Quote from: Halofire on June 14, 2014, 03:00:37 PM

Quote from: Specialkey on June 14, 2014, 08:18:02 AM

Quote from: salsero on June 14, 2014, 06:47:08 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 discover'
which your approach doesn't seem to be including
this 'price discover' 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.

a method of Self Discovery might be hard. The wallets have to track the Market/Exchange.

Why not have some sort of voting system in the wallet itself that way it will be more Democratic.

example... Heavycoin had the initial payout schedule democratically voted for from the wallet itself.

"Decentralized Block Reward Voting - the mining schedule and money supply are democratically decided (total supply is still bounded to 128M)"

We could do something similar for the MasterNodes and if Orangecoin gets really high in price we can vote to lower the coin Payouts.

Just a thought...

Good thought Wink

A voting system in the wallet would be a great tool.

There is no major difference: letting software decide on money supply or letting the government decide money supply or letting community decides on money supply.

Software can be altered
Governments and banks are flat out crooks
Regular community really doesn't have in-depth knowledge of global economics or programming. We could have literally 5 year old children mining or using crypto, and we'd have to treat the kids as equals.

Don't take offense, merely stating a truth.

few seem to fathom the simplicity of this trans pay plan

this approach will track the market perfectly without any other info

the only price the devs put in is the first price on the start-up day of operation, it's all automatic after that.

lets say the devs award 1% (as the day-1 start-up price) for an anon trans paid to the MNode that handles the trans

the wallet software displays that offer to the community, right on the wallet, 1% now being paid

the wallet doesn't have to know the price of OC, btc, or eggs in Kansas
(the MN operators know these things you see).
so the market will respond, they will either rush to get a Mnode, or lol.

if they rush we probably offered too much
if they laugh we offered too little

but the software will constantly monitor the ready status of the orange anon network
and automatically adjust the offered price (using these 'more or less' controls above)
to a percentage at which they neither rush in, nor laugh in our face,
that's where we do business, and that is market discovery.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[if necessary we could even guarantee a given price for a period of time, especially in start-up mode]

you can chase your tails forever but you will never solve your problems here without market discovery.... it is not possible.

also there is no reason to take coins from any place but the users making the trans.
the subsidy appears unnecessary,
and besides the service won't be expensive at all
once these pork-frenzy-festivals come to an end.