Topic: [PoS+PoW] eXocoin [EXO]-gen 2.0- dev. from scratch! Give-Away | Open Beta - page 272. (Read 415654 times)

As a full-early investor I of course want the access to this coin at launch.    However, I hope that most of the early birds have more vision than just wanting to take all the coins.

If this coin is going to have a real chance,  the maximum number of people need to feel that they have a shot at this.   I now agree wtih Anon that 50% mining is likely the best balance.    

I think some kind of proportional system as has been discussed is a nice balance.  2nd round investors know they are buying into a much more secured investment.  So that 1.0 ratio early bird,  vs .8 or .75 ratio for the second round etc.  Makes sense?

Im not wining. I suggest a fair distribution for 1 and 2 round investments. As I said before, the devs didnt expect this amount of investments. If they did, the distribution was constructed more fair for first and second round investments. But I'm glad there are enough people here agreeing with my thoughts.

Voting would be the best in this case, democratic voting is the most fair thing to do in this case.

Go whine somewhere else if u missed the first round investments.

Well I am very happy to see the whitepaper has been released. With that behind us, I do have some questions now. Although I did skim the whitepaper, I can't say I thoroughly grasped or read everything, it's a bit distracting where I am right now, so the questions I am about to ask, please bear with me if they have been addressed in the paper and I somehow missed it.

POS + POW - I realize this is a hybrid, but honestly, what is the true purpose of the 50% mining? Is this only to pacify those that would want to mine? 6 months is going to go by really fast. I just don't see the sense at all if in the end, it is a POS currency. Other than getting into long conversations regarding distribution etc.. I do think the radical move NXT took regarding a pure 100% POS has proven to be a strength. My opinion is the amount of time should be increased (for sustainability) or the amount lowered, or both.

I'm sure we are all surprised (I am) by the initial stake invested thus far. 150+ BTC round 1 IPO. Keep in mind, total EXO is 1/10th the amount of NXT (which was launched with 21 BTC). So if rounds 2 and 3 have success anywhere near the first round, we are talking a serious amount of money and should really consider all aspects.

As the developers have mentioned, the whitepaper is a working paper, so now is the time for us to brain storm and guide them by consensus regarding the distribution and features. This is what they have requested. So I am not going to get into discussions of greed etc.. as I am an investor, therefore ROI and sustainability is paramount. Many aspects of NXT were already planned by BCNext, so there was not as much need of feedback from the community in the beginning, this has now changed and the community is encouraged to guide the project forward.

I think we are also in a great position since the developers are requesting our guidance right from the beginning prior to launch.

I do have a few other questions and I"m sure I skipped right over them in the white paper, so please forgive me for perhaps missing them if that is the case.

Blocktime - 10 minutes? Is there any particular reason why? How many transaction will fit into that block? Is there a specific reason you did not consider a 60 second block?

Lowest Denominator - What is the lowest representation of EXO .01, .001, xxxxxxxx etc.. In my opinion, and just my opinion, I believe 100 billion coins with .01 is best (and not to dilute, so let me expand). I understand this is so far off from the developers idea, but I do have my reasons. If this is a true Gen 2 Currency, then worldwide adoption is paramount, or a portion of the world. So, in order to be an effective medium of exchange, there needs to be enough of the currency to go around in whole numbers. Some individuals will have thousands of exo, some only tens. I think a huge amount of coins is not a problem if the purpose of the large amount is to accommodate true usability in everyday life.

This also assists in the IPO %'s and there will be less discussion regarding distribution.

Anticipated TPS (Transactions Per Second)?

I believe all discussions regarding distribution/ modifying IPO etc.. are not an issue if discussed in a public forum and perhaps adjusted via consensus if that is agreeable to most and the developers themselves. I am fine either way, but as I stated, the amount of funds already raised is a serious amount of money and by the time we are done. Hence, if the coin or it's features challenges, we should address them now and in the open for transparency.

Being a backdoor or not, it can be avoided by choosing a good random number generator:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-backdoor/all/

You are confusing RSA, the public-private key cryptography, which is a well known public domain algorithm, with rsa the name of a company.

Zero. No sellers - no buyers. If you want to speculate, speculate about the price in 6 or 12 months.

anyone care to speculate the coin's price at launch

The implementation of RSA over Curve25519 (per the whitepaper) is questionable...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57616205-83/security-firm-rsa-took-millions-from-nsa-report/

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/it/rsa-flaw-found

Everything sounds reasonable. My suggestion will be - quit everything except 1 stage investors. It will be honest - really they took a risk. But please do not talk any more about "fair distribution" and such shit. Can be good coin, with successful ipo (it is already an achievement), nothing more nothing less.   

about the white paper, i thought what about:
asset exchange/smart property?
with exchange of btc<->exo, eventually other currencies?

The devs never expected that the IPO first stage would atrract so many investors and BTC. Otherwise they had made another construction for the investors, because of the escrow service of Anon a lot of people felled confident enough to take the risk.

My suggestion is still:

Skip the email give away, skip the superblock, skip the third round, shrink the mining with 20% and add all of this to the first and second round investments. With 170 btc investments, ONLY IN THE FIRST ROUND, and the second round has to come yet, that would be fair against all the investors, because the investors are the ones that are taking the biggest risk here.

I think it should be boosted but not too much, and maybe email less than bounties for example:

+1 totally agree with this solution.

Fair distribution means different ways to get initial eXocoin.
Miners can mine.
Investor can invest.
Sceptical can give email.

% is not best way, because we don't know how many people will be in each stage. Why not just set price for eXo for different stages and email giveaway. For example for early bird 100,000 eXo for 1btc, second stage 60,000 eXo for 1btc, 30,000 for 3 stage. For each email 100 eXo.

hi Anon136
I think I also made the same mistake

I also sent 0.21 BTC to 1CdK3k3kgyn8rhhUihcF1ZpFmwmzFLai6Y at 19:18:39 2014-02-21
tx id:80332b994e01066fd994f4b2fbe517db2564a083f5aaf7839ab163068d79dde4
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=430467.msg5291450#msg5291450

 Can spreadsheet updated at present?

As i stated before, the 10% mail proportion is strange. But all the talk about changing the IPO in this thread is so.... come on guys, relax and enjoy the ride. Don't get too greedy.

And talk about the whitepaper, please.

About the mining part of the wallpaper:

The mining algorithm does have a second great advantage for all miners:
The more hashpower you have the faster you will submit a valid result. Let’s say you can get a result
in 2 minutes. The other 8 minutes till the next block start you cannot calculate anything more – you
are done. You will have about 75% less power consumption from your graphic card (!)
This is not an on-top feature – it is a result of the algorithm itself.


What's the use of getting more hashpower if you can only save electricty? I don't get this point. Maybe I misunderstand.. let's take my example:

Let's say 1 kh/s is needed for 1 result in 10 minutes (on average).

If someone with 10 kh/s is mining he will probably be done after +/- 1 minute. And his precious mining power will not be used for 9 minutes. In that way it is better to have 10 different nodes of 1 kh/s because he has chance of getting 10 results.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this way more concentrated hashpower means less results then divided hashpower.

EDIT:

The content of the solved block will be distributed between all valid results. The earlier a node submitted a result the more he will get from that block proportionally.


Didn't read that in the whitepaper. I actually think it's a really great idea.. although I have to calculate it to find out how it would actually work.

Let me make it simple:
1 stage investors want to cut other 2-3 stage, email stage and mining.
Those who have good mining equipment care only about price of the coin.
Those who intend to join 2-3 stages do not want to change the %, but not against of closing email giveaway and mining at all.
All investors generally will not riot if mining is forbidden at all .

It is up to the coin devs. Also those who are making the strategical decisions are the real owners. So if devs will decide to make a cut in a favor of 1 stage investors, latter must be consider owners (that is not bad but in this case they must organize themselves). All imo.