Quote from: presstab on May 14, 2014, 04:24:50 PM

Quote from: unick on May 14, 2014, 01:23:23 AM

Quote from: z0rr0 on May 13, 2014, 10:05:43 PM

Quote from: unick on May 13, 2014, 08:31:03 PM

Quote from: ElTomeko27 on May 13, 2014, 07:34:19 PM

Quote from: presstab on May 13, 2014, 04:58:59 PM

Quote from: ElTomeko27 on May 13, 2014, 04:50:36 AM

Ok so what if the HBN block chain will be much bigger than now??

When the chain grows larger it just means it takes longer to sync and takes up more storage. Right now the HBN chain is something like 700mb (at least that is the size of my appdata HBN folder), which is not bad at all. It will be somewhere around 1 gb per year.

Ok understood:)

and when it gets a lot much bigger, we can use an hosted version or electrum/multibit type of solution for people wanting to jumpstart the inital load or don't want to host the whole block chain.

With every problem there is a solution, right now this is not an issue. But it is a valid concern!

Do you think staking will be working with such a "hosted version or electrum/multibit type" wallet?
Looks doubtful to me.

as I understand it, I wouldn't see any reason why it shouldn't work.

The staking process takes into consideration what is held in an address. It doesn't care if you have the block chain on your computer or not. Once the client finds a block, it need to broadcast that block to the network like it would do for any other transaction. So with an electrum/multibit type wallet, you already almost all you need in your wallet (meaning your public/private key pair and transaction ability). What those current implementation lack is the ability of mining PoS blocks. But I would imagine that feature being easily added to those wallets.

Interesting.... Is the wallet source on github?? I wonder how hard it would be to merge the two wallets. It would mean figuring out getting coin control on there too.

i think its already been done in yacoin