Topic: [POT]PotCoin - Banking for the Legal Cannabis Industry ✦ ✦ ✦Grow With Us ✦ ✦ ✦ - page 137. (Read 920138 times)

Yes and No. POSv2.0 takes the 5% of the entire money supply and divides that among the actively staking coins, so yes, potcoin will continue to grow at 5-6%/year regardless of what % of coins are actively staking.

Coins being sent TO the exchanges on the wrong chain wouldn't be an issue the exchanges have to resolve, unless those coins were credited and sold before they took the wallets down. It will be up to anyone who sent funds on the fork to reindex, salvage, whatever is needed to get the coins back.

I am currently working on creating a wallet with up to 500 separate addresses all fed with 10pot to get things rolling. I am up to 30 addresses created and funded, my only concern is the system resources needed to keep track of that many addresses, I am running it on a vps that isn't too great on specs.

are you doing the math as if 100% of the coins will be staked each year??  when MINT ended up doing it's stats at the end of their first year it turned out to be way less than 100% of total coins were staked which means inflation was way less than they had originally expected... I think it was something like less than 12% instead of the possible 20%



on the exchange side of things... with the fork we had a few weeks before the switch to posv, I'm wondering how many coins were sent to the exchanges from the bad fork? is that part of the problem that is slowing down cryptsy and ttrex from updating?

I would love to get my coins off the exchange and in my wallet staking.

edit: I'm going to break up the POT I have already in my wallet into smaller deposits to spread it over the blockchain more to try to help it pick up to it's proper speed... if you have all your POT in 1 big chunk doing the same could really help the network speed/weight balance out

5%/apr says about 20 years non compounded. Compounding could take 2-5 years off, but that is also assuming that 420million is a hard cap, even if it is a hard cap in the code that can be changed by the devs at anytime.

how long will/should it take to generate the remaining 210 million'ish coins?..if the network is running like it should. just another curious question.

There are a couple of issues that will be resolved when the network gets rolling at the speed it should be.

We are currently averaging 1500blocks/day the last I checked, that has us short by 600 or so blocks. The interest is based on coin age which in turn is based on the # of blocks since that tx was created, because we are running behind schedule the staked coins will be lower than they should be, but with the combined power of averages and compounding, those lost coins will likely be made up for in short order. I am currently syncing a wallet on my vps that I will use to stack a ton of individual addresses to get and keep the network moving, davidpot already set one up with his own coin but it doesn't seem to have solved the problem.

The reason the first coin earnings were so high was 2 fold, the coin age of the blocks that staked for the first time along with the # of blocks staked back2back, once all mature coins had been used for new blocks the time between blocks increased.

You also should avoid thinking in terms of usd for any crypto, when potcoin takes off in price that 0.01c you staked could be worth 1$ or 10$.

The first few staked coins was a fairly decent amount on everyones end. Was that a one time deal cause the network was so low? If those #'s dont roll in again I don't get it? A million+ coins stakes 2 or 3 pennies in pot a day. Even #2 on the rich list (less the first day, the 23rd) 7 million+ coins stakes 3,355 +/- @ $.001080 =$3.62 ..from 24th - 30th.   , unless i'm missing something?

I'm sure the original question asker is.

Why not? For science!!

uhh, no thanks.

The way I understand it conflicts with blocks being minted and transmitted to the network could happen, not sure exactly.
You could always test it out with a small # of coins in an address that is generated outside of the wallet so that you have control over where the key is imported.

So what exactly happens if they are both staking then

For POW coins, Nothing. For POS/v, I have been told very bad things if they are both unlocked and staking. I have run the same address on 2 different wallets and never had an issue, but as I have been told by the rdd devs that its not smart, I would advise caution on that front. There should be no issue running them so long as only 1 is actively staking at a time.

Wow, just wow. You still didn't answer my question. How can polo, bleu and others be online just fine, same with the network as a whole, but cryptsy and bitt can't?
Answer, we know what bitts issue was and they were told how to solve it, as for cryptsy, likely bureaucratic BS with the technical team and work load.

As for kissing ass, this makes you the monkey, I took the dev team for task for not having a beta/testnet, etc and not including those of us that asked to help in the process. You clearly have no understanding of anything technical and what you think you know colors your anger in shades I have never seen before.

As of this post I am done fighting someone who is clearly unarmed. Please feel free to respond if you must get in the last word, but as of this post you are now on my ignore list.

Adios, puta.

Question...not necessarily specific to POSv. What happens if you have the same wallet.dat file running on two different computer?

Obviously I am talking with a monkey right here, no other explanation... and no further escalation, of course.

It would serve your idiotic narrative is it were cryptsy on, with which you evidently have an axe to grind, but, sorry, no deal: Bittrex also has a problem with the code, with the wallet and with the blockchain. And they have been ACTIVELY trying to solve it, without success, for weeks! Once again, no DICE. I don't profess to know why polo and bluetrade IF THEY DO -I don't know myself- don't have the same problem but what you so stupidly are implying is that the two biggest -by 1 million to one- EXCHANGES of POT, have some interest in keeping the wallet offline.... just idiotic. Almost as idiotic as you insult of the people that work at Cryptsy... I'm not someone that praises easily, as most will know but in the YEARS I have been a customer of Cryptsy, i HAVE NEVER HAD any PROBLEM WHATSOEVER. aND, WHENEVER I have had a need for some explanation, I have received a punctual, effective and polite one within a few hours at most. In writing. Likewise with Bittrex -which answered, within 20 minutes yesterday, when I asked what was going on with the wallet being online but the transaction not even starting.

So you may continue blatantly kissing ass to an incompetent and irresponsible dev who doesn't have the balls to come here and make his case publicly. But is it growingly embarrassing that you pretend to do otherwise, alright? Over and FUCKING out!

AND it is Shakespeare, ignoramus.

Because the taint and connected wallets isn't 100% accurate. I can tell you from the orderbook at bittrex alone they are higher up on the list than 77, they also have coins spread out among several hot wallets and who knows how many cold. So the # on the list doesn't account for all of their wallets.

If the problem is something the devs need to fix then why are polo, bleutrade, etc all online and functioning properly? The answer is its NOT. The issue is with cryptsy and just like when karpeles tried to blame the "loss" of bitcoins on the bitcoin code, this too stinks of blame shifting because they have no good reason why its not back up. The issue with cryptsy it seems is that their servers and wallets are maintained by alcoholic monkeys who are too busy trying to type shakespear than get anything done.

Once again you show off your ignorance like your wearing the latest fashions.

Tell me this. If its an issue with the code then why is A)Polo and other exchanges online and B) Why is the network working just fine for everyone except bitt and cryptsy.

Its clear you either have an axe to grind or potcoin killed your cat, there is no basis or reasoning behind your dribblings that masquerade as posts.
I also question why you believe what cryptsy has to say over the devs that have a huge stake in this coin, inexperience on posv aside, they have all the reasons in the world for this coin to succeed and giving cryptsy no or bad info doesn't serve them or us. Its clear to me that someone from cryptsy is blame shifting to hide the fact that they have dropped the ball, either the devs forgot how to sync a wallet OR they went on vacation and no one else knows how to handle it, so instead of coming clean about that they point the finger at the devs and hope we grab our pitch forks instead of throat stomping cryptsy.

Which amounts exactly to the same thing.

no we're just not making a big stink out of it.