We are on block 401693. Where do you check it? I check on BLOCKCHAIN.INFO
I've checked it here http://www.elastic.pro/crowdsaleGive me exactly the link where you checked that it's 401693 
Topic: Archived Content - page 7. (Read 12169 times)
We are on block 401693. Where do you check it? I check on BLOCKCHAIN.INFO
Hello, explain me pls how much I'll get for investing 1 bitcoins right now? As I see now it's 24229 Blocks so why looking at the graphics I see that we are between 400000 and 403000 blocks?
This message was too old and has been purged
Someone in a previous thread referred to MaidSafe and the SAFE network.
I've had a look at this, and it seems primarily to be a distributed storage served. It does not compete with what we are trying to do here.
I am concerned that its "pay once, store forever" model which requires exponentially declining storage cost will prove unsustainable in the long run. Nevertheless, it is worth watching. It it takes off, there may be benefits to be had from interoperating.
Please keep on referring us to other interesting projects.
I've had a look at this, and it seems primarily to be a distributed storage served. It does not compete with what we are trying to do here.
I am concerned that its "pay once, store forever" model which requires exponentially declining storage cost will prove unsustainable in the long run. Nevertheless, it is worth watching. It it takes off, there may be benefits to be had from interoperating.
Please keep on referring us to other interesting projects.
It is following exactly the same model of actual storage space decreasing exponentially , If network space doesn't follow the trend, less free space is added to the network , the cost to PUT data onto the network would rise. Incentive to add extra data onto the network would happen, more data would be added to the network or costs would increase over time if there wasn't anymore available.
You might want to read further into it, this is not even MVP currently and the devs are planning in the near future to add the ability to handle large amounts of distributed computer power , like a super computer .
The consensus system of maidsafe would be much easier for what you want to do compared to a blockchain type consensus system
This message was too old and has been purged
Someone in a previous thread referred to MaidSafe and the SAFE network.
I've had a look at this, and it seems primarily to be a distributed storage served. It does not compete with what we are trying to do here.
I am concerned that its "pay once, store forever" model which requires exponentially declining storage cost will prove unsustainable in the long run. Nevertheless, it is worth watching. It it takes off, there may be benefits to be had from interoperating.
Please keep on referring us to other interesting projects.
I've had a look at this, and it seems primarily to be a distributed storage served. It does not compete with what we are trying to do here.
I am concerned that its "pay once, store forever" model which requires exponentially declining storage cost will prove unsustainable in the long run. Nevertheless, it is worth watching. It it takes off, there may be benefits to be had from interoperating.
Please keep on referring us to other interesting projects.
From the previous thread
Are we committed to bitcoin as the base system?
The reason I ask is because I can see some advantages to Cryptonite's Mini-blockchain system. I know that both have a solution to endless blockchain bloat, but they seem to differ in their tolerances to different kinds of spam. Bitcoin doesn't like transaction spam, while Cryptonite doesn't like account spam. Of the two, I think tolerance of many small transactions is likely to be beneficial as it will allow our currency to support micro-payments. I don't see a lot of use for zillions of tiny accounts.
Quote from: Evil-Knievel
Beyond that, I have spent my 2 days forking the bitcoin reference implementation, supporting multiple types of transactions (publish work, solve PoW, solve bounty, normal ELC transfer TX).
Are we committed to bitcoin as the base system?
The reason I ask is because I can see some advantages to Cryptonite's Mini-blockchain system. I know that both have a solution to endless blockchain bloat, but they seem to differ in their tolerances to different kinds of spam. Bitcoin doesn't like transaction spam, while Cryptonite doesn't like account spam. Of the two, I think tolerance of many small transactions is likely to be beneficial as it will allow our currency to support micro-payments. I don't see a lot of use for zillions of tiny accounts.
i would prefer if there was an air drop like decred, than paying for something unknown
That ship has already sailed.
i would prefer if there was an air drop like decred, than paying for something unknown
this will have mining after launch at least?
this will have mining after launch at least?
From the previous thread
... or not work. You have to submit a certain piece of a file to the network to prove you have stored it. This piece is pseudorandom.
In fact, you can just query someone else, fetch that peace (as the file is stored redundantly on multiple peers) and upload it as a proof of storage.
I was really hoping for something smarter than that.
That just opens us up to FAA again.
PoS with no (financial) reward for the block-winner, (or just the transaction fees which I continue to advocate should be minimal) would also leave only the hard-working (financially) rewarded. Those who just hold coin would be rewarded by the maintenance and possible appreciation of the value of their holding, which can only happen if blocks are regularly generated.
Quote from: Evil-Knievel
Quote from: Dazza
How does proof of storage work?
... or not work. You have to submit a certain piece of a file to the network to prove you have stored it. This piece is pseudorandom.
In fact, you can just query someone else, fetch that peace (as the file is stored redundantly on multiple peers) and upload it as a proof of storage.
I was really hoping for something smarter than that.
Quote
I thought that the miner can increase his chance for a PoS block by submitting proof of works (for which he of course also gets paid). Would be not the typical rich gets richer, but more like hard-working gets rewarded.
That just opens us up to FAA again.
PoS with no (financial) reward for the block-winner, (or just the transaction fees which I continue to advocate should be minimal) would also leave only the hard-working (financially) rewarded. Those who just hold coin would be rewarded by the maintenance and possible appreciation of the value of their holding, which can only happen if blocks are regularly generated.
From the previous thread
I agree that the challenges to be overcome are formidable. This might be why Zennet abandoned its original goal.
Forgive my skepticism as your intentions maybe honorable and I respect lofty goals, but I cannot conceive of a project of this complexity ever getting off the ground with the amount of funding you are likely to raise.
I hope you prove me wrong but I'll be sitting on the sidelines for this one. Good luck.
I hope you prove me wrong but I'll be sitting on the sidelines for this one. Good luck.
I agree that the challenges to be overcome are formidable. This might be why Zennet abandoned its original goal.
From the previous thread
I agree that we should drop the word coin from the project as a whole, (and we appear to have already done so). "Elastic Coin" is a reasonable name for the cryptocurrency component. People understand the word "coin".
Quote from: Nihilnegativum
Another thing I would suggest for the project is to drop the 'Coin' or rebrand completely, by its concept this isn't another coin, but something in the ranks of ethereum/augur etc. so calling it a coin really devalues it, and hides it in the multitude of all the clonecoins.
I agree that we should drop the word coin from the project as a whole, (and we appear to have already done so). "Elastic Coin" is a reasonable name for the cryptocurrency component. People understand the word "coin".
From the previous thread
I have thought about this too. I think there are three factors which will tend to mitigate this issue.
First by "commercial operation" I assume you mean data centres and the like. In addition to the cost of the electricity, these will have to pay staff and rent, and amortise the cost of the hardware. A home user who bought his computer for other purposes will not need to consider these costs.
Similarly, for a home user who is just using his spare cycles while his computer is on for another purpose, only needs to consider the difference in his computer's electricity usage between active and on-but-idle, not the difference between active and off.
Finally if the weather is cold, any extra heat produced by the computer serves to reduce his other heating costs.
I entirely agree with marketing it as (and on the technical side, making it into) the best, most useful general cryptocurrency there is, independent of its role as an infrastructure to a distributed computing market. To that end, I am in favour of keeping the transaction fees as low as possible.
Quote from: Cryptorials
My reasoning is that I would anticipate a distributed network being less efficient than a commercial operation with wholesale electricity and so on, meaning that providing a competitive price for computation may not be easy.
I have thought about this too. I think there are three factors which will tend to mitigate this issue.
First by "commercial operation" I assume you mean data centres and the like. In addition to the cost of the electricity, these will have to pay staff and rent, and amortise the cost of the hardware. A home user who bought his computer for other purposes will not need to consider these costs.
Similarly, for a home user who is just using his spare cycles while his computer is on for another purpose, only needs to consider the difference in his computer's electricity usage between active and on-but-idle, not the difference between active and off.
Finally if the weather is cold, any extra heat produced by the computer serves to reduce his other heating costs.
Quote
One thing that attracted me to this was the idea that miners would also earn transactions fees - effectively subsidizing the cost of computation for the customer (and subsidizing the cost of mining for the cryptocurrency as well) and making this network highly competitive on price. But for that to work, you need transactions taking place, which means marketing this as both a computation cluster and a digital currency or 'coin'.
I entirely agree with marketing it as (and on the technical side, making it into) the best, most useful general cryptocurrency there is, independent of its role as an infrastructure to a distributed computing market. To that end, I am in favour of keeping the transaction fees as low as possible.
When the will the project be finished.
Do you have a detail plan?
Do you have a detail plan?
From the previous thread
Until someone comes up with a practical implementation of homomorphic encryption it will not be possible to prevent a miner from having access to or knowing what he is working on. In respect of the FAA, we are not talking about an arbitrary miner, but a malicious attacker who, we must assume, will be capable of manipulating the system in various ways, some of which we may not be able to anticipate or prevent.
I agree that manual intervention should not be required, i.e., there should be simple setup options that do not require manual intervention. However I think some miners will prefer to exercise more control over the work that they do, and I think they should be allowed to do this.
Not possible, without homomorphic encryption as mentioned above. Otherwise the problem is like implementing DRM in a consumer product. You can keep out unsophisticated users, but you will never be able to keep out dedicated and skilled hackers.
Quote from: Dink
I am a bit confused on the FAA attack ...it seems a miner would not know what he is working or at least should not know, so while he may submitted an algorithm he should not have access to nor know what he is working on.
Until someone comes up with a practical implementation of homomorphic encryption it will not be possible to prevent a miner from having access to or knowing what he is working on. In respect of the FAA, we are not talking about an arbitrary miner, but a malicious attacker who, we must assume, will be capable of manipulating the system in various ways, some of which we may not be able to anticipate or prevent.
Quote
It is stated in the Intro "All this happens "behind the scenes" in a process called mining with out the requirement of manual intervention."
I agree that manual intervention should not be required, i.e., there should be simple setup options that do not require manual intervention. However I think some miners will prefer to exercise more control over the work that they do, and I think they should be allowed to do this.
Quote
It seems there should be a seperation of miners from being able to know what they are working from the beginning.
Not possible, without homomorphic encryption as mentioned above. Otherwise the problem is like implementing DRM in a consumer product. You can keep out unsophisticated users, but you will never be able to keep out dedicated and skilled hackers.
From the previous thread
The original engine design proved to be unfeasible, and we've changed it. Otherwise the ship is the same and the destination is the same. The passenger experience should be the same too.
Quote from: Cryptorials
Phew, with all the technical talk about how it will work I have been worrying that the economic aspect may not end up being as I thought when I put my money in, so its good to know that this economic advantage will be preserved.
The original engine design proved to be unfeasible, and we've changed it. Otherwise the ship is the same and the destination is the same. The passenger experience should be the same too.
Yes, there will be a wallet as well. Regarding the launch date ... this depends on the developers and how long they think they need. I expect it to be 100 days at most. I hope that the community can agree on some sort of bug bounty fund to speed up that process: please understand I cannot decide anything as I am not in charge of the project. But we as a community can find a consensus which will be fine for Lannister, I am sure.
Hey there EK, I have few questions as investor.
Who are the developers?
Do you believe that a former dev team isn't needed for such a quite bleeding edge project?
Who is Lannister:? What is his background and how has he been choosen?
What will your role be? I really liked your way of thinking, I hope you will take anyway a huge part of this.
I'd like to add: What is Lionel's current role in the project. He seems to have disappeared without trace.
Yes, there will be a wallet as well. Regarding the launch date ... this depends on the developers and how long they think they need. I expect it to be 100 days at most. I hope that the community can agree on some sort of bug bounty fund to speed up that process: please understand I cannot decide anything as I am not in charge of the project. But we as a community can find a consensus which will be fine for Lannister, I am sure.
Hey there EK, I have few questions as investor.
Who are the developers?
Do you believe that a former dev team isn't needed for such a quite bleeding edge project?
Who is Lannister:? What is his background and how has he been choosen?
What will your role be? I really liked your way of thinking, I hope you will take anyway a huge part of this.
This message was too old and has been purged
Jump to: