BTCE starts PoS minting

[redlee]

http://bitinfocharts.com/ppcoin/address/PDH9AeruMUGh2JzYYTpaNtjLAcfGV5LEto

Thoughts?

[learnmore]

I apologize if I missed this somewhere but has someone definitively linked that address to BTC-e or is it just a logical (hopeful) assumption?

I think this is a good time to watch the blocks and orphans carefully, not necessarily to detect malicious intent, but to observe how the protocol behaves under "stress."  There will probably never be another single address with this much stored coin-age.

I am particularly concerned about the "hardwired" stake-splitting that occurs for < 90 day-old stakes.  I think I understand the underlying reasoning, but under the widespread practice of building massive coin-age offline it seems to induce many (unintentional) consecutive blocks down the road.

Edit: It looks like the minting actually started around 36 hours ago.... Wow I would love seeing all those rewards rolling into my wallet! 

[Cybnate]

Looks like POS difficulty does go up, but is a bit early to tell for sure.

http://peerchain.co/charts

BTW you can zoom in by selecting the area you want to zoom into

[Yurizhai]

Hmm, good news or bad?

[mhps]

Thanks for the news redlee.

I just did some counting using ppc.blokr.io. In the last 24 hours the network found 178 blocks. The "btc-e address" (given in OP), with 1,9 million PPCs, has found 44 POS blocks, while a reference address with 0.55 million PPC has found 32

The reference address used to find about 24.4% of all blocks back in July. Now it only finds 32/178= 18%.  So now approximately 3 millions coins (0.55/0.18) are minting now, increased from 2.2 million.

The difference from 3 million and 2.2 million is less than the number of coins in the "btc-e address". This is because in the last 24 hours, with 3.5 times as many coins compared with the reference address, it didn't find proportionally more blocks (44/32= 1.37). The reason could be that the address hasn't been minting all the time in the 24 hours because it was taken off-line. Note that it has many very big (e.g. 10,000PPC) unspent outputs aged to 70+ days, so it could run out of stakes very soon.

I haven't seen it finding many POS blocks in a row, perhaps due to limited number of stakes. learnmore was wondering that splitting stakes could have security implications to the network. I think if the "btc-e address" had many 200PPC transactions instead of mostly 10,000PPC ones, it would have more chance to get 6 consecutive blocks due to sustained minting, but it would also increase POS difficulty and network security in a sustained way. I tend to think splitting does more good than bad.

In short it is encouraging that big stake owners open wallet to  mint. The network has been ~36% more secure in the last 24 hours.

[GLock]

Hmm, good news or bad?

This is spectacular to watch, this address has "only" 8% of the total supply so I don't think is a bad thing but this is what the network needs.

Thanks for showing us this redlee!

[Yurizhai]

Hmm, good news or bad?

This is spectacular to watch, this address has "only" 8% of the total supply so I don't think is a bad thing but this is what the network needs.

Thanks for showing us this redlee!

But it's not the total supply that really matters, it's the total % of the coins currently minting.

[redlee]

Fun to share this with the community.


BTCE released an update on 19th July.

That's when the forementioned address has so much incoming transactions.

Another thread on the CDD soaring.

I think there is some kind of connections.

[redlee]

Thanks for the news redlee.

I just did some counting using ppc.blokr.io. In the last 24 hours the network found 178 blocks. The "btc-e address" (given in OP), with 1,9 million PPCs, has found 44 POS blocks, while a reference address with 0.55 million PPC has found 32

The reference address used to find about 24.4% of all blocks back in July. Now it only finds 32/178= 18%.  So now approximately 3 millions coins (0.55/0.18) are minting now, increased from 2.2 million.

The difference from 3 million and 2.2 million is less than the number of coins in the "btc-e address". This is because in the last 24 hours, with 3.5 times as many coins compared with the reference address, it didn't find proportionally more blocks (44/32= 1.37). The reason could be that the address hasn't been minting all the time in the 24 hours because it was taken off-line. Note that it has many very big (e.g. 10,000PPC) unspent outputs aged to 70+ days, so it could run out of stakes very soon.

I haven't seen it finding many POS blocks in a row, perhaps due to limited number of stakes. learnmore was wondering that splitting stakes could have security implications to the network. I think if the "btc-e address" had many 200PPC transactions instead of mostly 10,000PPC ones, it would have more chance to get 6 consecutive blocks due to sustained minting but it also increase POS difficulty and network security in a sustained way. I tend to think splitting does more good than bad.

In short it is encouraging that big stake owners open wallet to  mint. The network has been ~36% more secure in the last 24 hours.

Thanks for sharing the insight.

[redlee]

http://bkchain.org/ppc/address/PXBf64T4gqKcn7Kruw75X8V5yeci34HG92 started minting as well.

[mhps]

http://bkchain.org/ppc/address/PXBf64T4gqKcn7Kruw75X8V5yeci34HG92 started minting as well.

It has some huge (10k) stakes aged to 90 days. However it doesn't get many POS blocks in a row with that much coin-days to burn. If this makes people feel better ... at most this address can only have 18 10k blocks.