We all know that XST is not pump and dump coin HONDO deliver unique technology. I think majority are interested in new technology and not traders skills. It would be better if we talk about : Stealthsend-Whitepaper-Brief-201409.pdf
Thanks
Topic: [ANN][XST] Stealth-Coin.com | Tor | StealthText, World's first anonymous SMS Tx! - page 257. (Read 748616 times)
September 10, 2014, 06:20:37 AM
September 10, 2014, 05:26:37 AM
AS I said, this coin looks very interesting.
1.An audit from Dan Metcalf
2.A lot less bloat with the advantages of ring signatures.
Can someone explain this?
1.An audit from Dan Metcalf
2.A lot less bloat with the advantages of ring signatures.
Can someone explain this?
Quote
Coin PoS age: Min. 3 days / Max. 9 days / coins stop aging at 15 days
September 10, 2014, 05:20:53 AM
September 10, 2014, 05:19:18 AM
Instead of showing graphs, show the JOB DONE!!! points of each crypto.
But...if you like to compare graphs then compare XST and DRK which is more suitable.
September 10, 2014, 05:04:09 AM
Who made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHPEKjp-k4
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
+1 one of the funniest you will seeIt's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
WOW.......that was very very funny +1
Great work who ever made that. It was amazing.
September 10, 2014, 04:52:11 AM
Who made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHPEKjp-k4
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
+1 one of the funniest you will see It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
September 10, 2014, 04:44:08 AM
This coin looks very interesting, but can someone explain why it is 20% POS? 20%??
Nothing on planet earth grows at 20% PA, sustainably. Nothing. And definitely no form of money has ever been sustainable at such a growth rate. Is there some theory behind this?
I must be missing something. Can someone explain please.
Nothing on planet earth grows at 20% PA, sustainably. Nothing. And definitely no form of money has ever been sustainable at such a growth rate. Is there some theory behind this?
I must be missing something. Can someone explain please.
September 10, 2014, 04:22:44 AM
Great analysis. Did they teach you this in pre school? You could easily argue that stealthcoin in around the 18th June on the cloak chart. Your contribution is farsicle and I hope your attempt to manipulate the market fails.
Actually, here is the corrected version for you 'youngmike'
September 10, 2014, 03:51:11 AM
If only 10-20% stakes, the blockchain is not secure at all and can be easily and successfully attacked... furthermore, why would people not stake when they can make 20% for sure? That makes no sense...
It doesn't matter what makes sense. What matters is what actually happens.
That is indeed a "convincing" argument... Good luck with your investment in Stealthcoin.
September 10, 2014, 03:50:22 AM
September 10, 2014, 03:48:31 AM
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%?
That's the APR on staked coins, not the inflation. The inflation is much lower.
Please teach me what you mean. The staking is 20% on 20M coins that 4M a year or 250K a month.
So what do you mean?
EDIT: Oh you mean because not all coins are staked that the inflation is lower?
Exactly. Only something like 20-25% are staked of any coin. So the true inflation is about 4-5%. I read about this on another coin (SSD), but it comes from Hondo. He thinks about stuff like this.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8343688
Quote
A far better written explanation of Earnings and Losses of PoS Stakeholders than I had. Care of Hondo.
Typically only about 25% of the money supply for a given Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin is subject to continuous staking. This "fractional staking" leads to (1) gains for those who stake (minters) and (2) losses for those who don't (non-minters). Fractional staking therefore results in wealth transfer from non-minters to minters because inflation of the money supply is lower than it would be if the entirety of the money supply were continuosly staked.
To understand how wealth is transferred, it is helpful to quantify wealth as an individual's ownership of the total money supply of a given coin. For example, if an individual holds 1000 coins of a money supply of 100,000, then the individual's wealth is quantified as 1%.
The following example uses a 20% APY as an example because this value typically leads to a reasonable inflation rate of about 5% per year, given that all coins are subject to approximately the same fractional staking of 25%.
Note the following values:
Using these values, the relative wealth of a minter after one year is 114% (120% / 105%). In other words, a minter who stakes continuously grows wealth at the rate of 14% per year. Thus, a minter of a coin with a 20% APY doesn't just keep up with inflation, but beats it by 14%!
On the other hand, a non-minter loses wealth over time. After a year, a non-minter's total coins is 100% of what it was at the beginning of the year. Therefore, a non-minter's drops to 95.2% during this time, losing wealth at the rate of 5% per year.
It is also possible to calculate a non-minter's losses in terms of forgone profits, which is 19.7% ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Thus, a non-minter could have nearly 20% more wealth if they had staked their coins ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Not coincidentally, these lost profits are approximately equal to the nominal APY.
Typically only about 25% of the money supply for a given Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin is subject to continuous staking. This "fractional staking" leads to (1) gains for those who stake (minters) and (2) losses for those who don't (non-minters). Fractional staking therefore results in wealth transfer from non-minters to minters because inflation of the money supply is lower than it would be if the entirety of the money supply were continuosly staked.
To understand how wealth is transferred, it is helpful to quantify wealth as an individual's ownership of the total money supply of a given coin. For example, if an individual holds 1000 coins of a money supply of 100,000, then the individual's wealth is quantified as 1%.
The following example uses a 20% APY as an example because this value typically leads to a reasonable inflation rate of about 5% per year, given that all coins are subject to approximately the same fractional staking of 25%.
Note the following values:
- Total money supply after 1 year: 105% (5% inflation)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a minter: 120% (20% APY)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a non-minter: 100%
Using these values, the relative wealth of a minter after one year is 114% (120% / 105%). In other words, a minter who stakes continuously grows wealth at the rate of 14% per year. Thus, a minter of a coin with a 20% APY doesn't just keep up with inflation, but beats it by 14%!
On the other hand, a non-minter loses wealth over time. After a year, a non-minter's total coins is 100% of what it was at the beginning of the year. Therefore, a non-minter's drops to 95.2% during this time, losing wealth at the rate of 5% per year.
It is also possible to calculate a non-minter's losses in terms of forgone profits, which is 19.7% ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Thus, a non-minter could have nearly 20% more wealth if they had staked their coins ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Not coincidentally, these lost profits are approximately equal to the nominal APY.
I am going to disagree with Hondo. Big time. But not only the "stat" is a complete fallacy (contrary to his opinion, the overwhelming majority of established coins do stake 50-80% or more of their float) the MOST important factor is that a coin that only stakes 20-25% is EXTREMELY vulnerable to a successful -and fatal, for it means the end of the coin- "double spending" attack. Better known as a "51% attack". For instance: If only 2 million Stealthcoin stake, anyone with much less than 2 million coins can carry out a successful attack. Even Owning "only" 1.6 million. Anything above that increases the speed of the success in the attack and, obviously, 2 million and one coin guarantees the success of the attack on first try. That means the immediate end of the coin. That's why it is so important that the staking is as high as possible, at least above the 50% threshold.
But, according to Hondo's fallacy, then Stealthcoin doesn't provide 20% interest (or POS benefit) but much less in fact since the figure of 20% is reached under the false pretenses and calculations exposed above, the real figure -the one written in the code- is much lower, at -I imagine- 5%. Still quite crazy and impossible to sustain with time. Obviously Stealthcoin has not been designed with any idea of future, beyond the P&D phase.
To illustrate the situation I will offer the example of a similar coin -in figures-, Vericoin. It has just under 27 million coins. When 8 million of those were stolen from Mintpal a few weeks back, the devs were forced to fork the blockchain to the time previous to the theft, thus invalidating it. Otherwise, the coin was destroyed since 8 million coins were close to 100% of all the coins staking, therefore the attack would be almost immediately successful, if not at the first try. Vericoin, atm has a steady rate of staking -at much lower levels than 5% interest, less than half that in fact- of 15-20 million of it's total of 26.7 million coins.
September 10, 2014, 03:26:33 AM
This coin deserves to be twice its current value. Count me in.
I bought in at the last dip (+ bought some more) and I'm happy to see so many new faces everytime we enter cheap coins territory.
September 10, 2014, 03:23:22 AM
Who made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHPEKjp-k4
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
It's really very funny but awesome.
September 10, 2014, 03:10:44 AM
Who made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEHPEKjp-k4
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
It's fucking awesome and whoever made it deserves some credit.
September 10, 2014, 02:52:31 AM
500 + followers, @StealthCoin on twitter make a retweet, two 250 xst giveaways tomorrow.....
September 10, 2014, 02:23:18 AM
If only 10-20% stakes, the blockchain is not secure at all and can be easily and successfully attacked... furthermore, why would people not stake when they can make 20% for sure? That makes no sense...
It doesn't matter what makes sense. What matters is what actually happens.
September 10, 2014, 02:15:53 AM
Just one question: How is this coin going to support annual inflation of 20%?
That's the APR on staked coins, not the inflation. The inflation is much lower.
Please teach me what you mean. The staking is 20% on 20M coins that 4M a year or 250K a month.
So what do you mean?
EDIT: Oh you mean because not all coins are staked that the inflation is lower?
Exactly. Only something like 20-25% are staked of any coin. So the true inflation is about 4-5%. I read about this on another coin (SSD), but it comes from Hondo. He thinks about stuff like this.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8343688
Quote
A far better written explanation of Earnings and Losses of PoS Stakeholders than I had. Care of Hondo.
Typically only about 25% of the money supply for a given Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin is subject to continuous staking. This "fractional staking" leads to (1) gains for those who stake (minters) and (2) losses for those who don't (non-minters). Fractional staking therefore results in wealth transfer from non-minters to minters because inflation of the money supply is lower than it would be if the entirety of the money supply were continuosly staked.
To understand how wealth is transferred, it is helpful to quantify wealth as an individual's ownership of the total money supply of a given coin. For example, if an individual holds 1000 coins of a money supply of 100,000, then the individual's wealth is quantified as 1%.
The following example uses a 20% APY as an example because this value typically leads to a reasonable inflation rate of about 5% per year, given that all coins are subject to approximately the same fractional staking of 25%.
Note the following values:
Using these values, the relative wealth of a minter after one year is 114% (120% / 105%). In other words, a minter who stakes continuously grows wealth at the rate of 14% per year. Thus, a minter of a coin with a 20% APY doesn't just keep up with inflation, but beats it by 14%!
On the other hand, a non-minter loses wealth over time. After a year, a non-minter's total coins is 100% of what it was at the beginning of the year. Therefore, a non-minter's drops to 95.2% during this time, losing wealth at the rate of 5% per year.
It is also possible to calculate a non-minter's losses in terms of forgone profits, which is 19.7% ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Thus, a non-minter could have nearly 20% more wealth if they had staked their coins ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Not coincidentally, these lost profits are approximately equal to the nominal APY.
Typically only about 25% of the money supply for a given Proof-of-Stake (PoS) coin is subject to continuous staking. This "fractional staking" leads to (1) gains for those who stake (minters) and (2) losses for those who don't (non-minters). Fractional staking therefore results in wealth transfer from non-minters to minters because inflation of the money supply is lower than it would be if the entirety of the money supply were continuosly staked.
To understand how wealth is transferred, it is helpful to quantify wealth as an individual's ownership of the total money supply of a given coin. For example, if an individual holds 1000 coins of a money supply of 100,000, then the individual's wealth is quantified as 1%.
The following example uses a 20% APY as an example because this value typically leads to a reasonable inflation rate of about 5% per year, given that all coins are subject to approximately the same fractional staking of 25%.
Note the following values:
- Total money supply after 1 year: 105% (5% inflation)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a minter: 120% (20% APY)
- Relative number of coins after one year for a non-minter: 100%
Using these values, the relative wealth of a minter after one year is 114% (120% / 105%). In other words, a minter who stakes continuously grows wealth at the rate of 14% per year. Thus, a minter of a coin with a 20% APY doesn't just keep up with inflation, but beats it by 14%!
On the other hand, a non-minter loses wealth over time. After a year, a non-minter's total coins is 100% of what it was at the beginning of the year. Therefore, a non-minter's drops to 95.2% during this time, losing wealth at the rate of 5% per year.
It is also possible to calculate a non-minter's losses in terms of forgone profits, which is 19.7% ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Thus, a non-minter could have nearly 20% more wealth if they had staked their coins ([114% - 95.2%] / 95.2%). Not coincidentally, these lost profits are approximately equal to the nominal APY.
yeah, makes sense now. I though I had it but was a bit confused. Glad we're on the same page.
September 10, 2014, 02:14:49 AM
ok tnx
September 10, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
so the stealthtext was released or not?
Yes I believe so and it works like a charm.
September 10, 2014, 02:10:34 AM
so the stealthtext was released or not?
Jump to: