Topic: [ANN] CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [OFFICIAL THREAD] - page 29. (Read 40273 times)

...said the fudder to himself... 

All right, all right, buddy.

Andre Cronje Technical explanation for Credits fans. Lol:

Two nomenclatures to first clear up;

1. Blockchain the category
2. Blockchain the structure

A blockchain is a DAG.

Directed (moves in one direction only)
Acyclic (you can't return to a node from the current node)
Graph

All blockchain (structures) are DAGs. A DAG can be a blockchain (category)

That out of the way, there are lots of DAGs already; ethereum, even has leaf nodes (uncles).

So I don't get the DAG vs Blockchain argument.

Also, when looking at DAG, what implementation?

You get storage DAG (like Avalanche, where the UTXO are stored in DAGs)
You get block DAG (ghost / spectre/ phantom)
You get consensus DAG (Fantom / Hashgraph and derivatives, where the output can still be a normal blockchain (structure) or it could be another DAG (structure)

There are account level DAGs (Nano) and transaction level DAGs (IOTA).

So you can't really say DAG vs blockchain.

But what I will infer, is the "Are DAGs more scalable than blockchains". And that answer is entirely dependent on your network graph and consensus architecture.

In a POA / permissioned / consortium solution, DAGs are definitely more scalable. In a completely unpermissioned environment blockchains are more secure.

It's a very difficult question to answer because there are so many variables at play.

Personally, I think DAG's are fantastic for aBFT consensus, so I like them there, but I think traditional blockchain is the better structure for time based sequences. So most of my research work is focused on how to order a DAG to output a blockchain

So how do a lot of these other projects achieve high TPS? Not as a function of the output structure, but instead as a function of consensus.

An easy example, let's take Ethereum right now. Currently it's Proof of Work at ~13s block time @ 9 TPS, but what if we simply decrease the block time to 1s? Would we then get ~117 TPS? (Here we need to look at data transmission, I will cover that a bit later).

Next let's look at consensus, if we change from PoW to PoS and keep the block time the same, does anything change? No, since proof of work is just the security, not the scalability. If we change block size (or gas limit in ethereum) or block time then we can achieve more throughput.

So what options do we have to achieve more throughput? Let's look at traditional technology scaling, if you have a single threaded process that does 1 action per second, and you want to increase it, you simply add more threads, 10 threads equals 10 actions per second. But what if all of these threads at some point need to share the same data? This is called a dead lock, where the system needs to make a decision. Normally fairly easily resolved in centralized systems, first come first serve for example (but here you don't have any malicious actors).

So the problem we are trying to solve is one of ordering, which event happened first? This is done in proof of work based systems because the proof of work is essentially a timer that makes sure to only allow events to trickle in and not cause a deadlock.

But let's assume we could get rid off that time limit, but still achieve scalability, you could do this via standard BFT, but that increases message complexity (since you need at least 3 rounds of messages x the amount of participating nodes and the delays on messages can be unbounded). So a lot of systems use BFT but they limit the amount of validators (for example only selecting 9/12/21/... validators out of thousands - dPoS with BFT).

Another solution is sharding, an easy example is namespace sharding, group 1 handles all accounts that start with the letter A, group 2 handles B and so forth. Now you could essentially have one PoW network that handles all the A accounts and another all the B accounts etc. You could also do this based on some namespace, for example ETH could have a consensus layer per ERC20 (all separated for parallel / concurrent throughput).

So it's less blockchain vs DAG and more storage / consensus / abstraction considerations.

But even with all the above, there is an easier answer, any chain saying they  reach hundreds of thousands of tps they're just lying.

That's how an expert talks, see if they learn. Lol.:


https://youtu.be/9rWGse31aXE

Wow IBM retweets credits tweet.
Also IBM: “hey credits i retweeted your tweets and gave you a few servers, now pay me 1 million $ xD”

It’s on twitter so it must be a partnership hahahaha

Tell me; when did ibm CONFIRM the partnership, other than charging credits $$ for a few servers and marketing tweets


See you are just speculating. You are assuming something is true while nobody has ever confirmed anything.
Yet you are using this as a fact, while it is not.

What is a fact is that q4 deadline was missed because software was nowhwre near ready. Yet your precious team lied their asses off about some audits.
Also a fact: decentralisation and speed test have been skipped because team knows that algoritm isnt decentral at all, and the network is completely incapable of handling those speed on real life conditions.

Lenovo, shit, is a branch of lenovo dedicated to augmented reality, like IBM, partnering with everyone, something nobody uses. Lol. Credits is going to be big, very big, of the biggest shit. Lol.

Oh look: IBM Europe retweeted the Credits link to the video of Igor Chugunov at UCIM

Oh, sorry, is this disturbing your fud campaign?

So; they are developing. You can't call a project a scam when they don't have a ready product during or direct after their ICO. Development takes time. By the way; they claim a 1.3 million tps peak during their public test (is that you were referring to?).


So name one other "scam" blockchain IBM is tweeting positively about? Do you think the IBM developers cannot differentiate between scams and the real stuff?

And what about Lenovo? Are they partnering will other "scam" blockchains too? Again; name one.

Or do we see here Igor buying a new laptop in the Lenovo store?

Dude, scam means when someone cheats on you, they have claimed that they have done 300k tps in a real environment and that's a lie, in addition to being technically proven by reputable analysts. These people have based their whole strategy on selling that they are going to be the fastest and put themselves in the first places. I don't know the association with IBM and the nature of it.  IBM has partnered with almost every blockchains already. If Credits has something it will be one more blockchain of the heap, they won't revolutionize anything.  Lol.

Btw i’m hearing rumours that when testnet 4.2 comes out, credits is going to announce that 31-03 they are going to launch UNOFFICIAL MAINNET for partners and the real mainnet is coming out in a few months later.

Yes you heard that right.

IF it turns out to be true, i’m gonna laugh my balls off seeing credits drop to $.01 xD

Just a few more days probably until this project is killed by management incompetence.

Let’s wait and see.

Ibm is getting paid you moron.

Since when do you sign a contract to pay a partner buttloads of money for 6 years xD

Instead of talking so much nonsense, they should lie less. They are compulsive liars. I have already seen several reputable developers like Andre Cronje dismantle that lie of hundreds of thousands of tps in a real environment, is impossible. Stop with the patents and the nonsense. The longest patent in history. The director of blockchain is not going to lose any prestige for that, he is only advisor of a project, if they are not able to deliver it is their problem not his. There are only 10 days left for me to come back here and laugh in your face at everything you're saying. I have invested my more than 200000 Credits in Fantom, a serious and transparent project, a Dag and open source, I bought at the lowest today I just multiplied by 3 my money. Dag are much more scalable than blockchain and is proven to be faster, Ftm will do between 6k and 8k tps in a real environment. It does not sell smoke. To make that million tps of Credits you need a quantum computer and some connections that now do not even exist. That project is the joke of this market. No one knows it, no one analyzes it and there are no videos of anyone who talks seriously about their technology, because there is none. The most serious thing I've heard about it is that the source code so far is novice. Anyway, in ten days I'll be back to expose you. Sell this shit that you are being swindled friends. I don't know how a team of fucking developers without any prestige, you just have to look at their profiles on LinkedIn to see if they will discover the gunpowder. lol...By the way, I guess the vast majority knew me as a great Credits advocate from Ico. I felt a long time swindled and tired of so many lies and delays. I know very well what I am talking about and I was even talking privately with two Credits testers who made me see The Light. They told me many times to leave the project, that they had nothing and that they were deceiving us all. I have known Credits since the beginning. I hope I can convince some fans before they lose all their money.

Now i am also SEBASTIAN HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

YOU GUYS ARE NOT ONLY IDIOTS BUT ALSO DELUSIONAL XDXDXD

If somebody pays me a few hunderd k dollara i’ll also tweet it from the twitter oage of my company xD.
If it turns out to be a scam, who cores, i covered my ass with saying its a client story lol.

Lol,

1) the cs/eth chart doesnt support your hypothesis at all. It’s downtrending like crazy.
It’s even dropping in rankings from 150 to sub200 again.

2) blablabla. Not a single deadline was met and not a single produxt was delivered.
No code open at all. Lame patent excuse.
Literally everything about this token screams incompetence.

Let me help you with that.

1) The prices of all tokens and coins are low in the present bear market. CS is no exception. As a matter of fact CS has stayed much more stable than most other coins / tokens.
2) Credits is not a flash in the pan but a fundamental project that takes time to mature. Hold your CS for the long term and your patience will most likely be rewarded.

Burak = Sebastian = etc. In the Dutch Credits chat he has become notorious for constantly entering under new names. Once there the fud starts again we know it's him again.  

He obviously can't be taken seriously with his psychiatric denial of matters that have become proven facts already for some time.

Nitin Gaur, IBM blockchain director, putting Credits on his LinkedIn CV? - Burak: He's getting paid for it by Credits and is risking his reputation and career for it.
IBM Europe tweeting links to the Credits article about the parnership, and even pinning the tweet - Burak: Despite those acknowledgement by IBM itself it is still not a partnership.

How to deal with such a psychiatric case of denial? We can go on refuting all his nonsense but in the end one fudder can spawn more lies than, with a reasonable investment of time, can be refuted.

Actually Cheus should moderate more carefully this thread. But on the other side, like I posted before, this shady forum is just a dark corner in the blockchain scene and is not really worth the attention.

Kind of funny though that asking where are the promised events are (like tests, partnership announcement feom ibm, mainnet, audits, etc) are classified as fud.

I feel sorry for you idiots.
You are already down 95% from ath and you still think that you will enter top10.
Lol.

Maybe you will, but i think your odds are better just going to casino instead of buying this crappy managed project, where not a single deadline is met and every delay ja explained by excuses and lies.

Have fun hodl’ing in the next few weeks.
When the team delays again (or comes with another hilarious private mainnet xD) and the project drops below 1 cent, maybe then you’ll start to see to red flags also.

Again, blatant lies and fake partnerships.
I exposed the fake partnerships loooong ago.
Just took me a few google reverse image searches to reveal the scam team behind the so called partnership.

A few weeks later credits stops with this scam partnership announcements and fires Arjan from the marketing team, alog with the rest of the marketing department.

I warned you guys to sell in July,
Nobody listened when I sold at $0.35.

Btw ibm is a supplier. Nowhere does ibm associate themselves with credits
It’s branded everywhere that its a client story and client product and nothing to do with ibm.
But you idiots keep selling it as if ibm is a partner. IT IS NOT.

Okay now go back to your telegram because you sound like that idiot in the dutch chat thay thinks that wvery negative person in the chat is me.

NEWSFLASH: i havent used telegram in months.

Hello sir, I feel a little confused about the quality of the CREDITS tokens, why at this time the price of token credits is very low, I hope that the team can improve the quality of token credits.

Buurraakk stil fudding this ANN, poor guy, I'm really curious what your intensions are. I haven't seen anybody since Sebastian787 making this much effort in 'warning' people for Credits. I didn't see you mentioning the posts from IBM Europe on Twitter regarding CS, missed opportunity! Why would a company like IBM burn their fingers on a 'scam' project?! Poor Buurraakk, I hope your downfall will be a soft landing...

https://imgur.com/a/aifDJ87

Even having something revolutionary that is not the case, lol, in a couple of months arrive several blockchain and some other Dag that are going to put ahead in all aspects and with big associations behind and big investors. Credits has no investor behind it and that is suspicious when most of the blockchain have great investors, nobody smart bets on this scam. Nobody has noticed this shit to invest, only the more than 20k unsuspecting who are waiting for Credits to be among the top ten. Lol, not even in your best dreams is that going to happen. Some have already been advanced and with the next delay that there will surely be will go to hell.

Staking = artificial demand