Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 595. (Read 804702 times)

The amount will be based on amount of BTC, see Grexx explanation here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7572817

And look for an update to the thread OP soon.

We will do our best to reach this 2nd milestone, that said it pending testing.
In any case, the funds will be at Escrow hands until the mainnet is launched.

We are working to have an exchange ready close to mainnet launch, and also in contacts with potential merchants.

We will announce soon the exact date both here and via emails (to these who left their email addresses on crypti.me).

When the pre-sale will begin?
00:00:00 June 30th UTC??

Then, are you BCNext?

For those still waiting to hear about the development funds and 1% fee, I will provide a quick update.

Disclaimer

Keep in mind this isn't 100% official until we update the OP, but based on our internal vote, this is what we are looking at right now.

Development Funds / Initial Distribution

For the development funds. We are going to keep the 15% the way it is.

The 10% will work in a different manner and will not be guaranteed. We will adjust the 10% based on the amount of BTC raised in the pre-sale. Right now the plan is to lower the 10% by 1% for every 50 BTC raised in the pre-sale. So a quick breakdown would look like this:

0 BTC = 10%
50 BTC = 9%
100 BTC = 8%
150 BTC = 7%
200 BTC = 6%
250 BTC = 5%
300 BTC = 4%
350 BTC = 3%
400 BTC = 2%
450 BTC = 1%
500 BTC = 0%

We decided on this scale because we believe 500 BTC will provide substantial development funds for future growth of Crypti and therefore would require no additional funding from the launch.

The additional percentage not allocated to the developer fund will be added to the 75% of genesis awarded to pre-sale investors.

The 1% Transaction Fee

As per the 1% transaction fee, we area also looking at a sliding scale based on volume. We are currently looking at having the 1% transaction fee reduce by 25% every time the transaction volume doubles.

Code Audit

We plan to approach a well known Code Auditor during the beta phase to review the Crypti source and provide a review to those who are interested. This will be during the pre-sale and prior to it's completion. This will be a reputable person who has done prior major coin releases. No details are cemented yet and therefore I cannot make an official confirmation announcement but a code audit WILL be conducted prior to the end of the pre-sale.

Please keep in mind. These details have not been officially announced and I wouldn't consider this the official announcement, but this is what we have agreed upon as of right now and an official announcement will come shortly.

I just know people are anxiously awaiting these details and I wanted to give an update.

Thanks everyone for sticking around!

As it stands right now, the plan is to start at a 30% bonus on day 1 and decrease the bonus percentage by 1% each day until day 30 or 0%.

Well let me try to break this down.

Purchases aren't the only weight calculated to determine who will forge a block. It is a calculation based on Node up-time since last block forged + purchases to a valid merchant ID since last block forged.

The weight in the calculation for node time is higher than the weight for purchase power. For purchases to count towards the weight calculation, they would have had to have been done to a validated merchant. The only was to "send money to yourself" and earn weight for it, would be for you to open a store and purchase a large amount of items from your own store. You would have to do this repeatedly every minute in order to sustain enough weight to continue to forge blocks as the network will automatically eliminate all accumulated weight for that address as soon as a block is forged.

Not only that but this is behavior that would be noticeable to everyone on the network and a store can be flagged and invalidated for fraud. Node up-time would be the key element in the calculation for block weight, but purchase power is being thrown in to push people over the edge when multiple nodes have similar up-time. For instance, on day 1 if 1000 create nodes and run them full time, that is 1000 nodes competing for each block with almost identical up-time (until they start forging blocks), if some of those users were actually using Crypti to buy goods from validated merchants, then they would forge first, as opposed to those only running a node.

Your comment about node resets, etc not mattering isn't necessarily something I agree with. The network understands the weight calculation and if an address forges a block, it won't have sufficient weight to forge another unless it is the only active node on the network. For 1 person to conduct a 51% attack, I would guess that they would have to maintain a majority of all nodes on the network but I would still think confirmations would be an issue.

It's a good question and I'm not going to brush it off. I am going to talk to Bitseed & Boris (the engineer's behind the algorithm and network) and see if they can give a more technical description of how a 51% attack would play out. I know we haven't released a ton of specifics on the calculations and algorithm yet as we don't want to open ourselves up to clones, but maybe they can give a glimpse into a few details.

No

Hey Crypti!!! 

Are you (were you) "_Heisenberg_"

who developed CryptoMeth and now has abandoned it???

Thank you!

Any news on this yet?

I have the same concern.

So what have you decided about the IPO?

You said you were thinking about lowering the 25% dev/future fund or was that just smoke?

Ok. I'll ask another way. What's the equivalent of 51% attack here? What proportion of purchases in what period is needed to abuse the system?

Resetting of uptime and purchases after each forged block makes no difference here. Any real attacker will have many nodes with sufficient uptime and can distribute new purchases accordingly. There is also possibility of fake purchases - "send the money to yourself" type. True, there is 1% fee (actually half of it) but this will be compensated by forging blocks.

I am not sure I know exactly what your saying we would be susceptible to. Could you clarify what form of attack you are referencing? Sybil, Finney, something else?

Keep in mind that weight is reset for purchases as well as node up-time on every block that node forges. The nodes cumulative weight is reset after each block it forges basically.

If you can give a hypothetical scenario or walk through an attack you would carry out against the network, we will try to directly refute it.

The rule of IPO can be unlished earlier than Jun 30.

Looks interesting.

Do you have an idea how the projected development timeline will look like?

E.g. 30 June IPO & beta launch --->  30 July IPO end & Main Net launch ---> ?

Is the second step correct? Also, do you have any exchange, merchants or services planned for immediately after the launch of the main net?

Hmm this sounds interesting. I will watch this thread.

GreXX - thanks for your answer, I appreciate it.  I'm not fully convinced but I can see there is upside and downside.

But another thing - security. Is it difficult to attack Crypti? I don't see where is the trouble.

Combination of 3 PoS algorithms:

    Proof-of-Purchase (purchases done since the last won forged block)
    Proof-of-Time (node running up-time)
    Proof-of-Identity (merchant address real-life validation)

Proof of Identity is specific for merchants. Proof of Time is easy to get, without the need to sacrifice much. So Proof of Purchase will be the most important. But what is at stake here (for the block creators)?

In proof of work there is a risk of loss of future mining profits, investment already made, equipment costly to get
In proof of stake (nxtlike) the stake is at risk and it is costly to get the stake (hopefully)
but here in Crypti -  if you purchase something it's costly but you receive the merchandise in return. So you actually don't risk anything, you don't have to sacrifice anything. You can get power to verify transactions without significant risks or sacrifices

Or am I wrong? Once again, simple question - what is at stake here?