Since the price of XCR is now BELOW the IPO price on Bter, that must mean that you have the utmost confidence that the Cryptsi team can deliver a highly competitive product to the crypto world and thus make a few bucks for yourself.
No coin, not TimeCoin, not NODE, or any other, has been able to successfully write a PoT algo so far. If they had, we would have copied it. They either use random choices (NODE) like we are right now, or go by the timestamp.
I am hodling on Crypti because it is a "fixed supply / zero inflation" coin with a stated goal of being a "
simple, fast, scalable currency for commerce", and is exploring a
cheap hardware access solution via Coinbox for processing of vendors transactions. These two things are killer apps that have yet to be achieved in the cryptocoin world. Crypti may yet become the first to get there.
However, PoT is totally irrelevant in achieving these Crypti goals. Even worse, in my opinion PoT is currently holding Crypti back from getting to its stated goals, and will continue to do so until it is abandoned.
PoT is not "simple" because you list a whole bunch of other people who have been unable to implement it in the past, and so far Crypti hasn't been able to implement it either.
PoT is "fast" only if it can support all required peer-to-peer packet transactions in the one minute Crypti block time for a network of any size.
PoT is not readily "scalable" because it embodies a summation function, which is a tough hill to climb mathematically, computationally and algorithmically. This is the real reason nobody has done it before and Crypti is having trouble doing it now. Obviously I don't know the actual secret-sauce code being used. But logically (and
assuming all nodes were equal peers!), in the original 50 node PoT test network there had to be a minimum of sum1to49 = 1,225 node-to-node packet exchanges in the one minute block time. (See for yourself:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/sigma-calculator.html). Doubling the network to 100 equal peers implies sum1to99 = 4,950 node-to-node packets in the blocktime. Doubling it again to 200 implies 19,900. Doubling it again to 400 implies 79,800. Doubling it again to 800 implies 319,600. Doubling it again to 1600 implies 1,279,200. Doubling it again to 3200 implies 5,118,440.
Going from a 50 node network to a 800 node network means forgers deploying 16 times the nodes while the code has to process 260 times the peer-to-peer packets in the one minute blocktime. Etc. Etc. Etc. You can do the math. Roughly speaking, doubling the node network size means quadrupling the number of peer-to-peer packets that have to be processed in one block time.
To quote Obi-Wan, "These are not the scaling factors you are looking for".
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.
Neither of these two choices are as "simple" as the currently running "random selector" algorithm running Crypti right now, and this "random selector" algorithm would be perfectly adequate to run a vendor-only network with no forgers and zero transaction fees.
So yeah, I'm holding Crypsi and have faith it will become a big, important cryptocurrency in the near future that makes me money. But it
will not achieve that status because it finally solved the PoT problem and made me rich by forging. It
will achieve that status because it became a "simple, fast, scalable currency for commerce", implemented a cheap hardware access solution via Coinbox for processing of vendors transactions that also doubled as a node, and its market cap soared.
