Topic: ★ ZEIT ★ [COMMUNITY & KNIGHTS] [ULTRA LOW INFLATION] [MICRO-PAYMENTS] - page 114. (Read 1009280 times)

what would be the reason to push the price of Bitcoin to $3000?

Bitcoin passed $1,000, with a marketcap of $16.5 B.
AltCoins with a marketcap of $2.3 B

If Bitcoin going to $3000 a coin, it's marketcap would be almost $50 B.
Altcoins would have a cap of near $10 Billion.

Every coin in the top 50 would be worth $50 million and up.
Top 100 would be $10 million and up

It would be nice to see it, hope hope hope

Happy New Year!  May 2017 be the Zeitcoin year!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! 




 

Ray can add a fixed checkpoint to hard fork version,
he can also add a fixed checkpoint at anytime thru the alert system, so no worries on the checkpoints.

Security of the hashproof of stake is paramount , it has to be secure over everything else.

Blockchain bloat is an issue, but it is not a security issue and a swap would only postpone the issue not solve it.
But after watching Eth add 1 gigabyte to their chain per month and we only add 1 gigabyte per year , we are not doing that bad.
ZEIT will be a global payment system, expecting it to run on a raspberry pi is unrealistic.
Considering ram & hard drive space get cheaper every year , the bloat is not that big a deal.
(And we are watching testing of compressed blockchains, but the initial reports are it is not worth it. Increases the CPU usage. )

We will need Lite Wallets in the Future that don't download the blockchain at all. This removes the bloat issue completely from the end users.
Current Price $1500 setup from one company (But they do everything PC & Mac & Android & IPhone lite wallet), hopefully this price will drop or it will have to wait until their are a lot more Knights so we can spread out the costs.)

That 30 second block time gives us 20X the current BTC transaction capacity,
part of the reason we dropped moving to the 45 second block speed, is the realization 1 day we are going to need all of that capacity.  


 

I understand that perfectly. The point is, and we have already discussed it some time ago, at some moment the blockchain becomes too long to effectively manage the process of new users joining ZEIT. Therefore you will need to introduce a FIXED CHECKPOINT to speed it up. I thought that all changes could be then swiftly introduced at the same time, while having a hard fork.
This issue will hunt ZEIT anyway and rather sooner than later taking into account the number of blocks we already have and the 30s block time.
For now kiklo provides his snapshot service, which is great temporary solution, but again it is as secure as your snapshot provider is - security issue.
So each way there are security issues and to have full picture one has to consider pros and cons of each solution, not just the pros.
Just my 2 zeits

In the Why the Government can no longer be trusted to Control FIAT News

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Venezuela-receives-more-new-banknotes--but-scarcity-persists_84885



In the Liquid FIAT News ?   
https://news.co.cr/cuba-seeks-pay-international-debt-rum/54485/





 

Just PM the ones you want to talk with.
But many of the Knights revere their privacy,
so if they don't do direct communications like skype, don't take it personally.

 

Im interested in Bali and Id love to come but how can we get a direct line of communication going?

Thanks Sa_ddam213,

Due to the fact a reverse swap would seriously decrease our security & it would hamper our Marketcap growth, I sincerely doubt one will happen.

There will be a Hard fork sometime around April of 2017 with the following changes:

1.  Interest rate change to 0.0005% (0.000005) per year.  (Ultra Low Inflation)
2.  Minimum Stake Age Changed to 1 Day
3.  Blocks no longer Split after staking, stake amount just adds to the block amount.

I will contact you guys by support channels , in plenty of time before the fork takes effect.

Thanks again for all of your hard work. 

 

The policy is around the blockchain itself, so if there is a change to historic transactions the coin needs to be relisted as we cannot change our internal blockchain, its immutable.

Because every transaction, trade, transfer deposit, withdrawal is stored in our ledger even a small change to the blockchain can have a butterfly affect on users accounts, there are a few reasons why we chose this method, mainly as there is no way to have a balance discrepancy as your balance is not a number in the database, but the sum of all inputs, outputs in the Cryptopia ledger, blockchain is perfect for exchange accounting

That being said, ZEIT has its own unique id in our ledger, so if there is a change to a chain that requires a swap or a change to historical operations it can be relisted because its a new coin, if you change a blockchain then its a entirely new coin with the same name, so we have to treat it the same way internally.


Anyway, rambling now...


The last think we want to do at Cryptopia is hinder a coins development with its policies.

So we are happy to relist ZEIT free of charge if you guys go ahead with a swap or whatever, ZEIT has been on Cryptopia for quite some time and has a strong community and we are happy to work with you guys


Cheers
sa_ddam213

In the US is leaving Encryption Alone News 

http://themerkle.com/us-house-judiciary-committee-states-weakened-encryption-is-not-the-solution/




 

This is the part you keep missing and one thing the original programmer did perfectly.
The more coins there are , the more protected a Proof of Stake coin is.


hashProofOfStake is what protects our blocks from being overwritten, by long or short range or history rewrite attacks.


hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]      
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   

Example
Amount of coins in a staked block = 10000
Difficulty =2
Days in Stake = 5

[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
      50000 =   10000   x  5

hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]   
         100000         = 50000       x   2

If we decrease /reverse swap by 100 to 1
then the Amount of coins in a staked block = 100

[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
      500 =   100   x  5

hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Difficulty]   
         1000         = 500      x   2

Instead of a hashProofOfStake of 100000 protecting the block, then our security will be 100 times weaker if we go with a reverse swap.
Which would make us more vulnerable to all kinds of nasty attacks that we are currently invulnerable too.

Reverse Swap is a bad idea on many different levels, security being the most important one.

 

Was thinking about long term blockchain security not security during the process, but that's also an issue imo.

What is wrong with security, if you have a trusted third party for such a swap?

Totally with kiklo here. A reverse split seems like a horrible idea both from a consistency and a security perspective.

I brought XDE example on purpose as it is very similar to ZEIT. XDE Coin before the swap was in the same development stage as ZEIT is right now. I was one of the early holders who initially was voting in favour of that swap. I didn't agree on the implementation details (paid wallets, his payment) and how Vegas took over the coin, but he was right in one thing, namely, the coin needed changes to induce some life into it. He made the swap with 7:1 ratio (1 old coins got 7 new, increasing the number of coins), increased the PoS and increased the total coinage. Apart from that some development was made, although it was mostly wallet cosmetics. The end effect  was to have bigger community and more volume.

Regarding ZEIT, as I wrote in my previous post, we need some rudimentary development in the first place, the parameters of the coin are something secondary. Otherwise, we are one of the poorly developed coins that has not much to offer. If we, however, want to adjust the parameters, I would cut the total number of coins as well (we may put it on vote as well to see what the others think - till April there is some time left). 1:1000 swap would be a good compromise in my opinion.

As for the market cap. It is about the total volume, and not the product of total volume and the coinage, what is relevant and representative. This market cap term is just bull..t. Point. It is extremely important to understand the difference, and I see that you kiklo miss this point completely. Having 1 zillion of coins and the price on some minor exchange with 0.1BTC daily volume, doesn't mean that you will be able to sell all coins in circulation for that price. Meaning that the real market cap is MUCH LOWER THAN the product of the coinage and the current price.

XDE2 is an interesting example, considering the XDE community voted against it , and Vegasguy did it anyway.  
He kind of completely ignored the votes & community.
When they swapped correct me if I am wrong , but did they not increase the # of coins instead of decreasing.
They also created special wallets (People could Buy) that had a higher staking rate than the standard free wallets, (You think that is fair, I don't).

They are on Yobit and they paid to be on it.
What is impressive, it is one of the few wallets on Yobit not in maintenance mode.
The original xde is in maintenance mode on yobit.

All a reverse split will do is hurt our market cap, there is no point to it.

People perception of the size of the coin is not a problem, the constantly refilling of our enemies Sell Walls is the problem, having too high an interest rate is the Problem.

Lowering the inflation rate alone will get us where we need to be.
Notice the only coin going up in value is BTC, because they make less than 2000 coins per day, when we make the switch we will only be making ~500 coins per day.
Our Price will rise, because our inflation will finally be under control and not crushing us at the exchanges.


 

FYI:
Simply Put,
Vote Yes , if you want ZEIT to Survive & Thrive , and your coins to have a growing value.

Vote No , and we die a slow death from hyper inflation, and your coins become worthless

I can give a few counter examples where a swap put life into a coin that before the swap was followed only by a small group of people, like ZEIT now.
Take XDE2 for example, as this one is very related to ZEIT situation: they changed the total coinage, adjusted PoS rates and did the swap. Before the swap there were only 100 coins and a tiny PoS.
They wanted to extend the number of coins, increase the PoS for a while and made the fork. It worked fine, and the group of people that follow the coin increased. Also they didn't get delisted from any exchange.

I can also give few examples, from FIAT world, of countries where cutting three or four zeros, brought back people's value perception to the normal levels.

Last but not least, talking about 5 per each person on Earth sounds very megalomaniac to me, if we struggle to get 1BTC volume on all exchanges combined on a stable basis. Sorry, but that is ZEIT's reality and it has been like that over a long time already. If we aim for MASS ADOPTION that is exactly the argument against having so many coins and big numbers: things that are successful in a big scale have to be simple enough so that many can easily understand them. There are plenty examples of nice things that were misunderstood by people and thus never have been adopted in mass, although the inventors were rock-solid convinced that this was the idea.