Topic: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN - page 530. (Read 782382 times)

Ah, I see.  I didn't read through the whole thread and didn't even know stakebox was officially on the team.  I think we are all in agreement then, and the issue here is again, semantics.

Saying "3 staking address per 1 masternode" is clumsy and inaccurate phrasing if what you meant was "newly minted coins will be rewarded at a ratio of 3:1 between masternodes and stakers" or "75% of newly minted coins will be rewarded to masternodes and 25% of newly minted coins will go to those who stake".  If I had realized what it was you meant to say, I would have been on board besides complaining that the 3:1 ratio was too high.


This guy gets it!  If this is just a matter of semantics, I suggest revising the proposal again because it's that "3 staking address per 1 masternode" phrase that is throwing us off.  A reward scheme that pays "3 staking address per 1 masternode" is very, very different and way, way crappier than what I've described.

Hello guys, I took some time to read everything about the PoS proposal.

Please forgive me, my english is not very good, so I'll try to be as clear as possible. OP proposal is interesting but it has a big theoretical flaw. As pointed out we don't need a ratio of 3x staking addresses every 1x masternode. We need 10k DNET masternode investment pays out as  30k DNET staking coins. (if 3x will be the chosen ratio).  
So as masternode owner I'm voting no to the proposal, I understand the theory behind SockPuppetAccount proposal, pretty linear and more fair than considering every "staking address" worth the same without considering its weight.
I guess we'd need a programmer/the OP telling us how hard is to code such a feature. I can't understand last reply by S3v3n, it seems like he partially agrees too.

at this point is is just Stakebox and myself, and I am not in disagreement with you, we want to make this coin everything it can be and want everyones opinion of what they would like to see..

s3v3n

Thanks.  I think I was obsessing over how to explain the idea properly because I wanted to ensure that those who are less experienced with crypto or with less technical knowledge would understand how and why the system I am proposing is superior.  You and tylerderden have expressed support, but of course you guys have been around long enough that I don't have to explain every detail to you.

Newbies don't need to know every detail though.  They just need to know what the end result will be, and my proposal along with the seesawing rewards would make DNET the first and only PoS coin with masternodes that is able to ensure a consistent distribution of newly minted coins between stakers and masternodes.  It will ALWAYS be more profitable to masternode vs. staking, guaranteed.

So, I will be voting "no" to the proposal laid out by s3v3nh4cks.  Perhaps I will submit my proposal for a vote, but the thing is, I am not a software developer.  I know my proposal is a good idea, but I wouldn't know where to begin with coding it.  I am not sure who else is working on this coin behind the scenes with s3v3nh4cks, but it would be nice if the developers would jump into the discussion and give some feedback here.  After all, I could draft proposals all day and we could all vote on them, but if we don't have people capable of implementing those proposals then it is all a waste of time.

Like I said before, I totally agree with your method. I think you are focusing to much on the wording of the proposal. To my mind, what you laid out is really the mechanics of determining the ratio of Masternodes to staking addresses. If you don't like the way the proposal is worded then you could submit your own proposal for voting, but I think that your idea could be used with the proposal as it is written. PoS doesn't start for nearly 6 months, leaving plenty of time for discussions on the appropriate ratio and profitability of Masternodes vs. staking. As you said, it would be nearly impossible to accurately determine the number of active staking addresses, but the method you came up with basically returns a number representing that, while simultaneously calculating the ratio of stakers to Masternodes.

Don't get too hung up on semantics, you have a great idea, and I am sure that will be recognized.

thanks for your help, problem solved

./sgminer -k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://dnet.suprnova.cc:2906 -u suprnova.1 -p x -I 18 --worksize 64 -g 2

working fine here too.

Yeah dude, pretty well thought out. Right on

Can you show us your? What videocard are you using?
My config file is pretty standard, except the argument -k quarcoin

-k quarkcoin -o stratum+tcp://xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx:1234 -u xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -p X --intensity 18 --worksize 64 -g 2

If you "thought a simpler way explaining what you're proposing" please share with us. I want to be sure I understood everything before supporting any decision.

can someone shows his config? with 5.1.1 i have the same error

http://cryptomining-blog.com/4819-new-sgminer-with-optimized-quark-and-qubit-kernels/

i'm searchin working version of sgminer quark optimized for AMD. My sgminer do not work, i have error:

 Startup GPU initialization... Using settings from pool gcpool.eu.
 Startup Pool No = 0
 Initialising kernel quarkcoin.cl with nfactor 10, n 1024
 Error -46: Creating ExtraKernel #0 from program. (clCreateKernel)
 Failed to init GPU thread 0, disabling device 0

So is using a specific ratio of staking addresses:masternodes the method you are going to use for sure?  Because I liked everything else about your proposal except for this one point which is why I talked about using network weight as a guide to maintain a consistent ratio of rewards between stakers and masternodes.

I'm not trying to hype up my idea just for the sake of it.  I'm just saying that I really liked everything about your idea except for the way you implement it.  You were 90% of the way toward a really unique variation of PoS 2.0, but if you do the set ratio of staking addresses : masternodes thing and not the approach I outlined, it will be shit.  I don't know a nicer way to describe it but shit.

Would that even work?  How would you define a specific staking address as being "active"?  Is it even possible to assess how many different addresses are online at any given time?  I mean, if an address isn't submitting a block, the network doesn't know whether that address is "actively" staking or not.

Then there is the fact that treating an address with 1 DNET the same as an address with 1,000,000 DNET is just pants on head retarded for obvious reasons.

I just thought of a much simpler way of explaining what I am proposing rather than the paragraph's I wrote above.  I'm not concerned with the specific ratio atm, just need to use numbers to illustrate my point.

You originally said you were aiming for a ratio of 3 staking address to 1 masternode.  I am saying you are approaching the problem the wrong way.  You need to aim for a ratio of 30,000 staking coins to 10,000 masternode coins.

Please check out the updated proposal on this page.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13778486

If you are the Proud Owner of a Masternode, Please Vote, You get 1 vote per masternode that you own,

s3v3n

I edited my post above while you were replying to me.  Then I read my original post and edited post and I pretty much said the same thing but even less clearly in my edited version!  Ugh, brain fog and I feel like I am not getting myself across but it seems you understand what I am saying, so I'm just gonna leave both versions be!

I completely agree that 3x the rewards for masternodes is too high.  I think 1.5x-2x maximum is appropriate.  I was using 3x as an example because s3v3nh4cks said 3 staking addresses for each masternode, so I was assuming 3x was the level he was shooting for.

I really like where you are going with that. The general idea is really solid, my only concern is making Masternodes 3X as profitable as staking. I agree that when the balance is ideal owning a Masternode should be more profitable than staking, I am just not sure that 3X the profitability is appropriate. I would think more long the lines of 1.5X the profitability per coin.

Both parts of the equation are important, the Masternodes provide a valuable service to the network, servicing the Obfuscation, SwiftTX, and voting on proposals, and the staking wallets are actually processing the transactions, securing the network, and keeping the blockchain moving along.

I don't think we would want to make Masternodes so desirable as to take away from the amount of coins staking.

We need to find that perfect balance point. I think your way of doing it would work better than basing it on the number of staking addresses vs. Masternodes, I just think the profitability ratio needs some more thought. Feel free to tell me I am thinking about it all wrong, but do me the favor and explain why.

Ah ha!  I see you realized you would never be able to guarantee that masternodes are a better investment than staking with the approach you had originally taken.  I was curious to see what you would come up with to solve the problem.

I think you are on the right track to a solution but it's not quite there yet.  There is one crucial thing you are forgetting.

You don't want a ratio of 3 staking addresses per masternode because not all staking addresses are created equal, while all masternodes are.  Individual addresses can contain any number of coins.  Obviously an addresses holding 1 DNET should not be treated the same as an address holding 1,000,000 DNET.

What you want is to ensure that a 10,000 DNET investment into a masternode pays out on average exactly 3x what you would receive from staking those same 10,000 DNET.  Thankfully, POS 2.0 and a flat reward should provide a fairly simply mechanism for achieving this.

Since POS 2.0 removes coinage from the equation, a given number of DNET is going to add the same amount of weight to the network no matter how old the coins are.  Start by counting how many coins are locked up in masternodes.  This is a simple calculation that I trust I don't need to spell out.  Now figure out how much weight that would put on the network IF those coins were staking instead of in masternodes.  Since we are talking about PoS 2.0, network weight should simply be equal to the number of maturing and actively staking coins, but I think I have seen a few random PoS 2.0 represent network weight by running the number of actively staking coins through some sort of seemingly arbitrary multiplier.  But I digress.....

Anyway, take the theoretical network weight of the masternode coins and multiply it by 3.  This should be the weight of the actual active PoS network if we are in a perfectly balanced and ideal 3:1 ratio of masternode:PoS rewards.  Each coin that is locked up in a masternode is getting 3x the ROI a staking coin is, and rewards can be as you outlined above.

Of course, in the real world, that perfect balance will never be maintained.  You would need to compare the actual PoS network weight to the theoretical ideal PoS network weight (which, again, is 3 times the weight that the masternode coins would provide if staking) and adjust the rewards every block according to how much those 2 numbers differ.

I hope this all makes sense.  I felt like I could be explaining this clearer but am not finding the right words.

this is my .conf file

What should be my rpc port ? and please tell me what is my .bat file ?