Topic: [PRE-ANN][ZEN][Pre-sale] Zennet: Decentralized Supercomputer - Official Thread - page 10. (Read 57089 times)

The project is really cool. I will partecipate too with some chip :-)

Looking forward for the presale!! FINALLY a chance to join the ship before it leaves the harbor! 
A year or so from now many people are gonna eat their hat for not participating earlier, I'M IN guys!

Please let me know when I can give you money. Take it just take it. This is amazing.

There will be no IPO but pre-sale. Pre-sale of a commodity, not a currency
Our lawyers are finishing the last steps. Give it a few days more. We will announce here the exact date.

I lost the video. Mai ve we Have a date for the IPO?
Thanks

Join the Presentation today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8mTCtv8d8

Please ask your questions during or before the event at our IRC channel: #Zennet at Freenode. Quick link

I do like to spent a bit more time on that though the real importance of Zenet is in it being the first token-coin attached to  a service platform which operates soley on the token. Again, Ethereum present that same prospect but as a less advanced mechanism. The triumph of Zennet is that it actually managed to facilitate an almost direct connection between payment and service received. In other word it is like swapping service for a comedy without a third party involvement.Thus it cut the need to a contract carried out and enforced  by that third party. This type of direct contract, is the thing that has been achieved by the bitcoin  protocol. But so far had been applied only to direct transaction of the coin itself, not any attached service or commodity. Micropayment is in did not Zennet's invention' but linking it to a service that allow the exchange of a  commodity per time unit with a coin micro units and both being controlled by an algorithm secured and powered by the user community. that is the breakthrough to my understanding. (This which i came across and understand very little of, is some what similar in nature I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_transaction )

As I have said before, This evolution of the crypto-currency ecosystem will allow very soon to transfer information of all kind in quanta upon payment without involving a third centralized patry and that is a big step to humanity This allow for a true free market mechanism to set the price and facilitate  risk mitigation like in future commodity trade.

Now, since most people can not comprehend this in terms of the breakthrough that it is, or just dont understand enough like myself , you guys in Zennet have to device a better reward system which will encourage early investors.
The way you have constructed that is not offering early investors great enough returns on their investment. and thus might not be the best way to determine  the value of the coin. So I will suggest two option which are probably too complex to actually be perceived and execute. but I would ask you again to reconsider keeping more coin for yourselves after the sell ends. The community investors should not fear a Mastercoin event recurrence. Since your platform need the token for its operation, unlike Mastercoin for example.  Thus coins will regain value if the product is sound.

Option one:
Set the minimum price value of a coin ( say one coin is 8 cent) and have investor determine the number of coins rather the value of it. So if we had only $1000 invested then the number of coins will be only 80,000. It may sound dumb but this way you can assure that early investor in did have 10% of all coins, if having 10% of the coins is attractive to investors, which I think it's not.
(The "gambling" prospect you offer in you present model by not setting up the price is a turnoff point to serious investors, though would work for your benefit assuming you can create a good buzz, since most investors are gamblers.)

Option two
Since I dont think that letting the community set up the value the of coins is sustainable for you and definitely can leave you streaped out of good profit for your hard work, I would think that a coin reward system that  grant investors with more benefit the earlier they come in is the best strategy. Regardless of market price these investors should benefit in zennet coin on early investment  Thus for each coin sold on pre-sell, the investor is practically given a one time "present" of  one other coin once the genesis block is launched . All these pre-sell tokens can be issued on counterparty wallet and be transferable and traded before the genesis block issue. On counterparty you can issue these pre sell units in instalments such that the first Issued instalment is  grand the buyers with 2 real zennt per one tokent and the second instalment grant the buyer with 1.5 real zennet per token unit (each instalment will have to be  issued as a different token but this have no bearing on the real Zennt, For easy use you can name it something like pre-zennte-1, pre-zennte-2 and so forth )


 
   

Definitely right. I apologized for my English several times here, and also pointed that some misunderstandings are because of my English. Yet, it's not that a disaster, since it's a discussion, and I guess the situation isn't that bad. One even answered that I have a good English. I disagree
At any case, the formal documents (like the About Zennet article) went through talented native English speakers.


That's of course correct. Sure there are limits for how a job can scale and with which efficiency. Zennet is indeed designed for distributed tasks only (both types you mentioned, if I got you correctly), as on my assumptions comment above. I might needed to put a few more ~~ and <<. It is indeed a rough estimation, just to draw the meaning for people not necessarily know much about distributed computing.


Yes, forward-looking, but less a prediction, more like a tendencies compared to currencies, stock etc.
English corrections accepted

As your project proceeds, you will likely need more support with your English: economic == the discipline, economical == thrifty. Fortunately, mangled syntax English robust against is. Except for 2. (below) where the tense makes a crucial difference in this particular context ...


That statement makes an implicit assumption that the task is always amenable to parallel processing. Have you examined the range and depth of that assumption in terms of how much of the anticipated business depends upon it? Is it intended that the solution space be limited to such tasks --- or at least those tasks which are amenable to a parallel solution and can be identified as such, characterised and quantified in some reliable and accurate fashion?

FWIW, you don't mean "~10". The most favourable statement that you can truthfully make is "up to 10 times" and I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to provide solid support that ~10 is the general case and not, in fact, some difficult-to-quantify smaller subset.


Can I just check (in case it's not merely a trivial issue of EFL) --- this is actually a forward-looking statement, a prediction of a future state rather than a description of an existing state? Because if it is a forward-looking statement, I'd really like to know how you got to “usually”.


Cheers

Graham

Public Google Hangouts, with me answering Q&A, will take place at 11/11 21:00 GMT.
Soon a link will be published here so people will be able to submit questions before we go on air.

well if one could sync the vid (which is currently way async) and cut from the screen irrelavant parts (it show some of my skype friends etc.) i'll be glad. will try to find one.
nevertheless, i can put audio only.
we also plan a public google hangout with me on video for people to come and ask questions.

EDIT: here's the video http://vimeo.com/111871002

Did you get a cleaned up copy of the talk video uploaded somewhere, too?  I'm sure people here would love to see it!

The presentation from InsideBTC conference.
This one is from Crowd Computing conference a while before.

The Micropayments protocol is of course not Zennet's invention, but taken from here.

Using micro payment actually increase security in means of payment. Yha each payment can be tempered more easily but if I use that  technology you develop  with the internet of things in the future' or just my car's computer in the present, my car manufacturer release  the car computer capability in increments as the payment process progress. Once the entire sum has been transferred the key in you hand get the activation code and you may drive away.  To secure the process of payments it can be spread on a longer period of time and in smaller increments which is not a problem for large purchases. You can even let the person take the car and deactivate the key if he never ended up paying...... Hey I may just crafted my idea for the future  TOYOTA Coin 

HunterMinerCrafter and myself are at #zennet on freenode
all welcome to discuss Zennet

It's still private. We don't publish it because of competition considerations and willing to protect buyers. Yet, we have published a lot of technological data, namely the whole design up to small details, which is quite rare. Hence we have to keep of some reasonable amount of protection against early competition.
Of course, all code will be GNU GPL or something like that, eventually.

Well, there is Spreadcoin but I consider the "jury still out" on it.  Possibly some "hardened spreadcoin" might work some day.  I might even try implementing such a thing before long.


Understand that the only monetary reward for providing the work would be tx fees, no new coin-base subsidies, so it is unlikely that there would ever be a time where mining work would be more profitable than providing service.  I think we can assume that providers (rational providers, acting in their best interests as you say) would apply only excess resource, that they are not renting out, toward mining.  As such, I think all that we can infer is that a PoW hash-rate might be of higher natural variance because of this, and little more can be said.


There is no real reason that block times in PoW couldn't be similarly reduced.  (Misconceptions about this abound, though, so perhaps I will need to say more?)


How do you figure?  This sounds a lot like rhetoric to me, can you please expand upon your reasoning?


I'm not sure if this is a meaningful comparison.  These relative numbers seem rather arbitrary to me.... shouldn't any meaningful comparison account for relative network size?  Isn't any measure of security derived from a metric of participation?  (Can it be otherwise?)


I think this sentiment arises mostly out of comparison of the "self evident" security of PoW versus the "implied" security of PoS.  We have now solid formal models around the relationship between PoW incentives and the relative security it provides.  We lack comparable formal treatment of PoS, though I understand there are those attempting to rectify this.  In other words, I think this is largely born out of "fear of the unknown" which may actually be a legitimate fear for Zennet to carry.

Finally, a simple argument can be made that PoS models are relatively new and not well "battle tested" where PoW has been attacked from pretty much every possible angle and has held strong.

Anyway, while this is all intellectually interesting I think it is possibly largely out of context.  Much of what we are discussing here has nothing at all to do with Zennet itself, and is just general discussion about PoS versus PoW.  I think this is a holy war that should perhaps be fought elsewhere.

@gatra - Can you describe what you consider to be "the drawbacks of PoS", because all PoS systems are different and have a different set of pros or cons. One drawback in one PoS algorithm may not be applicable to others.

@both of you - DPoS works under the realization that all forms of PoW tend towards centralization anyways, and it gives a way for stakeholders to manage that centralization. I see it as being better than PoW in terms of centralization.

PoW centralizes around centralized mining pools where users aggregate their hash power. For instance, with Bitcoin about 50% of the hash power is centralized to 3 Bitcoin pools. I would venture to say DPoS is less centralized than this, seeing as though there are 101 delegates that thus control less than 1% of the network's processing power. Furthermore, centralization is mitigated by being able to vote in and out delegates... stake holders choose who secures the block chain and if they are doing a poor job of it then they can be removed. This also provides another benefit as with PoW you cannot decide who profits off of securing the blockchain, but with DPoS you can vote in delegates that are developing code for the project, marketing, or building 3rd party services. It is a form of funding development for the cryptocurrency that uses DPoS.

If the PoW algorithm you choose, or you make a new one an Zennet is wildly successful, is a popular one then ASICs are sure to be made eventually as soon as it is economically feasible. This centralizes mining power to big mines which are setup in places where power is cheap and cold environments where the equipment can be cooled cheaply. Furthermore, people with deep pockets get advantages by developing their own hardware for a fraction of the cost consumers can purchase it and via bulk discounts. With DPoS this type of centralization will not occur.

You guys bring up a good point here and this (although you don't seem to realize it) is another reason against PoW. Zennet will be renting out people's processing power, and it is foolish to think that the people renting out this processing power will not act in their best interests. The Zennet supercomputer could become unusable during times when mining is more profitable than renting out the processing power, rendering the service useless for a matter of time. With DPoS this would not be cause for concern.

It is ironic that all of these topics can be tied into DPoS... DPoS is more suited for micro payments than Bitcoin... as I said it is a fast and efficient consensus algorithm. Block times can be reduced to as fast as 10 seconds with an average confirmation time of 5 seconds, and each confirmation is more secure than one Bitcoin confirmation (or any other coin that is based off of Bitcoin's PoW). In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates.

I don't think DPoS should be written off as a valid option until all of the details are discussed. There is a lot of misinformation that exists about it and some are "set in their ways" so to speak around these forums as to PoW being the only answer for consensus. I know there are a lot of other people that disagree with this sentiment, although they might not be here posting in this needle in the haystack.