Topic: Historic Cryptogenic Bullion thread - CLOSED - page 18. (Read 286590 times)

Agree broadly with what you say...A diverse portfolio is certainly important. It has not been possible to accurately predict the precise winners over the last 18 months, that is why I hold around 60 different altcoins. I make my judgements based on the practicalities of being a holder, and how I feel when comparing coins with each other.
 I like to know that a coin will have plenty of nodes and live connections to maintain the network going forward. There are some coins with lightning-fast transactions and stakings out there, and that gives me confidence in the coin. The huge differences between coins are instructive.

Hey Majormax, your insights are always welcome. I will try to quickly cover my thoughts on each. Consider that CGB has completed its hyperinflationary phase, where others may have years to go. This puts us at 2% today which is attractive to investors because its not being inflated away, like bitcoin which sits around 10% I believe. Imagine a major financial crisis is around the corner. We will be well positioned to deal with it, especially once put through the proving grounds of CryptoTown. Just because a coin has a high current PoS reward (payin' off early adopters), doesn't mean that its other fundamentals are also attractive. If we drastically change protocol now, it may preclude many of these benefits.

Many features out there are experimental. If each coin can do one thing really well, we can rely on a suite of coins to provide for our needs.

It is also not guaranteed raising the PoS reward will increase adoption. It only gives new coins to people who alreay have coins or who buy some just to be able to create more. Aside from that I haven't been able to come up for another reason why it would make people think CGB is better,

Adoption and security. I think that sums up our current focus Keep em comin!

papersheepdog, Canada

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...

As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known  eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.

Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

What an awesome discussion to wake up to, thanks guys!!

I want to say first off, that you have all brought up valid points, each one contributes to the balance we are looking for.

Second, it is important that we realize that we are dealing with a security model here which is actually based on punishment for non-participation and actually rewards no-one if all participate. This is the true nature of PoS, though in actual practice, it does reward those who work for it. This is about finding the right balance.

Third, someone who makes a habit of not minting, may notice the monetary base expansion which works to slowly inflate away purchasing power might go from 1.4 to 1.8% for example. Again, we can study the current rate for further discussion but I think it would be something like this. The impact would be very minimal, and yet in line with our long standing goal of emulating the fundamentals of the gold supply. In this light its actually a fix to match our target.

Fourth, this inflationary "tax" on the backs of those who are not particpating in network security, is actually the cost of running the network. Without this motivation, CGB would have zero viability as the security is not "paid for." The value in percentage of each CGB would take a hit much greater than 2% if it were a mere punching bag to hackers. This is the key point, to consider that we are talking fundamental viability here. Security vs. Convenience is kind of an overall theme to our global monetary system which is apparent these days.

This idea came out of the extensive discussion that we had recently (linked at the bottom of the post). It seemed that it was a battle of extremes. Some wanted the return to hyperinflation, while others saw the wisdom of remaining a more "hard asset," staying true to original vision. This proposal is a compromise. It has the potential to encourage minting, and simply ensures that today's maximum rate of reward, is tomorrows guaranteed rate of reward. In other words, the original vision is maintained.

It's all discussion at this point. We have made no solid plans for the unclaimed coins. Much appreciated discussion!!



Keeping them for development purposes is an interesting idea. My only issue with this is it will be looked at as a virtual premine. We can look at it as cash sitting there. Do we want to spend it on development (which is difficult for a community to verify it was actually spent on), or give it back to the community in the form of an extra bonus for security participation.

If we were to go the way of encouraging security participation, this would most certainly not include any form of retroactive coin creation. I just wanted to note this in case anyone thought about it. We would start only right at the moment that it was implemented, if implemented.

I know we all have our perspectives, but please try to have the perspective of CGB, the cryptocurrency, when thinking about this. How can we motivate the population to better secure our network. Remember, none of it would exist without rewarding active participants with the proceeds of monetary base expansion. Yes, as an investor, we might have a lot of CGB and not want to cash in the paper wallet every month, but this kind of stuff will become a fact of life as we start to take responsibility for our own banking as a society. The tech will be advanced to allow conveniences such as cold offline minting and this will all be part of adapting.




I agree, this is another point against the devs accepting these coins to the foundation for marketing. It will likely hit the exchange and be sold. If we instead give it to active participants, who are already proving their interest in CGB, it would be a better home.

One last point I want to reiterate, if we are giving out x extra coins for every single mint block, this will encourage people to come up with more blocks (which helps our security greatly). If still a small group of people are minting, they will reap major rewards, once others catch on and the PoS block supply becomes more robust, this leftover amount will become smaller as more CGB is periodically brought online. It should find equilibrium at a higher state of participation. This is the main goal.

edit: Just thinking through the game theory. Each mint block pays a small reward on a per block basis regardless of the return earned ( based on coin age). This would encourage a competition for every single potential block slot. A large wallet will receive relatively no reward compared to its coin age return, and a small wallet that wins a block could have the extra coins outweigh the expected return. This seems a little complicated for our current market cap, but this could lead to a smoothing out of the influential power (total coin age) of wallets. Let's illustrate this: A wallet with 5% of currency waited 90 days to achieve maximum interest return of 1.5%. They go to mint the coins, done, no competition, they get the block instantly. The network was really secure for one block... funds may be transferred or otherwise go back to sleep for 3 months. Paying out unclaimed interest per block may incentivize these wallets to be broken down to compete for more blocks and spread the security influence.

Again, this is so very much appreciated. An opposing view is the most valuable. As always, such an important change would not be made without extensive community input. This is a preliminary discussion.

papersheepdog, Canada

I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development,  is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.

This is exactly correct.



Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?

From what I gather, the developers are saying the annual inflation won't be affected. But the frequency that your coins are eligible for stake would be increased.

Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overall

Or maybe I'm reading this wrong  

Giving away the percentage of interest that could have been given to holders not minting, to holders that mint more often IMO is not a good idea.  As well as increasing the coin supply no matter if only a few are staking, and rewarding those further for doing so, but penalising those that hold their coins in paper wallets or in idle wallets for maybe months/years at a time, by continually increasing the supply and decreasing the value of their stored and unstaked coins does not speak to me as a fair approach.

Lesser stake age with no increase of inflation is maybe the option I would go for.

I do a lot of reading on here but rarely put my view forward, but as a holder of CGB I thought it necessary I comment as any change would inevitably effect my investment.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

Well this sounds good and I don't think many would object although for some it may be a little less convenient to remember to stake each month. If it helps the network it's good.


Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.

Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

The 1.2-1.5% is per year, meaning in the current setup if you stake your coins every 30 days for a year you will earn approximately 1.2% interest. If you stake every 90 days for a year, then you will earn closer to 1.5% interest.

One of the goals with the new client is to create more PoS blocks and further enhance security. To encourage this, we are looking at a minimum coin age of 7 days for staking. More to come on this but please keep throwing your ideas in the ring! We are still ironing out the details and are certainly open minded as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.

Question:
"The next client rebalances the minimum times to 1 week (1.2%) and 30 days (1.5%)"
Does this mean people then would receive 3 x more coins from stake since the original setting is 1.5% per 90 days?
Can coins stake more than once throughout a year because to my knowledge 1.5% is always communicated to be per year max.
And last, what if a person let's his coins mint and then sends it to another wallet, will it mint again in the 90 days period? Then someone could just earn 4 x stake per year which is more than 6% per year. At settings per 30 days a person could mint 12 x per year which is over 20%.

I'm sure I do not understand all about the proces but please try explain how this results. Thanks vm.

Maybe i undertstood somethin wrong but if the stakes are higher that means that more coins are coming into existance which in return devaluates the coins i.e. makes the coins worth less which means it's about the same as having a low % stake.

At 1.5%, it doesn't motivate me to mint. I open coin wallets with larger stakes (50% +) on a daily basis, but don't do that with lower staking coins.

There is so much competition in the Cryptocurrencies now that I think low % coins must be losing out. The more high staking currencies there are, the lower the hash rates of low stake coins will go.

"I had another idea that we could have the protocol reward all unclaimed interest at each block to the winner of the minting process."
Sorry but I am very much against this. If someone is not minting, it's their choice but it doesn't mean someone else should get it. These coins should never be created.
It puts the person not minting at disadvantage. It doesn't feel right imo.

edit: just read the discussion:
"PoS reward is a zero sum game. If everyone is generating stake, their slice of the pie remains unchanged. Only if you fail to mint are you punished and wealth is transferred towards those who do. Therefore it almost isn’t even a reward unless others fail to do it."

This is a very bad idea. You want to force people to mint while they don't want to. It's a way to demotivate people to spend their coins.
Also you have to concidder the CGB price, someone else can sell his extra coins and put pressure downwards while when they are not created price can grow. If the price grows then those who do not get the extra reward will see a higher price and be just as happy. Dillution of stake is very bad.
This idea only makes the rich and dedicated CGB'ers richer while punishing the ones that prefer to spend or hold their coins elsewhere.

Development Workshop - CGB PoW/PoS Hybrid Security Model - Protocol Improvements

Please also see the Reddit post for further discussion.

PoS security participation is a very important consideration. The next client rebalances the minimum times to 1 week (1.2%) and 30 days (1.5%), but of course discussion is ongoing. The intent of this is to bring in more PoS blocks. This, combined with merged mining on the PoW side (hybrid) should provide for a more robust security stance.

I had another idea that we could have the protocol reward all unclaimed interest at each block to the winner of the minting process. So they would receive the standard 1.2 or 1.5%, plus the interest accumulation for that block (or tick), of all wallets who are sitting yet again unclaimed while already at max return. Some fundamentals: Currently CGB rewards 1.5% every 90 days, or quarterly. If we wait for a year to mint, we will only receive one quarter's interest, even though we saved it for a year.

In this scenario, that interest that could have been claimed for the other 3/4 of the year will have gone to active participants as a greater reward, without diminishing the *intended* inflationary profile of CGB. In the current environment, we know that all coins are not being used for minting. This affects the 1.5% (out of 2% total) of our target inflation. I am sure the exact data can be pulled from the blockchain (and would encourage anyone capable to give it a try). So we can say for sure that this measure would increase inflation, from whatever its at (likely below 1.2% I would guess), to the intended range of between 1.2 and 1.5% depending on which timeline is more popular.

This is a small detail but CGB was mined into existence, with a flow still being produced via PoW security. We now take this existing CGB and create new CGB in the form of interest. The parallel with gold and silver coin production here is why I prefer to use the term "minting," but staking is OK too. An interesting thing to note about PoS minting is that the interest provided is what they call a zero sum game. This means that for a real increase in the value of your holdings, someone else had to not mint their coins, thus giving you relatively more. In other words, if everyone got 1.5% interest, the relative value of all holdings would remain unchanged.

If a system like this were to be implemented, we could see a real boost in payoffs for winning a PoS block. It may even spur competition to spread the most coin age across available blocks to try and win more blocks, and not just focus on your plain interest. I think we could see bigger wallets broken down to competitive sizes. Hmm... Had not yet thought this part through too much yet. Suggestions welcome.

Pros and cons of adjusting the reward itself have been discussed here.

papersheepdog, Canada

My CPU use is 0% after it is done syncing.

That part I get. So it's no 'help to the network' to have it on all day? And why so resource hungry?

It's in the OP:
"To qualify for interest an investor must keep their funds unspent in their wallets for a minimum of 30 days (for 1.2% interest), and up to a maximum of 90 days (1.5% interest)."
You don't need to have the wallet open all period, just keep your coins in.


I like this idea of promoting minting from POS. The more coins in personal wallets the better. Banks provide some interest on savings but now crypto's can perfectly do this too, people should be more aware of this so they can store more of their 'money' in other ways. Not put all in one basket they say and a bank is just one basket.

I thought another payment provider for crypto's, but it does something else, seems to work with Coinpayments: http://www.picca.co.uk/
Btw has updated design and all, looking good: https://www.coinpayments.net

The wallet seems to use 3% of my cpu (a Haswell). Not minting, 7/8 connections.
Is it supposed to? Or a feature to be ironed out?

I got a suggestion for a promotion. POS minting should get more attention. Most importantly pos minting improves the network security, secondly it removes coins from the exchanges which both reduce the sell pressure and stops cryptsy (and others) to mint and sell the POS blocks.

A promotion concerning POS would help educate CGB holders and bring more attention to why we should mint and how to mint. If CGB one day reach its full potential and goals, a single CGB would definitely be worth minting for.

I don't know how it should be done. But maybe something as simple as a competition where people post screens shots where they have solved a POS block, and a random winner is picked for a prize?