The top figure is the total number of coins that will have been mined by the time each block starts spitting out a constant amount of coins (30,000 per the white paper) in perpetuity. I don't get the 2 either, but I literally calculated it out and got the same number.
The bottom figure is the amount of coins that will be produced a year, in perpetuity, after the mined blocks produce 30,000 per block forever and ever.
The last piece of the pie would be to figure out how much "burn" is produced every 10 minutes (the length between mined blocks being released), and you can rough what this coin will cost on-going. It obviously will not take into account irrationality of investors, and is making huge assumptions on adoption/burn.
i sent an email to nanopool support, [email protected]. they said my payout would happen to my wallet in 24 hours. I saw the payout on nanopool, now I'm waiting for it to show up in my wallet. its been about a day now, I hope it shows up soon.
I'm not sure if I imagine your intentions right. So here are just some thoughts.
I did not figure out how to "connect" the UI part of Sia-UI to other than local node. I just hadn't enough time to experiment. From what I've seen, it should be possible.
It would be difficult to separate the files by users. Every user could see all the uploaded files.
I haven't tried it yet, but the description of Sia integration with nextcloud looks promising (Nextcloud as UI for Sia).
As you will be operating one wallet, you'll have difficulties to track and divide the spent SC between the users...
Installation with any blockchain takes quite a bit of time because your downloading every transaction into your walelt to be able to carry transactions. This is normal
Buying Sia Coin is via exchange as it is a token not a currency. Sia is just a token to secure transactions within the service network.
Sia ensures 3 x redundancy on the network by encrypting files and then sharding them to other hosts so no 1 single host contains the entire file.
Sia doesnt have to worry about the overhead of centralized data storage- this is a benefit of decentralization..and also lowers cost rather than increases costs to renters/customers
Large businesses do not necessarily have to be involved with crypto forit to be successful, but there are some who have already seen beenfit in the crypto arena and Sia.
Check out Obelisk and also MINEBOX. Dedicated industry leaders that are building tools for using in Sia Network.
You would be surprised. Data storage currently is a multi billion dollar industry. If money can be saved people will seek Sia.
I just synced my wallet 74923e72a63bf60d2eaf6eb1c070a17eac7d43029ac2a4a8eaccbd32391dee9df05a4d9248cd and I do not see any of my coins or transactions in my wallet? Please advise what I can do to correct this? When I initially purchased my coins I sent them to wallet and it was there but I had not synced for quite sometime and synced the wallet because I purchased more and now I cannot seem to see any coins in my wallet. Please advise if I need to do something else or what is happening and how to take corrective action to get my coins back.
@Kenzu I don't recommend moving coins right now beside a lot of exchanges like poloniex and bittrex are losing people's coins. So basically if you're not going to host or purchase hosting, there is no real reason to move it.
We can only speak of the things we know about. My point is- there is NO WAY (currently) for a renter to avoid a host offering 0 space. The contracts are auto formed with no visuals by the buyer (at moment). I noticed this issue when I went to look at the contracts the system had bought for me. Now, if there is a way for me to select what I buy- fill me in. But there is not.
No offense... Reading on Sia is one thing- actually doing it is another. Most documentation is dated.. so I am speaking as of 6-16-2017. When a person buys contracts there are hosts with 0 space being offered..yet SC is being spent. This is despite them showing available space on SiaHub. Yes, funds should come back, but efficiency of logic states those hosts shouldnt be able to even be in the buying process if there are not available to share the space that they have advertised. The only common denominator I have seen in the renter file is these type of hosts have different ports listed- which is odd. MMaybe this isnt the case 1 of the 2 have a different port.. the other has 9982. So the proper question is.. why is the code allowing contracts to be bought from hosts that are not listing available space?
I have given IP's and have the actual file to prove this is being done. I am not sure what is driving it though (porting or code)...
@ciaron theoretically- its possible.
If you farmed out 100% of your space at the same time- yes. If your collateral levels are high as well. Yes.
Collateral shouldnt be set at 100% of your price however. Should be a percentage of the price.
All hosts have to have collateral to backup what is used on the network- otherwise it wouldnt be "collateral". Glad to see the coins returned.