all you can do now is baghold and wait, in addition to buying more cheap XEL now given the alt market is rekt from whale/bots crashing all coins.
sooooooooooo buy cheap now, hold and in 2018 you'll enjoy the view from the moon.
Topic: [ANN] [XEL] :: XEL - The Decentralized Supercomputer :: - page 61. (Read 253702 times)
lol blahbalhablaha - like anyone in here knows ANYTHING of wtf is going on with XEL or their tech. make it sound like fucking no-it-alls lol.
all you can do now is baghold and wait, in addition to buying more cheap XEL now given the alt market is rekt from whale/bots crashing all coins.
sooooooooooo buy cheap now, hold and in 2018 you'll enjoy the view from the moon.
all you can do now is baghold and wait, in addition to buying more cheap XEL now given the alt market is rekt from whale/bots crashing all coins.
sooooooooooo buy cheap now, hold and in 2018 you'll enjoy the view from the moon.
I PM'ed this to Evil-Knievel, after that I was like "its nothing private, why I didn't just posted it on the thread?" 
here's my idea, let's discuss.
here's my idea, let's discuss.Hey,
Did you ever think about running vanitygen with supercomputer?
I think it's easy to create a pool for running a decentralized vanitygen pool, or something like this.
People who wants to create an address -> pays XEL (amount depends on work) and create job
People who wants to earn XEL -> runs a miner that solves incoming jobs automatically (without having the private keys of addresses, of course.)
just wanted to give an advice, I don't know about programming. I hope this is a good idea.
Best,
Did you ever think about running vanitygen with supercomputer?
I think it's easy to create a pool for running a decentralized vanitygen pool, or something like this.
People who wants to create an address -> pays XEL (amount depends on work) and create job
People who wants to earn XEL -> runs a miner that solves incoming jobs automatically (without having the private keys of addresses, of course.)
just wanted to give an advice, I don't know about programming. I hope this is a good idea.
Best,
When can I start programming on XEL ? 
Not sure about that , i guess when mainnet comes out , but you can read about ElasticPL https://github.com/sprocket-fpga/xel_miner/blob/master/ElasticPL/ElasticPL%20Language%20Notes.txt .
When can I start programming on XEL ?
There is only one thing required of devs. Prodice awesome code and awesome system called Elastic.
Don't mind if you want anon privacy. Good developers all we care.
Don't mind if you want anon privacy. Good developers all we care.
What do you mean with "unauthorized and authorized global failure of the platform"?
In other words - authorized - is the fault or error, caused by somebody(by a person to be precise), and unauthorized - error caused by network failure(without any human factor involved).
Sorry, but I think that I still don't understand what you're trying to find out
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
Yes, you answered my question
So elastic is a platform that can make all kinds of computations, based on decentralized technology which exclude the aspect of trust and guarantees the confidentiality of information. It took me a long time to get to the truth I hope the potential clients of platform will get to it faster than me Anyway, thanks for your answers and I am grateful to you for taking the time to discuss these matters with me 
Sorry, but I think that I still don't understand what you're trying to find out
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
yeah exactly...that sword cuts both ways....anonymous and decentralized go hand in hand....wouldnt want it any other way
... 10000 individuals, they wont all of a sudden agree to stop helping
Of course they dont, that would be a great foolishness from the miners' side(if I can call them "miners"). Cause such companies as B.C. will lost every trace of confidence in Elastic platform(in platform generally, although the situations was caused by community in this case).
I'm talking about unauthorized and authorized global failure of the platform. How such big clients can be protected from this? This is the relevant question from the category of trust. Category, which should be excluded by decentralization, blockchain, cryptocurrencies and etc.
What do you mean with "unauthorized and authorized global failure of the platform"?
Sorry, but I think that I still don't understand what you're trying to find out
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
What I understood is that you would prefer that the devs disclosed their identities so companies can hold them liable for whatever goes wrong. If I understand this correctly, then I think a centralized project might be the better fit in this case.
Decentralized blockchain-based "use at own risk" applications are - by design - usually built in a way that neither a central authority is present nor is there any need to "trust" someone. So, if you do not need to trust anyone, then why do you need a public record of the devs and their full identities? In my eyes, you don't!
I mean, it would still be the same group of people having the same amount of "leverage", if you like to call it that way.
Yes, we are close enough for the thing that I am trying to find out
So the platform will work instead of someone's wish to disrupt the network? Even if someone from the dev team decided to make such a thing(just as a supposition, never meant to offend devs). And the only factor that affects system is presence or absence of miners?
Thats the thing that I dont get and need your help
I mean, it would still be the same group of people having the same amount of "leverage", if you like to call it that way.
Yes, we are close enough for the thing that I am trying to find out
So the platform will work instead of someone's wish to disrupt the network? Even if someone from the dev team decided to make such a thing(just as a supposition, never meant to offend devs). And the only factor that affects system is presence or absence of miners?
Thats the thing that I dont get and need your help
... 10000 individuals, they wont all of a sudden agree to stop helping
Of course they dont, that would be a great foolishness from the miners' side(if I can call them "miners"). Cause such companies as B.C. will lost every trace of confidence in Elastic platform(in platform generally, although the situations was caused by community in this case).
I'm talking about unauthorized and authorized global failure of the platform. How such big clients can be protected from this? This is the relevant question from the category of trust. Category, which should be excluded by decentralization, blockchain, cryptocurrencies and etc.
Quote
But if B.C. decided to work only with elastic and base all of computation on this platform, B.C. becomes vulnerable and dependent on elastic devs. And from now anonymous elastic devs have leverage of influence on B.C.
I'm confused! How would this be different if the devs disclosed their identities? I mean, it would still be the same group of people having the same amount of "leverage", if you like to call it that way.
... 10000 individuals, they wont all of a sudden agree to stop helping
Of course they dont, that would be a great foolishness from the miners' side(if I can call them "miners"). Cause such companies as B.C. will lost every trace of confidence in Elastic platform(in platform generally, although the situations was caused by community in this case).
I'm talking about unauthorized and authorized global failure of the platform. How such big clients can be protected from this? This is the relevant question from the category of trust. Category, which should be excluded by decentralization, blockchain, cryptocurrencies and etc.
Okay, I'll try to specify my vision
Lets imagine a big company ("B.C." in our case) that started to use third-party service N to make some computations some years ago. In 2018 B.C. found out about elastic, decentralized supercomputer that can held the same computations but more cheaper than service N, and B.C. can save 10 million $ using Elastic platform annually. And that is great.
But if B.C. decided to work only with elastic and base all of computation on this platform, B.C. becomes vulnerable and dependent on elastic devs. And from now anonymous elastic devs have leverage of influence on B.C.. Will B.C. use such platform risking one's status only for economy, not such a big amount of money for them?
And another nuance is confidentiality of computing information supplied by B.C. to Elastic platform.
B.C. can sign a contract with N, and will be protected by laws of their state. But who is responsible in collaboration between B.C. and Elastic if anything happens?
And there is the only thing that I can't understand in this project All another aspects and details of this project makes a great impression on me and makes me respect the devs with their attitude to the development
Bc wouldnt depend on elastic developers, but on the software and the entire community, which could mean the company is depending on 10000 individuals instead of 1 company, the odds are better for 10000 individuals, they wont all of a sudden agree to stop helping (they probably cant even choose themselves which company they help)The technology will not be held by the team , it will be distributed across a network that will get paid for the work commited.
Lets imagine a big company ("B.C." in our case) that started to use third-party service N to make some computations some years ago. In 2018 B.C. found out about elastic, decentralized supercomputer that can held the same computations but more cheaper than service N, and B.C. can save 10 million $ using Elastic platform annually. And that is great.
But if B.C. decided to work only with elastic and base all of computation on this platform, B.C. becomes vulnerable and dependent on elastic devs. And from now anonymous elastic devs have leverage of influence on B.C.. Will B.C. use such platform risking one's status only for economy, not such a big amount of money for them?
And another nuance is confidentiality of computing information supplied by B.C. to Elastic platform.
B.C. can sign a contract with N, and will be protected by laws of their state. But who is responsible in collaboration between B.C. and Elastic if anything happens?
And there is the only thing that I can't understand in this project
All another aspects and details of this project makes a great impression on me and makes me respect the devs with their attitude to the development The confidentiality is the huge advantage of open sourced blockchain, its automatically clear how confidential the information is handled.
Okay, I'll try to specify my vision
Lets imagine a big company ("B.C." in our case) that started to use third-party service N to make some computations some years ago. In 2018 B.C. found out about elastic, decentralized supercomputer that can held the same computations but more cheaper than service N, and B.C. can save 10 million $ using Elastic platform annually. And that is great.
But if B.C. decided to work only with elastic and base all of computation on this platform, B.C. becomes vulnerable and dependent on elastic devs. And from now anonymous elastic devs have leverage of influence on B.C.. Will B.C. use such platform risking one's status only for economy, not such a big amount of money for them?
And another nuance is confidentiality of computing information supplied by B.C. to Elastic platform.
B.C. can sign a contract with N, and will be protected by laws of their state. But who is responsible in collaboration between B.C. and Elastic if anything happens?
And there is the only thing that I can't understand in this project All another aspects and details of this project makes a great impression on me and makes me respect the devs with their attitude to the development
The technology will not be held by the team , it will be distributed across a network that will get paid for the work commited.
Lets imagine a big company ("B.C." in our case) that started to use third-party service N to make some computations some years ago. In 2018 B.C. found out about elastic, decentralized supercomputer that can held the same computations but more cheaper than service N, and B.C. can save 10 million $ using Elastic platform annually. And that is great.
But if B.C. decided to work only with elastic and base all of computation on this platform, B.C. becomes vulnerable and dependent on elastic devs. And from now anonymous elastic devs have leverage of influence on B.C.. Will B.C. use such platform risking one's status only for economy, not such a big amount of money for them?
And another nuance is confidentiality of computing information supplied by B.C. to Elastic platform.
B.C. can sign a contract with N, and will be protected by laws of their state. But who is responsible in collaboration between B.C. and Elastic if anything happens?
And there is the only thing that I can't understand in this project
All another aspects and details of this project makes a great impression on me and makes me respect the devs with their attitude to the development 
I can't wait to use the mainnet and test out all the hard work the devs and EK have been doing. Should be a pretty smooth system once they do launch.
...
I'm just trying to understand, which "large-scale" companies can use the technology, which is held by group of anonymous developers. I think its kinda big risc.
Talking about bitcoin - yeah, it was created by the anonymous developer(s). But he created it and left it, gave this technology(done thing) to the humanity, not continuing to develop it from the shadows... this is my point of view
I don't get why this a no go for someone ( talking about anonymity ) . The technology will not be held by the team , it will be distributed across a network that will get paid for the work commited . And the technology itself is the important part here , not the identities of the dev team . When you go buy a car for example , are you buying based on the person who manufactures it or by the performance , service , credibility etc ?
If SN continued to develop BTC "from the shadows" what would be the difference ? Do you think that it could kill or harm BTC in such case ? I don't see any point here , maybe you can elaborate ?
Well, first, I do not find whale accumulation a mandatory factor for success for the project (predictive or otherwise) nor desirable, but even if I did consider it something to be desired, why do you make such claim in the first place?
The model by which this project was created has both merits and disadvantages. The fact of the matter is that currently the people who are creating this project are anonymous, and the system continues to be developed steadily towards a future release.
In a perfect world where you could construct and choose your perfect scenario maybe things could have been constructed a bit different, but looking at the current situation in hand, I see a great project, highly promising, led by people who chose not to disclose themselves (something I find understandable in light of the behavior of some of the individuals we encounter often in the online medium), but their actions (and these actions are pretty clear to me). I think you know bitcoin right? well, it was also created (in the most part) by anonymous individuals who chose to create something of value and let the tech speak out for itself without having their personality/faces/habits/personal life get in the way of what is important.
The only reason why people who invest money, want a face and name to the person who is behind any venture, is so they can have more assurances and feel safer that he is legit and will follow through on his words. Anonymity means they need to rely on his actions without having the ability to discern his personality and non virtual persona.
The model by which this project was created has both merits and disadvantages. The fact of the matter is that currently the people who are creating this project are anonymous, and the system continues to be developed steadily towards a future release.
In a perfect world where you could construct and choose your perfect scenario maybe things could have been constructed a bit different, but looking at the current situation in hand, I see a great project, highly promising, led by people who chose not to disclose themselves (something I find understandable in light of the behavior of some of the individuals we encounter often in the online medium), but their actions (and these actions are pretty clear to me). I think you know bitcoin right? well, it was also created (in the most part) by anonymous individuals who chose to create something of value and let the tech speak out for itself without having their personality/faces/habits/personal life get in the way of what is important.
The only reason why people who invest money, want a face and name to the person who is behind any venture, is so they can have more assurances and feel safer that he is legit and will follow through on his words. Anonymity means they need to rely on his actions without having the ability to discern his personality and non virtual persona.
I should mention that I am not negative about the project first of all. Just decided to reread our dialogue from the beginning and thought that you may draw such a conclusion maybe
I'm sure that such purposeful devs wil make a great useful product. They are altruists, true fans of their project. They will succeed, without a doubt.
I'm just trying to understand, which "large-scale" companies can use the technology, which is held by group of anonymous developers. I think its kinda big risc.
Talking about bitcoin - yeah, it was created by the anonymous developer(s). But he created it and left it, gave this technology(done thing) to the humanity, not continuing to develop it from the shadows... this is my point of view
All cryptocurrency if you want to succeed there must be a good innovative from the team and community enthusiasts is also an important point behind altcoin success, therefore XEL must work hard to convince the world community that XEL coin is very useful for the future
Well, first, I do not find whale accumulation a mandatory factor for success for the project (predictive or otherwise) nor desirable, but even if I did consider it something to be desired, why do you make such claim in the first place?
The model by which this project was created has both merits and disadvantages. The fact of the matter is that currently the people who are creating this project are anonymous, and the system continues to be developed steadily towards a future release.
In a perfect world where you could construct and choose your perfect scenario maybe things could have been constructed a bit different, but looking at the current situation in hand, I see a great project, highly promising, led by people who chose not to disclose themselves (something I find understandable in light of the behavior of some of the individuals we encounter often in the online medium), but their actions (and these actions are pretty clear to me). I think you know bitcoin right? well, it was also created (in the most part) by anonymous individuals who chose to create something of value and let the tech speak out for itself without having their personality/faces/habits/personal life get in the way of what is important.
The only reason why people who invest money, want a face and name to the person who is behind any venture, is so they can have more assurances and feel safer that he is legit and will follow through on his words. Anonymity means they need to rely on his actions without having the ability to discern his personality and non virtual persona.
The model by which this project was created has both merits and disadvantages. The fact of the matter is that currently the people who are creating this project are anonymous, and the system continues to be developed steadily towards a future release.
In a perfect world where you could construct and choose your perfect scenario maybe things could have been constructed a bit different, but looking at the current situation in hand, I see a great project, highly promising, led by people who chose not to disclose themselves (something I find understandable in light of the behavior of some of the individuals we encounter often in the online medium), but their actions (and these actions are pretty clear to me). I think you know bitcoin right? well, it was also created (in the most part) by anonymous individuals who chose to create something of value and let the tech speak out for itself without having their personality/faces/habits/personal life get in the way of what is important.
The only reason why people who invest money, want a face and name to the person who is behind any venture, is so they can have more assurances and feel safer that he is legit and will follow through on his words. Anonymity means they need to rely on his actions without having the ability to discern his personality and non virtual persona.
I should mention that I am not negative about the project first of all. Just decided to reread our dialogue from the beginning and thought that you may draw such a conclusion maybe
I'm sure that such purposeful devs wil make a great useful product. They are altruists, true fans of their project. They will succeed, without a doubt.
I'm just trying to understand, which "large-scale" companies can use the technology, which is held by group of anonymous developers. I think its kinda big risc.
Talking about bitcoin - yeah, it was created by the anonymous developer(s). But he created it and left it, gave this technology(done thing) to the humanity, not continuing to develop it from the shadows... this is my point of view
Jump to: