Is Peercoin version 0.5.0 planned to require a hard fork? Also, what is the target release date?
It most likely would be a mandatory upgrade. We don’t have a release schedule yet. Mike has just started to work on the cold minting feature.
Should we interpret this to mean that sigmike’s proposal is the chosen solution?
Personally, I think it is the best candidate, but there have been many proposals and I would be very interested to know if there have been any evolutions in Mike’s thoughts.
Should we interpret this to mean that sigmike’s proposal is the chosen solution?
Personally, I think it is the best candidate, but there have been many proposals and I would be very interested to know if there have been any evolutions in Mike’s thoughts.[/quote]
Yes, discussion about this is still ongoing in the main cold-minting thread. Are you and Sigmike taking into consideration everything being proposed in that thread, or is the original proposal a done deal?
So far I think Mike’s proposal has been quite solid. It also includes disincentive against publishing of minting key. It’s still a work in progress, so comments and suggestions are still open.
Is there a single post where I can read all the details of the proposal being implemented? Thanks!
+1
I’m interested to know if the approach has a way to disincentive pool minting
[quote=“romerun, post:7, topic:2581”]+1
I’m interested to know if the approach has a way to disincentive pool minting[/quote]
Mike posted some reply earlier:
I would like to mention that the cold minting feature does not allow a minting pool to reduce variance. This is because in coinstake the outputs addresses of coinstake must match the spent coins in the kernel input, so it prevents pools from mixing different users coins into the same coinstake transaction.
This means in order for the minting pool to reduce variance and waiting time, it cannot just collect users’ minting keys. It must have users actually deposit the coins with the pool in order to achieve that. That is a significant disincentive for pool formation.
Then you have to trust the pool address (where you will send your coins) to mint for you and sent you back the PoS profits.
But what if there was a way to bind different addresses into one address which will only PoS mint in shake of the binding addresses
without actually owned the coins 
i know, it sounds stupid :-\
[quote=“Sunny King, post:8, topic:2581”][quote=“romerun, post:7, topic:2581”]+1
I’m interested to know if the approach has a way to disincentive pool minting[/quote]
Mike posted some reply earlier:
I would like to mention that the cold minting feature does not allow a minting pool to reduce variance. This is because in coinstake the outputs addresses of coinstake must match the spent coins in the kernel input, so it prevents pools from mixing different users coins into the same coinstake transaction.
This means in order for the minting pool to reduce variance and waiting time, it cannot just collect users’ minting keys. It must have users actually deposit the coins with the pool in order to achieve that. That is a significant disincentive for pool formation.[/quote]
That seems like a major difference with Nxt, which allows for account leasing = fractional reserve.
What is your take on their account leasing feature?
[quote=“Sunny King, post:8, topic:2581”][quote=“romerun, post:7, topic:2581”]+1
I’m interested to know if the approach has a way to disincentive pool minting[/quote]
Mike posted some reply earlier:
I would like to mention that the cold minting feature does not allow a minting pool to reduce variance. This is because in coinstake the outputs addresses of coinstake must match the spent coins in the kernel input, so it prevents pools from mixing different users coins into the same coinstake transaction.
This means in order for the minting pool to reduce variance and waiting time, it cannot just collect users’ minting keys. It must have users actually deposit the coins with the pool in order to achieve that. That is a significant disincentive for pool formation.[/quote]
I understand that cold locked minting in that form will require input/output restrictions to prevent centralization, but I HOPE that above constraints won’t apply to ‘hot wallet’ minting - else they will disallow ‘hot wallet pooled minting’.
When we can expect this cold minting?
When we can expect this cold minting?[/quote]
Check here…