Quote from: KimmyF on September 11, 2014, 08:19:38 PM

Quote from: tr8kr on September 11, 2014, 07:00:03 PM

Quote from: KimmyF on September 11, 2014, 06:21:08 PM

Atm I'm more looking for answers on two questions
If I have a wallet with more then 1K coins, can I somehow isolate those 1K coins from the rest so they can stake? Like the previous version with the xmixer address.

And what kind of revenue will be paid,?
before people start mixing (and reset coinage all the time) they need to get more than just staking, eg over 34xc a year

http://xctalk.com/index.php?/topic/71-xnode-and-the-incentive-to-run-it/

Sometime ago i was speaking of this incentive to run a xnode VS staking at 3,33% , i was imagining a system that gradualy increase the possible number of transaction of a xnode mixer based on the reserve balance with a maximal 1000xc by wallet.

The example was with 0.01 of fee by transaction perhaps its too much i dont know but the idea behind was to let's small holder of XC to work like a xnode mixer increasing drastically the potential of xnode mixer running.

I for one are more than happy to pay a 0.01 fee for a real anon transaction, even more if needed. If we look at those numbers in fiat its to cheap to even think about it.
Even a retailer can offer to pay the anon fee for its customers and will still smile if he compares those numbers with fiat transactions

Quote

And for privacy perhaps using multiple degree of privacy each with a cost like "Simple degree of privacy normal fee but quick" , "Intermediate degree of privacy fee increased like .001" and "Maximal privacy fee increased like 0.01 but slow".

But i always think that XC must be used all the time with this privacy system at some degree , if you want no privacy you can use BTC.

BTC>Credit card XC>Cash.

Yeah those ideas are great. I like the effect they'll have.

While they won't be implemented on Monday, there's good reason to think through their consequences.

Your suggestion looks a little like the reputation-based idea that XC had before Dan invented trustless mixing. Nodes would need to stick around and earn their rep before being able to process lots of transactions.

My main concern with it would be that it might be inelegant. It adds a lot of complexity - and it's complexity of a non-necessary kind - to add a whole reputation/age/transaction-counting system to things. It'll most likely be hackable unless it's as secure as the Bitcoin protocol, so inelegance would have a high cost.

On the other hand, I like its decentralising effect, and its ability to empower small holders.