Topic: [HYP] HyperStake | Generous Reward Staking | Advanced Staking Controls & Wallet - page 199. (Read 679332 times)
December 17, 2014, 06:08:38 PM
So funny, my only 2.4k block staked a few minutes after maturation, but few other 10k blocks are 15+ days old...
December 17, 2014, 03:54:09 PM
Good to hear... lookin like I have my issues sorted out so if I get a couple more results back I can make the changes to the github.
)*(!&@#*()&!@)(*&# OSX... there is a reason people charge to compile wallets for it! lol
)*(!&@#*()&!@)(*&# OSX... there is a reason people charge to compile wallets for it! lol
December 17, 2014, 03:30:43 PM
Any OSX users would test this client out for me I would be very grateful
https://mega.co.nz/#!xg1x3I4Z!-LDzKQJtUKq5xKQQuqdXVSLsOoMZvrViHUntjyaT9q8
https://mega.co.nz/#!xg1x3I4Z!-LDzKQJtUKq5xKQQuqdXVSLsOoMZvrViHUntjyaT9q8
Hey Master Chef billotronic!
Working fine for me (OSX Yosemite 10.10.1).
December 17, 2014, 02:45:22 PM
Ouch, I never noticed for S4C :/
I update https://bit.ly/hypsize. More complex and more accurate. An excerpt:
I update https://bit.ly/hypsize. More complex and more accurate. An excerpt:
Quote
What is the best block size?
- Safe and simple: 1600
- Safe and optimized: 1622.222222
- Balanced: 3500
- If you care about not hitting the wall: 1622.222222 (extremely unlucky) - 5574.646811 (extremely lucky)
- Fast staking, no compromise: have only one block (probably huge waste of coins and not recommended because it strongly decreases network security)
- Fast staking, optimised: look for the biggest weight in the network and create blocks which will be slightly heavier at min age (you will still waste a noticeable reward, you expect to make up by coumpounding faster) - see below for weight calculation
December 17, 2014, 02:44:01 PM
Any OSX users would test this client out for me I would be very grateful
https://mega.co.nz/#!xg1x3I4Z!-LDzKQJtUKq5xKQQuqdXVSLsOoMZvrViHUntjyaT9q8
https://mega.co.nz/#!xg1x3I4Z!-LDzKQJtUKq5xKQQuqdXVSLsOoMZvrViHUntjyaT9q8
December 17, 2014, 01:50:51 PM
IDK if its because of this, but volume is close to hitting $1k volume again, and up 23% ish today. 
December 17, 2014, 01:47:42 PM
That being said:
I hope it clarified things. Could you explain what is the reason for max age?
- Moving from 8.73-30 to 5-15, I don't see the point (it would encourage larger blocks, to stake faster, I fail to see the use of it). What did I miss?
- I believe that eliminating max age would actually help small miners since they would not have a 30-day countdown to stake (and it would also mean more blocks to stake). I understand this would increase difficulty, but I don't think that preventing such increase would do any difference for holders, since it is more difficult for everyone. If impatience is the issue, then HyperPool should lower the variance, like poolmining does for PoW. Plus, I never understood the rational behind max age
I hope it clarified things. Could you explain what is the reason for max age?
1) I meant extending the max age another 5-15 days. So opening the max up to be maybe 35-45 days.
2) This is detrimental to security of the network because an attack can be launched with a smaller amount of coins.
Also just a reminder that:
weight = block size * (days old - (1/6))
I understand better your max age extension. I'm not particularly a fan of extending (I used to be favourable of eliminating max age, but after a discussion on IRC with moneromoo I believe and now with your answer, I'm OK to not eliminate it). Extending max age, will just postpone the inevitable, send wrong message/confuse people and would set up a precedent about something I can't really justify.
Bottom-line: let's not touch a thing here.
December 17, 2014, 01:43:24 PM
I just set up my polo address for my s4c. I'll match that when I have that deposited. It shouldn't be too long at 25%. 
Glad to see more and more people using S4C as a way to follow StakeHunter pledge 
December 17, 2014, 12:21:37 PM
Quote
Since I was the one who opened my big mouth...
yes. I'll match, and increment a little above with another 800. Just sent the coins, it'll be posted up as soon as they confirm.
EDIT: Done and increments of 200 up to 4K. Let's do this shit
I just set up my polo address for my s4c. I'll match that when I have that deposited. It shouldn't be too long at 25%.
WARNING!! S4C doesn't work as it is described. I tried it once and the % wasn't taken from the stake of the block that had just staked but from another block that hadn't even matured to 8.8 days yet. The not matured block was now smaller and it's age was reset to 0.
Yes this is true, the way that Tranz has designed S4C, and how HYP/HBN/CAP all use it, it targets a certain block, but there is no guarantee that this is the block that will be used. S4C should be used at your own risk, until I am able to put better discrimination into the code (on my list of things for the next version of the wallet).
December 17, 2014, 12:04:51 PM
Quote
Since I was the one who opened my big mouth...
yes. I'll match, and increment a little above with another 800. Just sent the coins, it'll be posted up as soon as they confirm.
EDIT: Done and increments of 200 up to 4K. Let's do this shit
I just set up my polo address for my s4c. I'll match that when I have that deposited. It shouldn't be too long at 25%.
WARNING!! S4C doesn't work as it is described. I tried it once and the % wasn't taken from the stake of the block that had just staked but from another block that hadn't even matured to 8.8 days yet. The not matured block was now smaller and it's age was reset to 0.
December 17, 2014, 10:46:50 AM
That being said:
I hope it clarified things. Could you explain what is the reason for max age?
- Moving from 8.73-30 to 5-15, I don't see the point (it would encourage larger blocks, to stake faster, I fail to see the use of it). What did I miss?
- I believe that eliminating max age would actually help small miners since they would not have a 30-day countdown to stake (and it would also mean more blocks to stake). I understand this would increase difficulty, but I don't think that preventing such increase would do any difference for holders, since it is more difficult for everyone. If impatience is the issue, then HyperPool should lower the variance, like poolmining does for PoW. Plus, I never understood the rational behind max age
I hope it clarified things. Could you explain what is the reason for max age?
1) I meant extending the max age another 5-15 days. So opening the max up to be maybe 35-45 days.
2) This is detrimental to security of the network because an attack can be launched with a smaller amount of coins.
Also just a reminder that:
weight = block size * (days old - (1/6))
December 17, 2014, 06:00:59 AM
Quote
Since I was the one who opened my big mouth...
yes. I'll match, and increment a little above with another 800. Just sent the coins, it'll be posted up as soon as they confirm.
EDIT: Done and increments of 200 up to 4K. Let's do this shit
I just set up my polo address for my s4c. I'll match that when I have that deposited. It shouldn't be too long at 25%.
December 17, 2014, 04:39:21 AM
Quote
Now we just need the price to go back up.
Why is the order book on Poloniex stuffed with sell orders of 50-100 HYP?
I´m pretty sure the answer is ¨someone is manipulating the price,¨but I thought I´d ask anyway.
Quote
Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. I'd like everyone reading this to read that again. Hell, I'll repeat it. Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. If everyone who has a sell order up would take it down RIGHT NOW and relist at 2K satoshis or higher, do you really think no one would buy?
I didn't sell any here (yet), but decided to start this moving if I can. I set up a trade on polo for 2000, at 2k sats. Anyone want to match???
Makes no sense.
1) this will increase the total number of coins for sale which people took at while trading even though it's not near market price.
2) being not anywhere near market price it's not selling anytime soon.
3) why not stake the 2000 thereby getting more HYP and securing the network while reducing the supply for sale?
Somebody has a sell order for over 20K HYP @8880 sats.
December 17, 2014, 04:21:48 AM
Quote
Now we just need the price to go back up.
Why is the order book on Poloniex stuffed with sell orders of 50-100 HYP?
I´m pretty sure the answer is ¨someone is manipulating the price,¨but I thought I´d ask anyway.
Quote
Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. I'd like everyone reading this to read that again. Hell, I'll repeat it. Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. If everyone who has a sell order up would take it down RIGHT NOW and relist at 2K satoshis or higher, do you really think no one would buy?
I didn't sell any here (yet), but decided to start this moving if I can. I set up a trade on polo for 2000, at 2k sats. Anyone want to match???
Makes no sense.
1) this will increase the total number of coins for sale which people took at while trading even though it's not near market price.
2) being not anywhere near market price it's not selling anytime soon.
3) why not stake the 2000 thereby getting more HYP and securing the network while reducing the supply for sale?
Somebody has a sell order for over 20K HYP @8880 sats.
December 17, 2014, 04:11:57 AM
Quote
Now we just need the price to go back up.
Why is the order book on Poloniex stuffed with sell orders of 50-100 HYP?
I´m pretty sure the answer is ¨someone is manipulating the price,¨but I thought I´d ask anyway.
Quote
Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. I'd like everyone reading this to read that again. Hell, I'll repeat it. Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. If everyone who has a sell order up would take it down RIGHT NOW and relist at 2K satoshis or higher, do you really think no one would buy?
I didn't sell any here (yet), but decided to start this moving if I can. I set up a trade on polo for 2000, at 2k sats. Anyone want to match???
Since I was the one who opened my big mouth...
yes. I'll match, and increment a little above with another 800. Just sent the coins, it'll be posted up as soon as they confirm.
EDIT: Done and increments of 200 up to 4K. Let's do this shit
December 17, 2014, 03:42:27 AM
Quote
Now we just need the price to go back up.
Why is the order book on Poloniex stuffed with sell orders of 50-100 HYP?
I´m pretty sure the answer is ¨someone is manipulating the price,¨but I thought I´d ask anyway.
Quote
Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. I'd like everyone reading this to read that again. Hell, I'll repeat it. Selling "at market" is a stupid plan. If everyone who has a sell order up would take it down RIGHT NOW and relist at 2K satoshis or higher, do you really think no one would buy?
I didn't sell any here (yet), but decided to start this moving if I can. I set up a trade on polo for 2000, at 2k sats. Anyone want to match???
December 17, 2014, 03:09:00 AM
A sampling of 6 blocks does very little to prove anything, let me share my wonderful little world of block experimentation to help the cause.
I think we could open up the max age to accumulate weight by 5-15 days or so without much compromise to security... but don't be fooled, this will not increase security, it will simply allow smaller blocks to have more time to gain weight in order to catch up to the bigger blocks staking. It is less secure, because you would be able to gain more weight with less coins, and as in PoS weight is hash power... well do the math.
The other proposal of eliminating weight altogether is a flawed approach. This means taking power away from the small user and consolidating it to the big user. Smaller blocks don't gain weight, so essentially would be nearly dead on arrival. You can see above that I have decent results with blocks as small as 778.
I believe that we should not be anxious to find ways to fork HYP into a newly styled coin, but instead to carefully consider, craft, and weigh the pros and cons of changing the underlying code further from its peercoin ancestor. Any fork that occurs should have precise reasoning, that either strengthens security, or adds equality in a manner that doesn't compromise much security.
I'm afraid I've been misunderstood here:I think we could open up the max age to accumulate weight by 5-15 days or so without much compromise to security... but don't be fooled, this will not increase security, it will simply allow smaller blocks to have more time to gain weight in order to catch up to the bigger blocks staking. It is less secure, because you would be able to gain more weight with less coins, and as in PoS weight is hash power... well do the math.
The other proposal of eliminating weight altogether is a flawed approach. This means taking power away from the small user and consolidating it to the big user. Smaller blocks don't gain weight, so essentially would be nearly dead on arrival. You can see above that I have decent results with blocks as small as 778.
I believe that we should not be anxious to find ways to fork HYP into a newly styled coin, but instead to carefully consider, craft, and weigh the pros and cons of changing the underlying code further from its peercoin ancestor. Any fork that occurs should have precise reasoning, that either strengthens security, or adds equality in a manner that doesn't compromise much security.
- My listing is not a sample, but a reminder of the size-data-weight correspondances, so the number of value I am giving doesn't matter
- I do not promote hard fork, I merely mention when a change would imply a hard fork
- I do not propose to eliminate weight, but max age (and it is not a proposition yet, just an investigation because I want to be sure of what I am saying before I propose something)
That being said:
- Moving from 8.73-30 to 5-15, I don't see the point (it would encourage larger blocks, to stake faster, I fail to see the use of it). What did I miss?
- I believe that eliminating max age would actually help small miners since they would not have a 30-day countdown to stake (and it would also mean more blocks to stake). I understand this would increase difficulty, but I don't think that preventing such increase would do any difference for holders, since it is more difficult for everyone. If impatience is the issue, then HyperPool should lower the variance, like poolmining does for PoW. Plus, I never understood the rational behind max age
I hope it clarified things. Could you explain what is the reason for max age?
December 17, 2014, 02:26:33 AM
Candidates:
- +5 eatthetree3 - p9qwRDJz8Rm7Xexfq4BiYJNqJJfKLwcPWA (42 posts)
- +1 m33 - pKNBvmDS3UMce4epLNB8vJnhUFkmugN5rD (94 posts)
- +2 shadowmoon (via PM)
- +1 PryptoMontreal (via PM) - pFE1BUZRTVferkv1EZfU2gBLcQEqNL5Bmg
December 17, 2014, 02:25:15 AM
Winners are:
Happy loaning, happy stacking!
- +6 semidead (56 posts)
- +5 johan11 (via PM)
- +6 Tpruvot (via Wikia, a first!)
- + diabanhxeo - pAXaGf6oNNJevd6pnQGoJP4UFU7mXbpNG6 (45 posts)
Happy loaning, happy stacking!
December 17, 2014, 01:02:58 AM
Some new calculations. My point is that having 100% fail at 71200 means either very bad luck or that 71200 has a somehow low probability of staking (keep in mind that the population is onlt 2 blocks, so not statistically significant, though). Although, I have daily stakes of lower block (the power of randomness/nonce)
So, I'm heading to a higher block size and try with 4000, which should give 115491 weight, 60% more weight than a 2400 block. FYI, a block of 3000 would give 20% more weight. The table below shows which values are verified and which are extrapolated
Size Days Weight
2000 9 17341 (verified)
2400 30 71200 (verified, 2 out of 2 did not stake after 3 days)
3000 9 26011 (extrapolated)
3000 30 86616 (extrapolated)
4000 9 34682 (extrapolated)
4000 30 115491 (extrapolated, if no 71200 block stake after 3 days, either particularly bad luck or low probability with 71200, thus trying 115491)
Update1:
Update2: due to present low diff, I have an unusually lot of blocks staking now. I don't expect this (relatively) low diff to last, though, so it should not impact my considerations.
So, I'm heading to a higher block size and try with 4000, which should give 115491 weight, 60% more weight than a 2400 block. FYI, a block of 3000 would give 20% more weight. The table below shows which values are verified and which are extrapolated
Size Days Weight
2000 9 17341 (verified)
2400 30 71200 (verified, 2 out of 2 did not stake after 3 days)
3000 9 26011 (extrapolated)
3000 30 86616 (extrapolated)
4000 9 34682 (extrapolated)
4000 30 115491 (extrapolated, if no 71200 block stake after 3 days, either particularly bad luck or low probability with 71200, thus trying 115491)
Update1:
David, since your concern is the security of the network I imagine you have a minimum diff as a target. With that parameter you can then play with the others.
I don't have a diff target, I just speculate on the variation of diff.Update2: due to present low diff, I have an unusually lot of blocks staking now. I don't expect this (relatively) low diff to last, though, so it should not impact my considerations.
A sampling of 6 blocks does very little to prove anything, let me share my wonderful little world of block experimentation to help the cause.
8 blocks of 2021 - 21.5 days old - current weight 42,890 - 5/8 (62.8%) have staked.
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/17014e3158cee1a8b82a4f924cb3f365ea0647abc94037c50fe44c4997823799
13 blocks of 1489 - 16.43 days old - current weight 23,982 - 3/13 (23%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/5ba42f3150d0ae2f7d1c8ec3842a6398105ef7d8c256ce39dce0583b81c67b08
13 blocks of 1609 - 22.46 days old - current weight 35,605 - 8/13 (61.5%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/e43f33b761327086152d4a986c8e2e21b78ca761918df98538c3e09d72f42459
17 blocks of 778 - 24.88 days old - current weight 19,113 - 8/17 (47%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/f3aab183bbdf72ffb3c2b945889587401c648597b9a38f657cc63e5f75ddb7b3
46 blocks of 900 - 25.96 days old - current weight 23,094 - 24/46 (52%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/f00145e34c3168cc8df9699274dc358962965fe95ce0f8dc1d82e36225127949
51 blocks of 963 - 26.47 days old - current weight 25,190 - 27/51 (52%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/dcbe755bd97d5587375c1120f8ca4887ff752e697f2fb247912271efb926b7ed
25 blocks of 1007 - 28.56 days old - current weight 28,455 - 17/25 (68%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/6bb28b0704d23c4bc5572cacc539a21b69a6f0bb0676742791820dec144bd6df
76 blocks of 1397 - 28.9 days old - current weight 39,922 - 60/76 (78.9%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/1e53dbdcc049f7761f436d3252969d70b72e6eef7079e71a391278768be68892
141 blocks of 1350 - 33.55 days old - current weight 40,065 (maxed out) - 133/141 (94.3%) have staked
http://hyp.cryptospread.com:2751/tx/ec6b2e4a07ca353fc7ad24c4d6499684ee56baf11091c5b94d9a250e77955b10
I think we could open up the max age to accumulate weight by 5-15 days or so without much compromise to security... but don't be fooled, this will not increase security, it will simply allow smaller blocks to have more time to gain weight in order to catch up to the bigger blocks staking. It is less secure, because you would be able to gain more weight with less coins, and as in PoS weight is hash power... well do the math.
The other proposal of eliminating weight altogether is a flawed approach. This means taking power away from the small user and consolidating it to the big user. Smaller blocks don't gain weight, so essentially would be nearly dead on arrival. You can see above that I have decent results with blocks as small as 778.
I believe that we should not be anxious to find ways to fork HYP into a newly styled coin, but instead to carefully consider, craft, and weigh the pros and cons of changing the underlying code further from its peercoin ancestor. Any fork that occurs should have precise reasoning, that either strengthens security, or adds equality in a manner that doesn't compromise much security.
Jump to: