Topic: [ANN] HEAT: 3.0 crypto*multisig fiat*a2a hft*1000tps*DSA*PoS+PoP*e2ee chat* - page 314. (Read 418460 times)

You really are a moron.  You don't understand the meaning of sarcasm and you don't understand that your own statement proves that you can't use a Jaxx wallet.  Get a brain before you invest in anything and maybe a dictionary so you know what sarcasm is too.

will HEAT ever be 'succesfull' as FIMK? & who wants to use old version coin CLONES if the newer, better is available for free.
who will be the biggest stakeholder in FIMK after the ICO? whats the future of FIMK then?

why dont they import the old FIMK blockchain to the new FIMK coin called HEAT? that would be fair. not plain money making. showing real skills.

from my personal subjectiv pov as fimk ico investor its like paying for an expensive untested update. what will be the next update. how much will it be that time? ...


yeahhhh. i can hear the word "fiat" in my ear like it will be the first and coming days of FIMK & their ICO
(but nothing happend so far...)

Can I have someone from the project to answer my question rather than the local sarcastic wanker?

The thing with basically every crypto-currency out there is that they are not designed to do just the things needed by the consensus protocol.

They do too much.

While completely understandable, the choice for instance to have an embedded database in the first place (Bitcoin, Ethereum) is far from optimal.
Key/value structure (ETH + BTC) or full on indexed SQL (NXT) is ok for storage of balances (albeit a custom solution is much more efficient) but much too slow for block/transaction storage.

Since those, when designed right in the first place, are only ever needed to be accessed sequentially.

NXT makes this impossible by design, this is through their referenced transaction feature (one transaction depends on the existence of another transaction) if this is possible it means the consensus part has to have access to all transactions since forever.

Thats why HEAT doesnt have that particular feature.
In HEAT the consensus plane only ever needs to know about balances and public keys, which is, by design.

That is considered a minimum.
Local tests have shown peaks of 150.000 transactions per second, and this was on a relatively old linux desktop with spinning disks, SSD will have much higher throughput.

And these are atomic writes which means that you can pull the plug at any time and the system will recover back to when it was you when you started the write transaction.
I had the same reaction btw when we started measuring things and it turned out to be that fast.

To achieve this we have built custom storage solutions for blocks and transactions and tailored solutions to store balances and such.
Scanning of the blockchain happens at an even higher rate, at around 300k/s. Edit: this is wrong actually, cant remember exactly will try again when time (its higher).

We advertise 1000tps since it also has to run in a decentralized enviroment and we need to handle unconfirmed-txn pooling and blockchain reorgs, max 720 blocks reorg.
I'm still writing the unconfirmed transaction storage which had to be done over, this was a key/value type of structure very much like balance storage but this did not scale.
Now its a combined key/value for index storage and a plain binary file loaded through MMAP for actual txn storage.

LOL indeed  

Could you rephrase a question whose answer you consider poorly thought out?

I think tempus has raised some important questions here.  I look forward to seeing some proper responses.  So far they seem poorly thought out.

Looks like a nice project, will be watching.

this is getting more complicated with every question asked..

can you give a simpler expansion 

This doesn't make much sense. The Factom-design is capitalistic. They provide incentives to get professionals running the federated servers. And they wouldn't even need speculation for that because of a natural demand if Factom is used. You are right with "attempting" because if Factom should not be used the token won't have any value. But I think to have partnerships about Smart Cities in China and negotiations about land title registry in Honduras and even DHS-money for Internet of Things Systems Security - it's kind of impressing what they do. Also that they are still under the radar in the Crypto-World.

But back to Heat: It's weak to say it's about capitalism as if quality wouldn't count. Just an argument like that would be enough for me not to invest. It's like "give us money, it's about capitalism. Later we will find out if we can provide something that could have value."

And just by the way: Value is always about function and function is always about quality. Sometimes people prefer "Hype" over technical quality, but for them exactly that has function - a Hype-product for example, while there are better ones in a technical way. At least there always should be the approach to deliver quality.


A fee-system is good. Nothing wrong about it and I already believed that it's about fees. But in combination with pure PoS and a high inflation for the first 4 years and a hard cut after that - rich get richer very fast and it will lead into economically centralization which means technical centralization if it's pure PoS. And you want to be a company...

Imagine this: It's about a limited number of servers, like it is in Factom for example, but also could be more (like Lisk maybe). And it's not PoS, it's more DPoS with an election mechanism for those servers - the best will be elected and bad players will be thrown out. Honest professionals will win and the result would be a stable system - if the system/the code has quality of course. They will be paid with the token for their service. But what is a fee now would be a burning rate - consumption. That would give intrinsic value to the token if the system would be used and the price would rise naturally if that usage increases.

That's kind of a translation of the Factom-economy into a system like this. It would be much more elegant in my opinion and a higher incentive to run the base-protocol and a higher incentive to buy the token while it wouldn't even be needed to buy the token from the exchange to use the system - because of what you say: there would be an internal conversion.

What I see here is kind of missed chances. Because if it would be like that (or even better, I'm not a specialist) and if there would be a white-paper that points out the details of all what's planned - it could be a strong buy. And if you would start an ICO in that way you could answer on questions about that and the more people would understand that it's really thoughtful - funding would be safe and Investors would feel safe. Instead of that you give incentives like "*multisig fiat*" and claims like "If you want to be invest in a crypto startup, the odds are you won't find a better setup anywhere in the Western world." and kind of weird things like "Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism."

Not enough for capitalists. But most likely enough for Crypto-gamblers.

No you can't.  You basically answered your own question so not sure why you are asking.

PMed @Eliphaz Fimk offering Polish translation earlier today.

Very interesting project!

Hi, I wish to send from a Jaxx wallet but Jaxx is an HD (hierarchical deterministic) wallet for BTC which means it generates a new address every time i send or recieve funds.

However the Dev says that you can use any of the previous addresses to receive funds.

Will I be able to use Jaxx to participate?

Should be. Withdrawals of course not available until HEAT livenet client is out.

The HEAT team is not planning to engage in such market manipulations.

The ICO is round 1 funding for a Fintech startup company. Quickly after round 1 there'll be round 2, which will be paid fully in EUR (and in options received by round 1 investors). Round 2 distributes stock capital to external shareholders, who will seek profitable exit through trade on HEAT's own trading platform, or funding round 3 arranged in 2017.

Different from your usual ICO, the cryptocurrency funding phase in all is just the beginning of the fintech startup company. The HEAT token will form the core feature of the company's service suite, with projected value appreciation on par with the company shares.

1000 TPS?  LOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the reply, but of course I have some more questions.


I looked into Waves and also found too much that wasn't convincing in my opinion so I did not invest. You say: "our arrangements are further than anything I know of in the crypto sphere"

What do you mean with "arrangements"? Which steps did you make to get Fiat approval? How will it be implemented technically? Do you plan a "Fiat-wallet"? Do you plan Heat as a mix of Paypal plus Multicoin-Wallet and decentralized exchange?  


Sorry, but to say "it's just an article" is naive or you are intentionally misleading here. It's not just an article. Besides the fact that there are multiple articles, you can read the press-release of the EU-commission right here:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2381_en.htm

One example, and it's not even about Fiat - just about Crypto:

How can virtual currencies be used to finance terrorism and what can we do to prevent this?

Banks and payment institutions fall under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, which requires them to comply with specific rules, such as verifying customers’ identity and monitoring financial transactions. Virtual currency operators were initially not included in the scope of the Directive.
Virtual currencies are developing quickly and are an example of digital innovation. However, at the same time, there is a risk that virtual currencies could be used by terrorist organisations to circumvent the traditional financial system and conceal financial transactions as these can be carried out in an anonymous manner.

That is why the Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, in order to help identify users who trade in virtual currencies. Bringing these two actors under the Fourth AMLD and making them "obliged entities" will ensure better controls, ensuring that they apply customer due diligence and contribute to preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.

What is the difference between a virtual currency exchange platform and a virtual wallet provider?

Virtual currency exchange platforms can be considered as 'electronic' currency exchange offices that trade virtual currencies for real currencies (or so-called 'fiat' currencies, such as the euro). On the other hand, virtual currency custodian wallet providers hold virtual currency accounts on behalf of their customers (by providing virtual wallets from which payments in virtual currencies can be done or received). In the 'virtual currency' world, they are the equivalent of a bank or payment institution offering a payment account.
 


If you think about what that means, you should understand that there might be some problems for Heat even if it's just about crypto-currencies. But you even say there are "pending agreements" for implementing Fiat.



1. And again: It's not just about Fiat but of course, Fiat is even harder.

2. And again: Lack of information. When there would be something you could say to raise trust there is something like "can't be disclosed yet". I don't criticize if you can't give all details. But I believe to see some red flags if there is too much talking while giving basically not really informations.

3. And what is a "national money transmitter license"? Or was it just a typo and you wanted to say "international"?



Yes. It's not illegal to develop a cryptocurrency and there is no problem so far to use it as a user etc. But you want to build a decentralized exchange, including a multi-coin-wallet. And if you say: "KYC is not a problem. Our JV partner uses it all the time" - why do you want to develop a decentralized exchange? If it will be all connected to a central "JV - partner" to get things legal, one important point of decentralization is missing in my opinion. And maybe it's possible, I don't know. But if you plan something like a know-your-customer-impementation it's something you should speak about before in my eyes, instead just saying "we have a pending fiat agreement" without giving any infos about that. And really, I'm not sure what to believe because I'm not sure if you really know what this is about.

I mean: You even say you can really deploy sufficient "KYC" - infos about FIMK-Users. You are aware that the "C" stands for Customers? It's not about your informations as a company. And it's not just about IP's that download software like a wallet. It's about the real identities of Users. If you really can deploy that for FIMK-Users - that's kind of concerning for a cryptocurrency to say the least and I don't believe you can.  





It already is the case that they regulate a lot of possible doors from Fiat into Crypto and back --> exchanges. And that seems to be true for all Fiat-exchanges nearly all over the world. And to say "Heat is as prepared as it can be" - that's just another claim. I don't see much where I believe you are prepared.



I believe that you are mostly on the safe side regarding the ICO. As I said: That seems to be the priority, while there is no transparency for your potential ICO-Investors. There is no Whitepaper, there are no Informations about how to make Fiat possible, technically and legally. Even the Crypto-part is pretty much of a black whole - at least for me. For example: Why 25% the first 4 years while only 5% after that? And why PoS? PoS is a very weak design. Ethereum tries a lot to find a solution for the weaknesses of PoS with their Casper-plan, but I don't believe that will work out. But at least Ethereum is really transparent. They discuss those things openly and there were a lot of informations long before their ICO. Same with Factom. There was a whitepaper and reviews and Feedback and there was a Thread months before the ICO.

Heat: Nearly all important informations are missing. But an ICO.




That are strong words for a project that asks for money without giving basic informations. You're not just saying that this will be a great project. It's already the best setup in the western world.


Let me tell you this: My criticism is not personal. But what I always focus on, besides the base idea (which I like) and the economical design (which I don't like) and the whitepaper (which is missing) -  is the team behind. I try to find out if they are honest. I try to find out if they are professionals. I try to find out if they are precise and skilled and where they see the priorities.

And what I believe is that you both are most likely good coders. I'm not, so I can't say much about that. But at least you show your faces and you have coding experience. But besides the lack of information and the impression that this ICO is pretty much rushed out, you told me about your partner that he has not the proper knowledge to reply on my questions - not even regarding the token. And man, there is one team with only two guys. And you both want money for a very ambitious project without revealing much infos -  and you want me (and readers) to believe that one of both has no proper knowledge about the basics of your own project? The thing is: I don't believe that you believe that. That's the reason for my impression that there could be some things you try not to reveal. But if you really should believe that your partner is not able to reply on such questions (what is the token for? - basics!), it's even worse.

Again, not meant personal. But I believe it becomes clear that I won't invest.

any other exchange to be listed?

That's one mechanism of attempting to provide value. And a clever one. Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism.

That's a good suggestion. Let's see what we can do. Release of the paper is anyway scheduled by the last week of ICO, to remove exactly this kind of issues early enough to be of benefit.

As an early investor of FIMK, I disagree.  The reservation rate of FIMK to HEAT was designed to be favorable to FIMK investors.  IMHO this shows great character, as the investors in their “first ICO” of FIMK were offered a chance to reinvest for a “no-loss proposition”



There is some truth here.  I sometimes wonder whether these promises actually harmed the adoption of FIMK.  For large portions of time, it seemed the FIMK community was just sitting and waiting for magic to happen and did not get involved.  From what I can tell, the biggest reasons promises went unfulfilled had to do with the non-profit nature of FIMK.

Hello i am now in vacaction and spend my btc.buy lisk ,untim willl be to late.