@Wulf @Karma @all
Please keep in mind that these discussions (as in my initial response to Wulf about this a while back) are in response to questions on a Plan B, C, or DEF for Crypti IF for some reason we are unable to get a working PoT system functioning in the way we already intended. We have not at any point slowed down or abandoned working towards the solution we originally proposed and as mentioned, are working with an outside consultant on some possible options as we speak.
What Mal is suggesting is that we make those secondary efforts our Plan A. I want to be completely 100% CLEAR here and state that The Crypti Foundation at has not, at any point, voted to make this change or progress with one of the possible secondary efforts to build a different form of Crypti. We ARE building background contingencies, but it is our full intention to continue developing the same solution we proposed from day 1. The conversation we are having here is about possible contingencies only at this point and is just an interesting conversation about possible innovations in the industry and ways to build out a network for a second generation currency.
I hope that clears up some possible confusion and relieves some of the worry that we will simply abandon forgers. Our goal right now is to find a solution to build the system that we said we would, build it, and then bring it to market.
Please Keep in mind that anything I say in regards to my thoughts or views on proposed solutions or systems here is only my view and comments and that the Crypti Foundation requires a majority vote of the Board members in order to make any changes, small or large, to the fundamental system. So even if I like the ideas here from time to time, or talk positively about them, it does not mean anything has changed.
We would have serious discussions here, initiated by us and probably with polls, before making any fundamental changes.
Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 208. (Read 804701 times)
October 25, 2014, 06:11:12 PM
October 25, 2014, 02:06:40 PM
So there are two possible ways to build this out and make it work. In one, we have the merchants running point-of-sale terminals acting as nodes to extend the network through pre-defined hardware that we either donate or subsidize for the merchant. This allows us to control what hardware is running the network, get merchants on board by demoing the hardware and setting it up for them, and makes the network scalable in an easy and straightforward way.
There is a secondary way to do it in which individual users continue to be the sole forgers on the network. In this method, we would build a payment processing system like BitPay that we would make available as a point-of-sale application for android and iPad that could be run from cheap android tablets and allow merchants to accept XCR without actually running any hardware on the network. This version requires PoT motivation for individual users to run nodes, is much more difficult to manage and scale, and has a different set of complications. It would however, build a core community of those users running nodes. This was the original system we had decided to build. Our troubles and hurdles in building it are already very public and I think you understand exactly what happened.
In the second method, if you don't require forgers to compete with established merchant nodes, you don't end up cannibalizing your user run nodes. That doesn't really matter in the long run because you will always still hit a saturation point at which new nodes become unprofitable. Depending on network volume, price valuation, and number of nodes, you still end up with the same problem as you mentioned. In this sense, I think you are right, there is no way for you to allow new users to come on board and earn XCR in any worthwhile amount without self saturating in a "forging" type system.
I think our goal in the user run network wasn't to allow everyone to set one up, start forging, and get rich, but rather to ensure that there was enough motivation to build a core team of "networkers" who would be running the network and scaling it as the price and volume went up. I acknowledge that everyone won't be able to play this game, but the number could be high enough to meet the size of the enthusiast marketplace when we get the transaction volume and price up. I don't think we can properly predict or do analysis right now on exactly what those numbers will look like because we have no idea what the valuation could eventually be or how much interest there will be in running a node. If you have ideas on how to do a predictive model and come up with potential numbers I would be interested in seeing what the breaking points would be at certain volume / valuation levels (in regards to how many nodes the network could support profitably).
At the end of the day I agree with you that doing this project right may require thinking outside the box and bucking the trend. It may also require making the hard choice to go against what would probably be the communities wishes (i.e. that they still run the network) and just focusing on merchants and building a better payments system. We often say (or at least, I do) that our goal isn't to dethrone Bitcoin or NXT, but rather that our competition is Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe. To compete against these guys we need low transaction fees, but we also need a simple, fast, and secure (plus stable) network. This needs to be our primary motivating factor.
I have to run for now but I would love to continue the discussion. I value this type of exchange.
There is a secondary way to do it in which individual users continue to be the sole forgers on the network. In this method, we would build a payment processing system like BitPay that we would make available as a point-of-sale application for android and iPad that could be run from cheap android tablets and allow merchants to accept XCR without actually running any hardware on the network. This version requires PoT motivation for individual users to run nodes, is much more difficult to manage and scale, and has a different set of complications. It would however, build a core community of those users running nodes. This was the original system we had decided to build. Our troubles and hurdles in building it are already very public and I think you understand exactly what happened.
In the second method, if you don't require forgers to compete with established merchant nodes, you don't end up cannibalizing your user run nodes. That doesn't really matter in the long run because you will always still hit a saturation point at which new nodes become unprofitable. Depending on network volume, price valuation, and number of nodes, you still end up with the same problem as you mentioned. In this sense, I think you are right, there is no way for you to allow new users to come on board and earn XCR in any worthwhile amount without self saturating in a "forging" type system.
I think our goal in the user run network wasn't to allow everyone to set one up, start forging, and get rich, but rather to ensure that there was enough motivation to build a core team of "networkers" who would be running the network and scaling it as the price and volume went up. I acknowledge that everyone won't be able to play this game, but the number could be high enough to meet the size of the enthusiast marketplace when we get the transaction volume and price up. I don't think we can properly predict or do analysis right now on exactly what those numbers will look like because we have no idea what the valuation could eventually be or how much interest there will be in running a node. If you have ideas on how to do a predictive model and come up with potential numbers I would be interested in seeing what the breaking points would be at certain volume / valuation levels (in regards to how many nodes the network could support profitably).
At the end of the day I agree with you that doing this project right may require thinking outside the box and bucking the trend. It may also require making the hard choice to go against what would probably be the communities wishes (i.e. that they still run the network) and just focusing on merchants and building a better payments system. We often say (or at least, I do) that our goal isn't to dethrone Bitcoin or NXT, but rather that our competition is Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe. To compete against these guys we need low transaction fees, but we also need a simple, fast, and secure (plus stable) network. This needs to be our primary motivating factor.
I have to run for now but I would love to continue the discussion. I value this type of exchange.
Hello GreXX,
As a committed member of the community I have been paying very close attention to the recent thread of conversation.
Since Crypti was officially launched I have fully embraced the Crypti's egalitarian concept of forging. Developing CryptiKit (https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit), was my way of helping my fellow crypti forgers to grow and support the network more efficiently.
So let me be clear, I am firmly against dropping PoT if at all possible. I say this as a potential merchant that would likely provide significant sales volume within the United Kingdom.
I want Crypti to be an inclusive community not an exclusive one!
I fully understand the crypto world is a high risk and unforgiving environment. I used to be a semi-professional cyclist so know how to deal with the pain of loosing and walking away with nothing. All I ask is that before you decide to make CryptiKit effectively defunct, please give me a heads up so I can stop grafting away for nothing.
Cheers, Karmacoma24.
October 25, 2014, 01:40:30 PM
So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature?
So there are two possible ways to build this out and make it work. In one, we have the merchants running point-of-sale terminals acting as nodes to extend the network through pre-defined hardware that we either donate or subsidize for the merchant. This allows us to control what hardware is running the network, get merchants on board by demoing the hardware and setting it up for them, and makes the network scalable in an easy and straightforward way.
The problem with this, is that no one will buy point-of-sale terminals. There is not a single merchant that currently uses Crypti, the number of nodes will be so low anyone with enough funds at their disposal could buy a few nodes and fork the network. By doing this you will be placing a major bet on merchants to come through and run their nodes, but I guarantee you if you go down this road there will be no coming back. At this stage there is frankly no merchant who will choose to run a Crypti node, when they don't even accept Crypti in the first place.
Secondly this essentially is locking down the network to merchants only as since they would be the only nodes on the network, they would be the ones controlling the network. In a way it is kind of centralizing the network to merchants only (even though nodes are split up amongst merchants). Imagine if Bitcoin nodes could only be run by exchanges, how different Bitcoin would be. One of the fundamentals of Bitcoin is that anyone can download Bitcoin core and immediately become a full part of the network. With the hardware based merchant model you are using, the wallet we would be accessing would only be the front-end of the network. The whole model seems a lot like a server-client model, essentially merchants with nodes would be the "back-end" of the network and our wallets would be the front-end. In my opinion, that seems like taking a step (if not a few) backwards from Bitcoin.
Thirdly, hardware itself is not fully reliable. Depending on what you are putting together to a form a point-of-sale terminal, you could run into a whole load of hardware issues, software issues, defective hardware etc. You would need dedicated customer support for the merchants who can't set up their nodes (and trust me there will be those merchants), for returns, and for general help. The amount of funds and manpower needed to setup such an operation would be very high. You would be looking somewhere around $50 000 just to start up (without extra costs), that's already 1/7th of your IPO funds gone. Again going back to my second point, you've now established Crypti as a business and not a decentralized crypto-currency.
You've centralized Crypti by :
1. Providing only 1 way for merchants to run nodes (Through pre-defined hardware bought from the Crypti Team).
2. Only allowing merchants to run nodes.
Crypti would no longer be an open platform, but rather a locked down platform. Now going back to my first point, take a look at Bitcoin core (downloadable software based wallet) and Trezor (a purchasable hardware-based wallet). Bitcoin core has had probably 5-6 Million downloads, whereas Trezor has had probably 2000 purchases. I realize that it may not be the best comparison, but the fundamentals still remain the same.
With Bitcoin core (a node on the Bitcoin network), I can download and set it up within 5 minutes (granted the blockchain will take about a day to download), whereas with Trezor I would likely have to wait 2-3 weeks for shipping, then if it is DOA, or is defective, that's another 2-3 weeks to ship it back, plus another months delay to receive a new one. When you make Crypti nodes as point-of-sale terminals you are going down the "Trezor" road I described above, and when there are problems, and there will be, you will be losing potential nodes faster than Auroracoins' mega price dropped. Becuase who is going to wait a possible 2 months just to run a Crypti node?
Instead of going the hardware route with point-of-sale terminals limited to merchants only, rather just leave the nodes as they currently are, downloadable and software-based which anyone can setup and use. Going the hardware route will be the death of Crypti.
October 25, 2014, 10:09:17 AM
So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature?
So there are two possible ways to build this out and make it work. In one, we have the merchants running point-of-sale terminals acting as nodes to extend the network through pre-defined hardware that we either donate or subsidize for the merchant. This allows us to control what hardware is running the network, get merchants on board by demoing the hardware and setting it up for them, and makes the network scalable in an easy and straightforward way.
There is a secondary way to do it in which individual users continue to be the sole forgers on the network. In this method, we would build a payment processing system like BitPay that we would make available as a point-of-sale application for android and iPad that could be run from cheap android tablets and allow merchants to accept XCR without actually running any hardware on the network. This version requires PoT motivation for individual users to run nodes, is much more difficult to manage and scale, and has a different set of complications. It would however, build a core community of those users running nodes. This was the original system we had decided to build. Our troubles and hurdles in building it are already very public and I think you understand exactly what happened.
In the second method, if you don't require forgers to compete with established merchant nodes, you don't end up cannibalizing your user run nodes. That doesn't really matter in the long run because you will always still hit a saturation point at which new nodes become unprofitable. Depending on network volume, price valuation, and number of nodes, you still end up with the same problem as you mentioned. In this sense, I think you are right, there is no way for you to allow new users to come on board and earn XCR in any worthwhile amount without self saturating in a "forging" type system.
I think our goal in the user run network wasn't to allow everyone to set one up, start forging, and get rich, but rather to ensure that there was enough motivation to build a core team of "networkers" who would be running the network and scaling it as the price and volume went up. I acknowledge that everyone won't be able to play this game, but the number could be high enough to meet the size of the enthusiast marketplace when we get the transaction volume and price up. I don't think we can properly predict or do analysis right now on exactly what those numbers will look like because we have no idea what the valuation could eventually be or how much interest there will be in running a node. If you have ideas on how to do a predictive model and come up with potential numbers I would be interested in seeing what the breaking points would be at certain volume / valuation levels (in regards to how many nodes the network could support profitably).
At the end of the day I agree with you that doing this project right may require thinking outside the box and bucking the trend. It may also require making the hard choice to go against what would probably be the communities wishes (i.e. that they still run the network) and just focusing on merchants and building a better payments system. We often say (or at least, I do) that our goal isn't to dethrone Bitcoin or NXT, but rather that our competition is Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe. To compete against these guys we need low transaction fees, but we also need a simple, fast, and secure (plus stable) network. This needs to be our primary motivating factor.
I have to run for now but I would love to continue the discussion. I value this type of exchange.
October 25, 2014, 09:40:19 AM
So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature?
what Mal is suggesting makes sense, looking forward to GreXX's view on this..
Hmm I agree too.
I don't really know in depth tech, I just know I don't care for PoT nearly as much as Custom chains or partnerships.
I know Crypti team maybe spent hours on working a solution to PoT, maybe they missed that the best would be no PoT.
Tough pill to swallow if so would be the case but I agree with Mal.. it makes sense from what I could understand.
That being said what Bitseed was working on is already in motion, but perhaps it could work as to forge other coins (?) and buy XCR similar to a multipool?
So that those who want to forge XCR has other ways, I am not sure if this is possible at all maybe someone else can shed some light on that haha.
Would be cool with 0% fees given that we're going for commerce powerhouse here, also it would be a insanely good pitch to merchants.
Could really open up to huge potential deals outside of crypto.
I look forward too what Grexx has to say on this, truth be told I did not really know what he was doing at start, but clearly knows his shit.
Maybe set up a teampage on the next webpage with everyones positions
October 25, 2014, 09:36:02 AM
The internal master nodes would keep a ledger of who is authorized and added to the network as well as what subnet they exist and are allowed to communicate with.
OMG! 
Nice decentralization concept 
Who said it was a decentralization concept?
October 25, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
lol i tryed getting someone here to buy at 750 instead someone dumped on me 
from 2600 to 600..... hahha just me n my trading skills first coin i say i would hold
can only laugh at myself but if someone can put up a 1.5 btc wall at 750 since i have some urgent things i have too pay will appreciate it...
best of luck to rest of you guys.. i think i tcan probably go to 300 before something happends
from 2600 to 600..... hahha just me n my trading skills first coin i say i would hold
can only laugh at myself but if someone can put up a 1.5 btc wall at 750 since i have some urgent things i have too pay will appreciate it...
best of luck to rest of you guys.. i think i tcan probably go to 300 before something happends
i'm very sorry,but that's not how a market works
buying from you at 750 would mean a 20% loss against buying at the current highest buy order right now. October 25, 2014, 08:10:29 AM
lol i tryed getting someone here to buy at 750 instead someone dumped on me
from 2600 to 600..... hahha just me n my trading skills first coin i say i would hold
can only laugh at myself but if someone can put up a 1.5 btc wall at 750 since i have some urgent things i have too pay will appreciate it...
best of luck to rest of you guys.. i think i tcan probably go to 300 before something happends
from 2600 to 600..... hahha just me n my trading skills first coin i say i would hold
can only laugh at myself but if someone can put up a 1.5 btc wall at 750 since i have some urgent things i have too pay will appreciate it...
best of luck to rest of you guys.. i think i tcan probably go to 300 before something happends
October 25, 2014, 06:53:49 AM
The internal master nodes would keep a ledger of who is authorized and added to the network as well as what subnet they exist and are allowed to communicate with.
OMG! Nice decentralization concept October 24, 2014, 02:27:44 PM
CryptiKit Update - Simple & easy Crypti node deployment and management.
Hello Everyone
, New release tag for CryptiKit.
Please download here: https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/releases/tag/v1.6.3
If you don't know about CryptiKit and what it can do already, please read here:
- https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/blob/v1.6.3/README.md
Changelog
For more information see:
https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/blob/v1.6.3/README.md#typical-usage
Cheers, Karmacoma24.
Hello Everyone
, New release tag for CryptiKit.Please download here: https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/releases/tag/v1.6.3
If you don't know about CryptiKit and what it can do already, please read here:
- https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/blob/v1.6.3/README.md
Changelog
- Reporting when nodes are being synchronised
- Optionally adding passphrase to remote server when starting to forge
- Stating more clearly when forging has been successfully enabled or disabled
For more information see:
https://github.com/karmacoma/cryptikit/blob/v1.6.3/README.md#typical-usage
Cheers,
Karmacoma24. October 24, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature?
what Mal is suggesting makes sense, looking forward to GreXX's view on this..
October 24, 2014, 12:33:06 PM
In essence, the network would weed itself out in this manner naturally. Once it grew to a certain number of merchants, who were running their own nodes / implementation, whether it be through ATMs, Point of Sale terminals, etc, the network would start to adjust itself based on the RoI. People would only run a node and forge so long as it was profitable. We see this in Bitcoin mining.
Early adoption would be from individual users who would be supporting the network and forging, but over time it would adapt to be run by those who weren't concerned with RoI due to the declining rewards as more nodes enter the network and limit the amount of blocks each node forges. This, as you said, leads you to assume it would be vendors running a Point of Sale terminal. I had already considered the possibility and likelihood that this would eventually occur organically, but the initial adoption and user base is an important aspect of building and making Crypti successful in my mind.
Fundamentally speaking, if you are going to eliminate PoT and build the network irrespective and unconcerned with user base issues, why not just build a centralized network internally and then build it out through PoS terminals to vendors without ever involving any form of community in the actual running of the nodes? At that point all you would need is a strong web wallet with multi-sig, 3 factor auth on transfers, and added features such as a merchant directory and built in promotions, etc. You could focus the majority of your development around merchant outreach and the web wallet.
You still run into the same issue with early adoption. Merchants won't sign up if no one is there to spend it and users won't sign up if they get nothing in return. Chicken / Egg.
Early adoption would be from individual users who would be supporting the network and forging, but over time it would adapt to be run by those who weren't concerned with RoI due to the declining rewards as more nodes enter the network and limit the amount of blocks each node forges. This, as you said, leads you to assume it would be vendors running a Point of Sale terminal. I had already considered the possibility and likelihood that this would eventually occur organically, but the initial adoption and user base is an important aspect of building and making Crypti successful in my mind.
Fundamentally speaking, if you are going to eliminate PoT and build the network irrespective and unconcerned with user base issues, why not just build a centralized network internally and then build it out through PoS terminals to vendors without ever involving any form of community in the actual running of the nodes? At that point all you would need is a strong web wallet with multi-sig, 3 factor auth on transfers, and added features such as a merchant directory and built in promotions, etc. You could focus the majority of your development around merchant outreach and the web wallet.
You still run into the same issue with early adoption. Merchants won't sign up if no one is there to spend it and users won't sign up if they get nothing in return. Chicken / Egg.
GreXX, I think all of you guys are doing exactly the right thing under pressure of initial failure, with getting outside review and keeping your commitment to reaching your final stated goal. Just keep going as you are. If there's a way out of this mess, I believe you will find it.
You and I are on exactly the same wavelength in a lot of ways, particularly based on your most recent posts. You "get" what I am trying to propose about focusing the emphasis in XCR from forging to vendors. So I am going back and quoting this earlier comment of yours to discuss some of the other aspects that still need airing.
Say you do get PoT to work. From your comments above, even in your own mind you know and acknowledge that economics of XCR rewards will eventually turn against forgers anyway. You know this and are promoting PoT and trying to draw in forgers as initial supporters of your network by offering them rewards anyway. This isn't dishonest, in my opinion; every other coin before XCR has done exactly the same thing. But there are two factors at work here that everybody needs to understand.
First factor, you're gonna disillusion and disappoint most initial XCR supporters later on when they learn the economical truth of XCR forging. I saw this over and over and over at NXT. Newbies would show up because they heard they could forge NXT on a $35 Raspberry Pi and didn't have to spend $2000 like they would on a Bitcoin ASIC miner. They were very excited at this innovation by NXT! Thank you NXT! Then they would discover with their small of NXT they parked on their forging board, they were only going to forge one block per year. How can this be? they would ask. Soon they come to understand whales dominate forging in a PoS system by parking / hoarding large amounts of NXT on their forging node. Most newbies would leave in disappointment at this point. The few that were left would buy bigger stakes of NXT for their forging board and eventually forge a few blocks. Hey, they would say, these forging fees are ridiculously low!!! I'm not making enough to pay for this RPi board, and CERTAINLY not enough to keep running a cloud server with its bandwidth costs. I'm outta here.
This is the key problem with a "fixed coin supply / forging fee" system - the forging fees don't pay enough for running a network node. NXT still doesn't acknowledge the seriousness of this problem even though they set up an "infrastructure committee" specifically to look at issues like that. PoT is an attempt by XCR to deal with the whale domination problem of a PoS system like NXT. It is a good and noble attempt that may very well solve the PoS whale / hoarding problem. However, PoT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REWARDING A FORGER IN A SUFFICENT, SUSTAINABLE AND SCALABLE MANNER - IT IS ONLY A "NON-SIMPLE" METHOD TO SELECT WHO FORGES A BLOCK NEXT. Why wait for disillusioned forgers to solve it for you later by "weeding themselves out naturally"? Why not try to solve that problem YOURSELVES, NOW by going to a vendor oriented network from the start?
Second factor, forgers would be only a tiny part of a mature Crypti ecosystem. Most people who would use a "simple, fast and scalable coin for commerce" are USERS interested in buying a candybar or a song or an EBay win and not running a node. They will not care about PoT, or forging, or accumulating coins from running Crypti software. The only software they are interested in running is a smartphone app that allows them to access coins in a Crypti wallet, and that's an app that doesn't require them to type in a 35 character Ed25519 password every time, either. Instead of trying to work on PoT now and spare the feelings of a few hundred initial investors / forgers now (who will "weed themselves out naturally" later anyway), maybe try to focus on a user app that will thrill hundreds of thousands of new users a year from now?
So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature?
October 24, 2014, 11:47:20 AM
Hi everyone,
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
Good that you let us know that.
Maybe I missed something? Who is blue_wave?
If I guess correctly, do I get a prize?
You can try
October 24, 2014, 11:22:51 AM
Thanks for the answers GreXX.
With regards to a solution similar to MalReynold's plan, I think it would be very risky. Essentially you will be limiting Crypti to commerce only and shutting off doors to other potential avenues of use. The beauty of Bitcoin is that it has virtually limitless uses, as it is so open. The Bitcoin eco-system has been built mostly by third-party developers (Coinbase, Circle, BitPay), to provide a whole range of services and uses.
However with Crypti, by going with MalReynold's plan you would be limiting the types of services that can be provided by Crypti to commerce-specific ones. I realize that one of Crypti's goals is to become he first crypto-currency that is widely used in commerce, but on the other hand I don't think it would be a good idea to essentially lock Crypti (as a platform) down to just commerce.
With Custom Blockchains support, Crypti's uses could go far further than just commerce, you could have File Storage, Messaging Apps, Asset Exchanges, P2P Marketplaces etc. Instead of having a niche-based currency that is predominantly used for e-commerce you could have a whole range of uses for Crypti other than simply e-commerce.
Currently it is very hard for niche-based currencies to succeed in the crypto-space. I believe that for Crypti to be really successful, you should look at it not as just a niche-based currency for commerce, but as an open currency with endless possibilities (or as the popular saying goes, one currency to rule them all).
Well I consider those uses you discuss as commerce. Companies that function like Coinbase, BitPay, etc can register custom block chains or work with the Crypti network itself, and provide those same services as registered merchants (they are providing services after all). This, in my mind, is the type of commerce we will be pushing as far as e-commerce goes. We would also be utilizing the hardware for point of sale systems for merchants, but that isn't the only form of commerce.
I guess what I should have said was the first crypto currency built from the ground up for "business". Maybe commerce is a limiting term in that sense. We want to encourage all forms of business on the blockchain, to include investment vehicles, storage, video, etc. However there is something to be said for focusing solely on building the 100% best possible system for person to person commerce and letting others build out and develop additional uses and services. I imagine Satoshi didn't foresee all of the services and things that have been built around the capabilities of Bitcoin, so I think focusing on a strong core network, easy fast payments from anyone to anyone, and allowing others to be innovative and build out on top of those 2 features easily, and using those as strong backbones, but without the limitations of Bitcoin and it's weaknesses, is the ultimate goal for all of us.
October 24, 2014, 10:34:53 AM
Good questions Wulf and ones I would like to answer.
1. Is there a plan B if PoT isn't going to be solvable in the near future?
A. Yes, we have 4 additional possibilities for how to build the network out. Some involve the same PoT mechanic but incorporate master nodes and subnetworks for forging and consensus. I have proposed 2 possible plan B's, the current random algorithm is another, and Mike has also proposed 1 solution. So we have 4 solvable solutions ready that we have been discussing.
2. How would this change Custom Blockchains or future features?
A. It wouldn't. Custom Block Chains is actually something that we can build around which ever system we use. This is a feature that other coins could actually rip-off and implement down the road, which is why we have been sort of tight lipped about our code and how it works for now. As I mentioned, we were over half done coding custom chains prior to the forking issues.
3. Would there be any features that would not work with the temporary solution or an altered fix?
A. Well, this is a hard question to answer. All of the secondary market features, custom chains, etc will all still work. The synergy however might be a bit different. Let's call the initial perfect world PoT solution as the "Synergy System" because that was it's strength. You have a self replication and motivated network being build that rewards people for using and you build system around it that encourage use and increase transaction fees which in turn makes the network builders stronger and have higher earnings.
With the temporary solution and random rewards, or some of the additional solutions, the PoT algorithm and reward system will obviously be different. The key problem here is finding a way to make the algorithm and system equitably reward forgers so they can create calculators and understand the affordability of building out the network, and so we can predict how big the network will be at certain transaction volumes based on RoI. We should be able to predict at what point it becomes less profitable and how many nodes will likely exist at a given level. The only downside is that if the network is limited in size due to reward and we have say 200 nodes, does it become affordable for someone to build out 200 nodes of their own, provide the 1000 XCR, and fork the network. While we have precautions that we have built into place to avoid forks (which on a side note, the fork protection was causing some of the issues with people not forging because it didn't trust their requests due to timing issues), we still need to make sure that we take into account all possible attack vectors as we build out.
Also keep in mind, that in 1 of my solutions, much like BTT user MalReynolds discussed, if we switch to focusing more on the commerce side and to limit the ability to have rewards for individual users to just PoP rewards (similar to cash back), and focus on merchant point-of-sale terminals running the network, it would be a radical change and would still reach our goals, as initially described, but would change our system. The features in that type of situation would change because we would not be rewarding "forgers" and would instead be focusing completely on limiting any form of tx fee to merchants to truly create the first completely commerce oriented coin (with potentially 0% Tx fees).
So TL;DR, all features can still be implemented, but some of the intended Synergy could be altered.
4. Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
A. See the 2 previous answers. I think that all of the goals are possible, but there is the possibility for a small hit to the synergy of the network as originally intended if we have to use say, a random algorithm as opposed to a predictable one. However, being random and unpredictable also has it's benefits and intrigues.
5. How does the temporary PoT solution (random) alter the PoP and PoI algorithms?
A. It doesn't change their functionality. We can still build them exactly as planned and the algorithms and capabilities don't change. They can interface in the same way with any of the possible PoT implementations we are discussing. While our primary goal is to have the network work as originally intended, we have spent considerable time designing, arguing, and diagramming possible solutions (which is part of why we have been so busy and a little bit more absent from the boards). The PoP and PoI algorithms and system are tied into one another, but the PoT is kind of a separate calculation with the result of PoP/PoI added in. We could probably combine PoP and PoI into a label like "Proof-of-Commerce" to make it a little easier to describe. So you take the calculation and weight from PoT and then add in the calculated weight added by PoC (which is like our cash back equivalent) and then you determine who will forge.
I hope that helps clear up your concerns and provide some valuable answers.
On a side note, we are assigning Eric the task of re-doing and improving our FAQ as well as getting it up to date (it still talks about the pre-sale!). These questions and previously answered questions will be great additions and if anyone comes up with other, relevant and answerable questions, I will try to take the time to sit down and give the best answers I possibly can.
1. Is there a plan B if PoT isn't going to be solvable in the near future?
A. Yes, we have 4 additional possibilities for how to build the network out. Some involve the same PoT mechanic but incorporate master nodes and subnetworks for forging and consensus. I have proposed 2 possible plan B's, the current random algorithm is another, and Mike has also proposed 1 solution. So we have 4 solvable solutions ready that we have been discussing.
2. How would this change Custom Blockchains or future features?
A. It wouldn't. Custom Block Chains is actually something that we can build around which ever system we use. This is a feature that other coins could actually rip-off and implement down the road, which is why we have been sort of tight lipped about our code and how it works for now. As I mentioned, we were over half done coding custom chains prior to the forking issues.
3. Would there be any features that would not work with the temporary solution or an altered fix?
A. Well, this is a hard question to answer. All of the secondary market features, custom chains, etc will all still work. The synergy however might be a bit different. Let's call the initial perfect world PoT solution as the "Synergy System" because that was it's strength. You have a self replication and motivated network being build that rewards people for using and you build system around it that encourage use and increase transaction fees which in turn makes the network builders stronger and have higher earnings.
With the temporary solution and random rewards, or some of the additional solutions, the PoT algorithm and reward system will obviously be different. The key problem here is finding a way to make the algorithm and system equitably reward forgers so they can create calculators and understand the affordability of building out the network, and so we can predict how big the network will be at certain transaction volumes based on RoI. We should be able to predict at what point it becomes less profitable and how many nodes will likely exist at a given level. The only downside is that if the network is limited in size due to reward and we have say 200 nodes, does it become affordable for someone to build out 200 nodes of their own, provide the 1000 XCR, and fork the network. While we have precautions that we have built into place to avoid forks (which on a side note, the fork protection was causing some of the issues with people not forging because it didn't trust their requests due to timing issues), we still need to make sure that we take into account all possible attack vectors as we build out.
Also keep in mind, that in 1 of my solutions, much like BTT user MalReynolds discussed, if we switch to focusing more on the commerce side and to limit the ability to have rewards for individual users to just PoP rewards (similar to cash back), and focus on merchant point-of-sale terminals running the network, it would be a radical change and would still reach our goals, as initially described, but would change our system. The features in that type of situation would change because we would not be rewarding "forgers" and would instead be focusing completely on limiting any form of tx fee to merchants to truly create the first completely commerce oriented coin (with potentially 0% Tx fees).
So TL;DR, all features can still be implemented, but some of the intended Synergy could be altered.
4. Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
A. See the 2 previous answers. I think that all of the goals are possible, but there is the possibility for a small hit to the synergy of the network as originally intended if we have to use say, a random algorithm as opposed to a predictable one. However, being random and unpredictable also has it's benefits and intrigues.
5. How does the temporary PoT solution (random) alter the PoP and PoI algorithms?
A. It doesn't change their functionality. We can still build them exactly as planned and the algorithms and capabilities don't change. They can interface in the same way with any of the possible PoT implementations we are discussing. While our primary goal is to have the network work as originally intended, we have spent considerable time designing, arguing, and diagramming possible solutions (which is part of why we have been so busy and a little bit more absent from the boards). The PoP and PoI algorithms and system are tied into one another, but the PoT is kind of a separate calculation with the result of PoP/PoI added in. We could probably combine PoP and PoI into a label like "Proof-of-Commerce" to make it a little easier to describe. So you take the calculation and weight from PoT and then add in the calculated weight added by PoC (which is like our cash back equivalent) and then you determine who will forge.
I hope that helps clear up your concerns and provide some valuable answers.
On a side note, we are assigning Eric the task of re-doing and improving our FAQ as well as getting it up to date (it still talks about the pre-sale!). These questions and previously answered questions will be great additions and if anyone comes up with other, relevant and answerable questions, I will try to take the time to sit down and give the best answers I possibly can.
Thanks for the answers GreXX.
With regards to a solution similar to MalReynold's plan, I think it would be very risky. Essentially you will be limiting Crypti to commerce only and shutting off doors to other potential avenues of use. The beauty of Bitcoin is that it has virtually limitless uses, as it is so open. The Bitcoin eco-system has been built mostly by third-party developers (Coinbase, Circle, BitPay), to provide a whole range of services and uses.
However with Crypti, by going with MalReynold's plan you would be limiting the types of services that can be provided by Crypti to commerce-specific ones. I realize that one of Crypti's goals is to become he first crypto-currency that is widely used in commerce, but on the other hand I don't think it would be a good idea to essentially lock Crypti (as a platform) down to just commerce.
With Custom Blockchains support, Crypti's uses could go far further than just commerce, you could have File Storage, Messaging Apps, Asset Exchanges, P2P Marketplaces etc. Instead of having a niche-based currency that is predominantly used for e-commerce you could have a whole range of uses for Crypti other than simply e-commerce.
Currently it is very hard for niche-based currencies to succeed in the crypto-space. I believe that for Crypti to be really successful, you should look at it not as just a niche-based currency for commerce, but as an open currency with endless possibilities (or as the popular saying goes, one currency to rule them all).
October 24, 2014, 10:23:04 AM
Hi everyone,
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
Good that you let us know that.
Maybe I missed something? Who is blue_wave?
If I guess correctly, do I get a prize?
October 24, 2014, 10:17:00 AM
Hi everyone,
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
Good that you let us know that.
October 24, 2014, 10:12:20 AM
If you want to play this PoT game with large (apparently above 50 node) networks, then you have two choices. Choice one, you can maintain one giant network where some nodes are "super-peers" in some kind of hierarchical tree structure that communicate directly with each other and only the normal peers that are under them, thus cutting down the number of peer-to-peer packet exchanges required. Choice two, you can maintain numerous small networks (say 50 nodes each?) of equal peer nodes that are rotated in as appropriate to forge blocks when their turn comes - but somehow they've still got to get the blockchain results from the blocktimes the were not eligible to forge, an additional complexity.
It's interesting to see that you had a very similar line of thinking to what I did. Both of these are possible solutions that I had written up and proposed as potential ways to build out a 2nd gen network. I was particularly fond of the second scenario and doing a rotating mini block for forging determined by a master node block that logged active peers and what subnet they were assigned to. It would be much easier to manage and could be organized similar to how something like DNS works in regards to having a consensus subnet peer list to prevent gaming. Unfortunately it was met by a lot of accusations of being too centralized.
There is also the problem of an attack by launching super-peers that send paying forges only to specific nodes, and empty forge requests to others. With an open source node, this would be too easy.
This wouldn't be a problem in the way the doc I wrote describes. The internal master nodes would keep a ledger of who is authorized and added to the network as well as what subnet they exist and are allowed to communicate with. Anyone outside of that ledger trying to report information that doesn't match up would simply be dropped. The other subnets would only accept broadcast information from certified peers in their subnet and would drop outside direct comms from "super-peers" that weren't assigned to their equivalent master node.
October 24, 2014, 10:09:55 AM
We aren't bringing in outside help to write an algorithm from scratch or to code anything. They may provide pseudo-code at some point, but Boris is an exceptionally skilled programmer. Coding the solution isn't the issue, it's determining how to solve the forking and scalability problems. This may require us to develop a new solution, which is why we are bringing in an expert who has done code and security audits in the industry since MasterCoin, because they have a great understanding of how other coins have solved complex problems and also insight that we might not have. You asked us for action so we are taking it. It can never help to have extra eyes on.
Thanks for clearing that up GreXX!
Just a few more questions, hypothetically, in the event that both the team and the outside expert can't resolve the forking and scalability problems, what does it mean for the Crypti network as a whole?
- In that event is there a Plan B or does the temporary solution (random forging), become permanent?
- How would it affect features down the line? Would Custom Blockchains support still be a possibility?
- Are there any features that would have to be removed, or wouldn't work, with the temporary solution or if the forking and scalibility problems aren't resolved?
- Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
- How does the temporary PoT solution affect the other two algorithms (PoI & PoP)
Please don't take this as an insult or anything like that, I just want to take all possibilities into consideration.
Good questions Wulf and ones I would like to answer.
1. Is there a plan B if PoT isn't going to be solvable in the near future?
A. Yes, we have 4 additional possibilities for how to build the network out. Some involve the same PoT mechanic but incorporate master nodes and subnetworks for forging and consensus. I have proposed 2 possible plan B's, the current random algorithm is another, and Mike has also proposed 1 solution. So we have 4 solvable solutions ready that we have been discussing.
2. How would this change Custom Blockchains or future features?
A. It wouldn't. Custom Block Chains is actually something that we can build around which ever system we use. This is a feature that other coins could actually rip-off and implement down the road, which is why we have been sort of tight lipped about our code and how it works for now. As I mentioned, we were over half done coding custom chains prior to the forking issues.
3. Would there be any features that would not work with the temporary solution or an altered fix?
A. Well, this is a hard question to answer. All of the secondary market features, custom chains, etc will all still work. The synergy however might be a bit different. Let's call the initial perfect world PoT solution as the "Synergy System" because that was it's strength. You have a self replication and motivated network being build that rewards people for using and you build system around it that encourage use and increase transaction fees which in turn makes the network builders stronger and have higher earnings.
With the temporary solution and random rewards, or some of the additional solutions, the PoT algorithm and reward system will obviously be different. The key problem here is finding a way to make the algorithm and system equitably reward forgers so they can create calculators and understand the affordability of building out the network, and so we can predict how big the network will be at certain transaction volumes based on RoI. We should be able to predict at what point it becomes less profitable and how many nodes will likely exist at a given level. The only downside is that if the network is limited in size due to reward and we have say 200 nodes, does it become affordable for someone to build out 200 nodes of their own, provide the 1000 XCR, and fork the network. While we have precautions that we have built into place to avoid forks (which on a side note, the fork protection was causing some of the issues with people not forging because it didn't trust their requests due to timing issues), we still need to make sure that we take into account all possible attack vectors as we build out.
Also keep in mind, that in 1 of my solutions, much like BTT user MalReynolds discussed, if we switch to focusing more on the commerce side and to limit the ability to have rewards for individual users to just PoP rewards (similar to cash back), and focus on merchant point-of-sale terminals running the network, it would be a radical change and would still reach our goals, as initially described, but would change our system. The features in that type of situation would change because we would not be rewarding "forgers" and would instead be focusing completely on limiting any form of tx fee to merchants to truly create the first completely commerce oriented coin (with potentially 0% Tx fees).
So TL;DR, all features can still be implemented, but some of the intended Synergy could be altered.
4. Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
A. See the 2 previous answers. I think that all of the goals are possible, but there is the possibility for a small hit to the synergy of the network as originally intended if we have to use say, a random algorithm as opposed to a predictable one. However, being random and unpredictable also has it's benefits and intrigues.
5. How does the temporary PoT solution (random) alter the PoP and PoI algorithms?
A. It doesn't change their functionality. We can still build them exactly as planned and the algorithms and capabilities don't change. They can interface in the same way with any of the possible PoT implementations we are discussing. While our primary goal is to have the network work as originally intended, we have spent considerable time designing, arguing, and diagramming possible solutions (which is part of why we have been so busy and a little bit more absent from the boards). The PoP and PoI algorithms and system are tied into one another, but the PoT is kind of a separate calculation with the result of PoP/PoI added in. We could probably combine PoP and PoI into a label like "Proof-of-Commerce" to make it a little easier to describe. So you take the calculation and weight from PoT and then add in the calculated weight added by PoC (which is like our cash back equivalent) and then you determine who will forge.
I hope that helps clear up your concerns and provide some valuable answers.
On a side note, we are assigning Eric the task of re-doing and improving our FAQ as well as getting it up to date (it still talks about the pre-sale!). These questions and previously answered questions will be great additions and if anyone comes up with other, relevant and answerable questions, I will try to take the time to sit down and give the best answers I possibly can.
October 24, 2014, 10:07:56 AM
Hi everyone,
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
just to Let You Know i have changed my entire profile on BTT. I just didnt like the name. I have same one on Cryptitalk now.
(Its me... Let me Know)
Jump to: