Topic: [RE-ANN] GrowthCoin PoW/PoS - 100% per year - Version 1.3.0.1 - page 36. (Read 66388 times)

Ok,

I think I got this figured out.  A big thanks to Tranz for helping debug.


I saw a node connected with version 1.2.1 (previous version) and I assume this node generated a bunch of PoS blocks.


The thing is that the old version doesn't recognize the actual checkpoint server's signature.  so generating a bunch of block created a new chain and splintered the network in two forks.

So I will issue a check to disconnect old peer from the network. The only thing is it couldn't be a worst timing as today I'm unavailable.

I will try to find a spot and some time to work on this but it might take a while.

The outcome will be a required update of the client and maybe a redownload of the block chain


Again sorry for the trouble this is causing, I have failed in issuing the correct check of version that would have rejected old clients and could of prevented this issue!

Stay tuned and thanks for your patience

I just remember that this mornig I have a strange thing in pc wallet.

I open it and let syncronized (it has to download 10 hours), but when it need only 4 hours of block to donwload, it stops and connection was only 1.

In log there was lot of connection faild, but maybe this is the point after that it bloocks to download blocks:


I close the wallet, delete peers.dat, opens it and all goes fine.

block status:
grw.multipool.info: 588548
grw.acidpool.com: 588548
grw.blockx.info:588019
my pc open wallet (latest soorce): 588548

mybe actually the two pools are on the same fork.

I agree, let's not get crazy and push this coin to 10 or 1 Sat by giving it 1000% a year. 100-150% sounds better then, but I'm kinda ok with 100% Which 100% coin was first, this or HBN? Hmm, let me check. HBN pre-dates GRW by 7 days, July 24th. GRW Block 1 on Aug 1 in the ~Nazi4U wallet address with 666 Transactions. So they are kind of equal, hmm then it's ok to take the POS to 110-150% annually, I guess.

And just when I wrote that unick now has 666 posts, hmm. Some things are out to get me.

there seems to be a fork, so just be careful.  I run multiple daemons and I have 1 at ~100 MH/s and the other at about 27 MH/s

all same version

I have to go out today but I'll try to investigate if I can find some time

Well, new version also shows weird Est. Avg. Time per Block in MPOS - 1 min 55 sec so i switched the pool back to the older daemon just to be on the safe side.

Yes, grw.multi-pool.info not use the latest source for daemon

I've upgraded daemon at grw.acidpool.com today and found that the latest version shows totally different net hashrate.
New version shows "netmhashps" : 27.30817205 and the older one which I still have on another server shows "networkhashps" : 100869782
So right now grw.acidpool.com shows Net Hashrate 27.31 MH/s and grw.multi-pool.info which i think on the older daemon version shows Net Hashrate 100.87 MH/s
Just wondering which is the correct one?

Excellent, thanks 

Lol, yeah good thing you shared this

Added your link to the first page of this thread and I'll send a little something right away

EDIT: There, sent 500 GRW
http://grw.blockx.info/get/tx/7a2baa8d32b2a00549d6c33704cd38127ec211ff21148321eb902ef1fd753191

oh is that so... yes I noticed that too!

I haven't dug into this but it really is 2 different things and I agree is confusing for the end user.

NetStakeWeight gives an aggregate of n last PoS network transaction while your own wallet's coin weight is base on the actual age of the coins (witch is IMO the correct thing to measure).

so they are not related what's so ever !

This is not a good idea from a security point of view. Or should I say, it's prone to manipulation (sending fake connection times).

How would I base the connection check process? each client should have their own unique ID and then what happens when a client bugs, ID is tampered with, or whatnot... If it's base on IP, what do you do about changing IPs? I can see this becoming messy real quick!

Plus, there is no real contribution (beside relaying transactions/replication) about just keeping your wallet online.  It's really the block creation that we are looking for. both from the user and the network standpoint.

The more I think of it, the more I think an progressive reward base on time is much more "smooth' for the network and natural to implement.

If my style/habits are to leave the client open 24/7 I get smaller rewards, but more frequent and benefit of compound interest much more, if I don't connect that often I get larger rewards but less compound.

And we could maybe try to inverse the relation, so to incentivize people to keep their wallet online more often, start with max reward % at min age and decrease the reward up to Max age.  so more infrequent user would get less % (but more days behind the belt) and people that support the network would get higher % and more compound effect.

These are just raw ideas that I'm throwing on the table, but I think I like the inverse reward scenario.  Maybe some test would reveal a sweet spot so the ROI is kind of levelled out throughout the network and would reduce the impact of large chunk of PoS reward once a year (witch I think has negative impact to some degree for the market AND the network) while providing an healthy and secure network.

I have seen a few people complain and post about how their stake weight is higher than the network stake weight reported by the client.  I have seen this on a few different coins.

btw, do we need one more faucet? I set up one few weeks ago and forgot to announce   http://grw.faucet.be/

Maybe it's a good idea to base PoS reward on wallet online time?
e.g. if during block maturity period wallet was online 24/7 all the time it gets 100% of PoS reward but if wallet was offline for some time reward decreases accordingly.

For example if PoS rate is 150% and wallet was online all the time block gets full 150% PoS reward, but if it was online only 6 hours/day it gets only 37.5%, etc.

People will be motivated to keep their wallets online and also we will be safe from sleeping "millionaire" accounts sudden huge pos reward dump.

True 500% not 400%

I think high PoS rewards should decrease overtime, when a certain threshold of velocity and supply is reached.  It's certainly not sustainable with a large supply (price stability).


See my previous post about the supply but it is a concern IMO at this level, but large stake age like 50 days is a market liquidity killer. plus the ONLY reason to use the coin is to get the stakes... what if you need to move your money at 40 days for some reason! the network didn't get a block, you didn't get a reward... I personally don't like extremely long min age and extremely short (just a few hours) either. Maybe the reward rate should increase towards the maximum age to reward those that are committed, but still help the network and reward users with more short term usage of the coin. just a thought


I'm not sure I know what you are referring to as being inconsistent, but I'm more than inclined to discuss this with you

These are legitimate concerns that you have there Jamesco about the "unused" accounts.  I was thinking the same thing about what would happen if suddendly those people just woke up suddendly realized a big gain in value and decided to dump all on the exchanges.

The first and simplest thing I can think of that would limit the damages and still acknowledge those people their share of profit would be to cap the max block reward to X amount.  That way, if the guy has 1M GRW for almost 1 year sitting there, he wouldn't just wake up to 2 M GRW  and dump the second million on the exchanges.

If that same person has 1M GRW and wants to maximise his investments, it would require some work in splitting his blocks (using coin control) and for me that is legitimate work and is fine by me.

There is still a yearly 100% max reward, so this concerns only affect a small percentage of holders, (the top ones of the rich list) since having 1000 or 10k GRW sitting there for one year, wouldn't do too much harm to the market IMO and would only truly only affect the market if everyone wanted to dump at the same time (over witch we don't really have control except giving people a reason to use the coin for something else than buying BTC...).

If we decide to cap the reward, leaving enough time between the decision to do so and the fork should leave the time necessary to the people actually supporting the coin to reorganize their wallets in order to maximise their returns, if they see fit to do so.


about the 1000% PoS reward and decreasing the current supply. It actually crossed my mind to find a way to reduce the current supply. I'm not even sure it's possible in a way to be fair for current "active" members.

Maybe, and I'm saying this on the top of my head, if it's possible to target specific tx in the code, we could say that if people that are from the first generation community open their wallet for stake for more than 1 year, they could see negative block rewards instead of positive block rewards. The threshold could be > 1 year.

We shouldn't forget that PoS is first meant to protect and carry on the blockchain, so if someone never opens their wallet to support the blockchain, he could be "taxed" for it.

Meybe this needs to be think through, maybe it's not good at all!

Alternatively, the 1000% return could be left for an entirely new block chain like SuperGrowth and we could just crank actual GRW to 150% or 250 %... just a thought

TEK is 500%, and yes HYP is 750%. I made HYP 750% as first and experiment, and second to have a lot of fun. I am not sure if passed 750% can work or not.

GRW already has a fairly big coin supply. I think it might make sense to add a extreme PoS only if you make the stake age something like 50 days. So you get a large reward, but you have to have proof of commitment.

Also I would just get rid of the NovaCoin diff adjustment, I think it is garbage that is inconsistent. I mean GetKernalPoS() isnt even accurate it seems like.

Just some really random thoughts from me ha ha.

1000% probably will kill GRW value very fast. Increase to 150% or so could be a good idea though

Wow great work, I also think if a hard fork is on the cards we should get brainstorming about some new ideas we could implement. We also know that GRW has ALOT of unused accounts and we want as many active people in the community as possible. I was wondering would there be any way to to program the client to reject X account from staking or rejecting X client from connecting to the network if its coins are too old(over 1 year+) or something of the like? Manual readdition could also be possible if the community wanted it as well.

I know this sounds over the top but if there was such a way to do this we could set up creative ways for a coin to keep its community members active. I mean hypothetically if we really got a lot of community development going, raised the coins value with some good true hard work, theres nothing stopping an old dormant holder realising after all this time, great ill cash in on the community and crash the price. Maybe it could be a way as such to reward active community development because while I know Unick is adding constant value developing, getting a nice community together to help out would be a nice touch as well!

Anyway this is just a random idea, if we are going to fork we could have come cool possibilities thrown into the mix!

Edit: Just read your idea Unick about the 1000% stake, interesting but I think would only work with a decrease in current supply, would this be possible? Like a trade in 4-1 or something of the like?