Bitcoin Forum

Today was a significant leap forward in realizing one of eMunie's core goals of enabling crypto-currencies for the masses.

The long awaited 1st native point of sale compatible transaction has been performed, no middle men, no 3rd party processors, no custom merchant hardware....just an EMV compatible debit card, run of the mill hardware and bridging software to connect directly to the eMunie network.

So why is this so important?

Current Solutions

Currently to use your crypto-currency assets in brick and mortar stores, there are 2 solutions.

The first, is that the merchant generally requires some additional hardware along side existing POS terminals in order to accept Bitcoin/LiteCoin/others. Typically this consists of a tablet device with a connection to a 3rd party payment processor, and the customer has access to a similar service on their smartphone.

The process is very "manual", requiring scanning of QR codes/entry of addresses at the least, with entry of spend amount and other inputs sometimes required. It also requires that the customer has an active internet connection on the spending device (not always as reliable as one might assume).

While the process can be swift, on many occasions at crypto-currency events where items can be bought and this is the mechanism for payment, I myself have witnessed the cumbersome nature of this method. Frequent delays in making payment hold up other customers and reduce the turnover of customers to a mere trickle.

The second method involves a VISA or Mastercard debit card, which is provided by a 3rd party that allows the loading of BTC and other currencies to the card with in place conversion to $, £. These cards can be used in existing point of sale terminals, but have the consequence that there are fees attached for many uses of the service, currency conversion charges, loading charges, spending charges, ATM withdrawal charges. These can sometimes be in the order of a 1-2% or more, and with regular use can mount up significantly.

Additionally, if the card is lost, or is deactivated by the card provider for any of a multitude of reasons, funds can be lost and irrecoverable. Worst still your funds are entrusted to a 3rd party, and should that entity decide to close the service, they can easily exit with all customers funds that have not yet been loaded onto a card.

The eMunie Solution

The eMunie implementation is simple, there are no 3rd parties involved, no additional hardware required, and minimal risk, both for customers and merchants.  The owner of the card controls the funds associated with it at all times.

To accept payments via an eMunie debit card, the merchant will simply need to install an update for his existing hardware that connects to the eMunie network and pushes the transactions out to it.

Additional benefits for the merchant are the lack of processing fees, and no requirement to hold a merchant account with a bank. Merchants can simply accept eMunie payments to a wallet they control directly, and cash out via the decentralized on/off ramps available via our TRAID network when convenient for them.

Furthermore, eMunie debit card payments offer increased anonymity over the above methods and of course traditional fiat debit cards. The merchant only has visibility to card address, and information such as your name, DOB, physical addresses or other personal data is not required or transmitted.

Cards can be imported into clients, so even if you loose your card, you can still access the funds and move them to another account or card. Loading funds to a card is a simple case of sending funds to its address from another wallet, be it on a PC, Tablet or Phone, the card never needs to be connected to be able to spend them at a later time.

This technology is unique to eMunie, and is a key requirement to achieving mass market penetration. We know of no other crypto-currency that can enable native point of sale payments in this manner due to the limitations of block chain and similar ledger technologies, nor do we know of any in development that can match it.

Moving Forward

During the course of the next week some video demos will be constructed to show the process in action. Shortly after there will also be a beta with these capabilities enabled, and instructions on how to create a point of sale simulator, along with details of off the shelf hardware, will be provided allowing a first hand test drive of the technology on the test network.

Embracing newer technologies is a small step once the development of the basic features is completed, with the possibility of contactless cards and mobile device contactless payments easily supported.

Information on how this is achieved possible will be covered in 2 articles discussing our ledger technology scheduled for release over the next week or so.

Until then here is a fun mockup of what an eMunie debit card may resemble, with an example of a possible front configuration of data:

http://emunie.com/images/concept/debitcard.png

blah blah blah
it all sound like trust your money with a no name person on the street
ah, the paycoin era with walmart,visa,mastercard.. promised.

I don't think you understand.

The card is a wallet itself, the private keys are on the card, and only on the card.  

There is no trusting anyone with your funds because the only person that can access them is the owner of the card.

You could obtain a blank card, a reader, the cardlet (or the source code and compile it), install it to the card, transfer assets to the generated card address and use it.   You created your own debit card.

With the older emunie, people were worried there was no monetary incentive to invest due to the way the economic model works.  Is that still the case now, where emunie is more of a hedge to try and preserve wealth, or maintain a static value, rather than being an actual investment?  I don't see anything wrong with that approach, it's just that it makes it harder to try and bring people into the system from day 0 unless there's some kind of pending economic doom, which I guess is not that unlikely soon.

There has always been a monetary incentive to invest, but as with the tech, people were approaching it with a Bitcoin based mindset.

eMunie will attempt to stabilize itself, as has been the goal since the inception of the project.  The key difference is, there are 2 variables that effect ROI, instead of just 1 with a fixed currency amount model like Bitcoin.

The value of an individual unit can increase/decrease over the long term, but the amount of currency in circulation can also increase/decrease.  In a growth situation, which will be typical from day-0 for a period of time, the ROI comes from an increased holding of currency and not so much from an increase in price per unit.

This is due to new supply being distributed around both holders of deposits on account (interest) and to service nodes for doing work.

So for example, if you were to hold 100 EMU @ $0.10 each, and the price didn't move but the demand doubled, you'd end up with 150 EMU @ $0.10 (the other 50 going to service nodes that have done work).  If then the price was to rise by a cent, you'd have 150 @ $0.11...a 65% increase overall.

From the systems point of view, a change in supply if possible (in either direction) is always a preference to a change in price.

I don't recall that ever being a worry. EMunie has an elastic money supply. It tries to hold value and minimise price fluctuations. New emu is distributed to owners of the currency and people working to keep the network alive when demand pressure outweighs sell pressure. This becomes economic incentive as your quantity of emu will increase but also hold its value.

Head over to the eMunie forum to ask questions. This is completely off the current topic. :)

Right, you cunt! Stirring up Dan isn't cool. This is a great project and we don't want him pulling the plug...Again...

Get off the juice Juicy.

Since this forum is the doorway to all things non-bitcoin, it is a mistake to try and focus on a proprietary forum when it will just lower visibility for new users, at least until the coin is actually launched.

I created a thread to discuss the potential problems of Emunie economics here:

Why Emunie is the Pandora's box of cryptocurrency

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1167031.0

Children children please ::)

who is dan? is that dan the scammer? is that dan the want to be get rich quick scammer in alt coin world?

Wow.  Seems like the loonies have come out from under their rocks.  They must obviously see the writing on the wall of their own pending demise and thus attempt to label it a scam.  Sad, truly sad.

"Sell crazy some place else.  We're all stocked up here." -Melvin Udall

Maybe you have Dan Hughes confused with someone else.  Anyone that has previously invested in eMunie and lost patience in the project was given a full refund a long time ago. Nobody was scammed here.  People of course will make up their own mind but I am happy to give it the "not a scam" label after observing the daily progress eMunie has made first hand over the last 2+ years. This is not something he is working on in his spare time. He works on this all day, every day for 15+ hours each day. I have also met Mr. Hughes in person over a year ago and confirm he is the real deal.

One of the main differences in the way eMunie will launch compared to other new solutions is that when a public IPO takes place the product will also be ready to roll out to the average consumer (with a fully working and feature filled GUI) vs. requiring another year of Dev time or to use a live network as a test net. 

A native debit card crypto solution like this will make the need for 3rd party solutions irrelevant. It is also a great step forward to see this working with existing point of sale systems. Interesting times ahead.

The above statement is just my opinion, people can look at the facts and make up their own mind.

That is amazing! If this is to work, which I trust it will, this really has the potential to change the financial world in no time.
I can't wait for eMunie to finally get released!

Is there a ETA for the final release of live net yet?

Great news Dan!

Keep up the good work. This solution is fast, simple and will help greatly in market penetration.

There is no timeschedule as such - we had one before, but kept getting better and better ideas that meant we could not keep the deadlines. So, instead of dissapointing people with new ETA's, we are just working hard on idea generation, implementation and testing. Once it works as intended, we will have a open beta for everyone to test - and then a 3 month IPO (so that everybody can test it out and decide if they want in)
... and finally, GO TIME.

Hehe, why dose everything good have to take so long?
I will wait patiently ....like I have for the last two years :)
But I will try to catch the next test. Its been like one year almost that I participated in one I think.

In that case. you can surely look forward to alot of improvements. Back then, we were still using the - comparatively - slow block tree.

We usually do alot of founder testing and its been a while since the regular beta testers saw a beta. That should change soon :)

We are working hard to get this on the market. Even pulling some tests to late in the night (for me atleast). However, eMunie is a monumental project so as you already know, it takes time.  Thanks for your patience!

I don't know who you are, but you are lighting up the board with your hype. 
 
Please link me to am ANN topic or show me some technicals.  What algo are you using?  What's the distribution?  What do you bring technology wise that is unique?  How many transactions per second and can it scale?  Etc etc.   
 
Hype is cheap.  Show me something real.

Technical documents will come. Some old threads to show how it performs - with a year old, obsolete ledger technology

https://forum.emunie.com/threads/a-crypto-first-a-well-done-and-a-thankyou.1613/

https://forum.emunie.com/threads/update-on-current-status-teasers-and-more.1760/

The p2p credit card is genius... but how will you get merchants to adopt a currency with massive volatility? They need fiat stability?

Fortunately I have the Founder status. Had been very into eMunie for the first year, but due to some real life stuff I didn't have the time any more.
Good old times!



Stability is one of the features of eMunie.  It's to be archived by an complex supply and demand model.
Here is a bit better explanation on it: https://forum.emunie.com/threads/price-stability.1938/#post-19640

You make supply elastic, so you can lever both quantity and price if demand increases (or reduces).

Is this going to be in the white paper as well? That description leaves a lot of details out.

How do you reduce supply?

Reverse helicopter Huges

Wowow, some emotions in here!


Thanks, its been one of the primary goals since inception, seemed so far away 2 years ago and now here it is.

As I said previously on a few occasions, due to the scope of everything, a single document is not going to work.  The economics will likely be one of the last things to be documented in detail, as it relies on an understanding of nearly all other system components to appreciate how it achieves what it does.

Some of this has been covered in previous posts, and the premise has not changed.

In a nutshell, there is a system account that contains an amount of EMU/other assets and its sole purpose is to buffer against short term movements that would result in a peaky price.

For example if a party was to come and sell a lot of EMU in one shot at a sub market price, where the result of selling that volume would sink the price below a system wide agreed lower threshold, then the system itself would buy that EMU with assets it holds (if it has enough) at the threshold level.

So assume the current EMU price is $0.11, and a large sell is placed with a price of $0.09, but the threshold is $0.10. The system will buy as many of that sell @ $0.10 as it can.

The same mechanics work for large buys that would push the price up past an upper threshold.  Assume a buyer rolls in with a large buy @ $0.13, the current price is $0.11 and the upper threshold is $0.12...the system will step in and sell EMU it holds at $0.12 in an attempt to cover the buy and keep the price in the agreed range.

Due to the internal DEX, the buffer always has some purchasing power.  If its selling EMU, it will receive another asset type (USD token) for that EMU.  If its buying EMU then it will be using USD tokens to purchase EMU.

At go live, the buffer will be credited with 10% of the total amount of currency the system is started with, so if there is 1M EMU at launch, the buffer will be credited with 100,000.  This should be enough to cover almost all short term pump/dump movements.  The buffer also receives 10% of all new currency being issued, (and in the cases where the buffer is low, system revenue from fees) so as to ensure its purchasing power -> currency ratio is always adequate to guard against "un-natural" movements.

If the case of a supply contraction, buffer assets are burned.  If enough can not be burned from the buffer, then EMU is purchased from the DEX, held for a short period in "limbo" and burnt later if the system doesn't return to an expansive state.

That is a VERY simplified explanation of whats going on, there is plenty of further detail required on the algorithms and mechanisms at play to get a fuller understanding, but the above should be enough to at least have an idea.

No doubt there will be a million questions from you lot though ;)

Curing Cancer is slow work.....whether it be biological/financial or another form :)

Plus, Satoshi took much longer than 2 years to develop Bitcoin, so patience already :p

No idea at all what this infers, but if there is a free helicopter going, I'll take it :)

Fuserleer I really like that the buffer will grow with the currency to help make sure that the currency will almost never be at risk of massive price swings

It can't mitigate them entirely.

In the event of a large run/rally, it will only be able to settle 10% or so....after that the price is in freefall/moon mode.  This is fair enough though, as it is not meant to stifle real free market activity, and if the free market wants a dump/pump, then so be it.

Other edge cases could be that a few whales together try and dump/pump the price, and while not successful, the buffer ends up on the lean side.  Should another pump/dump of sufficient volume follow shortly after before new funds can make their way to the buffer, you'll get some volatility.

10% or so should be more than enough to cover a succession of these events and provide at least a smoother ride than cryptos atm.

Of course, as the user base grows, and as our target user base is mass market, you'll see the price stabilize itself as the ratio of manipulators:genuine users contrasts.  The majority of the currency will not be in the hands of manipulators due to the distribution models, so the buffer should be less and less required.

How to get some emunie  ???

Wait for when we publicly launch

AFAIK Fuserleer was doxxed on Bitcointalk.  Turns out this Fuserleer guy was lying on his linkedin and had a history of criminal activity in the United Kingdom.  Anyone who is taking this guy seriously is naive and probably took Josh Garza (PayCoin / PayScam) seriously too.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3390794#msg3390794

Fuserleer was also talking down about NXT - his loss, he could had made millions.  :D

I think Fuserleer is running a vaporware scam and not to be sued or thrown into prison, he pretends he is still working on eMunie.   eMunie was originally meant to release in 2013.  So there's been investors who gave their money to him and still haven't seen anything more than 2 years later. 

 Anyone who invested into Fuserleer can pretty much consider their money gone.  If eMunie does eventually release, I imagine the coin would sit at between position 50-100 and  Fuserleer's reputation or the coins' inflationary mechanism will probably kill it.

A conspiracy website would probably be a better fit for you than BitcoinTalk.  Or at least someone should kick the turntable, the record is truly stuck.

I was never doxxed, I put my own documents online here, including my passport.  If not too much trouble, could you also provide some light regarding my proven criminal past?  I wasn't aware I was a fugitive!

Please feel free to contact anyone from my LinkedIn account seeing as you have access and ask about me.  There are a number of high profile people at VP+ level which I am connected to within the telecoms industry, and have worked side by side with many of them in previous companies I have owned in that industry.  

I can also give you a list of games I worked on that have my name in the credits, and provide the contact details of people within the games industry you may also contact and cross check with them.

As I and others have said over and over, yet for some reason doesn't sink in, investors that wanted their money back got it, the ones that didn't are happy with the progress.  Please direct us to the evidence that supports your claims, surely there should be many complaints of people up in arms all over the internet.

Thanks

Count me in as another proud investor without issue for over 2 years and I'm willing to wait as long as it takes.

With regard to the development timeline, just remember we've had 6000 years of human-controlled/manipulated currency and all of it's inherent problems.  I think taking a few years to build an autonomously decentralized version is more than justified.

As for the baseless criminal accusations.  Oh puhLEEZ.  I've flown from Texas to the UK to meet with him personally and can 100% vouch for his credibility and acumen.

Really curious about those "details".
For now I would call it playing with fire.

caveman who played with fire eventually discovered BBQ ribs ... YUMMY!! Much better than raw mammoth steaks, just ask Bear Gryls, that dude drinks his own piss ... I'm sure Bear is just as excited at the prospect of chowing down on some flame grilled EMU as many here on this forum. I respect Fuserleer for playing with fire!!

Hah!  You sir, win comment of the day! :)

Better wait until the day is over with awarding comments.
Playing with fire and being the overhasty type of guy is a dangerous combination  ;)

I'm just coming to the end of my shift, almost 6am, so its the end of the day for me ;)

I wouldn't say I was overhasty, the eMunie economic model has been in development for a long long time, as has the rest of the project....a hasty guy would have thrown it together and launched it a long time ago just to make a quick couple of bucks.

Interesting way of defining day.
The overhasty was referring to your comment above not your project or character in general.

BTW still curious about the details.

Hehe day starts when I get up, day ends when I go to bed.   My days are very dynamic :)

I hope to have all the major details of the project written and available within the next 4-6 weeks.  Obviously with being the lead on all aspects of the project from design, code, business relations, and everything in between, things can and do slip, despite having a great resource of help to call upon.

Even so, the wait should be relatively short, and there will be plenty of juicy reading of other stuff between now and then :)

Like Peachy, i've also trusted Dan with my personal funds for a long period of time and would not hesitate to contribute more. Dan could have launched a long time ago at the peak of the bitcoin hype train back in December 2013 and made much more money than he have ever had in emunie investments. He spends countless days and nights coding - to me, that seems like too much of a hazzle if you want to scam everyone. It would be much easier to finish a gui, crack on a Wordpress template and spend the weekend at the Hilton spending other peoples money.

This dominant market maker model of price stabilisation is similar to how nuBits works - the trick is to have more money available than anyone else in the market at all times in order to manipulate the price. However, although eMunie's MM will have more of its native token available than anyone else, where will it get the liquidity for the other side of the market from?

For that matter, where are these trades taking place?

if Daniel had invested into NXT like he almost did.

He would had said "SFYL" (sorry for your loss) and would had left his baby Peachy & "investors" behind holding an empty bag.  Daniel would had left eMunie to be a NXT developer.  This really proves that Fuserleer was a greedy chump then and still is today.

This is just wrong  ;D

I think nxt is sad Dan did not invest his time in their project.. not the other way around. Right now, nxt is on a 12th place on coinmarketcap - behind DogeCoin. 'nuff said.

I thought this developer had already been found to be a scammer, people should research his past threads on this forum. It's not pretty.

Your requirement for proof is beyond laughable.


All raised concerns have been addressed by Dan. Please continue to read all/entire threads instead of op's.

If they did, they would actually find he's NOT a scammer.

Please, if you don't mind, post some actual proof (if you have any) and lets take it from that once and for all.

I wouldn't give the trolls the satisfaction of an argument.

There is an endless queue of them waiting to get on the same carousel over and over, as they've all read some post(s) from some crack pot on "the interweb" so it must be true and taken over simple fact.  Anyone who matters will perform their own fact finding and come to the correct conclusion.

"Listen, and understand! That troll is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with.  It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever!" - Kyle Reese

fuckin' A Mr Fuserleer!! There's a lot of scared mofo's round these parts trying to muddy the waters. eMunie is the GAS, just do ya research and it's obvious EMU is a solid currency for everyday people

Currency trades will be performed within the integrated DEX (3rd party exchanges are supported also, but have no impact on the economics), with tokens representing other world currencies.  These tokens are pegged to the respective currency and can be converted to actual fiat currency via a network of on/off ramps through another system component called TRAID.

Initially the buffer will hold only EMU, users will "buy in" with USD tokens, that they can then trade on the DEX for EMU.  This is the basic mechanism with which the buffers obtain other asset types.

These tokens can also be used to buy goods/services if the merchant wishes to accept them.  World currency tokens can not be traded freely in the DEX, 1 USD token is worth 1 real USD.

The system must maintain a chain wide majority holdings of EMU for this to be effective, and also be fortunate enough that the initial sell off of EMU for USD tokens does not then lead to a situation where the system is not a chain wide majority holder of USD tokens.

Obviously there is counterparty risk associated with the (multiple?) gateways... Will each gateway have its own USD token? If not, how do you get them to agree on the value?

Again the purpose isn't to stop the correct or incorrect revaluation of the currency, it is simply in place to increase the quality of life for the majority of users by attempting to provide some form of logical or at least mathematical attempts at price stabilization without arbitrarily deciding the value of the currency. Furthermore any increase in the total amount of emu will be split up as 10% for the buffer and 90% as interest and payment for processing transactions. The interest and processing payments are (last I heard) in equal portions meaning they each qualify for 45% of all new emu generated. Furthermore this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available. This means that while some will probably attempt to short their interest or payments, those who hold will actually be building capital proportional to their holdings.

Getting a non-deterministic number and set of nodes that can expand or contract the money supply at will without forking or having enormous security risks doesn't sound possible.  Bitshares, which is overly complex compared to most cryptos, is simpler than this and forks around 5-10 per day.  I guess this is the benefit of the ledger system not using blocks?  Everything is kept at millisecond interval delay from each other?  It doesn't sound very "anti-fragile" though.  Isn't this kind of setup way more vulnerable to attacks by state actors?  What do you do if the state decides to disconnect the network from other parts of the network for extended periods of time?

Relying on a steady state network and not having fork resolution being the backbone of the system itself seems like it creates major problems in this area.

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://blog.emunie.com

Quality of life will not be improved if the price stabilisation is broken. Furthermore, you cannot 'arbitrarily' decide the value of the currency in a free market.

The market maker model of price stabilisation works by creating huge buy/sell walls around your currency valuation price; the idea being that, since the system is the majority holder on both sides of the market, it would be impossible for anyone to eat through those walls. However, you can see where this starts to break down if the system is not the majority holder, or starts losing it's majority over time.

Let's wait for the complete details in this before we pointlessly debate.

Let's say a state actor or rogue ISP decides to shape traffic to fragment the network for an extended period of time.  I remember Dan talking about some arbitrary time limit built into the system that was rather short to cover network latency that was not covered by this.  If the network becomes fragmented into several different pieces this way, let's say three similar sized groups, what was the reference point governing the "longest chain" so to speak?  Is it the group with the highest reputation?  And is that reputation derived from averaging the entire group, or can you have just one guy with extremely high reputation making it a consensus of only...one person.

Fork consensus was not discussed enough at all when it's probably the most important part of any platform.  Dan kind of brushed it off like forks aren't going to be a problem when they definitely can be, especially with ISP traffic shaping and port blocking out the wazoo nowadays.


Comcast Doesn't Give A F*ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159624.msg12242079#msg12242079

Pretty sure you already read this. Wait for technical paper if you want more detail. Let's not go in circles.

I remember that post now but wasn't thinking about state actor attacks at the time:  (n/3)-1.

Emunie seems trivial for a state actor to destroy completely compared to PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  If the state actor comes for PoW, you're just screwed temporarily.  If they come for PoS, you're screwed permanently, but they will probably make you rich in the process before it goes down.  If they go for DPoS, you won't see it coming, then it just implodes (unless all nodes are non-anonymous NGO or something like Tim Swanson says).  If they come for Emunie, the state actor attack doesn't even cost them anything since they already own or indirectly have control over all the infrastructure, then you just get a BSOD screen and it never works again.

And if your outlandish claims even were true wouldn't you just be damning all of crypto? And furthermore what if you are wrong? What if you are actually just blowing smoke up our ass like every other crackpot conspirator we have had to deal with? I think that may be you should wait until we have more details revealed before you slather on all the doom and gloom you can or maybe it was a mistake to even try to reason with you in the first place. But who knows maybe you will be right after all (though probably not) either way we are not going to simply lie down and give up when so much of the future of economic independence is at stake.
Also my bad before I messed up the link to the blog http://blog.emunie.com

More precisely the reason why, if this coin does launch, it won't go anywhere.  Go all the way back to March 2013 and people then were saying it was a crackpot mechanism.

We can look at the some-300 inflationary coins since 2013, since most copied inflationary PoW or induced a high PoS with an unlimited supply, and they all got drop like a hot potato.  Inflation is theft.

No one cares what fancy words you use.  At the end of the day eMunie is net inflationary and buyers will stay away once they realize Dan is putting his hand in their pockets.

All this fixation about "supply" and "price" just shows you to be an idiot savant and we already have coins like that out there.  NuBits is one but there's been others.  I should point out they're approaching the garbage bin capitalization and/or been de-listed from exchanges.

Thats a complete misunderstanding of, well, pretty much everything right there.  You have inflationary supply and inflationary value totally mixed up.

Bitcoin itself is inflationary, with regard to the supply, at least until 2140, its the price that is supposed to be deflationary (look how well that has worked for the past 18 months!)

An inflationary supply isn't theft so long as its not taking value from the existing currency in circulation.

If the price of an EMU is $1, and there are 1M in existence, but there is demand for 1M more, if the system does nothing, then the value of an EMU will double.  If the system creates 1M more EMU, then the price remains at $1...the currency is then neither inflationary or deflationary with regard to prices, so please explain how that is theft when everyones EMU still has the exact same purchasing power?

The point of reference is (as stated previously) the past endorsements that transaction producers have made, a sub-set of these are the nodes that are allowed to vote on future transactions.

In your scenario, imagine there are 99 nodes in the network, and they are all receiving endorsements constantly so they are all eligible to vote all of the time.

If the network suddenly splits into 3 sets of 33, then no future transaction can gain a majority, as 33 votes is always less than the 50 required, thus the ledger in all 3 groups is never appended to.  Those transactions time out and no forks results.

I cant explain it in any simpler terms than this, and if you still believe that there will be forks, well, I dont know what else to write.

I'm glad to see that you have stuck with this project. Haven't kept up with recent events around crypto. Can anyone give me a recap on the progress of eMunie? Last i was around it was a java program available in an early beta.

Pretty much the same, java, in beta lol

Lots of technological improvements though, speed, scalability, efficiency etc.. which enable a long term roadmap and a fulfillment of many goals that are still outstanding with crypto in general.

What about long range attacks? Is the evidence of past voting history difficult to forge?

Endorsement information is included in transaction data, which is signed by the transaction creator.  They are not malleable in any way.

Malleability isn't the problem - if I am a node which is syncing with the network and I'm presented with two different forks of the chain, how do I select between them?

Aren't we just going full circle again here?  ???

The endorsements guard against forks, because future transactions reference them so as to confirm. 

If someone changes some/all the endorsements in a copy of the ledger (its not a chain), in an attempt to present a "fork", those modified transactions wont validate because the hashes of the transactions will not verify against the signature.

The "fork" is junk, because no one can validate it, the ledgers of nodes trying to sync to it wont add a single transaction from it, so there is no choice to make.

A fork is only possible if you can change history, which is what you are suggesting here.  However, ledger history can not be changed due to the deterministic nature of who gets to vote, and the difficulty in modifying past endorsements which govern that.

Ahhhh, right. Ok, so there is no chain (or history) at all, just the current state? And said state is only valid if the majority of the current N node endorse it?

Close enough yes.

There is a history of states for syncing & auditing purposes, but only the current state of the ledger is referenced when appending/voting on new transactions.

If you are syncing from a historic point, say if you were offline, then your node would request the state actions you are missing, and action them to get to the same state as everyone else.  

Every historic action results in a new local current state of the ledger, then you apply the next one.  The actions have to be applied in sequence for you to successfully sync to the same state as everyone else because of the determinism.

If any of the presented actions cant be applied, because they were tampered with for example, your sync stops at that point until you have a state that you can apply and continue.

So there is a chain of history? Which is it, I'm confused?

Ok, so assuming there is a chain, and I am a syncing node just joining the network for the first time AND I am presented with two different chain histories, how do I know which one to pick?

There is a ledger, not a single chain.  The ledger is of n channels, which contain past transactions for that channel arranged as a tree.

IF you were to join and be presented with a 2 ledgers to sync from the genesis transaction, only one would be valid.  That would be the ledger where the first transactions are voted for by the bootstrap nodes.

So you can't have 2 ledgers to start with, unless all operators of the bootstrap nodes have signed the first transactions in both (which they wont)

So, these bootstrap nodes, where do they come from, are they a fixed set?

I don't care if you are fucking Satoshi. Coming out with lines like inflationary supply isn't theft....a inflationary supply is fucking the definition of theft. Inflation by definition is theft and inflation by definition is increasing the money supply...If we want this system we can use fiat and the FED...dick.


People love to sound smart and say Bitcoin is inflationary but that's a BS argument. Bitcoin has a limited supply.....just like Gold has a limited supply, that's the point. the fact it is in the process of distributing that fixed supply is NOT the point.

There's nothing like a reasoned argument...and that is certainly nothing like one!

There is nothing like a developer using sockpuppet accounts to push their agenda to inspire trust. Lol



Don't even try to deny it.....

It doesn't take a sock puppet to call bullshit just saying

I'm moving this conversation here, because it's more relevant...

Can we talk about how a node syncs with the network? How do they know who to trust, how can they validate blocks are genuine?

The delegate election process:

If delegates get elected and then disappear all within the period allocated for consensus, doesn't that represent a DOS if this happens to a majority?

Yes that can happen, but that is just the same as (n/m)-1 failures.

It would be highly unlikely though, akin to all a bunch of Bitcoins miners (a couple of pools?) going offline, transactions then take much longer to be confirmed.

I have considered it though, perhaps for example some attacker has a rare occurrence majority of his nodes in the delegate set (leaving aside the difficulty of these attacks ), notices and decides "Hey, lets screw this up!" and turns off all his nodes.

That then results in greater than (n/m)-1 failures so those transactions will fail...there are 2 mechanisms to defend against this activity.

First of all, if there is a period where transactions are not obtaining a majority consensus, the delegate selection mechanism switches for a short period of time.  Instead of delegates being the most recently endorsed, it switches to also include the delegates with the heaviest weight.

Delegates with the heaviest weights will have a high likelihood of being constantly online (they have to be to have the heaviest weight)...this should be sufficient to get things moving again quickly, then the delegate selection can switch back the more "random" mode of operation.

Secondly, it is quite trivial to detect nodes that are in the delegate set but are not voting on transactions as expected.  These nodes can be omitted from future delegate sets for a period of time.

Finally I did consider having a "end of the world" list of super delegates that the network can refer to in the most dire of circumstances, but I'm not sure if I like that idea, or if it will be required as the likelihood of all delegates, both recent and weighted, being offline is slim to none IMO.  Also, the larger the network grows, the more unlikely this becomes.

Hmmm, this all sounds extraordinarily complicated with all these special cases.

Here is something to consider, feel to ignore it, it's just an idea:

Make delegates election purely stake based - so take the set of N delegates who have the most bonded stake.

This gives you the same constant attack cost as using the trust decay system you have at the moment (from what I understand of it, anyway) and has the advantage of being much, much easier to simulate or reason about.

Heh don't think for a moment I didn't consider things like staking to select delegates and act as a barrier to entry.  The problem is that implementing staking introduces further complexity as the endorsement/trust model is still required to achieve fair distribution of new supply.

The issue is simply that all of the things that Bitcoin/block chains lack...scalability, speed, fairness of distribution etc....are not easy problems to solve, especially for mainstream.  If they were, then I'm sure that Satoshi was plenty smart enough to see these solutions immediately and incorporate a design that solved them.

Complex problems sometimes require solutions that aren't as simple as one may like, so instead ensure they are as simple as can be and spend time pursuing that mantra.

A lot of the components in eMunie are used in more than one place, with no "special case" functionality to support the multiple roles, thus overall complexity actually reduces due to component reuse.  

The consensus is by far the most complicated component in the system, yet to me it seems elegant and simple and can explain the basics of it in a few sentences or a single diagram.  That probably comes from being about to see the full picture with all the detail, and its on me to provide that same clarity over time to all of you.

How does the distribution use trust to increase fairness?

Simple math.

Economics takes the total amount of trust allocated over the period since the last supply increase, then allocates a portion of that new supply to the service nodes as per their accrued trust over that period.

Accrued Trust / Allocated Trust = % Of New Supply

New supply is split 50/50, one half goes to service nodes, the other half goes to balance holders.

Balance holder payout is similar but is of the function Mean Period Balance / Total Existing Supply = % Of New Supply

Without the endorsements/trust, service nodes could not be paid fairly for the work they do.

And a service node is a delegate? Just want to get my understanding of the different nodes in your system right.

Service nodes that have a ledger can be delegates yes.

Service nodes without a ledger (running light) can not be delegates, but they still acquire endorsements and earn trust for supply (and fee) payouts.