BTCat



Offline



Activity: 1806

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1806Merit: 1000 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 12:33:53 PM #3061 Question:

"The next client rebalances the minimum times to 1 week (1.2%) and 30 days (1.5%)"

Does this mean people then would receive 3 x more coins from stake since the original setting is 1.5% per 90 days?

Can coins stake more than once throughout a year because to my knowledge 1.5% is always communicated to be per year max.

And last, what if a person let's his coins mint and then sends it to another wallet, will it mint again in the 90 days period? Then someone could just earn 4 x stake per year which is more than 6% per year. At settings per 30 days a person could mint 12 x per year which is over 20%.



I'm sure I do not understand all about the proces but please try explain how this results. Thanks vm.

elambert



Offline



Activity: 1696

Merit: 1008









LegendaryActivity: 1696Merit: 1008 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM

Last edit: July 13, 2014, 01:09:44 PM by elambert #3062 Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 12:33:53 PM Question:

"The next client rebalances the minimum times to 1 week (1.2%) and 30 days (1.5%)"

Does this mean people then would receive 3 x more coins from stake since the original setting is 1.5% per 90 days?

Can coins stake more than once throughout a year because to my knowledge 1.5% is always communicated to be per year max.

And last, what if a person let's his coins mint and then sends it to another wallet, will it mint again in the 90 days period? Then someone could just earn 4 x stake per year which is more than 6% per year. At settings per 30 days a person could mint 12 x per year which is over 20%.



I'm sure I do not understand all about the proces but please try explain how this results. Thanks vm.



The 1.2-1.5% is per year, meaning in the current setup if you stake your coins every 30 days for a year you will earn approximately 1.2% interest. If you stake every 90 days for a year, then you will earn closer to 1.5% interest.



One of the goals with the new client is to create more PoS blocks and further enhance security. To encourage this, we are looking at a minimum coin age of 7 days for staking. More to come on this but please keep throwing your ideas in the ring! We are still ironing out the details and are certainly open minded as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile. The 1.2-1.5% is per year, meaning in the current setup if you stake your coins every 30 days for a year you will earn approximately 1.2% interest. If you stake every 90 days for a year, then you will earn closer to 1.5% interest.One of the goals with the new client is to create more PoS blocks and further enhance security. To encourage this, we are looking at a minimum coin age of 7 days for staking. More to come on this but please keep throwing your ideas in the ring! We are still ironing out the details and are certainly open minded as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.

BTCat



Offline



Activity: 1806

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1806Merit: 1000 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM #3063 Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM The 1.2-1.5% is per year meaning in the current setup if you stake your coins every 30 days for a year you will earn approximately 1.2% interest. If you stake every 90 days for a year, then you will earn closer to 1.5% interest.



One of the goals with the new client is to create more PoS blocks and further enhance security. To encourage this, we are looking at a minimum coin age of 7 days for staking. More to come on this but please keep throwing your ideas in the ring. We are still ironing out the details and are certainly open minded ...

Well this sounds good and I don't think many would object although for some it may be a little less convenient to remember to stake each month. If it helps the network it's good.



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea. Well this sounds good and I don't think many would object although for some it may be a little less convenient to remember to stake each month. If it helps the network it's good.Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

elambert



Offline



Activity: 1696

Merit: 1008









LegendaryActivity: 1696Merit: 1008 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 02:09:42 PM #3064 Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat! I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

RaggedClown



Offline



Activity: 12

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 12Merit: 0 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 02:13:53 PM #3065



Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overall



Or maybe I'm reading this wrong



Giving away the percentage of interest that could have been given to holders not minting, to holders that mint more often IMO is not a good idea. As well as increasing the coin supply no matter if only a few are staking, and rewarding those further for doing so, but penalising those that hold their coins in paper wallets or in idle wallets for maybe months/years at a time, by continually increasing the supply and decreasing the value of their stored and unstaked coins does not speak to me as a fair approach.



Lesser stake age with no increase of inflation is maybe the option I would go for.



I do a lot of reading on here but rarely put my view forward, but as a holder of CGB I thought it necessary I comment as any change would inevitably effect my investment. From what I gather, the developers are saying the annual inflation won't be affected. But the frequency that your coins are eligible for stake would be increased.Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overallOr maybe I'm reading this wrongGiving away the percentage of interest that could have been given to holders not minting, to holders that mint more often IMO is not a good idea. As well as increasing the coin supply no matter if only a few are staking, and rewarding those further for doing so, but penalising those that hold their coins in paper wallets or in idle wallets for maybe months/years at a time, by continually increasing the supply and decreasing the value of their stored and unstaked coins does not speak to me as a fair approach.Lesser stake age with no increase of inflation is maybe the option I would go for.I do a lot of reading on here but rarely put my view forward, but as a holder of CGB I thought it necessary I comment as any change would inevitably effect my investment.

elambert



Offline



Activity: 1696

Merit: 1008









LegendaryActivity: 1696Merit: 1008 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 02:23:19 PM #3066 Quote from: RaggedClown on July 13, 2014, 02:13:53 PM



Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overall



Or maybe I'm reading this wrong From what I gather, the developers are saying the annual inflation won't be affected. But the frequency that your coins are eligible for stake would be increased.Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overallOr maybe I'm reading this wrong

This is exactly correct.



Quote Giving away the percentage of interest that could have been given to holders not minting, to holders that mint more often IMO is not a good idea. As well as increasing the coin supply no matter if only a few are staking, and rewarding those further for doing so, but penalising those that hold their coins in paper wallets or in idle wallets for maybe months/years at a time, by continually increasing the supply and decreasing the value of their stored and unstaked coins does not speak to me as a fair approach.



Lesser stake age with no increase of inflation is maybe the option I would go for.



I do a lot of reading on here but rarely put my view forward, but as a holder of CGB I thought it necessary I comment as any change would inevitably effect my investment.



Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested? This is exactly correct.Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?

RaggedClown



Offline



Activity: 12

Merit: 0







NewbieActivity: 12Merit: 0 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 02:36:59 PM #3067 Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:23:19 PM Quote from: RaggedClown on July 13, 2014, 02:13:53 PM



Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overall



Or maybe I'm reading this wrong From what I gather, the developers are saying the annual inflation won't be affected. But the frequency that your coins are eligible for stake would be increased.Your coins could be staked every week instead of every month and you would receive 1/4 of the interest that the current monthly staking would give without any change to the annual inflation for POS overallOr maybe I'm reading this wrong

This is exactly correct.



Quote Giving away the percentage of interest that could have been given to holders not minting, to holders that mint more often IMO is not a good idea. As well as increasing the coin supply no matter if only a few are staking, and rewarding those further for doing so, but penalising those that hold their coins in paper wallets or in idle wallets for maybe months/years at a time, by continually increasing the supply and decreasing the value of their stored and unstaked coins does not speak to me as a fair approach.



Lesser stake age with no increase of inflation is maybe the option I would go for.



I do a lot of reading on here but rarely put my view forward, but as a holder of CGB I thought it necessary I comment as any change would inevitably effect my investment.



Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?

This is exactly correct.Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?

I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development, is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.

I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development, is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.

papersheepdog



Offline



Activity: 266

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 266Merit: 250 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 04:29:31 PM

Last edit: July 13, 2014, 05:02:42 PM by papersheepdog #3068 Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 09:13:30 AM "I had another idea that we could have the protocol reward all unclaimed interest at each block to the winner of the minting process."

Sorry but I am very much against this. If someone is not minting, it's their choice but it doesn't mean someone else should get it. These coins should never be created.

It puts the person not minting at disadvantage. It doesn't feel right imo.



edit: just read the discussion:

"PoS reward is a zero sum game. If everyone is generating stake, their slice of the pie remains unchanged. Only if you fail to mint are you punished and wealth is transferred towards those who do. Therefore it almost isnt even a reward unless others fail to do it."



This is a very bad idea. You want to force people to mint while they don't want to. It's a way to demotivate people to spend their coins.

Also you have to concidder the CGB price, someone else can sell his extra coins and put pressure downwards while when they are not created price can grow. If the price grows then those who do not get the extra reward will see a higher price and be just as happy. Dillution of stake is very bad.

This idea only makes the rich and dedicated CGB'ers richer while punishing the ones that prefer to spend or hold their coins elsewhere.



What an awesome discussion to wake up to, thanks guys!!



I want to say first off, that you have all brought up valid points, each one contributes to the balance we are looking for.



Second, it is important that we realize that we are dealing with a security model here which is actually based on punishment for non-participation and actually rewards no-one if all participate. This is the true nature of PoS, though in actual practice, it does reward those who work for it. This is about finding the right balance.



Third, someone who makes a habit of not minting, may notice the monetary base expansion which works to slowly inflate away purchasing power might go from 1.4 to 1.8% for example. Again, we can study the current rate for further discussion but I think it would be something like this. The impact would be very minimal, and yet in line with our long standing goal of emulating the fundamentals of the gold supply. In this light its actually a fix to match our target.



Fourth, this inflationary "tax" on the backs of those who are not particpating in network security, is actually the cost of running the network. Without this motivation, CGB would have zero viability as the security is not "paid for." The value in percentage of each CGB would take a hit much greater than 2% if it were a mere punching bag to hackers. This is the key point, to consider that we are talking fundamental viability here. Security vs. Convenience is kind of an overall theme to our global monetary system which is apparent these days.



This idea came out of the extensive discussion that we had recently (linked at the bottom of the post). It seemed that it was a battle of extremes. Some wanted the return to hyperinflation, while others saw the wisdom of remaining a more "hard asset," staying true to original vision. This proposal is a compromise. It has the potential to encourage minting, and simply ensures that today's maximum rate of reward, is tomorrows guaranteed rate of reward. In other words, the original vision is maintained.



It's all discussion at this point. We have made no solid plans for the unclaimed coins. Much appreciated discussion!!





Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:09:42 PM Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

Keeping them for development purposes is an interesting idea. My only issue with this is it will be looked at as a virtual premine. We can look at it as cash sitting there. Do we want to spend it on development (which is difficult for a community to verify it was actually spent on), or give it back to the community in the form of an extra bonus for security participation.



If we were to go the way of encouraging security participation, this would most certainly not include any form of retroactive coin creation. I just wanted to note this in case anyone thought about it. We would start only right at the moment that it was implemented, if implemented.



I know we all have our perspectives, but please try to have the perspective of CGB, the cryptocurrency, when thinking about this. How can we motivate the population to better secure our network. Remember, none of it would exist without rewarding active participants with the proceeds of monetary base expansion. Yes, as an investor, we might have a lot of CGB and not want to cash in the paper wallet every month, but this kind of stuff will become a fact of life as we start to take responsibility for our own banking as a society. The tech will be advanced to allow conveniences such as cold offline minting and this will all be part of adapting.







Quote from: RaggedClown on July 13, 2014, 02:36:59 PM Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:23:19 PM Thank you very much for your contribution! Your point of view is a valid one that absolutely needs to be considered. What are your thoughts regarding these unstaked funds going to the foundation fund for development and advertising as BTCat suggested?



I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development, is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.

I think it is a good idea, the only problem I can think of at the moment is the fact that for those CGB to be of any value to ongoing marketing and development, is for them to be dumped onto the market creating a further downward pressure on an already low volume currency. I have no idea on the percentage of un-staked coins, but for example if only 50% of coins are currently staked that leaves 7125 CGB per annum/ around 593 CGB per month going to the Devs. At the current price level and volume it would not be feasible to dump these CGB on the market. This is the only thing that worries me about that course of action.

I agree, this is another point against the devs accepting these coins to the foundation for marketing. It will likely hit the exchange and be sold. If we instead give it to active participants, who are already proving their interest in CGB, it would be a better home.



One last point I want to reiterate, if we are giving out x extra coins for every single mint block, this will encourage people to come up with more blocks (which helps our security greatly). If still a small group of people are minting, they will reap major rewards, once others catch on and the PoS block supply becomes more robust, this leftover amount will become smaller as more CGB is periodically brought online. It should find equilibrium at a higher state of participation. This is the main goal.



edit: Just thinking through the game theory. Each mint block pays a small reward on a per block basis regardless of the return earned ( based on coin age). This would encourage a competition for every single potential block slot. A large wallet will receive relatively no reward compared to its coin age return, and a small wallet that wins a block could have the extra coins outweigh the expected return. This seems a little complicated for our current market cap, but this could lead to a smoothing out of the influential power (total coin age) of wallets. Let's illustrate this: A wallet with 5% of currency waited 90 days to achieve maximum interest return of 1.5%. They go to mint the coins, done, no competition, they get the block instantly. The network was really secure for one block... funds may be transferred or otherwise go back to sleep for 3 months. Paying out unclaimed interest per block may incentivize these wallets to be broken down to compete for more blocks and spread the security influence.



Again, this is so very much appreciated. An opposing view is the most valuable. As always, such an important change would not be made without extensive community input. This is a preliminary discussion.



papersheepdog, Canada What an awesome discussion to wake up to, thanks guys!!I want to say first off, that you have all brought up valid points, each one contributes to the balance we are looking for.Second, it is important that we realize that we are dealing with a security model here which is actually based on punishment for non-participation and actually rewards no-one if all participate. This is the true nature of PoS, though in actual practice, it does reward those who work for it. This is about finding the right balance.Third, someone who makes a habit of not minting, may notice the monetary base expansion which works to slowly inflate away purchasing power might go from 1.4 to 1.8% for example. Again, we can study the current rate for further discussion but I think it would be something like this. The impact would be very minimal, and yet in line with our long standing goal of emulating the fundamentals of the gold supply. In this light its actually a fix to match our target.Fourth, this inflationary "tax" on the backs of those who arein network security, is actually the cost of running the network. Without this motivation, CGB would have zero viability as the security is not "paid for." The value in percentage of each CGB would take a hit much greater than 2% if it were a mere punching bag to hackers. This is the key point, to consider that we are talking fundamental viability here. Security vs. Convenience is kind of an overall theme to our global monetary system which is apparent these days.This idea came out of the extensive discussion that we had recently (linked at the bottom of the post). It seemed that it was a battle of extremes. Some wanted the return to hyperinflation, while others saw the wisdom of remaining a more "hard asset," staying true to original vision. This proposal is a compromise. It has the potential to encourage minting, and simply ensures that today'srate of reward, is tomorrows guaranteed rate of reward. In other words, the original vision is maintained.It's all discussion at this point. We have made no solid plans for the unclaimed coins. Much appreciated discussion!!Keeping them for development purposes is an interesting idea. My only issue with this is it will be looked at as a virtual premine. We can look at it as cash sitting there. Do we want to spend it on development (which is difficult for a community to verify it was actually spent on), or give it back to the community in the form of an extra bonus for security participation.If we were to go the way of encouraging security participation, this would most certainly not include any form of retroactive coin creation. I just wanted to note this in case anyone thought about it. We would start only right at the moment that it was implemented, if implemented.I know we all have our perspectives, but please try to have the perspective of CGB, the cryptocurrency, when thinking about this. How can we motivate the population to better secure our network. Remember, none of it would exist without rewarding active participants with the proceeds of monetary base expansion. Yes, as an investor, we might have a lot of CGB and not want to cash in the paper wallet every month, but this kind of stuff will become a fact of life as we start to takeas a society. The tech will be advanced to allow conveniences such as cold offline minting and this will all be part of adapting.I agree, this is another point against the devs accepting these coins to the foundation for marketing. It will likely hit the exchange and be sold. If we instead give it to active participants, who are already proving their interest in CGB, it would be a better home.One last point I want to reiterate, if we are giving out x extra coins for every single mint block, this will encourage people to come up with more blocks (which helps our security greatly). If still a small group of people are minting, they will reap major rewards, once others catch on and the PoS block supply becomes more robust, this leftover amount will become smaller as more CGB is periodically brought online. It should find equilibrium at a higher state of participation. This is the main goal.Just thinking through the game theory. Each mint block pays a small reward on a per block basis regardless of the return earned ( based on coin age). This would encourage a competition for every single potential block slot. A large wallet will receive relatively no reward compared to its coin age return, and a small wallet that wins a block could have the extra coinsthe expected return. This seems a little complicated for our current market cap, but this could lead to a smoothing out of the influential power (total coin age) of wallets. Let's illustrate this: A wallet with 5% of currency waited 90 days to achieve maximum interest return of 1.5%. They go to mint the coins, done, no competition, they get the block instantly. The network wasfor one block... funds may be transferred or otherwise go back to sleep for 3 months. Paying out unclaimed interest per block may incentivize these wallets to be broken down to compete for more blocks and spread the security influence.Again, this is so very much appreciated. An opposing view is the most valuable. As always, such an important change would not be made without extensive community input. This is a preliminary discussion.papersheepdog, Canada Cryptogenic Bullion (CGB) - A digital asset designed to function as a store of wealth.

Majormax



Offline



Activity: 2380

Merit: 1115







LegendaryActivity: 2380Merit: 1115 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 13, 2014, 11:03:53 PM #3069 Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:09:42 PM Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...



As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.



Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction. Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

papersheepdog



Offline



Activity: 266

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 266Merit: 250 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 14, 2014, 12:17:17 AM #3070 Quote from: Majormax on July 13, 2014, 11:03:53 PM Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:09:42 PM Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...



As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.



Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

Hey Majormax, your insights are always welcome. I will try to quickly cover my thoughts on each. Consider that CGB has completed its hyperinflationary phase, where others may have years to go. This puts us at 2% today which is attractive to investors because its not being inflated away, like bitcoin which sits around 10% I believe. Imagine a major financial crisis is around the corner. We will be well positioned to deal with it, especially once put through the proving grounds of CryptoTown. Just because a coin has a high current PoS reward (payin' off early adopters), doesn't mean that its other fundamentals are also attractive. If we drastically change protocol now, it may preclude many of these benefits.



Many features out there are experimental. If each coin can do one thing really well, we can rely on a suite of coins to provide for our needs.



It is also not guaranteed raising the PoS reward will increase adoption. It only gives new coins to people who alreay have coins or who buy some just to be able to create more. Aside from that I haven't been able to come up for another reason why it would make people think CGB is better,



Adoption and security. I think that sums up our current focus Keep em comin!



papersheepdog, Canada Hey Majormax, your insights are always welcome. I will try to quickly cover my thoughts on each. Consider that CGB has completed its hyperinflationary phase, where others may have years to go. This puts us at 2% today which is attractive to investors because its not being inflated away, like bitcoin which sits around 10% I believe. Imagine a major financial crisis is around the corner. We will be well positioned to deal with it, especially once put through the proving grounds of CryptoTown. Just because a coin has a high current PoS reward (payin' off early adopters), doesn't mean that its other fundamentals are also attractive. If we drastically change protocol now, it may preclude many of these benefits.Many features out there are experimental. If each coin can do one thing really well, we can rely on a suite of coins to provide for our needs.It is also not guaranteed raising the PoS reward will increase adoption. It only gives new coins to people who alreay have coins or who buy some just to be able to create more. Aside from that I haven't been able to come up for another reason why it would make people think CGB is better,Adoption and security. I think that sums up our current focusKeep em comin!papersheepdog, Canada Cryptogenic Bullion (CGB) - A digital asset designed to function as a store of wealth.

Majormax



Offline



Activity: 2380

Merit: 1115







LegendaryActivity: 2380Merit: 1115 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 14, 2014, 01:02:40 AM #3071 Quote from: papersheepdog on July 14, 2014, 12:17:17 AM Quote from: Majormax on July 13, 2014, 11:03:53 PM Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 02:09:42 PM Quote from: BTCat on July 13, 2014, 01:18:25 PM



Quote from: elambert on July 13, 2014, 12:49:38 PM ... as long as we stay true to our established inflationary profile.



Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.



Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

Does this mean you are also in favor of paying out the not-minted coins to people that do mint or what is your idea about this? You can look at it from CGB as a whole, all the total coins inflation or a more individual look inflation per coin where some coins do have 1.5% inflation and other coins do not.Although I do think not-minted coins should not be created an alternative is to gather these for development, marketing, promo's etc. that can help all if spend correct. Just an idea.

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

I do like the idea very much as it keeps us in the inflationary profile while encouraging CGB owners to secure the network. Your idea of using this unclaimed excess for development projects is very intriguing as well and is something we should by all means look into. Very good idea BTCat!

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...



As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.



Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

Completely honest opinion here, aiming only to help...As you may know I have been with CGB since the early days, but the 1.5% stake means I use my CPU for other higher % PoS coins. There are now lots of really good ones, with very active dev teams, anonymous send systems, x11 algorithms etc.. The ones which I believe have the right idea are keeping down long-term inflation by tapering stake % over a couple years, but offering a very high % initially to spread adoption asap. If you do that, it has no detriment to investors expectation, because the number of coins after say, year 2 is known eg. If you want to say 1m coins cap, start at 250k, and have 100& PoS in year one, 50% year 2 and taper down.Adoption, and getting holders eager to use the wallet will IMO be the difference between survival and extinction.

Hey Majormax, your insights are always welcome. I will try to quickly cover my thoughts on each. Consider that CGB has completed its hyperinflationary phase, where others may have years to go. This puts us at 2% today which is attractive to investors because its not being inflated away, like bitcoin which sits around 10% I believe. Imagine a major financial crisis is around the corner. We will be well positioned to deal with it, especially once put through the proving grounds of CryptoTown. Just because a coin has a high current PoS reward (payin' off early adopters), doesn't mean that its other fundamentals are also attractive. If we drastically change protocol now, it may preclude many of these benefits.



Many features out there are experimental. If each coin can do one thing really well, we can rely on a suite of coins to provide for our needs.



It is also not guaranteed raising the PoS reward will increase adoption. It only gives new coins to people who alreay have coins or who buy some just to be able to create more. Aside from that I haven't been able to come up for another reason why it would make people think CGB is better,



Adoption and security. I think that sums up our current focus Keep em comin!



papersheepdog, Canada

Hey Majormax, your insights are always welcome. I will try to quickly cover my thoughts on each. Consider that CGB has completed its hyperinflationary phase, where others may have years to go. This puts us at 2% today which is attractive to investors because its not being inflated away, like bitcoin which sits around 10% I believe. Imagine a major financial crisis is around the corner. We will be well positioned to deal with it, especially once put through the proving grounds of CryptoTown. Just because a coin has a high current PoS reward (payin' off early adopters), doesn't mean that its other fundamentals are also attractive. If we drastically change protocol now, it may preclude many of these benefits.Many features out there are experimental. If each coin can do one thing really well, we can rely on a suite of coins to provide for our needs.It is also not guaranteed raising the PoS reward will increase adoption. It only gives new coins to people who alreay have coins or who buy some just to be able to create more. Aside from that I haven't been able to come up for another reason why it would make people think CGB is better,Adoption and security. I think that sums up our current focusKeep em comin!papersheepdog, Canada

Agree broadly with what you say...A diverse portfolio is certainly important. It has not been possible to accurately predict the precise winners over the last 18 months, that is why I hold around 60 different altcoins. I make my judgements based on the practicalities of being a holder, and how I feel when comparing coins with each other.

I like to know that a coin will have plenty of nodes and live connections to maintain the network going forward. There are some coins with lightning-fast transactions and stakings out there, and that gives me confidence in the coin. The huge differences between coins are instructive. Agree broadly with what you say...A diverse portfolio is certainly important. It has not been possible to accurately predict the precise winners over the last 18 months, that is why I hold around 60 different altcoins. I make my judgements based on the practicalities of being a holder, and how I feel when comparing coins with each other.I like to know that a coin will have plenty of nodes and live connections to maintain the network going forward. There are some coins with lightning-fast transactions and stakings out there, and that gives me confidence in the coin. The huge differences between coins are instructive.

elambert



Offline



Activity: 1696

Merit: 1008









LegendaryActivity: 1696Merit: 1008 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 15, 2014, 10:04:54 AM #3072



Quote CGB was one of the first PoS coins, one of the first to implement the accelerated subsidy halving, one of the first to move to PoS as a higher payout than PoW. All coins (even Bitcoin) will at some point in their life cycle come to a cross road where they have to either move away from appeasing miners or change their code and word to their earlier adopters. We are just a trend setter here again. CGB has, and in my opinion should continue to logically envision the path ahead and move proactively rather than in a reactionary manner. Ladies and gentlemen, the baseline PoW subsidy reward of .01 has now been reached. CGB is now officially at a maximum inflationary rate of 2% with just over 950,000 bullion in circulation. Time again for CGB to trail-blaze through uncharted territory. This will be fun!

BTCat



Offline



Activity: 1806

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1806Merit: 1000 Re: CryptoBiz Magazine Cover! | Cryptogenic Bullion | CGB July 15, 2014, 10:53:42 AM

Last edit: July 15, 2014, 11:13:17 AM by BTCat #3073 Quote from: elambert on July 15, 2014, 10:04:54 AM



Quote CGB was one of the first PoS coins, one of the first to implement the accelerated subsidy halving, one of the first to move to PoS as a higher payout than PoW. All coins (even Bitcoin) will at some point in their life cycle come to a cross road where they have to either move away from appeasing miners or change their code and word to their earlier adopters. We are just a trend setter here again. CGB has, and in my opinion should continue to logically envision the path ahead and move proactively rather than in a reactionary manner. Ladies and gentlemen, the baseline PoW subsidy reward of .01 has now been reached. CGB is now officially at a maximum inflationary rate of 2% with just over 950,000 bullion in circulation. Time again for CGB to trail-blaze through uncharted territory. This will be fun!

Wow this is great news I didn't really pay attention. Time really is on our side and patience is a gem. Congratulations!

CGB still a bargain on the market. Tick tock goes the clock.



blocks value out

545001 2014-07-13 23:31:01 1 0.01

545000 2014-07-13 23:30:50 1 0.019531



Just take a look at how little amount of CGB's get mined each day. Oh my... only 15?

http://blocks.gotcrypto.net/chain/CryptogenicBullion?count=2016&hi=546986



Wow this is great news I didn't really pay attention. Time really is on our side and patience is a gem. Congratulations!CGB still a bargain on the market. Tick tock goes the clock.blocks value out545001 2014-07-13 23:31:01 1 0.01545000 2014-07-13 23:30:50 1 0.019531Just take a look at how little amount of CGB's get mined each day. Oh my... only 15?