Topic: HoboNickels - HBN - High Fast Stake - Version 2.0! More Secure, Less Intensive - page 191. (Read 478852 times)

Happy Bday and thanks to Tranz and everyone who supported this lovely coin.

Now we need to get HBN back to all time high

 HAPPY BIRTHDAY HOBO

Many thanks for TRANZ and each one of You who is involved in this great coin!!!

Happy Birthday Hobonickels!!!

1 year, alive and kicking. Not many coins can say the same. I am happy to be a part of it and thanks Tranz for so many hours of dedication!

It depends on the coin. I'm just getting going on HBN, so I'm shooting in the dark here, but I like to set it up to where I have some blocks going to stake every day, especially early on, so you get the compounding effect quickly. That's my first goal. After that, of course, try to maximise your return. My goal with all my staking coins is to be able to stake 75% of my gains and sell 25%. My first serious attempt is with TEK, where my acquisition goal is 30K in 1K blocks spaced a day apart. But different staking coins behave differently. For instance, SHA doesn't stake well or at all on small blocks, so early on you're better off piling everything into one block, and then breaking it up as you stake into slightly smaller ones. HBN stakes pretty consistently regardless of size, so I'd use the above strategy more on it than worry too much about block size, other than manageable.

Between a few of us, there is kind of an ad-hoc documentation project going on. I may just try to organize that a bit more in conjunction with presstab, Davidlatapie, Thundertoe, Tranz and a couple others who I talk to a lot on the subject. The truth is, there is no one size fits all strategy for minting, even within a well functioning coin like HBN. I can offer suggestions, and they may contradict others suggestions and both still be right for the given person.

Happy Staking!

I m combining my blocks all the time. When block halves in two I combine it into one block and send to second address. Big block means bigger weight gaining and faster chance to stake. Right now Iv got only 3 blocks in my wallet...

thanks a lot for your tutorial. What block size do you prefer at new created blocks ?

true, but it makes it easier to track to have each block with it's own address.

you don't need a new address, just send these small blocks combined to your current address.

go into coin control. Just in case you don't know how, go to settings, options, and on the display tab, hit the checkbox next to "display coin control features..."

Then go under the "send coins" tab, and hit either "coin control" or "inputs". Can't recall which it is in HBN at the moment, and I'm not at the right computer.

It'll bring up a new window. Put a check mark into all the little guys that you would prefer to stake larger. Hit Ok.

Now, generate a new receiving address, and send the balance of those checked coins to it. This will aggregate them all into one block. This has two advantages other than just having control. Smaller transaction size, and a higher chance to stake.

... one more time about PoS. My wallet is open every when i use my laptop. Wallet produces lots of dust PoS (between 0.2 - 0.9 HBN). How can i reduce this ? Makes it any sense to tranfer blocks with maybe 1000 HBN to another wallet ? thx

I totally agree if no new innovation is added to existing coins they tend to die quickly as miners move to new coins and they go in it for pump and dump.

I mean look at WDC for example at one point it hit 0.0012 and now it is dirt cheap, nothing new has been done to the coin.

I really enjoy the PoS conversation, but I am going to pull this back up, because I think it is worth talking about a little bit more.

First, I think Tranz is great. He has done an awesome job - with HBN and CAP. Awesome. His work is top notch. And his openness with the community is amazing. God bless him for that.

But I think for HBN - or any alt from the old guard - CAP, TEK, PHS, to reach the next level we need to think about including some of these new features.

I was actually just thinking about it this morning as I was trying to sort through all of the various wallets I have running at any one time…

New coins are released every day. Why? Everyone is trying to "one-up" the other with new features and gizmos and widgets. Or they're simple copies with a few parameters tweaked. They're trying to attract miners and investors to become the next big thing. 

Now what if some of those devs and communities - instead of chasing after new coins - looked back at what has been produced and try to evolutionarily develop the old coins. So many of the new coins demonstrate spiral development - phase 1, 2, 17, XYZ. With promises of Tor, SMS, and making waffles. Why can't we do the same to the coins we already have with the devs that we know are capable and "in it" for the long term. 

Coins are open source - most are on GitHub. Right? What stops us from pitching into to a dev fund and requesting the devs pull these new features from the coin of the week into the coins we already have? Pick your anonymity flavor - NightSend, SuperSend, Tor, Cloak, ABCXYZ… Pick your berries and sprinkles, release a new wallet, and BAM!

Hey, I say hard fork if you have to. The base is established and I bet the switch won't be a problem. The old wood will be left behind and the new will grow stronger.

If it can be done, I bet we'll all see a return… 

Now I use "dev" in the generic sense. But I realize right now most of the older coins only have one dev to lean on. Devs are spread thin. And that is where I believe the issue lies. Tranz is great and he has his priorities and I agree with them.

So how does a coin and a community pull more devs? So we include more features?

Is it all about the BTC? Initially perhaps for some.

Here I am talking, but I can't code beyond HTML and JS. So because I can't code I am willing to pitch in BTC or HBN...
Food for thought.

last days HBN is best coin to mine for me, hashing it hard!

That's such an interesting point you make and I think you're quite right.

With lets say 100K active wallets with equal amount of HBN and a litle bit of POW there are only few POS blocks available for all of them. For the sake of the argument: 2880 blocks per day, lets say 2500 POS and 380 POW. So once every 100,000/2500= 40 days on average you can stake your coins.
I guess it still would be possible to sustain the current model: combine your HBN in a few blocks and stake a couple of times a year. You lose some compound but it'll still work I guess. Unless you don't combine anything, than you need too many POS blocks to get your stake. By then, the pos percentage will be dropped as well so you can combine larger blocks still keeping within max stake amount.
But when would this be? Next year? in 10 years? I really wouldn't know. I guess at least a couple of years.

Maybe by then - cause what do I know - someone has come up with a usable way of pooled staking or something like that. Maybe it evolves along similar lines as BTC. After all, nobody is solomining BTC from their wallets anymore too.

Very interesting stuff.

Great discussion here guys.

I'll try to clarify a few things.

#1 PoW and PoS  are shared over the 30 second block time. With preference given to PoS. So PoW difficulty will go up faster to slow down PoW blocks and allow more PoS blocks. This is the intent of a hybrid system. To move the chain to PoS naturally over the course of years.

#2 PoS already has 1 reward reduction in place, often dubbed the NVCS system. Where the yearly interest deceases as the PoS difficulty increases. So far in practice this has only decreased the reward a few times, usually in the 99-97% range.   Once the Max PoS reward is in place, worries about inflation should be quite small.  Yet users who allow the wallet to do the work without constantly combining blocks after every reward will receive a nice insensitive for securing the network.

#3 I will also be adjusting the combine/split thresholds to allow for better cleanup of dust and prevent coins from staking to small, as to not be able to compete for stake.  I may also give the users the ability to adjust these setting via start up/config switches to better suit their particularly needs. Not a for sure thing yet.

#4 Although Pos is not free from electricity, is is very close. A raspberry Pi with a small solar cell and battery backup, coupled with free/cheap wifi is almost as free as it gets.

#5 (@sandpaper) The current max S4C is 50%. You can use multiple wallets and do a S4C to different or the same address.  This will never equal 100% though. I am going to add additional features to this, including start up /config switches, min and max threshold. Perhaps also allow 100%. And if things go well an additional gui page to make this feature easy to use and understand.

After a few weeks of work into version 1.5. I am up to 1.4.2. So things are moving along at a reasonable pace. I'll will update the CCT thread here later tonight with the work so far. Others are encouraged to look over it and comment or question.  https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/13199-preparing-hbn-v15/?p=112860

Thanks!

This is not gospel. I'm uncertain myself, but I THINK that PoS blocks do not affect the frequency of PoW blocks. I'm sure Tranz or press will set me straight if I'm wrong

Is it possible to stakeforcharity 100%, or set it up for 2 addresses at 50%?

Interesting this should be cropping up now as a conversation point.
and with Tranz suggesting new developments (500 HBN limits)I went back to some of my 2013 calculations on inflation

back of a coaster style as always.

for POS to outweigh POW impact for inflation the average POS bloc needs to pay >5HBN

there are 28800 block in a 10 day cycle
28800*5 = 144000 HBN created by POS every 10 days
requires an active HBN coin supply (regularly being staked) of 7.2 Million HBN ..

Thats without POW blocks and balances on (I assume no staked) exchange wallets.
So I figured inflation by POS wasn't even an issue before probably ~8-10 million HBN coin supply
- my rule of thumb and interestedly watching to see how it actually plays out.

Of course when POS inflation gets started it starts to run out of control without the reward reduction that's in place.

BUT
 
Something more fundamental bothers me, and has done since the start ..... Maybe someone can clear it up for me?

If HBN (any POS insert name here) was to become a reality with a wide user base I'd expect to see more than 28800 wallets globally (orders of magnitude more) staking many blocks in 10 days
but even if they only staked 1 block how do they all get serviced with POS reward with only a finite number of block rewards available? i.e. 28800 (2880 per day)
They can't carry over as the backlog would just get forever bigger.
Or would Max age end up needing to be very large? - kiss byebye to compound interest bonuses

I realise my example is worst case 10 days and should be perhaps 30 days (nearly 100k blocks) or more but even then .... orders of magnitude vs a triple?

Just to add a bit more to the discussion:

PoS is still a form of mining, and does still consume electricity, so it's not pure inflation in the classic sense. But that aside, there is another, less predictable factor. Not everyone who mines is staking, exchanges largely do not (or at least claim not to), and a fair amount of coins get traded, further reducing PoS returnes on the total moneysupply.