Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 59 results by btcMagnet
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
If the market cap hits 50k i'll buy some 
hmmm check your math maybe, time to buy twice i think
markcap at 99k
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
if this were true... all these birds of a feather would not be trying to move the discussion away
lol there is no reason for moving it besides reducing its exposure
EDIT:
in any case all those drooling on their wings can relax
i wont be speaking at the new thread, nor much more in this one.
there appears to be severe limits to depth of innovation available in this universe
which is pretty standard really, and that's the problem
I surely hope you are done speaking here btcMagnet. You have more than said your piece. We get it. Your railroading of this thread with your constant negativity is only serving to hurt OC. With input from the community the devs have decided on how to implement the MN's. I fully support them in this. If you think the MN's are going to be overpaid why don't you get out and sell your OC and leave us alone. Or better yet, set up your own MN. I think most of us just want to see the MN's implemented. I don't think it's a big deal to take some of the POS from 40+ years from now to pay for it. Who knows what the state of the world, money, cryptocurrencies, etc will be like 40 years from now. I don't think anyone bought into OC with plans to sit on it for 46 years.
Without MN's we are just another coin with a great community and awesome developers. With MN's this coin could be something special and valuable. I'd much rather have the devs spending their time working on implementing the MN's than arguing with btcMagnet.
so you don't mind paying 10% for a 1% service, i smell bird poop in this paragraph.
(btw it is obviously incorrect and intentionally misleading to quote and then edit someone)
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
wow talk about a drama queen... any way like it's says everyone more than welcome to join
bs the whole reason for moving the discussion is that there is nobody there lolEDIT:
Hell there is nobody here either you know, if there were you would have been buried by now in objections.
people aren't stupid, they are just absent in this case.
few want to pay 10% for a service they can easily get for 1% [not a stretch, doesn't take a genius]
time will confirm all this btw... leaving this thread as a rec of who said what
people who actually have time, interest and money invested in OC are here and on the main forum.
and everyone knows everyone is welcome on the OC forum so your only blowing smoke up your own ass right about now
if this were true... all these birds of a feather would not be trying to move the discussion away
lol there is no reason for moving it besides reducing its exposure
EDIT:
in any case all those drooling on their wings can relax
i wont be speaking at the new thread, nor much more in this one.
there appears to be severe limits to depth of innovation available in this universe
which is pretty standard really, and that's the problem
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
wow talk about a drama queen... any way like it's says everyone more than welcome to join
bs the whole reason for moving the discussion is that there is nobody there lolIt doesn't matter how many people are there since the topic will be there forever,
---snip----
This erroneously presupposes that the information is not time sensitive, which of course it is.
and i understand you encouraging ppl to go to ocs.info
but there is still nobody there... sry
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
wow talk about a drama queen... any way like it's says everyone more than welcome to join
bs the whole reason for moving the discussion is that there is nobody there lolEDIT:
Hell there is nobody here either you know, if there were you would have been buried by now in objections.
people aren't stupid, they are just absent in this case.
few want to pay 10% for a service they can easily get for 1% [not a stretch, doesn't take a genius]
time will confirm all this btw... leaving this thread as a rec of who said what
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
BTCmagnet, what I'm saying is that things can always change. Nothing is set in 'stone-code'.
Anyway, multiple community members have contacted me about this 'furthered' discussion being inappropriate or possibly destructive for this forum. We are moving it to here:
https://orangecoins.info/forum/index.php?topic=213.new#new
JimRamber, OC, Myself, btcmagnet, OC community, we're all invited. Moderation is not my style, your posts will be left intact.
I am creating the new thread so when the devs do release news here, it's not overlooked. I created a voting poll originally for the main payout schedules at OCS.info for this reasoning as well. I ask everyone please respect this, as all the action should be taking place at OCS.info anyway. If someone wants to continue the discussion here, don't respond with your intended reply, please direct them to the other thread to your response. Thank you!.
Anyway, multiple community members have contacted me about this 'furthered' discussion being inappropriate or possibly destructive for this forum. We are moving it to here:
https://orangecoins.info/forum/index.php?topic=213.new#new
JimRamber, OC, Myself, btcmagnet, OC community, we're all invited. Moderation is not my style, your posts will be left intact.
I am creating the new thread so when the devs do release news here, it's not overlooked. I created a voting poll originally for the main payout schedules at OCS.info for this reasoning as well. I ask everyone please respect this, as all the action should be taking place at OCS.info anyway. If someone wants to continue the discussion here, don't respond with your intended reply, please direct them to the other thread to your response. Thank you!.
Under the rug with this grotesque and odoriferous boondoggle eh?
Not any different than what the bankster govs are doing with their new 'free speech' zones is it...
hell ain't nobody but a few circling birds in here now anyway ya know,
this lame thread handoff is a pretty sad joke.
but yeah ill just bet they PMed you wanting to shut me up lol
besides i think heckle and jeckle are being paranoid,
i see no signs of intelligence taking over this thread anytime soon.
their pork pie is in the oven... and will be ready soon im sure.
still everyone should read my last post (bottom of p.108), it explains things more simply than ever,
im sure this elegant solution will be the standard someday for cc,
oc should do it first, that's all im saying.
it puts juice in everybody's cup instead of drilling a hole in the bottom.
sry halo but there is just no way to make this gag-request look like an accomplishment for orange ppl
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
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
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.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
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...
interesting, but we don't track the market/exchanges at all.
we simply look at our own trans network to determine how much transfer capability is currently available.
if it meets our standards, just leave the price where it is,
if we need more MN to be available, the software jacks it
less, it lowers it.
[i pasted some earlier info on this below]
heavy's plan sounds like an improvement over what is being threatened
but seems cumbersome to operate and far more invasive than what i am suggesting
still, aspects of it may give us ideas, so it should be investigated in any case.
Good call.
---paste----------
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, i think the former is cleanest.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Jim,
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
NO
And just bc I'm not using your un-needed idea, doesn't mean we have nothing new.
It is the price of all this that's getting old,
dark is paying nearly 10% of their cap a year
$3.9 million dollars
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you want to clone that bs because you are uncomfortable with any solution that isn't copy/paste?
because anyone that knows their way around a wallet network could implement and test the changes i propose in a few days [another coin following this thread for instance]
A new and innovated super-efficient transpay system would be a first in cc as Bloodpainter pointed out,
This idea of savings nearly 10% of your coin's yearly cap would certainly stoke investments,
besides being a 1st-feather in the orange cap,
we could advertise anon for 1/20th or less the price drain others are paying
but there i go again thinking too big for follow-the-leader land
This is a warning to the community!!! btcMagnet not only has posted here under multiple accounts, but he has dumped coins at the same time as his post to manipulate the price. This user has bad intentions for OC, at this point he has the look a failed Dev and is trying to take over our great coin. I take this as a compliment of how great OC is, however what I have seen and the PM's I have gotten show me this user is no good.
hmmm this stuff about me taking over your great coin deserves an answer
if only to demonstrate your level of accuracy when reporting to ppl
it's true, i could write and test the needed code.
but it might take a few days, and i don't have em atm.
and even if the devs got together and offered me oc, i wouldn't take it
as an investor, such a transfer would be questionable ethics at best, and probably felonious on the back end, im not the type to test it out, don't need to.
But just for the rec i hereby officially decline any such offer in advance.
hopefully you can sleep a little better tonight, didn't mean to scare you,
and thx for helping illustrate your level of credibility.
frankly i think you've done more in a day, to guide ppl away from this proposed hemorrhaging,
than i accomplished in a week.
so keep it up, but leave something for me to tell em ok?
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Jim,
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
NO
And just bc I'm not using your un-needed idea, doesn't mean we have nothing new.
It is the price of all this that's getting old,
dark is paying nearly 10% of their cap a year
$3.9 million dollars
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you want to clone that bs because you are uncomfortable with any solution that isn't copy/paste?
because anyone that knows their way around a wallet network could implement and test the changes i propose in a few days [another coin following this thread for instance]
A new and innovated super-efficient transpay system would be a first in cc as Bloodpainter pointed out,
This idea of saving nearly 10% of your coin's yearly cap would certainly seriously stoke investments,
besides being a 1st-feather in the orange cap,
we could advertise anon for 1/20th or less the price drain others are paying
but there i go again thinking too big for follow-the-leader land
I have to credit the above re-post to Jim, he showed me how powerful it was, hell i honestly didn't know.
Also he provided the community with that 3.9 mil dollar figure, which i thought was the turning point that could save us from having to endure these pork pies. so thx to Jim, well done!
EDIT: see damiano... we're just one big happy family here
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Been lurking in here for a bit and the conversation in here is interesting.
well you've stumbled onto a great coin stranger
don't mind us, we're just making sure there are no seeds
welcome
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Jim,
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
NO
And just bc I'm not using your un-needed idea, doesn't mean we have nothing new.
It is the price of all this that's getting old,
dark is paying nearly 10% of their cap a year
$3.9 million dollars
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you want to clone that bs because you are uncomfortable with any solution that isn't copy/paste?
because anyone that knows their way around a wallet network could implement and test the changes i propose in a few days [another coin following this thread for instance]
A new and innovated super-efficient transpay system would be a first in cc as Bloodpainter pointed out,
This idea of savings nearly 10% of your coin's yearly cap would certainly stoke investments,
besides being a 1st-feather in the orange cap,
we could advertise anon for 1/20th or less the price drain others are paying
but there i go again thinking too big for follow-the-leader land
This is a warning to the community!!! btcMagnet not only has posted here under multiple accounts, but he has dumped coins at the same time as his post to manipulate the price. This user has bad intentions for OC, at this point he has the look a failed Dev and is trying to take over our great coin. I take this as a compliment of how great OC is, however what I have seen and the PM's I have gotten show me this user is no good.
nothing but more double talk bs to distract from the point
i have another account but i haven't done anything evil with it lol
the other crap about me dumping coins is a plain lie,
im too smart to give away oc at this price, which i bet most ppl can tell
anyone that can read will detect my motives here, they are transparent, same as yours are lol
and when it comes down to believing figures (that you provided btw lol) or believing you,
i know... if there was anybody here besides me, they would believe the math, not the mouth
and like i said before the community isn't here, only the circling birds are speaking.
and since you like my last post so much ill reprint it a couple of times for ya,
hoping maybe somebody else who's paying for all this 'greed and/or stupidly'
will see how much juice is being porked-out here and speak up.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Jim,
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
NO
And just bc I'm not using your un-needed idea, doesn't mean we have nothing new.
It is the price of all this that's getting old,
dark is paying nearly 10% of their cap a year
$3.9 million dollars
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you want to clone that bs because you are uncomfortable with any solution that isn't copy/paste?
because anyone that knows their way around a wallet network could implement and test the changes i propose in a few days [another coin following this thread for instance]
A new and innovated super-efficient transpay system would be a first in cc as Bloodpainter pointed out,
This idea of saving nearly 10% of your coin's yearly cap would certainly seriously stoke investments,
besides being a 1st-feather in the orange cap,
we could advertise anon for 1/20th or less the price drain others are paying
but there i go again thinking too big for follow-the-leader land
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Jim,
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
Does this mean you guys are looking into a auto adjusting MN payment system? That would be quite a new idea/system, and if so should be announced if you guys are looking into this. Would cause some serious investment...
NO
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
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.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
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.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
This price stabilization between 350sat-450sat is for me a great sign of the market.
People just understand that something big is on the way with Oc and this the thruth !
And, we have been talking a lot about 200 Mio coins after 41 years...
but OC has NOW 51 Mio coins just a reminder !!!
excellent point, and i've reprinted some rel posts below:People just understand that something big is on the way with Oc and this the thruth !
And, we have been talking a lot about 200 Mio coins after 41 years...
but OC has NOW 51 Mio coins just a reminder !!!
The most conservative aspect of my estimates is the fact that I used BC as a comparison,
which is not even an anon coin. (could have used dark you know, even when compensating for the difference in total number (12 to 1) this bumps the 80k figure to well over 300k per year for the service in question)
And here's a free tip... any coin that is not anon is going to be very seriously disadvantaged when ppl generally realize that non-anon coins (including btc btw) leave a double-wide trail engraved in digital stone.
because... At least half the wealth flowing into cc is trying to escape being tracked somewhere down the road.
which is not even an anon coin. (could have used dark you know, even when compensating for the difference in total number (12 to 1) this bumps the 80k figure to well over 300k per year for the service in question)
And here's a free tip... any coin that is not anon is going to be very seriously disadvantaged when ppl generally realize that non-anon coins (including btc btw) leave a double-wide trail engraved in digital stone.
because... At least half the wealth flowing into cc is trying to escape being tracked somewhere down the road.
i wonder how many have noticed that when comparing BC to OC, BC has more coins (almost 50% more currently), and this will be true for many years to come. OC has a relatively low rate of new coin creation which is obviously being overlooked by the market, but eventually the laws of S+D will define these smaller numbers with price adjustment, and you wanna be up to your bloody eyeballs in orange when this happens.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
BtcMagnet, you are not at all new to Bct, so I am interested to know which other coins you have been supporting ?
Why did you create a new account especially for OC ?
It is no attack, I am just curious
this is a fair questionWhy did you create a new account especially for OC ?
It is no attack, I am just curious
but sadly i cannot answer it without defeating the purpose of creating the new handle
but i do promise that my reason is nothing sinister
im holding a few legacy coins like most ppl, but my focus now is on the coin i believe is currently most seriously undervalued,
it's being overlooked for several reason which i clearly, and perhaps uncommonly, understand.
the undervalue ratio of this coin puts it lengths ahead of all other investment contenders at the moment
(like Secretariat at Belmont actually)
it's bad business however for me to reveal the name of this coin
since i plan on buying more before the price goes vertical....
but sometimes i throw a little money away just to make a greater point,
so i'll break my own rule and tell you the name before i should
it's OrangeCoin
she just has the far brightest future in sight
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
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.
Re: [ANN][OC] Orangecoin ★★ POS ★★ Anon Transactions ★★ Masternodes
Ok I'm on my moblie but will be at my 80+ spreadsheets in a little while here.
btcMagnet : what do you feel a comfy amount in $ is to pay MN and I will work the numbers out. I'm being for really here, do you like $50k or $30k what do you feel is a good number? Just a rough number so I can work out the grid for use all..
i don't think i could divine or dictate these numbers any better than u could,btcMagnet : what do you feel a comfy amount in $ is to pay MN and I will work the numbers out. I'm being for really here, do you like $50k or $30k what do you feel is a good number? Just a rough number so I can work out the grid for use all..
but i do know how to get them.
first we don't mind overpaying a little the first few months, but if were going to pay in orange
we have to be able to control the amount. eventually we pay just enough to keep em lining up for a MNs, but we don't just throw tons of money away for decades.
idk, so what does it cost to set up/and maintain an MN? we want to be generous, especially in the beginning. this has to work.
if someone invests say $1000 or a couple of btc for a year, we should probable arrange at least a $300 to $500 (30-50%) profit for the first 6 months or so, but even for that period we would need to control OC amounts, unless we promise btc or USD equivalents (which would also vary OC amounts)
i think there is also a limit to the number of MN we will need at a given moment based on historical user traffic ratios,
50% more than we seem to need would be one thing, while 10x what we need would be something else.
so we want to overpay at first because this service has to be first class all the way, and we want to always have a fluent number of nodes, ie more than we need by some comfortable %, say 15-30% maybe.
but we need a way to control the OC payouts down the road, we simply cannot make long range payment plans in a currency we know is going up dramatically, but not how much, this would be self destructive.
yeah halo if dark needs any piece of wise-up intel, it's that 4 mil figure, which is almost 10% of their cap
so every ten years or so these simple trans stations get the whole bleeding cake
anyway we need control down the road, no getting around it, that is the mistake dark made, and we don't need to repeat it.
i think a tranpay (earlier post) method might solve all the problems with relatively little programming,
and it would only cost a fraction of the blind payment plan. But anything that allows the market to function naturally would work.
Cool let me work out a model for you based on a % of coins in circulation, giving a stable amount in MN so that transaction can go through. Seeing how we have no idea what amount of transaction will go through MN we will just use a % of total coins out there.
Good point should address this whole "software" wallet mod. Servers take time to set up, while I get where your coming from. Bumping to price or any other bidding, just will not work. Like you said we must have this whole system running as smooth as possible. And like you also said to some extent must over pay for it to run with a buffer. Now I feel like your looking at this like in a time of need MN will just run quickly to be added. We need a solid % of the total coins in MN earning an amount just a little higher then if they had it in a wallet staking. So that we are not trying to send transactions and waiting for the MN number to pick back up.
ok suppose that the only basic change we make is that the wallet adds X% OC to each trans and Mnodes pick up that X.
We just paid em. and we can control that amount completely.
now suppose the network advertises (maybe right on the wallet, maybe just to node clients, or even on a web page somewhere) that oc wallet software is currently paying X amount of OC (about one dollars worth) to any MN for a minimum transaction. We would get trampled in the stampede, so that's too much, but what about 10 cents worth, or is a penny's worth enough? idk
To nail this figure we need to know how many trans the average node will handle in say a day.
if it's 100, and we want the average node to make 10$ a day, we pay em a dime's worth. and so on.