so much drama here:)
Topic: Archived Content (Read 12120 times)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
Please continue the discussion here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxel-elastic-project-the-decentralized-supercomputer-1396233
Please continue the discussion here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxel-elastic-project-the-decentralized-supercomputer-1396233
Cryptonite himself states in his wiki:
Elastic could be such "interesting variant". I see no reason why PoS should not work for the mini-blockchain approach.
Also the mini-blockchain approach is similar to what I have suggested a few weeks before: the concept of "moving checkpoint" that allow to discard everything prior to that. Glad that someone already evaluated it and carefully wrote down the idea along with an evaluation (also in terms of possible attacks) in a white paper, we can safe some time here as we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
That seems way better than all existing PoS, I wonder why noone did it before, cryptonite isn't that new... Quote
We kept it old school and purposely avoided the PoS and memory hard algorithms, there were also time constraints and other good reasons, plus we want to leave the door open for interesting Cryptonite variants.
Elastic could be such "interesting variant". I see no reason why PoS should not work for the mini-blockchain approach.
Also the mini-blockchain approach is similar to what I have suggested a few weeks before: the concept of "moving checkpoint" that allow to discard everything prior to that. Glad that someone already evaluated it and carefully wrote down the idea along with an evaluation (also in terms of possible attacks) in a white paper, we can safe some time here as we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
In the same spirit against wheel reinventing, it would be useful to check out the abandoned zennet that someone before mentioned, if you haven't already.
This message was too old and has been purged
@EK, Lannister what are the current plans for the distribution of the private keys of the funds among the community members?
Cheers!
Cheers!
Would it be possible to implement mini-blockchain as PoS?
This message was too old and has been purged
I already invested some but I might wanna buy some more, but before I do is there a possibility to see what will be done with the rest of the coins if the icon is not full?
Cause if you burn them the Total amount decrease but the block reward is high compared to the coin amount
So actually bad for investors.
If the coin amount is split on investments with the time of investment means more Coins and better and easier distribution in the future.
But iT would be awesome to know before Maybe invest Some more.
Cause if you burn them the Total amount decrease but the block reward is high compared to the coin amount
So actually bad for investors.
If the coin amount is split on investments with the time of investment means more Coins and better and easier distribution in the future.
But iT would be awesome to know before Maybe invest Some more.
I would say this doesn't matter much if the block reward is designed in consideration of the initial supply.
I already invested some but I might wanna buy some more, but before I do is there a possibility to see what will be done with the rest of the coins if the icon is not full?
Cause if you burn them the Total amount decrease but the block reward is high compared to the coin amount
So actually bad for investors.
If the coin amount is split on investments with the time of investment means more Coins and better and easier distribution in the future.
But iT would be awesome to know before Maybe invest Some more.
Dazza your not a dev right ? But so far you seem to know a lot About iT! Awesome to see Some good
People around here
Cause if you burn them the Total amount decrease but the block reward is high compared to the coin amount
So actually bad for investors.
If the coin amount is split on investments with the time of investment means more Coins and better and easier distribution in the future.
But iT would be awesome to know before Maybe invest Some more.
Dazza your not a dev right ? But so far you seem to know a lot About iT! Awesome to see Some good
People around here
Let me try this giveway real or scam 
Twitter : @ArndMuhammad
Subscribes as [email protected] / togesix
Wallet : 1B8fjzCS2PobQDyup8eqwe9ViYPJgZRmpH
Twitter : @ArndMuhammad
Subscribes as [email protected] / togesix
Wallet : 1B8fjzCS2PobQDyup8eqwe9ViYPJgZRmpH
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/kepo.noah
Twitter : https://twitter.com/ArndMuhammad
account was for sale he buy account? smell scam people beware!
Nope, still not getting it. The first two links provide evidence that Lannister and togesix are the same person, or at least are associated. I don't see what links him/them to Muhammad Arandi.
But assuming they are all the same person, again I ask, how is this relevant?
Sounds interesting,
has there been any development jet?
Git appears to me, to be just the Novacoin clone, or do i have missed something?
Building a decentralized usecase agnostic cloudcomputing would be great, many tried before, but none delivered jet
watching this with excitement
Matthjias
has there been any development jet?
Git appears to me, to be just the Novacoin clone, or do i have missed something?
Building a decentralized usecase agnostic cloudcomputing would be great, many tried before, but none delivered jet
watching this with excitement
Matthjias
Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.
Just rephrasing the original terms.
Hi, well the community has already discussed that thoroughly in a different thread.
I just want to know where you discussed these problems.
Thread 1: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/relaunched-completely-1362006
Thread 2: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/this-message-was-too-old-and-has-been-purged-1374480
Relation between Elastic and Zennet?
Seems the idea is same.
Seems the idea is same.
Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.
Just rephrasing the original terms.
Hi, well the community has already discussed that thoroughly in a different thread.
I just want to know where you discussed these problems.
I' don't understand what the amount of money bitcoin emits per time unit has to do with it and I don't know where the figures you are using come from, but none of this explains why either the miners will take work for half the price it costs them to do, or customers will pay twice the price they could get something done elsewhere.
Well, Bitcoin emits 25 BTC which is roughly 10000 USD every 10 minutes.
But the network has a hashing power of 1.400.000.000 Gigahashes / second or 1.400.000 Terahashes / second. Assuming 1 Terrahash / second consumes 1000 Watt per hour (this is realistic) the Bitcoin network burns 1.400.000 Kilowatt of power. Assume a kilowatt hour of power costs around 0.30$, the miners effectively pay 420.000 US$ for their power per hour, and as a consequence 70000 US$ every 10 minutes while only 10.000 US$ is emitted every 10 minutes by the bitcoin network.
This shows me that mining is not only utility based but also influenced by other (maybe psychological?) factors. I think miners sort of gamble.
You're not taking transaction fees into account, nor merged mining, nor perhaps the differences in electricity cost around the world, and in any case these other factors (such as influencing the future direction of bitcoin) may not be present here. Counting on miners working for a substantial loss and then on the amount of mining to be a fundamental basis for the value of the coin seems to me to be very naive.
I also don't really understand why all the details of the crowdsale can't be changed apart from one - you are now building an entirely different coin to the one at the start of the crowdsale. The single most significant feature of the original coin was user-supplied PoW, that was the entire purpose and nature of this coin, and for some reason it is ok change that one most important thing but nothing else can be changed because that would be unfair.
Edit: I take that last bit back, but i really think the consequences of this profound change need to be taken more seriously.
This message was too old and has been purged
This message was too old and has been purged
Imagine the purchase of 1000 calculation nodes cost around 1000 US$ per hour.
Now imagine, the Elastic network has 2000 active miners with similar machines as the calculation nodes in the case above.
Assuming we each node does perform 50% work and 50% overhead which is coin related: In this case the Elastic network is exactly as fast as the commercial cluster.
Exactly as fast, but also exactly twice as expensive - and that's assuming the average miner gets his hardware and electricity at the same price as giant data centres run by the likes of Google. So in actual fact, its almost certainly a lot more than twice as expensive.
Now comes the tricky part. The let's call him "scientist" will only change to Elastic if it's cheaper for him. The miners will only continue to mine if either the return is higher than the power cost or if they think that the value of Elastic coins will rise in the future. This is a feedback loop that will regulate itself I think.
Saying this is a feedback loop that will regulate itself is totally irrelevant to whether it will regulate itself into a situation in which nobody 'mines' and nobody buys computation or whether it will regulate itself to something that people will actually want to use.
The above example is not yet impressive for 2000 active miners. Imagine Elastic has 200000 active miners.
The "scientist" would be interested to switch to the Elastic network as long as it's cheaper than 1000 US$ per 6 seconds. Not even Bitcoin emits this much money per time unit, and it still
has plenty of miners burning the midnight oil.
I think this can work pretty good.
The "scientist" would be interested to switch to the Elastic network as long as it's cheaper than 1000 US$ per 6 seconds. Not even Bitcoin emits this much money per time unit, and it still
has plenty of miners burning the midnight oil.
I think this can work pretty good.
I' don't understand what the amount of money bitcoin emits per time unit has to do with it and I don't know where the figures you are using come from, but none of this explains why either the miners will take work for half the price it costs them to do, or customers will pay twice the price they could get something done elsewhere.
Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.
Just rephrasing the original terms.
Hey just bought some coins, just one more thing is it possible to send more then 1 payment from 1 wallet?
Also about the rest of the coins i think best is to devide them under the crowdfunding particepant,
some reasons a coins needs spreading so a bigger amount (1 mil already aint a lot) will be eventually more distribution, while the market cap stays the same. Also its prob a more fair way to award the people that supported the coin in the ico compared to the block reward.
In comparison to commercially available computation clusters this will be much more expensive won't it? Because decentralization has efficiency costs. As a result the hashing power will be close to zero - at most a few volunteers who don't mind making a big loss.
We aim for a decentralization (or better parallelization) that does not require communication between the individual instances. When you for example take an infiniband cluster, the communication between the nodes is fast but still a bottleneck. We try to avoid that.
Just a simple example: imagine you want to crack your forgotten 6 digit MD5 hashed password. You submit your "program" to the Elastic network, and everyone starts working on your function independently. Due to the randomness of the inputs to this function it can be assumed that every miner works on a different part of the search space. The overhead is not that much, the instances do not need to exchange a "shared memory" or something, the only overhead comes from the "verifiably computing" thing. At most, I hope at least, we can keep this overhead in O(1), like factor 2 or so.
I'm not a mathematician so mathematical notation means nothing to me. Does factor two mean double? If so that's quite a lot. Even if its less, miners are unlikely to be able to compete with giant data centres and actual supercomputers even with 0 overhead.
Jump to: