Topic: [ANN] TRESTOR - The Most Efficient Money, Payment And Market System In The World - page 2. (Read 3958 times)

I agree - this isn't much different than Ripple. They can effectively roll back transactions and this should be one factor determining whether or not users want to participate. It's fine that Trestor doesn't want to use mining to distribute or secure their network - they just can't sweep it under the rug as "more efficient than the waste of electricity in PoW". If it was as simple as that, Bitcoin wouldn't be the market leader nor would Litecoin be 2nd.

Yes, I would say atleast Trestor is currently better than Ripple where now you need to fill out AML and KYC and they can just reverse transactions. Its basically paypal at this point

I didn't see the reversibility of transactions in the Trestor whitepaper, they're using a Proof of Stake blockchain which like any blockchain creates a permanent record of transactions.

If Trestor was 'served with an order to reverse or suppress a transaction' then this is no different than Ripple - which currently owns all the nodes.

There is no monetary incentive to set up a node, but according to the TNet documentation it would seem that a university would be interested in setting up a node so they can be a relay point to pass messages to other nodes.

On the thread "Critical problems with Trestor" the foundation states "Justification for Pre-Assigning is strong but complex, therefore it will be detailed in our whitepaper."

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11720185

Your whitepaper seems to describe the technical aspects of your coin (securing the network), but not why this coin is 100% pre-assigned. If I missed the explanation I apologize and could you please point me to it or state the reason for it here?

Andre says, "OBEY"

OK, but there's no incentive to run a node unless perhaps you are a business that buys and sells Trests. Since any such business depends upon Trestor (owner of ~all Trests currently) then it's in their best interest to support anything Trestor does. If Trestor is served with an order to reverse or suppress a transaction, they'll have no choice but to obey.

Interesting article in Cointelegraph.
I am looking forward to understanding more about the consensus in Trestor

"By October 1, Trestor Network will primarily be powered by academic institutions, running full Trestor nodes across the globe. Our consensus is not PoW [proof of work] or PoS [proof of stake], or Ripple/Stellar. Our process takes the best of proof of stake and the Ripple/Stellar-type voting-based mathematical guarantees, and merges the two ideas to create a new network consensus system. We call this “asymmetric proof of stake” (aPoS)."

Kudos to the team for opensourcing the code on Github https://github.com/Trestor/trestor-crypto-ObjectiveC

Hello Community Members,

I work at Trestor, look forward to engaging and meaningful conversations about Trestor project here.

Kunal Dixit
Founder
Trestor Foundation

I think you are misunderstanding how trestor works exactly. Since anyone can run a node, a transaction cant simply be reversed without the majority of the network agreeing on it

Wouldn't comment on their tech because i haven't studied their Tech draft or white paper yet. But i surely appreciate the way the have been persistent with explaining themselves to their critics. Will comment more after go through their white paper.

This is Stephan, protocol designer at Trestor.



In our protocol, a large majority of Validator nodes is required to agree in order to change the ledger. A law enforcement agency or any other powerful entity would be required to either force a lot of node operators from various jurisdictions to cooperate, or to set up a large number of their own nodes (which would require a large amount of deposits and will not stay undetected).

Trestor does not require fees, because running a Validator node does not require nearly as many resources as running a Bitcoin miner. The idea is, that these nodes are voluntarily run by enthusiasts and organizations (e.g. universities), like we all know it for Tor nodes. The incentives to run a node are of course very different from the incentives why people mine Bitcoins, but that does not change anything about the fact that they are run in a decentralized way by a variety of parties from different jurisdictions.

The hardest problem is to bootstrap the whole network. In the beginning, when the number of Validator nodes is small, the deposit required to run a node has to be set high in order to effectively secure the network. Our plan to get the network started is that the Trestor Foundation will provide organizations, which are willing to run a node, with the required deposit amount.

A reward-based proof-of-stake system is very hard to secure, because there is no way to prevent stake-owners to sign multiple conflicting ledgers with their stake. Some even say that reward-based proof-of-stake systems are completely impossible. We are not doing anything like that. In our system, fees would make no sense, because there is no competition among Validator nodes like we know it from miners. Who is supposed to get the fees, after a majority agreed on a new ledger update?

Please provide one example of a retail partner that advertises their prices on their website, transparently.


There are no transaction fees because there is no security in ensuring that the digital ledger stays the same. What would you do if law enforcement told you to reverse a transaction since 'terrorists' owned trests and were using them?

When you skip that big waste of energy you refer to, there are tradeoffs. I'll pass thanks.

Our Retail Partners allow you to buy and sell Trests in locations all over the world.



With Trests there are no transaction fees, all the coins you mentioned do have transaction fees. Transactions take an average of 10 seconds to confirm, which is also a +.
Furthermore, with Trestor there is no mining required to protect the network which is a big waste of energy, and possibly unsustainable.

We have seen other cryptocurrency IPOs where similar things have happened, so this was too obvious to not miss.

To keep the market stable and healthy, Trestor Foundation also participates in it.

Really? Seeing Trests bought at $0.01 ea only to have them worth $0.000001 a few seconds afterward is going to be tragically hilarious, unless you find lighting your money on fire interesting.

I like the transparency. This team has taken a lot of grief but have actually addressed concerns brought up on other threads. It will be interesting to see how the price reacts over time. Good luck guys!

A real world company here

No, it's not an initial coin offering - it's a post coin offering at a terrible price. If I buy Trests @ $0.01 ea, can you recommend a vendor that will buy them back from me at a similar price?


We can already transfer value one country to another with a fluctuating price token. It's called Bitcoin. Or Litecoin. Or Doge. Or....