Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 213. (Read 804701 times)

We all do bud. Mal has interesting views, I like different ways of thinking, always good to explore options.

That being said Cryptsy/Poloniex need to get on the same network, BTER 1% fee. Things like these can still be done easily.
Also curious as to what outsider developer(s?) you've brought in, as I take it they're known

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.

We thank you for your support.

Thanks for the offer.  I'm hodling.

Mal,

If you are so upset at the progress here, and are worried about your investment, I suggest that the Foundation buy back your XCR for the IPO price.

Deal?

Mal,

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. 

They are probably waiting for us to write it.

There are several different ways we are approaching it, including the sub-grouping you suggested two weeks ago.  Master nodes was suggested as well, but how do you trust a master node not to direct forging to particular nodes and lock out others?

I am not a coder but I do do flow charts very well, cutting my teeth on it in the late 70s.  We have laid out what we think will work, and now it is up to the outside programers and coders to make it work.  As a fallback, the algo may have to chose the next 10 forgers, send out the transactions, then have 10 minutes to ping all nodes and pick the next 10 forgers.  There are many roads to Rome, but only one that avoids the mountains.

As for contact with the enemy....... I know more about that than is fit to talk about.

The chinese have idioms just like in US, that dont make sense translated.  Like "How's the old ball and chain" 'Havent seen you in a month of Sundays"  "He's two sheets into the wind" "Sent him a Dear John"  

Unless you know someone who as raised in China, you will never get the drift.  

Frankly reading his posts makes my brain hurt.

Ha ha ha.  I'm not bossing anybody around like a drill sergent, I'm watching what you guys do on Crypti with no control over your actions.   And YOU are dissing ME?

I understand that PoT has been a key part of the Crypti concept from its inception.  But here's facts:

PoT didn't scale beyond a 50 node testnet.  PoT is currently off-line.  Outsiders have been called in to implement an improved PoT algorithm.  There has been no indication yet from devs or outsiders that an improved PoT algorithm is even feasible.  The bandwidth required by an improved PoT algorithm is unknown.  The max number of nodes that can be supported by an improved PoT algorithm in a one minute blocktime is unknown.  The steps and time required to test and verify an improved PoT algorithm is unknown.  The restart date of Crypti under an improved PoT algorithm is unknown.   And I have provided a reasonable numerical analysis (adjusted downward to accommodate YOUR constructive suggestions!) that PoT forging is going to require at least $3K of annual sales  per Crypti node to compensate participating forgers for their annual node expenses just so they can break even, yet there is no Crypti plan to throttle or control the number of PoT forging nodes that go online and so assure this break-even threshold is maintained for the good of the forgers.

Despite these facts, PoT is still Crypti's Plan A.

OK, so be it.

All I have been talking about is a vendor-and-commerce-oriented Crypti Plan B WITHOUT PoT as a backup if Crypti Plan A WITH PoT you guys are working on doesn't get back on track.

IF your drill sergeant was any good, he told you that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

That's why you had better have a Plan B in your back pocket when you go into battle, and a predetermined decision threshold  on when to use it.

Can not understand anything you say... Can you speak english or Chinese?

Nice conversation guys.
I have to admit that what Mal is suggesting opens completely new chapter and should be considered as a possible solution. This are big decisions that needs to be fully adressed and studied. Problem is how to convince community...
I think it wouldnt be a bad idea to start disscussing with different vendors and shape up their opinions and thoughts.

A node isn't required to conduct a purchase in that way. You just build in the ability to your smartphone app / web wallet through APIs or using the SDK for Custom Block Chains to build an application that can process it and functions on top of the blockchain. There are quite a few different ways we could do it without requiring them to run a full fledged node.

Plus the merchant doing the transaction processing will have a node running. So technically it will be running through their server anyways.

I see one big problem with ALL the nodes being owned by merchants:  Who they going to sell to?

There are no real wallets with XCR, only nodes to the network.

"Joe Six Pack" has to have a node/wallet on his smartphone to use XCR to make a purchase.  And he needs to acquire or earn more XCR. 

What Mal is suggesting sounds a lot like Ripple and Latinum. 

What he is suggesting is don't market the nodes to the average user. Eliminate them from the process and instead build point of sale terminals through Coinbox or otherwise for merchants / vendors to implement on their end. A 51% attack becomes relatively impossible because you control the distribution of hardware nodes to the merchants who sign-up and that is what builds out the network. In this sense, you don't need to reward anyone with transaction fees because the vendors themselves are running the network and THEIR reward is the 0% TX fee you can now provide which extends now to all users, not just the merchants. They take on the weight of running the nodes and fortifying the network, but they gain an instant transaction payment processing system that costs them 0% fees. You could throw a small fee like 1% if they choose to immediately convert to Fiat which is still 2% or more below Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and industry standards.

Then what would be the incentive for forgers to keep the network up and running?

With a 0% fee, there would be few nodes running, and a 51% attack becomes easily possible.  The more nodes online, the harder a 51% attack becomes. 

constructive suggestions    Yeah......... I had a drill sergeant like that too.

A low blow, my friend.  I have only offered constructive suggestions here, and food for thought.

My suggestions would offer a 0% transaction fee for Crypti.  There is no better transaction fee that a cryptocoin can have.

My core tenants when I came up with the idea for the system that Crypti uses was 3 fold as I have said many times.

1. To encourage building out and securing the network (PoT Rewards).
2. To encourage spending as opposed to hoarding. (PoP Rewards).
3. To encourage merchant adoption (PoI Rewards).

These were the foundational ideas behind the proofing systems that were implemented. Having merchants build out the network through point of sale terminals still satisfies #1. Maintaining a "cash back" type PoP system still maintains #2. Having low Tx fees and instant transactions is probably reward enough for merchants. You don't need to split the Tx fee with merchant and can instead simply reduce it to rewarding a "cash back" type PoP system that only rewards payments to validated merchants (PoI).

This is essentially what you are proposing and it makes sense to me. Now convince everyone else, lol.  

Thanks for your acknowledgement that the play I am suggesting could be hugely successful.  

Crypti is rewriting the playbook right now, and it sure ain't "first-and-ten on the twenty" anymore.  I'm just talking in the huddle til we go out for the next snap.

SO now we have established that you dont have any constructive suggestions, and only offer criticism.

A merchant also can earn back half the transaction fees......... so yes, Crypti is slanted towards the merchant.  However, compare this with the 3-5% fee that credit cards charge the same merchants.  
 

I agree that this is a potential marketing technique that could work in certain parts of the world. This portion would be the only part that would be a radical departure from our current plans and would require serious thought. Ultimately, I don't think that what you are describing is bad and I think that it could be hugely successful, but at this point you have to gauge the damage of alienating the entire current base of those who invested and stuck with Crypti and the morale aspect of completely re-writing the playbook essentially.

I talked previously about a dual Bitcoin / Crypti box, but for vendor access in accepting both coins for transactions, not mining.  Vendors would buy the box to process Bitcoin, and stay for the use of Crypti once Bitcoin crashes.  As it will.

A desire to Mine / forge is a get-rich-quick attitude that must be transcended to implement a cryptocoin commerce system where vendors run nodes only to process transactions and the network is "formed" and "strengthened" from that motivation alone.

For crying out loud, do we print dollar bills on laser printers at home to "strengthen" the paper currency network?

We gotta go BEYOND Bitcoin....

No.  

Apparently you don't either - you are stating right here, right now that a vendor is going to make more in total transaction fees than a forger.  

Thus Crypti is not an equitable system, it is a system that prefers and preferentially rewards vendors.  Which is my point.