Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 209. (Read 804701 times)

i bought in 2660 this is where the road ends for me



i have to pay my stuff in real life and suffer hard loss here its not money i cant afford to lose its ok. i get money in few week but need pay this monday  


held as long as possible .sold some last month



gg hate selling this cheap kkkkkk is make me mad i know you will make it


anyone can put up 1.5 btc wall in 750  



good luck /)

i bought in 2660 this is where the road ends for me



i have to pay my stuff in real life and suffer hard loss here its not money i cant afford to lose its ok. i get money in few week but need pay this monday  


held as long as possible .sold some last month



gg hate selling this cheap kkkkkk is make me mad i know you will make it


anyone can put up 1.5 btc wall in 750  



good luck /)

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. 

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. 

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

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.   

I think you are deluding yourself - there is NOTHING for CfB to steal at this stage. He should be hired to attempt to FIX this thing! Guy can't steal his own solution (if theoretically possible in the first place).

Comparing this project to Satoshi (as you did in the previous reply to me) is insane IMHO - especially at this stage! Satoshi SOLVED complex theoretical problems. Crypti MIGHT have a working algo at some point in time - that it could not scale past 50 nodes means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not/did not work as a solution to the problems the devs were looking to solve AT ALL.

I'm not "bashing", this is a fact, period. They might pull this off (I hope they do) or they might hire someone that finds the solution (I hope they do); but, right now, it appears that nothing is guaranteed. Look, this stuff is HARD - I get that. There is nothing wrong with failing here, everyone should know that the goals are extremely lofty - but, I get the feeling that maybe people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are. They just assume this stuff is going to get solved because people are working hard - again, my original concern was that this was more of a "concept" than an actual algo that could function as intended.

Btw, I have no issue with bringing on outside help - I don't see that as a sign of weakness. I'm just hoping a solution is theoretically possible in the first place!

Taking a part the red and yellow text I usually like what you write, it's different, although often too much tech for me to fully grasp it



Personally I am probably inbetween, having trying to quit smoking cigarettes the last few days I'm more edgy than usual! So apologize for that    

I have offered my opinion on going customchains/supernet > PoT as customchains don't have much work on it left, I have spoken good about supernet several times and I still hold that view that it will give much more exposure than contacting a few journalists.

If customchains were to be done in 2-3 weeks it would offer significant features

XCR gains > exposure, more users, more transactions, and the XCR user has chance to use more features
what XCR "gives" > customchains feature. As for features that XCR can use by joining, there are a few mostly its good for exposure to network/activity etc,
But I think most importantly what XCR can use by joining is to get a large userbase to use their technology. (CCs)

So in short the only thing XCR really "gives" supernet is the custom chains technology which needs a userbase and developers anyway...
First exposure it would get? The 20-30 developers within supernet or around it with their respective coins..

I've seen it being discussed, but I just don't see where the downside it, there used to be a majority as to joining in the foundation, but seems like this is no longer the case.

"We don't have anything to give" This can be changed by changing priorities as I understand there's someone else working PoT right now.

As for making my case,  the only "downside" that I can possibly see in this from what I gather from foundation, is the portraying that jl777 is some big bad wolf, some internet gangster with millions of dollars of blackmoney stuffed under in his bed, running from the feds hiding in Argentina because he's a mad bad criminal (rly?) when in reality, he's probably just some pale faced teenagergeek who's been coding 16 hours a day since early december for NXT.

I think the even most bizarre part is all these stories people throw around as truths are coming from a guy (BM) who's blackmailed people on this very forum, doxxed single mums trying to get them fired from their employees, stolen 100 BTC are are still here to professionally troll.
Read his first post about him, you'll find every word he says plausible, read 10-15 more and you'll realize he's batshit insane.


Not to go OT here but with all that being said, nothing will change as to joining supernet, it's not possible for jl to be able to do any damage to XCR anyway, even if he'd want. As for buying the 10%, I don't see how that's negative, if some whale would walk into here tomorrow and buy 10% nobody would care, if anything, snet 10% would get them motivated to push custom chains further, and add more value than any other private investor would for that matter

It just all seems to come down to making business decisions for this coins future over having disagreements over someones handle online.
Which to me, frankly, is kinda sad, I see no other reason to shut this decision out, since I've done research on jl and formed my opinion, it can't be a negative thing about his work, since like I have said he's running a lot of things simultaneously, and all of them hold value, working 16 hours a day for nearly a year now.

Why not invite talented developers, other coindevelopers to use customchains, when customchains is only worthwhile if someone is using it?
It just makes no sense to me.. I've been trying these last 2 days to figure it out, different angles and scenarios, but I can't for the life of me figure out why on earth this doesnt make sense to anyone else as the right path to go?


XCR doesn't become supernet, they can still do whatever they want you know?  All there is is some features across the platform a stronger network.. etc.
I am still scratching my head on this one.. just can't for the life of me figure out.
If it's turning down a good opportunity over personal bias... well it's too damn bad, because I fail to see who he is would matter at all for XCR.

And going snet/customchains > then PoT would be 110% best option.
There's just so much XCR stands go gain, and also supernet stands to gain. It's just such unrealistic how perfect the match is.

Also, if you think I am biased... I don't hold a single UNITY or any supernet asset, if someone gives me a way to prove it I will.
I just want what's best for XCR... really

Just doesn't make sense at all to me.. I just can't for the life of me figure out the reason as to why.
And if the underlying thought to all is that "NXT is a total scam!" the Coinbox is a brilliant idea, designed to you know... mostly work alongside NXT.. so theres that..

Makes no sense to oppose this, the more and more I think about it, the more it just messes with my mind.
Never in the history of alts have I seen such a partnership that makes so ridiculously much sense to me.

It's just like.. a business deal where the only thing needed from XCRs end to get all the benefits of the deal is like XCR is a newly started shoe store with no customers, and SuperNET is all the other shoe stores in town, and Supernet let you put all XCRs shoes in their stores and when customers tries it on and wants to buy it, they get the "No we dont sell it, you have to go to XCRs store to buy it. Sorry but it's right on 57th broadstreet.."