Does the wallet not follow the chain of most trust - i.e. whatever the, er, "team" tells it?
(your blocks were orphaned by, er, "team" - now your wallet believes they never happened, in effect)
Yep... I have been give different reasons for the high orphan rates. First it was longer block chain... provider a counter example. Then first come first serve due to network latency... provided counter examples. The latest reason is due to earlier timestamps (ntime) on the blocks/transactions, which is just not true, but provided counter examples. Only reason remaining is "trust" which is based on entirely on the amount of funds in the wallet that created the addres..
Anyway, there is a difference of over 570 million nokoin between the explorers.
That is a lot of orphaning.
Yes a lot. In just the last month over 1000 POW blocks orphaned (that 1,141,000 million coins) and over 100 PoS stakes orphaned... don't have the total on those.
Much more than the (nearly) 400 million "officially" created.
So, if that were the case, I would expect to see a fairly consistent "over accounting" on large staking addresses on nokoin.io
Not so.
NdoQ1quvqEnkNMqtSzVhTKiLrbDuKQYQz6 for example, has a higher balance shown on nokoin.org than nokoin.io.
That is the wrong way around for the orphan scenario.
Some other large addresses are like this, but also some are the other way round.
(and there is "only" a few million difference between balances on the explorers, nothing like the 570 missing millions)
No consistency there.
No if neucoin.io has a lower balance orphaning would total explain.
EG. Block is mined, both explorers would credit the miners account balance. When the block is orphaned by a PoS for that account if neucoin.io doesn't reorganize nuecoin.io will have the lower balance for that account. Nuecoin.org does reorganize and the PoS account is credited with the stake while the miner's balance is debited. Hence a possible explanation for the higher balance on the nuecoin.org explorer.
I haven't look into the inconsistencies and the only possible explanation I can offer up is neucoin.io not handling the reorganize. It is certainly possible the larger accounts such as NdoQ1 are orphaning stakes from smaller accounts... but not sure.
But also approx 250 million nokoin were created in the first month (as projected), yet only 150 million in the 5 weeks since. (not as projected)
The creation process was projected to speed up, not slow down.
A possible explanation for this the originally projected monthly drop in interest rates is exactly following what was projected. The decrease isn't actually done on a monthly basis but instead done every 43,836 blocks. So the third drop in interest rates is to occur after 132,000 blocks are on the chain. So it was projected. using the 9/11 date on the genesis block there would be 131,508 blocks on the chain at the start of the 4th month. If we take a month to be 30 days, then we 7 days from the 90 day marker... about 76% or the way through the month. Taking the current block height of 111599 -87672 (the block for the second month) we are only 23,927 blocks into month 3. That's only only about 54.6% of the way into the month( again being 43,836). So clearly block generation isn't happening as fast as project. I have seen the projected coin creation rates but I am sure they were tied to this. Do you have a link to that?
And it does seem "things" happen on "distribution day", 23rd of the month, as you have found, to your cost.
So, I think still unanswered, "are they holding back on staking, or have they just messed up the process of staking, or did they mess up the original figures, or is their blockchain just plain wrong?"
Can only speculate. I can say sometimes when pow blocks are not orphaned it seems to cause a "hiccup" in the staking from the foundation accounts. Its even more noticeable when 2 or 3 successive POW blocks are mined. Why?
I can only speculate but one possible explanation: There is clear latency with the large accounts PoS stakes. Say a block is mined, it gets broadcasted across the network and peers clients begin generating a PoS stakes are generated using the mined block as the previous block hash. Then 30,60, 120 seconds later a Foundation stake hits the network. Orphaning the mined block. All the other peers must now "reset" to use the foundations PoS stake. If they did already mint a PoS stake and already sent it out the block chain these might not even show up as orphaned shares to many nodes on the network... certainly the wallet the generated would receive a reorganize. Combine that with the fact if a PoS stake is orphaned the wallet just doesn't attempt to immediately mint another stake. Instead the waiting game begins. This also lowers the effective compound interest rates which in turn a a whole will reduce future PoS staking and in turn make slow down the rate of block generation. Of course this and the obvious fact that several thousand blocks themselves have been orphaned and hence not making it onto the chain and hence not contributing the amount of funds created and hence not staking and hence not generating compound interest either. I highly doubt this rate of orphanage was factored into the original projects.