Topic: BTCD is no more - page 415. (Read 1328490 times)

The FundRaiser for the anon cards is now closed, thank to everyone that participiated. We will have more details on how things will proceed soon.

After I read jl777 guide on how to maximize staking I had to read a little about POS to understand how it works. I guess a crucial question I need answered is, when a stake finds a block isn't the reward supposed to be independent of the amount of coins inside the stake but instead equal to what ever the reward is for that block? As far as I understand the amount of coins should only influence how fast a block is found, ie. the difficulty for your wallet to find a block is proportional to the amount of coins (relative to total staking on network) multiplied by the time it's been staking, or did I miss something?
Because in that case, if we'd suppose a stake after it has found a block will start staking again right away, without being locked for a period of time, then splitting one big chunk into a multiple would still get you the exact same amount on average after enough time. to prove that you just need to draw x-y axis, x is the time, and from x=0 that's where the staking starts, a line is drawn where it's slope is equal to the amount of coins. let's say on average at y=1 you get a block. then dividing your stake to N stakes, you create N lines with slope S/N, and after N periods of time, your original stake would have earned you N rewards, and your small stakes would each earn you one reward but multiplied by N the number of stakes, so same rewards. But since there is a lock time after a reward is found, the amount of time lost with your funds locked is N times smaller if you spread your coins to N wallets instead of one big wallet blocked N times after each reward. I'm just not sure about the amount rewarded if it's independent of the number of coins or not.

Anonymity, as with security, is a matter of perspective and relativity.  With current computing technology we can employ modern cryptography techniques and have a high degree of certainty that the information we are securing is in fact secure.  But a significant enhancement in computing or cryptography techniques could mean that what we believe is secure today, becomes an open book.  The same is true for anonymity in respect to crypto currency transactions / messaging.  We can implement layers of anonymizing and masking techniques to make it significantly difficult to trace transactions so that we can regard it as anonymous.  But again that is relative to today's technology.  So to consider something "more anonymous" simply means adding more layers or degrees of difficulty required to de-anonymize.   

But what does "more anonymous" mean? It seems to me that something is either anonymous or not.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around anonymity. From my non-technical background, anonymity seems to be the equivalent of teleportation in the physical world. You're making bits disappear and then appear at a non-random location in cyberspace. This is some sort of alchemy of the cyber space-time continuum.....Maybe I'm looking too much into this but there seems to be a major philosophical conundrum here. If you can do this in cyberspace, then that means you can do it in the physical world. What does that mean to make something appear and disappear? Is there an unseen realm its transporting to? It must be going somewhere! Or can I look at this much in the same way a physicist looks at quantum entanglement? jeeze, I think my brain just exploded. pardon the abstractness of this post....it just happens to be how I'm putting this picture together. This is a VERY far out tech if it can be pulled off