Quote from: Jim_Rambler on June 14, 2014, 01:31:56 AM

Quote from: btcMagnet on June 14, 2014, 01:03:44 AM

Quote from: Jim_Rambler on June 13, 2014, 10:29:46 PM

Quote from: btcMagnet on June 13, 2014, 05:09:06 PM

Quote from: Jim_Rambler on June 13, 2014, 07:31:31 AM

Ok while playing with a few ways to implement this I can see I need to do more testing on this, I really don't want to shoot you down at the first sign this won't work. However this system that has been purposed, leaves us very vulnerable for attacks. The amount of MN just cant be this easy to manipulate, the amount of MN must remain higher then the request load at all time as to not allow attacks. Also this number can't be a moving variable based of a public demand so easily changed. This is why the price of 2000 OC has been set with a fixed compensation (reward %) as a way to control how many MN there are. Bc that number can't be moved up and down easily. I will work more on this to see if there is a way to secure it with some sort of almost Diff re-target equation. I'm still convinced that set amounts with stable long gradual number fluctuations is our most secure way to do this.

We have to build in some method for discovering the market value of the service, ie what the job is worth.
In other words if a given mnode handles say 1% of our traffic (on say an average month) do we buy em (with OC) a hamburger, a hat, or a hummer?

The only way to find out is to offer them something and see if they show up, that's market price discovery.
(and in the beginning we have to make sure that this offer is more than enough)

If ppl are lining up to do this for say a hamburger a week (ie what a hamburger cost today if you paid in OC), were good.
if not lining up, we offer a hat, or 2 hats...
no line yet?... 20, 100, or 200 hats, then a hummer, whatever it takes.

But long before we get to the hummer or even 200 hats, somebody will take the job.
because they decided there is enough profit in it for their time, investment, and trouble.

So in order to perceive the market, someone, or thing (cpu), has to bid, either the Mnodes, the devs, or the wallets (i think it should wallets).
At some point, with all our relevant commodity prices in flux, somebody has to offer a new price (this offer being a query to the market), based on historical time/investment for the task, the market will react to the new price (this reaction being the market's answer to the query).

Periodically (hourly, daily) somewhere in the system one of the three available entities (wallet, devs, MN operators) has to rediscover the value (purchasing power) of transfer cost. This is what takes the blindness out of our payment play.

This entity will look at the value of oc and try to readjust the amount offered to equal the amount of purchasing power we currently wish to pay for the task.

The amount of purchasing power we award/offer for a given node depends on how much more, or less, Mnode availability the market needs to stay vibrant.

In other words, do we need to pay an mnode operator the price of a hamburger, a hat, or a hummer for say every month of working for us? Time will tell very quickly and updates will be built into this system cycle.

So this price setting entity also needs to be able to perceive the condition of the trans network at any time:
Is the network satisfactory? Are there enough nodes available for smooth transfer? If 100 wallets tried to make transfers in the next 10 min would there be enough MN resources?

If this entity perceives the network as adequate, the price/offer stays the same. if the network appears deficient, the entity offers more, if there's a substantial surplus of node availability, the entity lowers the offer.

With this offer now standing, the market responds, answering the question "is this enough?" if the answer is yes, nodes will want to work and our network availability checks will show an adequate trans availability during these periods between price adjustments.

Notice that these price awards could change every five minutes if needed. The value of OC and 'the cost/time involve with the task' are both subject to change, our system has to compensate for these two fluctuation, oc being the more volatile obviously.

In this (wallet entity) approach the market is responding to our standing [but changing] offer, as opposed to us responding to their multiple bids, which i think is cleanest.

Ok I'm going to try and explain to you another way because your making to much work out of this. I have decided just to trust your word about your intentions and will try to explain this all to you. You must first stop looking at this like we are paying on a per-transation bases for this, and that its a service. It is only a diffrent way to send your coins, that takes a certain set up to do such. MN are no more a service then PoS, so enough look at it like a service.

When a MN is set up all it is doing is SHIFTING coins from hot active wallets to locked wallets. This is not some 3rd party entity, these is our own coins just in a different type of wallet that is it. Ok time for the math

year 1 if you have a wallet with 2000 OC in it and your sitting there looking at it thinking should I SHIFT my OC to a MN. ANYONE would say let me do the math and see if it is worth doing or not. Ok 2000 OC in the first year if stacked on time, stacks 24.333 time every 365 days. So 2000 OC earn 400 OC PoS in that first year. Now any investor such as yourself would simply go look at the number of MN then divid the reward amount and add the cost of the server. They get the number X and if X is less then 400 OC then they just keep the OC in their wallet.

If the server cost are around 2000 OC (for 2000 OC to = $60, price/OC need = $0.03) then there can be
416 MN.

(the more OC SHIFTED in to MN the more EVERYONE stacking PoS makes)
(the more MN available the more stable and secure the MN system is to attack, The more MN the more random the selection of which MN will process the transaction.)

So let us look at what this means, to have an SELF adjusting system like this.

So the number of MN will be controlled by what the 2000 OC would have stacked PoS + server cost ($60) divided by rewards paid to MN. Also there will be a new PoS amount bc the MN coins no longer get PoS and that leaves more for the coins left in PoS. Remember the 2000 OC would only get 400 with out MN.

Value of OC in $ # of MN new PoS
$0.03 416 406.7
$0.08 869 414.4

And so on...

You keep adding $ in to this and only saying that MN are a service, and not referring to PoS as a service as well as leaving out PoS earnings in $.

YOU need to understand that the amount of OC that will be given out to MN will only me slightly higher then PoS earnings on the same 2000 OC. And this will all happen on its own, without complex wallets and bidding.

a free live market is the only way to avoid this ludicrous overpaying were talking about
and no free market sys is possible without some form of 'price discovery'
which your approach doesn't seem to be including
this 'price discovery' is your only eye on the changing market,
without it you're blind, ie in the dark (pun violation.. sry)

You may be making to many suppositions about what we need to do here.
i believe we only need to establish a flawless anon transfer network.

if were going to escape darks overpaying we have to color outside the lines now.
[and notice orange was always the brightest crayon in the box lol]
we need a different approach, new ideas, this is a time for innovation.

My suggestion is NOT likely to be the best solution possible,
so improve on it, come up with a new one, (which includes price discovery)

with 'wallet controlled transpay' the software intrusion appears minimal, less complicated than what was being proposed.
im sure there are a thousand ways that would work, it's not rocket science ya know, just a moon shot lol.

I can no longer follow you down this rabbit hole that you have cleverly designed to distract me. I'm turning all my attention to the code. I thought on some level I could help everyone see our vision. The specs are set and the code is being written, I encourage you to buy while the price is low.

I realize you have no clue what i'm talking about
unless OC does, this coin will be following dark's mistakes for sure,
but with no such guarantee of its successes

but like i said before... it won't matter in the end
when the community realizes how deep the gouging goes (deeper than your rabbit hole btw)
they will object with such volume
the devs will have to fix it anyway

your mind is completely closed to any but one hopeless double-blind payola plan doomed to fail at great expense to the unsuspecting oranges, they are not here you know, only ppl drooling over these 100x payoffs have the time to camp on this thread.

and as i said two days ago, i have no more time to waste on ppl who can't even understand their own problem, let alone a solution.