Topic: [HYP] HyperStake | Generous Reward Staking | Advanced Staking Controls & Wallet - page 204. (Read 679332 times)

The hashing rate could be decreased from 1 per second to, eg, 1 per 10 seconds. This would be an easy way to decrease the CPU usage (assuming it comes mostly from hashing). This would likely increase the variance of staking times though.

Elsewhere, I also read that you'd like to speed up syncing. Old blocks will still have to be verified using the existing method, so any speedup will show gradually as the "new style" blocks increase in proportion to total blocks in the chain. So a change will not mean faster syncing, but merely a lesser increase as times goes.

Last, someone mentioned ASIC friendly. I doubt anyone will stake HYP on an ASIC, so I would not think this to be an interesting property for deciding on a replacement.

In the end I don't really have a theoretical preference for which hash to use. I'd favor a simple one for which good code already is there. And since you said SHA256 is already used for coinstake...

The order book on polo's looking better than it has for quite a while, its been >1btc on the buy side for ages and today its up to 1.7 which is alright 

Matilda and I don't get along that well so I think it's just staking for me 

Also dont forget that rain collection on ##hyperstake is the next best thing compared to staking

Haha nope, going to stake to hopefully make up some losses 

We have seen a downward trend in coin supply inflation in the last few days. Right now, daily added coins is less than 1% of the supply. I think we are reaching the point where the maximum stake reward is really starting to clip off some of our inflation worries.

At this point it becomes an equation of how much stake each person sells. I can't predict prices, but it does seem like there are not a lot of people anxious to sell at these prices.

I go back and forth if high POS will gradually rise steadily or fall steadily. My gut always says it's going to fall steadily and the market has been showing that since I've been staking at least. Logically it makes sense because as stakers get more HYP the only thing to do with them is either stake, give away or sell. Even if those options were 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 of users, none of those options are buying HYP. Every time I go to buy HYP I stop because I'm making it for free so why not invest in other tech out there. All of this points to a perpetual downward trend until the 8th decimal. I don't know, maybe my gut is just hungry instead 

Disclaimer: My current wallet is staking and totals 140K+ and I haven't sold any I've generated, only given them away or staked them again. Just offering a different point of view

Well, a substantial portion of 'em Real world adoption, even if just as a savings model, would certainly drive those factors. It's more correct to state that solving the problems would cause a steady increase of coin buyers and stakers.

All "problems" are solved by a steady increase of coin buyers/stakers, correct?

Thank you all for the upportunity for enjoining the HyperStake.

Yes. That's why it would be mentioned and could be deactivated.
They would just deactive it.
If too much people deactivate it, we would have to lower the percentage and more people would be subjected to this. There is an important freerider issue here - and freeriding is an unsolved issue in free market.

Would the conditional stopstaking bring the holder of a large wallet, any disadvantage (ie earn less HYP from not staking)?

If so, then surely you'd just see individuals start to split their holdings into a number of wallets, rather than just one?

Or am I reading this wrong?

The barrier is not a hard one, so this is all about transitionning. That being said, the code will require some hard numbers; and such a number will eventually be arbirtary.

If we use the Pareto principle (which what is usually done in such a case), then 80% of coins is reached at 27K per address presently (people not in the richlist represent less than 4%). Now, we don't want 'most people" to abide by this "stop staking" mechanism so we'd have to tighten the set.

100K per address is still 60% of the richlist, so still too much - I consider that 25% of the money supply is still a lot and, to make things round, I would use the "opposite of Paretto", 20%. To have 20% of stake stopping, we shall aim people who have more than... 900K. This is 8 persons! So, at present, stop staking would apply mostly only to hypillionaires (we have 7 hyppilionnaires).

This is a pretty restricted set, but this also mean this will hopefully be easier to enforce. Now, the boring thing is that we don't know them since the address claiming has not been fixed.

Bottom line: I suggest this:
If the address as less 900K or more HYP, activate conditional stopstaking
900K shall be a variable, though, and I do not know how to calculate it

Presently, the lowest address eligible (that is, the address the closest to 900K) has 1.5% of the coin. This could be our magic number: If the address contains at least 1.5% of the total coin supply, then activate conditional stopstaking.

Opinion?

At this point it seems like the question would not be about changing the PoS hashing algo, but about the block header algo, which is currently x11. This could give a boost to syncing, but no guarantees. And whether it is worth it. Ill do some testing and see if the results are any good.

OK guys, what we are working on for Monero (among other things)

Instead of sending to pAvP3gYfuyDVbUt98ToMbwU9rwEdBV1dHW
You could send to hyperstake.com

How this magic? Openalias (entry on the Monero FAQ)

Now, the nice thing is that it works with any crypto, as long as the wallet allows it.

And there is one more good thing about it, but I'll keep it secret for some time. Just trust me on this one

Regarding code, I'll talk with presstab.

To clarify I had no idea what the "hash" was being used for in the conversation. mod is of course no good for security purposes at all.

We discussed some more in IRC. It seems the thing to do is get rid of x11 for block hashing (maybe -- if that even matters). Not sure what is being used for PoS so it may or may not be worth changing at all.

I think what presstab meant is "in the context of the hardfork we will have in several months, here one more thing to consider while we're at it". But the wording looked like "we will hard fork mostly for this", which is not the case.

Regarding algo
- presstab: I asked Wolf his opinion. I believe neoscrypt is the lightest to date. jwinterm on IRC proposed... SHA256 and smooth siphash, and mod (never heard of them)
- others: we won't go to PoW/PoS. But HYP is not a pure PoS (it is a PoW/PoS with a PoW phase that has ended), so it still has a dead weight, the now-useless PoW algo. presstab is trying to minimise the impact of the dead weight by using as light a PoW algo as possible (ideally, we would remove the PoW entirely, but code-wise, it would be a major work for not much advantages).

Update: Print_ proposed m7m and yescrypt.

@presstab

Is it necessary to do a hard fork for the reason of few minor issues? It can create a lot of difficulties for users (all previous versions of the wallet will become obsolete), probably more than these issues themselves Wouldn't it be better to include these fixes in some critical update?

BTW if you haven't already, please follow the HYP twitter.

https://twitter.com/HyperStake

Please retweet and interact with tweets, will help spread awareness of the coin

What is a "test next sex test"?