Topic: [ANN][XEL] Elastic Project - The Decentralized Supercomputer - page 63. (Read 450520 times)

I am not EK but as i see it it's a question of stability. You don't wanna be traded at exchanges and then the blockchain gets stuck. You can imagine what would happen to our little precious project...

Either a HF, or we could use the new soft fork voting mechanism where the other features become "locked in" if enough block generators set the proper flag in their configuration. Either way ... a software update will be mandatory! This also means, that some "less freqeuently online people" will end up with a non-functioning wallet. But if we use the new soft fork voting, they will at least not end up on a fork, their client just stops working when the "feature" gets locked in.

Gentlemen, I think we should wait until everything is as it should be. I would love to see tomorrow XEL worth 20 $ ... is surely one of the most Xel have and I have a very high interest that the project works well.
But I do not think it isnt  very intelligent, leaving a half-time job and not having XEL working at 100%.
If someone needs a pump, just go to poloniex and buy any coins ...

yeah, I do not understand it too! Why do we need a lite version? Could EK please explain it for ELI5? Please consider, most people are none coders here, so we are confused. Why do we
need a Lite-version at all, if you could do this stuff you showed on the testnet?

How to accomplish going from Lite -> Full Version? We would need a HF right?

agree,in order to bring new talent to the project.

Thank you, I understand. But my question is the video I just watched seemed like a full version, a great functioning version. So why releasing a basic ( Lite ) version ?

We are in a sort of Catch 22 situation and it's good to see the arguments for and against launching being aired.

I would argue that by releasing a light version we could attract Devs, testers and PR people to join in the project and help EK and the community to realise the full potential of Elastic, by giving them the opportunity to have a financial stake in it.

Anyone that has been reading this thread can see the ridiculous hours that EK is having to put in.  

Is it right that we continue to expect him to carry this burden alone?  

Plus, with a bigger team of developers, it might be possible to come up with a timeline for release of a full version.

I think it's reasonable to at least put this to a vote within the community.

Basic function = You can send XEL around, but that's all.

Also one other thing: It's an important question when a launch of a "Full-version" is to be expected. Cause it wouldn't make any sense to launch a Lite-Version when the Full-Version is just weeks away.

what's a Lite-version ? The video EK showed today was a completely functioning system. So why a Lite-version ?

It would be very good.

I kinda like the idea that XEL (in comparison to other projects) enters the market and actually DELIVERS what other projects are still trying to accomplish. If we go to the markets just like any other coin/token we basically loose our advantage of being so far ahead and have only our disadvantages of not having as much superb PR etc than the other projects. So to state it more clearly we have only ONE entrance the markets and that happens with a BOOM if we have a working software. If we activate the actual network later we risk that no one will take notice. Maybe not "no one" but we wont have such a really nice "Bam here we are and we are accomplishing what others are trying."

So i am not in favor of launching a lite-version.

Edit: You see folks, no one knows Elastic at the moment. They havent heard about it, yes even in the slack channels of our competition most have no idea about Elastic. If we go to the markets with a working software the effect will be mindblowing. If not then expect us to trade WELL below iEx.ec and other stuff, cause we are just one out of lots of others.

Now that EK is giving the green light for voting, I'm in .

great!  then we all together now.

still wanna unvoid host the vote.

Well, I am not launching (and will never be launching) anything but if the majority wants a light client launched with just the basic coin transfer functions armed, I would offer my assistance in implementing such functionality for whoever feels empowered to get the ball rolling. Maybe a democratic vote would be the right thing here?

I believe Unvoid's arguments are sound and that we need to release the XEL tokens in order to get help for EK, so this project can get to the finish line.

EK has and always will be the champion of this project.  The argument is simply that to get other developers to join this project, we need to provide them with the opportunity to have a financial stake in it.

By releasing the tokens, potential new developers have that opportunity, as those that want out unload their XEL.

Does releasing the tokens require mainnet?  Could we just release the tokens?

Either way, it would be nice to know what the community thinks, rather than just accepting opinions posted on here, by holding a relevant vote.

bspus, that's a great analogy...(but there is actually no reason XEL can't have pools, it would just require completely new pool logic).  However, here's the main issue with just abandoning POW (even though as I've stated all all for getting rid of it)...

In coin mining, you know there is a solution, and you can calculate the estimated time for you to find a solution based on  your hashrate.  With XEL, the job author can code unsolvable problems...either by mistake, or on purpose to disrupt the network.  So you could technically mine something where it's not actually possible to find a bounty.

There are of course other alternatives to POW...one that I suggested to EK many months back (which I personally think is the best approach) is that we could have 2 types of Bounties, with 2 different payouts.  So back to your Pool analogy, the author could set a bounty for intermediate results (equivalent of a share in a mining pool) that have a lower threshold, then a different bounty amount for final solutions (equivalent of finding a block).  The advantage of a solution like this instead of the POW logic that already coded in elastic is that in the existing logic, POW is 100% overhead...it has nothing to do with finding solutions to the submitted job...A threshold approach would mean all the computational power is looking for solutions.

So using a more realistic example than mining coins, let say the author is using Elastic to find the optimum layout on an ASIC board they are designing...their final bounty target is a design that runs at 200Mhz.  They could set intermediate bounties for any solution over 100Mhz, or 150Mhz, etc.  So people could get rewarded for their work even if a 200Mhz solution is never found, the author could still use the next highest solution they got.

Of course, logic like this takes quite a bit of time and effort to code...and I'm with the group that feels Elastic should launch sooner than later (even without the ElasticPL logic) in order to bring new talent to the project.

I have the opposite feeling! Because I saw this video, it looked to me as a none coder, that we have the tools nearly completed. So it is
natural to ask "when can we launch?". This is not to pressure EK or anybody, but without mainnet, most of us can not do anything. I would just like to understand what we are missing right now and what WE have to do, where can we all help to make it faster or is all the work we
need to be done by EK?

The video was great and gave my a great push and now I want to know more

They way you put it, it sounds more like the difference between pool mining and solo.
Maybe for most people, pool mining is the "normal", but should that be the case?

I'm all for the change you suggested, FWIW