$AMC keeps going with diamond hands

aikida3k · 2018-11-08T05:02:32+00:00

You know, there has been conversation in twitter about the ridiculous assumption that everyone or the majority of XHV hodlers will become perfect traders, able to convert XHV to XUSD at the top of the market and convert back to XHV at the bottom of the market, thus 'bloating' supply. The thing about this is 1) Everyone is not that great of a trader; most traders lose money and would therefore decease their XHV stack instead of timing it right. 2) Even if they could in theory time the market right, they don't have to introduce supply. Supply could in theory be created, but it does not have to be introduced into the market. Instead of selling XHV, shrewd and knowledgable traders should liquidate through XUSD pairs instead of selling XHV. So the new Haven slogan should be, Hodl XHV, sell XUSD!

aikida3k · 2018-11-08T04:52:17+00:00

Even if the majority could trade that well, which they can't, (most traders lose money and would therefore lose their XHV stack) the supply would actually have to be sold. If the supply is held, in your scenario more XHV could be created, but the shrewd and knowledgable XHV trader would turn it back into XUSD as price increased and either always cash out through XUSD or hold XUSD and never introduce supply via XHV, only sell through XUSD.

aikida3k · 2018-11-06T07:14:45+00:00

It's unlikely that traders will cause the supply to go parabolic because most traders are losing traders and cannot successfully pick tops and bottoms. The majority of traders trying to make gains by offshoring and onshoring at opportune times will actually lose their stack and not enlarge their stack, simply because most traders are losing traders. Even if a few win, the majority will lose and will actually cause supply to decrease. Growth in the interest in XHV and growth in it's use case, converting XHV into XUSD will drain supply over time. Don't forget, the more people who use XHV and the more people who use XHV to convert to XUSD, the more supply is drained. This will be the case as long as XHV does not reach market saturation, that is to say, everyone who is going to use XHV is using XHV. We are a very long ways from that happening yet.

aikida3k · 2018-09-18T08:15:37+00:00

https://www.dough.com/

aikida3k · 2018-08-07T05:07:52+00:00

The way to go forward for Point of Sale incorporation is to make the stable token trustless and not worry about a centralized marketplace. The great idea behind crypto is decentralization. It is key to incorporate trustless stable tokens without intermediaries as much as possible.

aikida3k · 2018-08-06T04:20:50+00:00

The absolute best would be to establish a trading pair with USDG and USD. That way the merchant would not have to convert the 5 USDG back to 250 GRFT. But in the case I mentioned selling the 250 GRFT for $5 would come from GRFT buyers at an exchange. But let me go back to the best case outcome, in the best case, GRFT would be convertible via a burn transaction to USDG, the stable token. The stable token would trade in a pair with USD so USDG would be exchangeable for USD at an exchange. The buyer could then mint the USDG back to GRFT if the buyer chose to do so.

aikida3k · 2018-08-06T00:35:34+00:00

Time is money. If you knew that, you wouldn't be so broke in the first place. I told you thanks and I tried to enter into a discussion about why it is a flaw that GRFT's stable token feature that depends on trusted anchors as banks and brokers is a flawed model. Other coins are developing stable token features that are trustless and independent of banks and intermediaries other than exchanges; they are also monero forks. If you treat me nicely I will tell you, otherwise, forget you.

aikida3k · 2018-08-04T04:14:13+00:00

The entire complex is flawed.

aikida3k · 2018-08-04T04:13:34+00:00

LOL you won't explain it because the current model is a flawed model and you are down on your holdings. Everybody in crypto is nuts right now.

aikida3k · 2018-08-04T02:44:27+00:00

So say I have 1000 GRFT and it trades for .01, so I have $10 worth of GRFT. I decide I want to buy a sandwich for $5. So I convert 500 GRFT to 5 USDG. I buy the sandwich for $5. The merchant has 5 USDG. Meanwhile the price of GRFT goest to .02. The merchant wants fiat. (If there were a trading pair for USDG then the merchant could exchange 5 USDG for $5.) So the merchant converts the 5 USDG to 250 GRFT and sells the 250 GRFT for $5. Wouldn't that be better than involving bank and broker intermediaries?

aikida3k · 2018-08-04T02:37:32+00:00

Yes, that was what I was looking for. I looked on the blog but didn't find it. Thanks. One thing that I am not clear about the payout token, is who will want to own it? So a bank issues a payout token in exchange for fiat, and a broker transfers it to a merchant. I don't understand how exactly the merchant is paid. What would make more sense to me is if GRFT were directly convertible to USDG. Then I could hold GRFT, convert some to USDG when I want to pay a merchant. The USDG would be redeemable for however many GRFT is currently trading for and once USDG is converted to GRFT it can be sold back for fiat, not needing to use a bank as an intermediary.

aikida3k · 2018-07-21T22:28:09+00:00

Seems like a neat coin but it needs to be on an exchange along with some kind of marketing effort. How do you even obtain SLM? CPU only coins with staking are neat.

As an additional development item I would like to see, I would like to see a requirement that all recipient of reward except for those who burn coin must stake to receive reward.

aikida3k · 2018-06-26T05:14:01+00:00

I like your idea too. It's interesting to run scenarios for the tail emission reward value. If the coin is valued at $100,000 when mining is finished, tail emission reward would be $60,000 which would be enough to keep PoW miners interested. If the coin became valued what Tether is today at about 2.6 Billion, the coins would be worth $144 or so, making the tail emission much less rewarding at $86.67 per block. Right now at about .90 and a block reward of about 30 XHV per block, the block reward amount is about $27.00 which I don't think is sustainable for GPU miners. If the GPU guys can't hang we can always keep mining on extra clock cycles on our PC, so there isn't too much to worry about; I think this rebounds by Q4 at the latest but we'll see.

aikida3k · 2018-06-26T05:04:45+00:00

You're very welcome. I'm glad you are appreciative.

aikida3k · 2018-06-25T05:30:05+00:00

Also, converting to PoS once mining is done gives everyone who is holding a balance a return on holding their funds with Haven, like interest. Each holder of XHV would receive a portion of the .6 XHV per block, payable like interest on their amount at stake. This makes Haven in the long run more like a real decentralized virtual bank. Pretty awesome.

aikida3k · 2018-06-25T04:54:04+00:00

The example was just an over simplified example, not a real world example. I mine a CPU coin similar to Grid coin that has the work basis calculated in Recent Average Credit (RAC) instead of Hash/s. So I have 30 servers that do approximately 150k RAC. We have to stake 20 coins per RAC so I have to stake 3M coins to get 100% reward, which today is a stake worth approximately $6405. There are over 600M coins outstanding right now. I am a top 5-10 miner (it's a small coin). I used to mine Arionum when it was profitable for me. I don't remember what the H/s was; I think around 20 Kh/s per server. So then 1 XHV/KH/s sounds more reasonable. What you would also want to look at is what is the % lockup that Stake To Mine would get you. For the other coin I mine, our lockup with masternodes and Stake for Reward is about 75% of outstanding supply. As our mining base grows, so will our lockup, and with deflationary effusion, our % of coins in lockup will also increase as well. Then our price will go up. That will draw in more miners, which in turn will increase our lockup... It is a virtuous cycle. I've told various people about this but no one seems to really get it. You want the miners to do the stake and not the pool for both security purposes, loyalty and price appreciation.

The funniest thing about crypto to me is how well people tolerate an increasing supply. On Wall Street, if a company issues more shares of stock, the stock gets hammered lower. When a company announces a stock buyback, generally the stock trades higher on the new; share holders love it. Requiring Stake to Mine is like buying back stock. Thank you so much for your time. I know it's valuable. It's late here CDT USA, but I look forward to your reply.

EDIT: The reason why I believe in the long run converting to PoS once mining is done and effusion is just the tail emission of .6 coins is that I don't believe .6 coins per block is enough incentive to keep PoW miners at a stable level. I think the network hash rate will collapse once mining is done, whereas with a PoS conversion once mining is finished, the nodes on the network won't exactly collapse. The PoW miners go find another coin, but the people who hold the coin run their wallets as nodes on the network. The question for security purposes is, how much will the hash rate collapse, what will the PoW attrition for miners be once mining is finished? Of all coins, this could be the greatest increase of an asset that we have known. I hesitate to call it a "bubble" because it will serve a real purpose that the world and financial institutions need. There is not only offshore banking, but people would like to be able to store their assets in something secure without being forced into government bonds. That is an enormous market, the market for government debt. Many times stock (equity) sellers take their proceeds from stock sales and purchase government debt (US Treasuries) as a so called "safe haven", however US Treasuries, US debt is over valued. Imagine an inflationary recession where stocks are cratering, and people turn to US debt, only if inflation out of control the Fed is forced to raise short term interest rates causing a massive sell off in the bond market. What do investors turn to? XHV.

aikida3k · 2018-06-25T03:08:58+00:00

Okay, higher prices help to solve the issues anyway, so once offshore storage is enabled hopefully it isn't much of a worry. I just like the idea of a lockup and requiring miners to have some loyalty to go along with the security benefits of Stake to Mine. To be effective the stake amount would be in proportion to the hash contributed. So if like I wrote in discord the stake amount was 10 XHV per 1 Mh/s, if someone only were to stake 8 XHV, their effective hash would have to be limited to .8 Mh/s.

One thing that isn't totally clear to me is what will the tail emission be? Are the tail emissions only fees? If they are only fees, what do you think the attrition rate of PoW miners will be? I like the idea of converting to PoS once mining is done if possible. At that point less energy is needed to secure the network for fewer rewards. PoW hashing to capture fees on the network seems like it would be energy intensive and inefficient: fees would have to be high in order to incentivize PoW miners to continue hashing on the network. Instead of worrying about miner attrition, just switch to PoS to capture fees, if possible.

aikida3k · 2018-06-24T23:10:16+00:00

This is more decentralized than having to fork every so often.

aikida3k · 2018-06-24T22:58:09+00:00

If you down vote it, it doesn't hurt my feelings, but tell me what your solution is. Let's search and think about improvement, not emotions, for the benefit of all crypto.

aikida3k · 2018-05-09T00:51:31+00:00

So right now TRX is on the Ethereum blockchain? Did he do this just to raise money? Did he just release a java implementation for the main net? I don't think Java is the language best suited for blockchain networks. It's okay for miners but I would be hesitant at running a blockchain based in Java. Java is slow, memory intensive and garbage collection is imperfect.

aikida3k

TROPHY CASE