[Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 82.

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

UPDATE

PressTab is working through the last of the coding and adding liteStake.
Staking reward will be increased from 2% to 5.2%. Min coin age for staking will remain at 7 days.

We are in no great rush - main focus is getting it right. We don't want to have to do a hard fork again for a very long time

Will advise when testers for the new wallet and staking are required but it maybe this weekend.

Cheers - usukan

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Hi kiklo - and might I welcome you to the Ultracoin Community

The current plan is to only change the annual staking reward amount from 2% to 5.2% (a reversion to a previous life).

Minimum age for staking will remain at 7 days (it has always been this - but effectively 10-14 days is required to achieve a reasonable weighting to actually win stakes).

Cheers - ususkan

Quote from: kiklo on April 18, 2016, 03:48:36 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

Moving to at least 5% per year , will make me take a closer look at adding Ultra to my holdings,
does this update change the minimum stake time required to earn more ultra, if so please share the New detail specs.

Thanks.
Cool

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

Moving to at least 5% per year , will make me take a closer look at adding Ultra to my holdings,
does this update change the minimum stake time required to earn more ultra, if so please share the New detail specs.

Thanks.
Cool

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Yes - agree 100%

Thanks for your input sambiohazard

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: sambiohazard on April 18, 2016, 01:01:18 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 18, 2016, 03:11:31 AM

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

I will ask PressTab to amend the code accordingly within 24 hrs - unless I receive a solid argument against within the next day.

As always - silence will be taken as agreement.

We are very close now to closing off on the new UTC.

Cheers - usukan

I dont know what is the right thing to do, but i would suggest that we stop messing around with consensus critical code that causes hard fork after this major over haul of the code. My theory is that we should see hard forks as necessary evils and avoid them if we can. We should probably look at version bits recently deployed on bitcoin core and try to do a softfork rather than a hard fork in future wherever possible. Its very important to have stable/robust consensus as ecosystem grows.

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Sorry! Lost in translation Cheesy

sambiohazard

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: alenevaa on April 18, 2016, 01:06:33 PM

Quote from: sambiohazard on April 18, 2016, 01:01:18 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 18, 2016, 03:11:31 AM

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

I will ask PressTab to amend the code accordingly within 24 hrs - unless I receive a solid argument against within the next day.

As always - silence will be taken as agreement.

We are very close now to closing off on the new UTC.

Cheers - usukan

I dont know what is the right thing to do, but i would suggest that we stop messing around with consensus critical code that causes hard fork after this major over haul of the code. My theory is that we should see hard forks as necessary evils and avoid them if we can. We should probably look at version bits recently deployed on bitcoin core and try to do a softfork rather than a hard fork in future wherever possible. Its very important to have stable/robust consensus as ecosystem grows.

The simple difficulty adjustment fix - is hard fork already! Why not to fix as much as we can!?

and i quote "i would suggest that we stop messing around with consensus critical code that causes hard fork after this major over haul of the code."
Grin

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Quote from: sambiohazard on April 18, 2016, 01:01:18 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 18, 2016, 03:11:31 AM

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

I will ask PressTab to amend the code accordingly within 24 hrs - unless I receive a solid argument against within the next day.

As always - silence will be taken as agreement.

We are very close now to closing off on the new UTC.

Cheers - usukan

I dont know what is the right thing to do, but i would suggest that we stop messing around with consensus critical code that causes hard fork after this major over haul of the code. My theory is that we should see hard forks as necessary evils and avoid them if we can. We should probably look at version bits recently deployed on bitcoin core and try to do a softfork rather than a hard fork in future wherever possible. Its very important to have stable/robust consensus as ecosystem grows.

The simple difficulty adjustment fix - is hard fork already! Why not to fix as much as we can!?

sambiohazard

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: usukan on April 18, 2016, 03:11:31 AM

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

I will ask PressTab to amend the code accordingly within 24 hrs - unless I receive a solid argument against within the next day.

As always - silence will be taken as agreement.

We are very close now to closing off on the new UTC.

Cheers - usukan

I dont know what is the right thing to do, but i would suggest that we stop messing around with consensus critical code that causes hard fork after this major over haul of the code. My theory is that we should see hard forks as necessary evils and avoid them if we can. We should probably look at version bits recently deployed on bitcoin core and try to do a softfork rather than a hard fork in future wherever possible. Its very important to have stable/robust consensus as ecosystem grows.

alenevaa

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 260

Quote from: usukan on April 18, 2016, 03:11:31 AM

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

Ok, it has sense now! Thank you! I never could understand why to reduce PoS percent.

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

OK - I have only had support for reverting to 5.2% per annum staking reward.

I will ask PressTab to amend the code accordingly within 24 hrs - unless I receive a solid argument against within the next day.

As always - silence will be taken as agreement.

We are very close now to closing off on the new UTC.

Cheers - usukan

volyova

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 03:20:57 AM

Quote from: volyova on April 17, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

I have 4 GB GPU, and 24 GB RAM, but still i am trying to find miner and the best configuration (bat) to start mining for my card.

Sorry, I meant lots of GPU RAM. I think 270x with 4GB are the best.

gavrilo77

hero member

Activity: 819

Merit: 502

Quote from: volyova on April 17, 2016, 03:03:11 AM

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

I have 4 GB GPU, and 24 GB RAM, but still i am trying to find miner and the best configuration (bat) to start mining for my card.

volyova

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gavrilo77 on April 17, 2016, 01:21:24 AM

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

270x's are the best. Lots of RAM is more important than processing power, so if you're serious about mining UTC you need to sell that beast and get some 270's I think.

gavrilo77

hero member

Activity: 819

Merit: 502

Witch miner is good for GPU UTC mining? If possible link. What would be bat file? I tried earlier but never get it work. I have 290x

Thanks

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

its only 2% now - so its an increase back to where it was Oct/Nov last year.

Cheers

Quote from: jimblasko on April 16, 2016, 05:58:00 PM

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

That's a nice low amount :-)

jimblasko

hero member

Activity: 510

Merit: 500

Quote from: usukan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:47 PM

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

That's a nice low amount :-)

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Anybody here in the community reject the idea of reverting to 5.2% annual staking reward?

If not I will get PressTab to fix this up too.

Thanks - ususkan

PaulR1

sr. member

Activity: 320

Merit: 250

Yes, I also agree, it will make UTC some more attractive at the moment and in the near future.
I leave the final decision to the community and the commitee, it is know the best time the change it by Presstab.

Warm greetings,
Paul

Quote from: wtfc360 on April 15, 2016, 06:29:59 AM

I also agree with both of you

Quote from: usukan on April 15, 2016, 04:32:14 AM

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

wtfc360

full member

Activity: 137

Merit: 100

I also agree with both of you

Quote from: usukan on April 15, 2016, 04:32:14 AM

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

usukan

legendary

Activity: 1590

Merit: 1002

Rolled this one around - conclusion is that I support actually.

Thanks for your ideas here Alenevaa.

Will have an effect on inflation but IMO the holding incentive is more significant.

more opinions please.

Cheers - usukan

Quote from: alenevaa on April 15, 2016, 02:58:57 AM

Quote from: usukan on April 04, 2016, 05:03:00 PM

On the block reward - the current plan can be summarised:

Change notes:

Change to 10 UTC per block pending new update
10 UTC per block - 4,000,000
5 UTC per block - 6,000,000
2.5 UTC per block - 8,000,000
1.25 UTC per block - 20,000,000
1 UTC per block - 25,000,000
.5 UTC per block - 30,000,000
.25 UTC per block - 40,000,000
.125 UTC per block - 50,000,000
.01 UTC per block - 208,145,600

Change to 2% pending new update
1.5% per year at block 4,000,000
1% per year at block 8,000,000

Community - Please discuss.

Thanks - usukan

As I can understand Stake (PoS) is 2% per year right now.
And holder will get 2% only in theory. It'll be less in real life.
Is it worth to accumulate ultracoin with so low stake rate?

Why not to revert to 5.2%/year as it was before fork? It'll not increase inflation but incetivezed people to hold and not to dump.

In fact I don't have much UTCs. I'm just curious!

What do you think guys?

Topic: [Ultracoin] [Est. Feb 2014] ~ ASIC Resistant & Ultrafast 6 Second Transactions! - page 82. (Read 381018 times)