Topic: moved to new thread (Read 10589 times)

First quantum secure..... What a crap.

Quantum computer is still in theory.... It doesn´t exist yet. (in real reality)

 

Come on guys, 40k BTC is impossible. Why don't you relaunch the presale over koinfy with less ambitious targets?

Thanks, I had to read that before asking

The lightweight client performs SSV against the Maximally Vetted Delegate Chain, which is a weakly subjective consensus heuristic that only requires block headers.

Simplified State Verification and the blockchain compression are the most promising parts IMO (since they solve problems we have today, not hypothetical ones).

However, after reading the SSV description, the lighweight SSV client seems like a simple frontend to the SSV-providing node, which puts the question how will the lighweight client "know" that the SSV-providing node is trustful?

Fancy wallpapers AND "federally incorporated"... It must be legit.

this coin is very promising, really nice coin!

Yes, we just received a positive response from our local securities commission (BCSC). Crowdfunding by pledging Bitcoins for a reward of Qoins does not violate any security laws because virtual currencies including Bitcoin are not regulated, so we are going to proceed with our Crowdfunding Campaign.

Refer to our Qoin Distribution section for crowdfunding details.

A blockchain that is secured by some kind of POS and where the VC has the whole stake (plus your stake). Is that in line with the security concept of QOINTUM? 

There is some code taken from Bitcoin, code from Python as an interpreter is embedded, and code from existing implementations of our post-quantum cryptography which we'll reveal later.


It's just myself right now.


Take a look at our SSL certificate, it's from StartSSL.com which requires proof of personal identity. Also our company is federally incorporated in Canada which also requires proof of personal identity.

I'm interested in this project. A few questions:
How will the ICO be structured: More "coins" if one invests at the start compared to an investment at the end of the ICO period?
Did you do your research on whether you violate any security laws by doing the ICO?
Do you develope all of the software form scratch? If not what project did you make use of?
Did you develope everything by yourself or do you have a team?
Will you publish information about your identity and the identities of your team before the ICO (a must for me if you want any money)?
Thanks for taking the time!

wow

*bump* still in development =)

Ach, never mind.

I'd failed to spot the design document's note: “This document describes inventions by NewGamePlus Inc. that are patent-pending with the USPTO.”


Cheers

Graham

Thanks for responding, I'm keen to see how you get on with developing a brand identity, values, story, etc.

My main objection is that you're replacing reasonably straightforwardly recognisable labels with labels that must first be decoded as puns. This adds to the mental load rather than reducing it.

Just for clarity, I'm not questioning the approach (of attending to branding) but the implementation. Unless you've got support from either desk research or quantitative work, then you're merely guessing at the effectiveness of the linguistic differentiation that you're proposing will somehow play into your branding. How will it translate across languages? (Hint: not at all).

Also, (largely because I think you've actually got something substantial and could with real support to keep you on the straight and narrow), I'm going to call your bluff on “... using on a daily basis, so a developer can search ...” I reckon that's just a guess on your part because you have no evidence for its pertinence to this context. Sounds as if there's little to no current MR support to drive this aspect of the development of a brand identity.

You're not the first person to have had the notion; all previous attempts to rope in punning linguistic markers to promote brand identity have basically sunk without trace because the proponents ignored the fact that what's humorously quirky to one is pretty much guaranteed to be irritatingly unfunny to another. It's not as effective a tactic as you seem to believe and its inability to cross alphabets is likely to prove a major disadvantage in a global market.

It also has the penalty that if the project is in any way successful, the IP in the brand naming will need to be protected proactively --- which means enforcing “Qointract™” (or whatever) in every usage.

From a branding perspective, it promises to be way more trouble that it's demonstrably worth.

Cheers

Graham

You're killing me.

For marketable high-level concepts I believe it's more important to focus on branding to differentiate our ideas from those of our competitors. The puns are of course part of the branding -- Qoinapps (Blockchain Applications), Qointracts (Smart Contracts), Transaqoins (Smart Transactions?), Entangled Chains (Multi-Chains). These are things users and developers will be using on a daily basis, so a developer can search for say "qointracts" instead of "smart contracts" and find a relevant answer pertaining to Qointum.

We have more sensible names for technical concepts -- Maximally Vetted Delegate Chain, etc.

As a pun, it's rather twee and I predict that you will regret deeply the expense of the indulgence. Successfully expressing complex concepts clearly and concisely is difficult enough as it is without gratuitous distractions, however humorously intended.

Cheers

Graham

Yeah it was too tempting of a pun.

Qointracts