Topic: Announcing ProzCoin : Proof of Action (PoA) - page 30. (Read 78494 times)

also when will we launch the wallet?

so people can transfer coins to each other?

thanks

Thanks.

also how about change the ANN title?

a good title is also important?

Thanks

All ICO funds are frozen for 3 days.


Chris

also dev, how about put some buying support at ccex?

Thanks.

also we need bittrex?

Proz Market is NOW OPEN!!

Here is a blog that details the developments of the Wallet.  Remember, our head of R & D is also a developer/head of security for Mastercoin, so our developments will be intimately tied together:

http://blog.mastercoin.org/2014/09/05/technology-update-sleep-when-youre-dead/








Chris

My point exactly.  Your first block.  You have, now, a genesis.  Your coin is alive and kicking, please present to us your genesis block so that we may validate it as a legitimate block and, more importantly, so that we might know what the second block might look like.  Until you can do this, your chain is "stalled" as they say, no?


The crux of the matter.  You've launched the product, but have no product.  You now have peoples' money, and seemingly no chain to show for it.

You did the "first test" but only you can know it.  You can't show the results of that test.  You don't have a genesis block, but are claiming you do.

Either start presenting a proof over an actual genesis block (or at least how such a proof will be structured - we'll certainly accept a working wallet with testnet only, heh) or start admitting that Prozcoin is unproven vapor, and that you have no working implementation of something that could rightly be labelled "Proof of Action." :|


The problem is with Prozcoin as an isolated entity.  The problem is it is purportedly a cryptocurrency that we now own some of, but it does not apparently function as described.  There's no indication given yet that it is even actually a cryptocurrency at all.  How are we to know that we didn't just buy some sort of fantasy PPUSD-alike?  We bought the thing and you have our money, now we need to know if it actually does what it says on the tin.


This would further imply that your "first block" is not actually a block at all, will not be a part of our chain, and that no proof is yet structured.  This seems problematic.


This is contradictory.  You can't claim a "first block" is proven when it is entirely unrelated to your chain or proving things.  We need to see a "genesis block for real" revealed before you can legitimately assert that any meaningful test of "PoA" was done.


This "block" did not prove the right right concepts, though.  Your concept is still unproven.  You have no proof of proof-of-action.  


You didn't.


We can't know what response you actually saw.


Yet you can't seem to share this proof in any significant way.  If you hold a proof that only you can verify, does it really stand as a proof?  What does it prove, and to whom?

Surely you understand not only the notion of proof, but of peer review.  It is time to start giving up your materials for review.  Put your money where your mouth is, pun fully well intended.


Further development is obviously necessary.  Can we have some indication of prior development and some details of that further development?  Anything related to an actual implementation would be particularly reassuring to your investors, I'm sure.

Absolutely!  Since it has integration of Master Protocol, it is a little more complex than just a simple QT build.  

We will definitely be laying out a public roadmap once we get some solid deadline points that we are comfortable publishing.  Nothing worse than missing a deadline.


Since the Omniwallet already has mobile functionality, we thought that would be a better base to start off with, since it allows Apple/PC users alike to have access.  The desktop wallet is near complete, but as I said the Master protocol demands a little more attention than a cloned coin.  Working with a limited budget and team, we have to prioritize, and the desktop wallet was lower priority than getting the first PoA test done.  It was not "neglected", just lower priority.


Chris

In a sense, this is all I have been asking, as well.  My interpretation of the responses is as "We do not yet have a block chain implementation or working wallet."

Church-Rosser says that the proof is the algorithm and the algorithm is the proof.  All I really want is confluence!

Congratulation to the Team for having completed the ICO for the deadline.

Just wondering if there is a working wallet now aside from the omniwallet?

Thanks.


PS. Hope to see a glimpse of your Roadmap ahead!

We announced that the first block was a test run.  Now, what you are saying is ask us to show you the finished product when we JUST did the first test.  Our "Coin" has launched, but the "site" has still not.

http://coinproz.com/

I think people are confused that we are "just" an altcoin.  The currency of "Prozcoin" will function as the main currency of reward within the Coin Proz infrastructure, as we already have partners/merchants that accept the coin for services/goods, but even further the entire point of this project is "mass adoption of cryptocurrency", not "having Prozcoin replace bitcoin".  Our goals are completely different than those of most of the coins on the market, so when you look at "Prozcoin" as an isolated entity, you are missing a much larger part of the point.



As far as you keep asking to verify the "proof", when the website is finished, the "user response" will be the metric for the Proof of Action, and will all be publicly trackable/verifiable.  At this point however, the ONLY way to actually be able to prove the validity of users "today" would be to give you their e-mail addresses, and that is not going to happen.


We have stated multiple times that the test run is absolutely not representative of the final model, and many aspects of our "final model" have not been anywhere near revealed yet.  We have been EXTREMELY careful to not make announcements about anything that has not been finalized, and this first PoA block was "proof of concept", as that is the first time this has been executed.  

If we had started PoA and saw little to no response, even if the algorithm was sound, the actual "proof" is the "activity" and that would have been a failure.  Since we initiated the first PoA block and saw a tremendous response on all social media platforms, we NOW how the proof that our concept works, and further development in that direction is now justified.

 
For the record:  I have confirmed another partner in the Coin Proz network  a NSFW partner




Chris

There is only one metric on proof, holds or doesn't.  SAT or UNSAT.

My SMT solver is still waiting.


I've asked for one simple thing, how I should verify your "proof."  So far, we do not seem to be coming closer to QED.


I've never asked you to.  I've asked you how we can, ourselves, validate actions.  Either we have some facility to do this, or you are requiring us to "just trust you" on the distribution through "proof" of action.  "Just trust me" is not a sound axiom for a proof, IMO.  You can certainly offer some traceability over actions without disclosing anything more than record of the action itself.  The actual forum post.  The actual tweet.  The internet trails and trappings of the "actioned whatever."  We don't need email addresses, just some record of the action itself.  It can even be "scrubbed" if necessary, as long as this is accounted for in the validation process.

I just want to know that process.  If you can't detail how to walk your proof, you certainly can't convince me that the proof soundly holds.


Excellent.  However, this is not what you are demonstrating now.  Further, this goal just reinforces the need for a mechanism of tractable and traceable assertions.  This only makes the need for "actual proof" even more dire.


It did not work as described.  It was supposed to be "proof of action" but we have no artifact that we can call a proof out of it.  It was more like a practice of action.


That's great.  How can we verify that this spam is spam?  How can we know how this impacts distribution?  How does this statement translate into numbers that we can plug into your formula?


Again, superb.  This is a great thing to have proven, and I'm even willing to accept the evidence you have presented of it.  This proof is a much easier pill to swallow, however.  The problem is not with this.  This, in fact, is why I didn't just laugh seeing "IPO" model in the first place, and why I am all up in your thread now.    On these aspects, you went above and beyond.  These aspects are not in the context of my concern.

I love your "concept and equations" and like the theory of the whole thing.  You just can't rightly call it proof of action, or at least not yet.


I look forward to reading it.  If you've followed any of my work here you'll see that we likely have very similarly aligned interests.  This common background gives me even more reason to implore you to be very careful (and clear) in your distinction of proof.  If what we have seen in your launch is not to be representative of your final model, fine, but please make haste in both explaining and executing.  Your coin is now launched and real, and your users' monies are now on the line, too.

Hahha yes please

Proz is the number one coin on c-cex right now. Can't wait to see what happens when trading opens.

That will be great. Please do!

You can either get a wallet address at Omniwallet.org or at c-cex.  Payouts won't begin until C-Cex unfreezes everything.

Chris

Frankly I'd rather dump this crap just for all the time wasting, I'd dump for 10 sats and laugh still haha.

now,the ICO ended, what is the next plan about this coin? is there any roadmap something?

guys
sorry for my question))

i completed "Proof of Aktion"

how i will have to tell my wallet address ?

thk

be patient.

time will tell us and add value on proz.


but we really should ask bittrex add this promising coin.