification, in order to be accepted into the budget the (number of yes votes)-(number of no votes) needs to be greater than 10% of the total of all masternodes at the time the budget is finalized. The budget is finalized 2 days before the superblock that would include budget payments, the superblock for this proposal is 129600. So, 129600-2880=126720, at the time I am writing this that leaves about 14444 blocks, or a bit more than 10 days. I understand that those voting in favor of this proposal would like to get it done as soon as possible, but that is the way it is, I will also be allowing at least 2 weeks from the time the new wallet is released before the change would kick in, we have already experienced issues with too short an upgrade window, and will not be repeating the same mistakes twice.

All of this is speculation at this point, I really hope that everyone reading this, who has a general interest in the long term viability of the DarkNet project, will think long and hard and see how shortsighted this change would be, it would only successfully serve the short term interests of a few large holders, not the long term health of the coin. Again, I stand to gain greatly from this proposal in the short term, but won't be cashing out even if it becomes reality, I predict that that will be a fatal mistake in the long term success of my investment of both time and money in DarkNet. Money is not why I am here, it is the potential to do something new and different that brought s3v3nh4cks and myself together in this venture.

I don't really get the fuss on here in the past few days. "Value" is not related to total coin supply--it's related to features, applications, utility. For example, both Dogecoin and Litecoin have value because they can be used in the real world, though their respective monetary values are very different.

If the devs keep at it and roll out the various features they have in mind, DNET will be "valuable" in the long run. That is the bet we all made by getting in on this early. But the fact that the price has dropped lately says a lot more about the fickleness of cryptocurrency investors than it does about DNET's potential. Holy shit, it's been 2 weeks since the devs announced a new feature; clearly the coin is worthless!! Double holy shit, now the price dropped, we have to cut the supply!!! Well, no. We were willing to pay those prices because we wanted to accumulate units of 10K to operate MNs, and because we're betting that the devs will come through for us in the long run. Maybe they will and maybe they won't--that's the bet. OK, it's been a while since new features have been announced, and the market is getting bored. So what? None of that changes the long term potential of the coin, which is theoretically what we bought into in the first place. It's not a loss unless you sell, but why would you sell if you believe in what's going on here?

Cutting the supply is fine, but it's a bandaid solution and it says nothing about DNET's value--again, that will come from what you can actually do with DNET, which is a long way from being determined. Cutting the supply may serve early investors and temporarily address their allergy to short-term price drops, but it also royally fucks subsequent investors. If I come across DNET two months from now and see that a small group of people accumulated boatloads of DNET and then arbitrarily cut the supply by a factor of 5x because they didn't like that the price dropped, how am I going to feel? I'm going to feel annoyed, because I can never hope to get anywhere close to the bags they accumulated for themselves before changing the rules.

So yes. By all means change the supply if that's what people want, but let's not pretend it's about value. It's purely self serving (and, to be clear, this is coming from someone with a non-trivial bag of DNET). And, for the sake of those who might come along later, let's at least consider a calmer reduction trajectory....

such a pain to setup a masternode now getting bind return error the address is not valid

I voted - yes
there is rapid inflation investments (((

Sorry for the mistake

Does this mean it already reached its target of 10% votes then?
But your proposal has a block end of 194400.
So does the voting finish at that time? (meaning it's way beyond your proposal for PoW change)

Not capable masternode: Could not connect to 70.122.121.176:51472 ?

This is the correct one as I posted earlier, the one you are referencing had an error in it..

untraceable-tx" : {
        "Name" : "untraceable-tx",
        "URL" : "bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262920.msg14588778#msg14588778",
        "Hash" : "7ab87af4eb15979b0e542e389a37022feedf0455abf0494bb3df2fcadab210eb",
        "FeeHash" : "473c328ca53ec2bb4d07d7e30a9ce191b038df31803c82ee094e1f7580397496",
        "BlockStart" : 86400,
        "BlockEnd" : 151200,
        "TotalPaymentCount" : 1,
        "RemainingPaymentCount" : 0,
        "PaymentAddress" : "D8Sf2wpaMyarjCbnwqskXaGAS6jwKSBA1B",
        "Ratio" : 1.00000000,
        "Yeas" : 105,
        "Nays" : 0,
        "Abstains" : 0,
        "TotalPayment" : 500000.00000000,
        "MonthlyPayment" : 500000.00000000,
        "IsEstablished" : true,
        "IsValid" : true,
        "IsValidReason" : "",
        "fValid" : true

Status of this proposal after 14 hours of voting:
"Yeas" : 235
"Nays" : 87

And look at market reaction:

I think 1 week for voting + 1 week to switch to new wallet is enough. The longer we delay this process, the more damage will be done to Darknet economy.

This is cool, thanks for sharing this and source.

If it could include support for optional ssh/rsa key authentication versus plaintext passwords per vps instance that would be even better:

https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-ssh-keys-with-digitalocean-droplets