Topic: OLD FLY THREAD - page 27. (Read 163670 times)

I was going to send you some FLY but your address is cut off.

trimming a lot because going over it again i realize your idea is very similar to my original proposal with one aspect changed.


For quick reference for the people following the conversation, my idea was suggested here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13186836
yours was here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13200450

looking at the suggested, there is only one real minor difference, and one difference so negligible it doesnt matter except for gui stuff.
id like to first make a note that my point about sending the coins to stake into the second kind of address wasnt a problem and i wrongly labeled it as one with my previous post so for that i apologize.

lets start with the first, the only real difference is you think the second type of address i supposed we should do shouldn't stake. i will state my point here that i disagree with this. i think it is important for exchanges to stake. staking allows them to sell the coins they stake. which yes, does drive price down. but it also allows them to make profits to continue their services. no i dont run an exchange or benefit from this at all but i still think it is an important aspect to the exchange economy. my point would be cryptsy. yes. it is doing bad right now. but it would have gone under a long time ago if they didnt stake. im sure we all remember those days when there was a bunch of fud about cryptsy cuz the balances were wrong. them being able to stake and sell staking coins helped them fix that without having to shut down after those issues without a lot of user fund losses.


The only other difference between the ideas (which is so negligible idk why im mentioning it) was that my proposal had the option for exchangewallet=1 to get the second type of address. yours does not. now you might say but only wallets in exchanges were supposed to run in exchangewallet=1, the response to that would be there was nothing stopping a normal user from doing it anyway so it was kinda a misleading name. but back to the point, the second type of addresses we proposed do exactly the same thing. send without fees. i think the exchangewallet = 1 idea is good to keep in the code purely for gui reasons. it stops people from accidentally creating the wrong type of address for their coins (since fee structures are different) since it has to be manually enabled. this wouldnt affect api calls because you have to know what you are doing to use those anyway. would also help exchanges to not accidentally generate a normal address for a user. which it is nice to have a safety on that aspect.
i think for usability with people less comfortable with crypto. this is a good idea. rule 1 of software engineering is assume the user is stupid. which is soo true because it helps with stuff down the road.

also the naming was different. i called it exchange address and normal. you called it staking and non staking. but who cares about that.

@FYI 1: i think there were more underlying issues when that happened. low node count was a big thing. also the coin at that time allowed mining before catching up on syncing. however it is a good thing to keep in mind so thank you.

@FYI 2: wouldnt make a difference in the code. also you are right. exchanges would want more. so probably not needed to limit anyway

@FYI 3: thank you for the link, we can definitely borrow from them on that aspect.

Easy remove the option to send staking amounts to other wallets, it is basically fluff anyway.
Make sure all stakes stay in the same address field and charge the transaction whenever it is sent from a type 1 staking wallet.



Exchanges can dump from their Free PoS , this removes that problem from the equation.  
And Cryptsy is actually not doing that well at the moment.
Exchanges selling their Free PoS coin causes a downward price pressure on coins with higher PoS rates, having that issue removed is a blessing.


That why there needs to be a slightly separate prefix , so that you programmers can setup it up so any coins in those addresses don't stake.
Some coins has disable PoS buttons, so disable PoS for the addresses with the new non staking prefix .
Or just setup the code to put all coins in the non-staking address in reserve balance so they won't stake.

Sorry about the Bold, I am not yelling at you , but is the only make to make sure my replies stood out with your multiformat.
 
 

FYI:
If you have not already mentioned it to Vegas,
Due to the total amount of available Fly coins, Fly needs to have a check point server in place to protect it's security.
Don't want the blockchain to reorg a few days like what happened with ECC.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11682664
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11683784

FYI2:
If it is any easier to code, the wallets only needs 1 non-staking address for this all to work.
Although an exchange would probably prefer more than 1.

FYI3:
Diamond has found a way to stake coins in a different address at different rates than other addresses.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=580725.msg13202968;topicseen#msg13202968
So you might want to ask them for help.

I thought i posted on this a while ago, but i guess it never went in so sorry for taking so long. im going to multi quote the post so i can point out problems.

The quote above doesnt work. because of when you stake you have the option to send the staking amount to any wallet address you choose (staking into an exchange) this system will allow a user to completely bypass the fee system with all staked coins. of course the coins in these wallets would still need to be sent out to get out. or would they? (see NOTE at the bottom)

this also leaves the problem that, most exchanges do stake coins, they kind of need to in order to stay solvent. especially when there is no trading fees in the actual trades themselves (this is how cryptsy stays making money, stake pos coins and put them back into the market)


In general:
the two different types of addresses is the path we are going to be taking with what i suggested since it seems to be the only way to solve the problem of different fee structures depending on who has the address.

the only glaring problem that keeps your suggestion from working at all is that you want to limit staking based on address. when a coin stakes it doesnt do it based on addresses. its random. it digs through the wallet and finds ANY transactions that:

1. arent spent.
2. IsMine (meaning belongs to the wallet, not address but whole wallet)
3. has a value greater than the minimum input value (which is typically 0)
4. is available to the coinControl (thats the simplest way for me to explain it without going into what the coin control is and how it works)

so YES it is possible to have it check the output points for the inputs of the next stake to make sure the address in the output point wasnt a non stake address(which it doesnt even do directly, it does this using the receiving addresses public key so thats another problem). but this would require changing the whole way the coins stake and has a (i want to say moderately high) chance of messing up the already existing blockchain because of the way it has been staking since staking started.



NOTE: although i have not tested to confirm this. but i believe it is possible to send coins internally in the wallet from addr to addr (since addresses are just keys not accounts) without it going to the blockchain which would be an easy way to abuse your two address format system (THIS IS NOT CONFIRMED, IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO BE TRUE BUT I DIDNT TEST IT YET).

the mode changes i was suggesting would only allow one type of address to be used when a wallet was running. either exchange addresses or normal ones.

however most of the point i was making was with the staking process

I have no idea what is going on and I'm totally just sticking my nose into this conversation because I want it whatever it is you guys are claiming Don't you see the wicked FLY address under my name? I'm representing But for realz I want whatever you guys are talking about cause I"m nosy and selfish like that Cheers

this is a great idea
and i see no way to claim it for me

thx for ur valuable input

Probably best to revert it for now to give ample time to implement it the way it needs to be. I have those theme's btw and can do a little work on that.

Yeah can't wait for everything to finally be totally figured out and being able to withdraw the FLY I've bought at Cryptopia so I can get more stakes going here That is awesome news to hear and I'm looking forward to what FLY is going to bring in the New Year Cheers

Can we make sure Kees has checked his PM's for claimed address requests first?
I've sent two now and have not seen any changes to the source or the explorer.

Actually I would like to speak for myself. The wallet DOES work. We are going to implement the old style wallet for now as we know it functions. Ive already presented this new idea to the guys. So what many dont know is every major decision I make has to be voted on. Its correct this way. I dont have all the power to make all the major decisions. So this has been presented to team fly. There are 11 of us, and all in different time zones, so everyone needs to vote on this and be heard. Community has massive say power , even over team fly. So its a process. Ive presented it. Lets see what they say. But for now the wallet we know does work will be working on Crytopia soon.

Thanks

LOL,

don't Ya know,  Da Boss don't want a working Fly Wallet,  dem peoples could dump, fees or no fees.

AG18

Well then 49.9% would be removed, what is the deal with Vegas?
This solution solves the issue.

 

A sell off of that size would actually generate like 49.9% TX fees.

To lighten things up...

I am not sure how many of you following this thread are fans of of liquid bread, sometimes called Beer, Biere, Bier, Cerveza, 啤酒.

I just found a good one!

Granville Island Brewing
Lions Winter Ale

It is chocolately liquid cocaine for the beer lover!

Damn!

Cheers!

@Vegas

What is your reply?

Whenever any balance is sent from the type 1 staking  to type 2 non-staking even in the same wallet , the fee is charged , since a fee will be charged whenever you sent out from a type 1 staking address.  So that should resolve that issue for you, as it is secure.
Like I said earlier , this is the only way your goal works without side effects.

Thanks.
 

FYI:
And just to clarify even if a type 1 staking address sends to another type 1 staking address, the fee is charged.
The setup , I described earlier allows an exchange to run with the non-staking addresses so they can use cold storage and it also allows a user to send directly from an exchange to their type 2 non-staking address where they can then convert it to a paper wallet without worrying about a fee.
It gives you everything you said you wanted and gets rid of all that micro managing issues, that the other ways will require.

FYI2:
Your Example:
so lets say I have 2000 coins, and im staking them in type 1 wallet, and then one day I decide I want to dump them, then I simply move them to my "type 2 address", then  quickly send them to the exchange and dump (no fees).
2000coin sent out from type 1 address would trigger the 10% fee so only 1800 coins would wind up in the type 2 non-staking, No different than if it was sent directly to the exchange. 200 coins would end up in superfly.  

Antidumping and burning together is somehow like a perpetum mobile for success...so we created a real currency candidate for a real world adoption normally...awesome...one sensation follow another one

Also in a future update: From the high sending fees generated , a small percent will get burned (about 1%-2%) of each transaction. This will actually show up in the money supply and even make this coin even more rare. Inflation will never kill this coin , I wont let it. 200k in the money supply scares me to death.

Vegas

I think more out of the box and will go deeper: What u guys do here is the TRUE sense of crypto!!! Trust, investor saved and big opportunities for the little one!
Later its only possible to move big amounts, if u pay hard for superfly!

Only few coins will always flowing into the marketplaces for trading and collecting! The dynamical moves crypto needs to hit attention and a new age!

Greetz
Meta

Glad to see you finally discussing it.
Whenever any balance is sent from the type 1 staking  to type 2 non-staking even in the same wallet , the fee is charged , since a fee will be charged whenever you sent out from a type 1 staking address.  So that should resolve that issue for you, as it is secure.
Like I said earlier , this is the only way your goal works without side effects.