Bitcoin Forum

This message was too old and has been purged

I dont know man. I think you need to chill with all the fancy lingo.

Good to see you taking charge of this EK.

EK I am happy you took it over. I believe this is such an interesting project.
How is the team composed at this moment? Will Dazza be a part of it?

This message was too old and has been purged

Ek for transperency could you provide a short paragragh on how this change occured.  I support the transfer and hope Dazza joins as a participating member.  I see the ico deposit address has changed, I almost used the old address in a recent deposit, not sure if that would gave mattered.

hello,

good news here! congrats!

i saw you also move the founds, will the ICO rules remain the same?

thanks

The link leads to this exact thread...

um yeah you don't need to get paid. 625 BTC or 260.000$ is nothing right? oh shit i forgot you are a early adopter of BTC cough

source code available after launch?

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

sorry. you said you have hundreds of btc. now you are in debt.

The announcement is incoherent.  This is not entirely EK's fault.  I don't know how long EK has had control of the project, but it cannot have been more than about a day before he posted this.  It was a shambles when he inherited it; it is not surprising that it still is.

In my opinion EK should make one, and only one rock-solid unbreakable commitment at this point.  And that is that anybody who has cotributed BTC so far can have their money back right now, no questions asked, and that this offer will remain in place until we can come up with a clear, coherent statement of what it is we are proposing to do.

Other than that, everything should be up for discussion, including the terms of the crowdfunding.  For example, I would like to suggest changing this:


I would suggest that we allow for changes in the money supply, upon a 51% vote of the coin-holders.  For example, they might vote to pay workers more than 100% of the buyers' fees.  Why might they vote to dilute their own holdings?  Because they might hope to attract more miners and thereby expand the economy.  Of course there would have to be limits to ensure that minority coin-holders are not unduly disadvantaged.  Whether or not you like this idea, I think it should be open for discussion.

If I have anything at all to bring to this project, it is out-of-the-box thinking.  But what good am I to you, if the box has been locked and the keys thrown away before I ever arrived on the scene?

As long as the coin launches with the 5 million supply then I don't see what could be wrong with a majority vote changing absolutely anything.

But I very much disagree that this should be changed to attract more miners. Unless there is a lot more overhead for a miner performing the work compared to getting it done elsewhere the big advantage here is that the miner is already being paid twice - once with the fee for the work and once with the transactions fees in the blocks they mine. This will surely make mining more attractive than other coins?

Of course that depends both on how much efficiency needs to be sacrificed for security and therefore how much of the cost of mining is met by the market rate for the work done, and what the balance between the number of transactions and amount of submitted work being performed looks like, so I may well change my mind later, but as things stand I would argue against making a change to this.

Edit: In actual fact I think was being stupid there, because it will obviously be likely to have very little submitted work and very few transactions in the early days, so perhaps some coin generation may be necessary. But I think it should reduce to zero relatively quickly compared to other coins.

This message was too old and has been purged

Have you guys looked into Tau chain https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=950309.0 ?

There are some similarities to ELC such as 'proof of code execution' although I'm not sure if that is used to secure the chain or just get payment. I tried to follow Tau chain / Agoras a while back but a lot of the AI-type stuff just seemed overly optimistic to me.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

understood. 

thanks for the answer and good luck

Yes you are right.

The baseline of performing PoW for other coins should be enough to give work with reasonable rewards for miners anyway.

I was just trying to look at Tau chain and I can't even find any explanation of how they secure consensus or whether their 'proof of code execution' is involved, and I'm not capable of finding out from reading the code. I wonder if perhaps they have been so busy discussing logical ontologies that they have allowed the security of the Agoras coin to take a back seat

This message was too old and has been purged

I don't.  Its only purpose is the make the subsequent SHA-256 operation a more constant proportion of the total running time.  It also makes it more expensive.  This whole idea of adding overhead to make the system more secure might have some merit if it worked, and if our goal was only to build a slightly better bitcoin by harvesting as useful work a few percent of its PoW effort.  But it doesn't work, and I'd prefer to have the overhead rather than the useful work at the few percent level.


Yes, and average it over very different hardware.  What if an attacker were to run his FAA on an ASIC crafted for the purpose?  A faster-algorithm-in-the-hardware attack. In fact, this is exactly what has happened to bitcoin over the past few years.  For us, it is a nightmare.


It's a convincing argument.  It's not sound, though.  It took me a while to realise that.

What I have informally proven here, is that in a random oracle model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_oracle) in which the oracle is time-linear in the size of the input, the best an attacker can achieve is a linear speed-up.

Unfortunately it turns out that supra-linear speed-ups of SHA-256 and indeed all sequential hash algorithms are possible in some circumstances.  Let s be a security parameter.  Let S be a fixed string of length s.  Let c be a constant.  Let C_i be an arbitrary sequence of strings of length c.  Let S.C_i denote the concatentation of S and C_i and let C_i.S be construed accordingly. Then in the time-linear random-oracle model, the time to compute both sequences Oracle(S.C_i) and Oracle(C_i.S) are, trivially, both O(s).  However SHA-256(S.C_i) is trivially O(1).  All you do reuse the saved state of the SHA-256 algorithm for the constant part of the string.  I think SHA-256(C_i.S) is likely to be O(s), but I can't prove it.  Can you?

And this is serious, because our PoW protocol is precisely to compute sequences of SHA-256 where the input string has parts which can be manipulated by an adversary, and other parts which are constant.

This should be an object lesson in why people should be very, very, skeptical about claims of security proofs.  


This is encryption, and if we're talking about 10ms segments, it helps not one iota, though it does add some overhead he can't avoid.  He doesn't have a limited time to handcraft his function.  He doesn't have to handcraft anything; he can use any innocent program such as might have been written by some other honest buyer.  All he has to do is find a reasonably tight loop which the program stays in for longer than 10ms, and runs the program "honestly" to reach that point.

Next he runs a 10ms segment "honestly" to fill the buffer.  Then he can screw around all he likes with any part of the state not read during the loop, and compute hash after hash after hash using the same buffer until he finds one that works.  The state of the crypto at the start of the segment is just another part of the program state read during the loop.  As long as he doesn't touch it, then the buffer will be valid.

The attacker has his oracle.  The buffer is filled up instantly because it is the same buffer he used before.

In fact the attacker can do even better than this.  He doesn't need to run the program "honestly" to reach his start point.  He can just initialise the read variables, including the crypto state, with plausible values.  If he keeps a copy of the unencrypted buffer, he could even screw around with the crypto state, reencrypting the buffer as necessary.  Think of the unread state, excluding the crypto state as analogous to bitcoin's "Nonce" then the crypto state could be "ExtraNonce", there to be used if the "Nonce" is too small, with just a little extra overhead.

So we see that the FAA is like a virus that exploits the very immune system which is intended to fight it.

Of course if it's the entire program, not just a 10ms segment, that is the PoW function, then yes, I agree that it would be difficult for an attacker to craft his program, especially if the crypto is seeded by the previous block, but then we're back to limiting the program time, which I don't want to do.  Additionally "difficult"/="impossible".

At this point it is my opinion that user supplied PoW is dead in the water and we need to find another way to secure the blockchain.

The entire point in this coin is user supplied PoW. You're saying that at this point you want to randomly make up a new coin to create?

This message was too old and has been purged

This is probably flogging a dead horse, but it just occurred to me that if the program state is stored in a Merkel tree, we could use StateMerkelRoot as an encryption key, which would not only change every instruction, but would force the attacker to reencrypt the entire buffer every time he tweaks the state.

I don't necessarily want to.  At this point I think we may have to, unless you by chance have any ideas as to how we slay the FAA dragon?

At this point I think my vision of the project is that our goal is to build a distributed market for computer resources, which uses secure protocols to guarantee that sellers get paid, buyers get correct results, and nobody gets his computer hacked.  I am, in principle, agnostic about the technology used to achieve this, though I believe that a new cryptocurrency will be a centrepiece.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

Thank you for your honesty and consistency, my investment will not be withdrawn.

since you've taken action, this project has gained value, not the reverse.

i'm not a coder,so my help in this initial step is ZERO, but i hope in the near future to be able to help in marketing.

Briefly, because I've got a real-world job to do...

There are other ways people can contribute.  For example, at some point we're going to need alpha and beta testers.

I'm a good linux tester!

not a pro but an exp user.

Are you gonna join the team?

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

I know I suggested this to EK, but will mention it here too ... I think the entire ICO should start over from scratch.

Just make this a pre-announcement. Keep the ICO on hold until the whitepaper is finished.

Then set things up proper ... escrow, lawyer (ideally) involved, do some marketing before the ICO, announce which coders are involved with the project, every team member, backgrounds and so on.

I mentioned to EK how Lisk's ICO is doing, for instance (over 750 btc in like 2 days). Look at how they set theirs up. I'm not saying Elastic would do as well, but it could do a lot better than it has been as far as money taken in.

since some one mentioned LISK here,

I have to say LISK is so fishy, I'd rather throw money here, not go to Crypti 2.0. they want to screw ppl twice?

I really don't see anything special in LISK, and I don't know who exactly put money in ICO. maybe those ppl behind the whole scheme.

Personally I don't think that's necessary, and I think its a bit early to have much idea how well this ICO is going to do - you aren't going to get 100s of btc per day in a sale that lasts for 6 months or something.

I didn't mean my post to imply people should invest into Lisk. I meant Elastic should look at how they set their ICO up, use it as a template (or just get ideas) on how to set this one up. It's very professional, and has taken in a ton of money, really quickly.

I also doubt the founders had 750+ btc sitting around to invest in their own coin... I expect it's mostly people who missed the boat on ETH, or those who made a lot of profit from it, investing over there.

True, but since this ICO does the sliding reward thing, there is also the danger that by the time the whitepaper is finalized, team background provided, and so on, very few will want to invest because of the discrepancy in rewards. Maybe it's just me, but it seems wrong to ask for money if a coin doesn't have a whitepaper yet.

LISK maybe a well planned scheme to bring BTC from investors to organizer.

But I didn't see any bright future.  

It is their whim continuously compared LIST to Eth, but honestly I don't see slightest resemblance.

People will not reap profits from project like that, and I do believe Crypti guys are not competent for that.

As to Elastic, I love to take risk, and the approach dev take.

Maybe a huge risk, but worth taking risk.

from beginning,  dev is not asking huge amount of money and now even refund is possible.


Pls.

I will only watch from now on.  and hope God bless us.

I to would have advised a restart of the whole project.  But, its is past that point now and we should go forward, the updated whitepaper will be out soon, EK has been upfront and fair in returning funds.  While it may affect the ico those that see the potential for this will still fund it, even at a decreasing amount.

I for one find this idea interesting and see its usefulness.

Its reassuring to hear you express this opinion.

If somebody you are dealing with hires a lawyer, I guarantee its not for your benefit. Lawyers mean contracts and t&cs that I won't read, wouldn't understand if I did, but that give me a vague feeling that I'm probably being scammed or abused in some way.

Will this be compatible with BOINC projects? Could you give the task folding@home, pay some etc and have miners computate?

This message was too old and has been purged

how many people in you team now? :)

Joined crowdfunding, very interesting project indeed!

where can you cop elastic coin from ?   :-[

Wow, thats amazing, thats the best plan for PoW I've heard so far, its really the direction I imagined PoW to go since I first heard of bitcoin. Can't wait to see it in action.

is it possible for us to multiple the ELC supply by 20 * to 100 million?

then every donator will get 20 *  ELC  of  current balance.

It is not a big deal, but maybe good for future liquidity.

I think we are aiming at general-purpose computing.  If it is a task that can be performed by a computer, then we can do that task for you.  But there will be several caveats.

First, as I envisage things, you will need source code, since applications will need to be specially compiled with a compiler which we will provide.  Initially only one programming language will be available.  I'm sure others will join it over time.

Second, "my scheme" for the PoW function which EK and I have been discussing, has an aspect which hasn't been discussed at all so far.  It will vastly add to the storage requirement in the blockchain.  Essentially the entire data-segment of the program that wins the block will need to be stored in order to be able to verify the block.  Consequently we may have to limit the size of that data-segment.  Since I am now convinced that "my scheme" is unworkable and we will have to find a different solution, I don't think this will be an issue, though of course the individual nodes will have their own memory and storage restrictions.

Third your data will be made available at the very least to a large bunch of random people, and probably to the entire general public.  So while it might be possible for us to process your company payroll, it would be neither legal, ethical, nor sensible for you to use it for that purpose.

I would not consider a future straight 20 for 1 split to be a breach of the current crowd-funding covenant, but I recommend against it now to avoid confusion.  Let's leave that for when liquidity actually does become an issue.

Since I've been using the pronoun "we", I guess in my own mind, I already have.  I should inform you, though, that I am temperamentally more suited to being a roadie than a band member.

I am Asperger's syndrome, I have borderline personality disorder, and bipolar disorder.  These are all formally diagnosed, though one Doctor has opined that I am "not as borderline as I used to be".  I think that's correct.  At the moment, I'm manic.

I also have sloooowww-motion ADD (self-diagnosed).  It's not that I lack attention, it's that my attention is so totally focussed on one think* that nothing else gets a look in.  This is my new bright shiny ball.  I could sit staring at it for weeks, months, or even years, but eventually I will lose interest.  It's not that I don't want to commit.  It's that I can't commit.  I know myself too well.

*The typo is so appropriate that I've decided to leave it.

Dazza, you made me smile.  I appreciate your honesty which us hard to come by in the crypto world.

You don't need to.  It's sufficient to offer people their money back.

I understand the need for reliability, but I think the current circumstances are quite exceptional.  You have just taken over a dog's breakfast of a project.  Nobody will blame you for making the necessary changes now.

You have a short window of opportunity to get it right.  The alternative is to be reliably wrong.


Absolutely.  But what are you going to do if another brilliant developer turns up, who, like me, has no BTC to invest, or who arrives after the crowdfund is sold out?  How is he going to be able to profit from the success he will be helping to create?  You could give him bitcoin, but he wants ELC.  What are you going to do?  Give him some of your own personal stash?  You've already offered to give half of it to me.  What about alpha testers and beta testers?  They're also going to be contributing to the success of the project.  And no doubt many other people in capacities I cannot even think of.

The crowdfunding is structured to reward one and only one class of contributor to the project: investors.  Everyone else is left out in the cold.

If you cannot change the 5,000,000 ELC limit, then at least declare that there will be 5,000,000 ELC, and that any left over from the crowdsourcing will be used to reward other contributors at your discretion.  If you want to exclude yourself as a possible beneficiary, that's fine.  I would also reserve 1,000,000 of those ELC for this purpose, limiting the crowdfund to the remaining 4,000,000.

It's easy to be honest when you're anonymous.

hmmm.

rules will be changed?

If he does any of that, he might as well just refund everyone, and restart the entire ICO and organize things in a more professional manner.

What you suggest is too major a change to just sort of slip in to the existing ICO. In your first scenario, he could end up with a huge amount of extra coins, equivalent to a giant premine. What if he sells 2M coins and is leftover with 3M? No investor would be happy with that. I'm not so sure any investor would be happy if even 1M was leftover.

do not change rules, do not reorgnize crowdfunding.

the crowdfunding window is long enough.

good. we would like to see team page on the website, if possible.

If It is necessary to reserve the left-over ELC for fund pool of future development.  It would be quite easy that Dev buy all the remaining, BTC is going from left to right pocket. and the ELC bought by dev can be distributed as He wants.

just saying.

I would love to see bigger Proportion for risk takers :)

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. If coins were set aside or the unsold were used for contribution purposes, it wouldn't be a proportional rate anymore... or at least the proportion outlined in the current ICO.

I was just stating to Dazza that you couldn't do what he was suggesting, without restarting things. Simple as that, no need to get defensive or act like I am harping on a restart. I get it, you don't want to restart or change any of the ICO terms ... so was just pointing out why what he suggested wouldn't work.

And I hope you realize that isn't a good thing.

ANY ICO play that trick, but ELC didn't.

Evil is honest and make it clear rule will not be changed. if there is only 2 million sold, there will be only 2 million in circulation.

That is what i understand from above statement.

I think we should not waste time on this since there is no clue that dev do evil, we would better not ask him to do.

Why not?  It's his ELC, paid for out of his own pocket.  Why should he not do with it whatever he likes, just as you and I can do whatever we like with ours?

He can't do whatever he likes with the BTC that's gone into the right pocket.  He can only spend that to further the project.  All expenditure should be transparent and he should account to the community for his decisions.

Because it's exactly what he said he wouldn't do ... back when we were discussing ways to exploit an ICO.

If a dev buys his own coin like that, he gets both the BTC and ELC. And yes, he can then use the ELC to donate to contributors (as it's like a premine at that point), but it also lowers the proportion of coins all other investors get ... such as if 2.5M are sold to investors, 2.5M bought by dev, it's equivalent to a 50% premine. And ideally that BTC that goes from left to right pocket is spent to further the project, but it's not exactly something easy to verify.

And that said, it's not necessarily a bad idea for a dev to have a small premine set aside to pay out contributors and for promo purposes. I don't think may people have an issue with that.

But to be exact, I was replying to Cyberhacker's statement that it was easy for the dev buy ALL of the remaining coin. That is the part that isn't so good... you don't want a dev buying too much of his own coin like that.

I do not agree that I have been asking him to do evil.  But I accept that his decision has been made, and that it is final.  We will have to live with the consequences, good or bad.

sure.

all i want is that he and his team can deliver whatever promised.   

I should point out that I mostly agree with you by the way. A small premine set aside for giveaways, promotion, marketing, testing and so on does make sense. But again, it wasn't in the original ICO terms, hence why it's not so easy to do at this point.

As for other devs contributing to the coin down the road, I assume they will be paid in BTC, so that part may be easy to take care of. Paying in ELC would be the tricky part.

Most people don't, but when being realistic, most coins do need a small premine to pay contributors and get promotion going. The problem of course is when a premine is like 20-50% of the coin, not some minor percentage.

Besides, a premine in ICO-land is somewhat different than in a traditional coin. As already stated, if we pretend you put some of your own BTC into ELC, then turn around and offer Dazza (or any dev) that ELC for his help, that is the equivalent to a premine. It all gets muddled when talking about ICOs.

I'm not saying you should do this, or change any ICO terms. But Dazza has a point... unless you use BTC for payouts, it's not as easy without ELC set aside.

The hard problem is #2, but I don't think that limitation of size is the right solution, it negates the main functionality of Elastic. Why not have nodes set the limit themselves or something similar? In any case, the problem consists of storage requirement for mostly miners (anyone else will be content to use a lightweight wallet) that already specalize for mining, and probably don't see a problem with adding a disk to their ASIC.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

I had a look at this.

The overview is utterly incomprehensible to me.  There are a lot of buzz words about things I know somewhere between little and nothing about.  I am not competent to evaluate this, though the suspicion is raised that it is meaningless technobabble.

Then I clicked on one of the links, and found this (http://www.idni.org/blog/generalized-blockchain):  The first part of this post makes sense to me, and accords more-or-less with my understanding of how Bitcoin and Etherium work, not that I know much about the latter.  (Or the former, for that matter.) Then we get to this bit:


Nonsense.  The situation is called "undecidability" because there is no way to decide whether an arbitrary TM halts or not.  The answer is not both "yes" and "no".  It is one or the other, but we can't tell which.  You should also understand that undecidability is not just a statement about our ignorance.  It is built into the mathematics.

Undecidability is not a problem for the programmer.  It's his job to ensure that his program is decidable, and that it does what he wants it to do.  Undecidability is (potentially) a problem for the people who run programs supplied by others.  Etherium's solution to the halting problem - aborting the program when it runs out of "gas" - is the same as ours, and it is the correct solution.  However the halting problem is not the only undecidable problem in computing and the issue will recur for us.


Utter balderdash.  Turing-complete languages are languages which can compute anything a TM can.  Godel-completeness means that any statement expressible in the language is also decidable in it.  The very existence of undecidable problems shows that TMs are not Godel-complete.

At this point, you can stop reading.  The author, who also appears to be the project leader, does not know what he's talking about.

Thank you for that Dazza. My own non-technical opinion when I was considering buying into their crowdsale, based only on intuition and not any actual understanding, was also that it was a lot of 'technobabble' as you say, and that the they would not be able to do what they were saying they were going to do, but I was never sure and it seemed to contain some interesting ideas so its good to hear a more knowledgeable opinion about it.

Bitcoin is limited to 1MB per block and it already amounts to over 50GB in total.  Our blocks could be hundreds or thousands of times larger, under "my scheme" as I've been thinking about it.  And that's without handling any more transactions per second than Bitcoin.

But there's a solution.  Just eliminate any and all variables not read in the PoW.  This would have the additional advantage of eliminating the "nonce" used by the attacker to effect the "run once, hash many times" attack I described earlier.

Still too much data?  Then disallow it.  That segment can't win the block, no matter what the hash value.  Try again.  Ironically this is most likely to happen in loops which do incremental reads, such as, for example, computing SHA-256.

Well I'm not that knowledgeable.  I just skipped over what I couldn't understand until I found something I could.  It's still possible that someone in that project is doing cool.  I mean, it's not as though our white paper, or for that matter, our website is particularly impressive.

Until someone figures out a practical way to do this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption) workers will have to be able to see the data they're working on.  Are we planning to subject miners to security vetting?

If not, then this problem is unsolvable.  At the very least, nobody here is going to solve it.

This message was too old and has been purged

Lol, that's true. I think there are two devs on that, the one who wrote that blog post I think does the 'agoras' part (the token and end services) and the other the 'tau chain' part that its built on top of, so it is possible that this blog post is just straying into the other guy's territory and making mistakes because of that.

But in any case, I was mainly wondering if they had any ideas there which might inspire a better solution for ELC, but it seems that anything relevant is either not being shared or just isn't there.

On a second thought, what makes this coin competitive versus BOINC? At BOINC there is a huge amount of computing power already available for free. So why would someone mess with crypto and pay for computing power in the first place? Also, if there are no regular PoW block rewards that means miners are not incentivized to process regular transactions, will network stall until someone pays enough for miners to start computing?

As for amount of coins, 5M sounds fine but I would also be OK with 1M or 100M. Just don't go retarded and opt for 100B or 100k coins.

This message was too old and has been purged

I thought there would be some kind of default hashing task in case the network idles.

This message was too old and has been purged

Personally I think tx fees suck.  Why should people have to bribe the miners to get their transactions processed?

I think we need a small tx fee, say 0.01% of every transaction, to combat transaction spam and for no other reason.

Edit: on second thoughts, scrap that.  Make it a flat 0.0001ELC  Let's go for transaction neutrality.  If you're mining for the tx fees, everyone's is a good as anyone else's.  Nobody's transaction should have to wait because other more lucrative transactions are jumping the queue.

Well, the user's data, to the extent that it is used in a proof of work, must be publicly visible.  We could maybe obscure who the user is, and what the data means, but that's about it.

I am greatly in favour of encrypting data while it is being passed around the network, but in the end, confidentiality is not going to be one of our selling points.

Or perhaps he's just straying into theoretical areas he doesn't understand, but which aren't really relevant to what he's working on, which could be perfectly fine and functional.


Well I don't know.  As I said I'm not really competent to evaluate it.  I'm just a guy on the internet, after all, who doesn't know that much about anything.  Most of what I know about crypto came from Wikipedia.

I think you're being overly modest. Regardless of where you got your cryptocurrency knowledge, you clearly have some fairly in-depth understanding of both it and computer science in general.

At some point I would like to hear what Evil Knievel was thinking about using something other than a blockhain so that it doesn't matter who is the fastest - something already being developed like Iota's DAG (I think that's what they call it) or something new?

EK, do you have any thoughts on the subject of data persistence?

Evil-Knievel please contact me, i sent a private msg about blockcahain.info's beta-wallet

I bet that if you design this coin with a way to do multiple merged mining easily for everybody you would have your main attraction for it's adoption.
Edit: P.S. EK it is possible protect it from quantum computation and even design room for it into future mining functions.

Its not just that, BOINC projects are fragmented communities of volunteers, but if there would be a huge amount of computing power ready to be used, people can work on posing more questions in a way that computation can solve. Cryptocurrencies are enough to provide a basis for such a network, but the next step would be to figure out the economical viability of BOINC-like projects that seem impossible for markets as they don't generate immediate exchange value.

Maybe stupid question: I sent BTC from my Electrum wallet. What do I need to claim the ELC later? Is the seed enough?
When I export private keys I get numerous BTC addresses with their corresponding private key. Will I need them?

This message was too old and has been purged

Not modest, just honest.  It's easy to create the illusion of knowledgeably if you have a little knowledge about a range of topics.  You just say "I don't know much about foo, but bar is yadda yadda yadda", and you go on for five pages, then people think "this is a smart fellow who knows all about bar" and they forget that you said that you don't know much about foo (In fact, you don't know anything about foo), and you didn't mention baz, you've never even heard of qux, and that even five pages on bar is barely scratching the surface.  This is me.  Ontologies?  I've heard of them.

My knowledgeability is fractal.  There are great big gaping holes.  And if you zoom in on the areas that look solid, you find lots of little holes, and so on down to every level of magnification.

Please do not build me up into a computer genius superhero.  I really am just a guy on the internet.

By which I meant that I knew what a DAG was in the context of graph theory, not in the contest of cryptocurrency. See, I just accidentally gave the impression of more knowledge than I have.

I've have now read the DAGcoin white paper (https://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/dagcoin-v41.pdf).  My conclusion is that it is brilliant, but it is not a technology we can use for our purposes here.  DAGcoin uses a distributed PoW work scheme.  Instead of a few miners doing a lot of work, each transactor becomes a mini-miner, doing a little work to confirm his transaction.  We cannot possibly run a user supplied program that way, and even if we could, FAA would probably rear its ugly head.

But even if we could use it, I would argue against it.  DAGcoin is cutting-edge.  The problem its developers face is how to make exciting new technology work.  Ours, in my opinion, is to make boring old technology useful.

We need research programs like DAGcoin, and I wish them well.  But it's not for us.

We already had a discussion about this in the old thread, which you started (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362006.msg13966804#msg13966804).  If there is something you think has been left unaddressed you will need to ask a more specific question.

By strange coincidence, two subdiscussions have merged.

I've been reading this paper (http://188.138.57.93/tangle.pdf) on DAGs, which contains a useful section on the threat posed by QC.  I was stunned to discover that Bitcoin miners are currently hashing at a rate of 2^68 nonces per block.  I had no idea of the power.  That turns the vulnerability I discussed in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362006.msg13967094#msg13967094), which I thought was only theoretical, into a reality today.  That attack would have required only 2^64 hashes on average.  Don't worry, I think we are far away from Lionel's paper so this won't be an issue.

With QC, the effective width of a hash function is reduced from half the number of bits, to a third (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHT_algorithm). So SHA-256, classically brute-forceable in about 2^128 hashes via the birthday attack, reduces in difficulty to about 2^85.  A back-on-an-envelope calculation shows that an attacker with the power that all the bitcoin miners put together have today, but quantum, could brute force a 256-bit hash collision in about forty years.

We're gonna need a bigger hash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs).

No I am no expert in quantum safe cryptography but I found in quick search several approaches to that. I have a more pressing concern though the crowd sale page is showing only 3.32 btc  spent?? glitch or major redemptions?

Yes, the attack I described later in the post.  S is the buffer, which the attacker can keep constant.


You seem to be confusing SHA-256 the algorithm, with SHA-256 the function.  There are an infinite number of algorithms which compute SHA-256 the function, but we assume none are supra-linear because if such existed, collisions could be produced.

Consider the following generalisation of the "mid-state" optimisation.  Let T be a string of length(s+c).  Suppose s bits of T are fixed, while c of them vary randomly.  These c bits must be in well-defined (i.e., computable) positions within T.  You lose nothing if you assume they are all a fixed distance from either the beginning or the end of the string.  The idea is that we find a function f(T) which reads only the fixed bits of T and produces some fixed length output, and another function g(T,f(T)) which reads only the randomly varying bits of T, as well as the output of f.  Finally suppose g(T,f(T)) = SHA-256(T) for all T.

If such f and g exit, then g is particularly well-behaved.  the number of bits in its input that it actually reads does not depend upon s, so a machine with random access to memory will have an algorithm to compute it whose running time is O(1).  A look-up table would work.  The complexity of f will be at least O(s).

If we can find algorithms to compute f and g, then we compute f once, (It may take a long time), and g (which is quick) over and over, so to be provably secure, we need to prove one of the following statements:

1.  No such f and g exist.
2.  f is not computable.
3.  No feasible algorithm for f exists
4.  It is not feasible to find a feasible algorithm for f.

Can you prove any of these things?  I can't.

Having said all that, this is of purely theoretical interest.  An attacker does not need the additional speedup that this construction would give him.  "My scheme" is dead already from the attacks I have already described.

It now shows my donations as zero btc spent and negative 5400 something coins had positive 14000 when it showed my contribution. I want to see this worked out but does anybody that knows what is up want to explain?
EK thanks for response I will stand by for update

Cool It is back to showing my balance proper. I expect this project will get on better footing in time. We all know this was rolled out poorly but it can be salvaged.

I don't really understand a lot of what you're saying, but I must have been right about it being a DAG that Iota uses because I've also seen it described as a 'tangle'.

I definitely don't think ELC should use their technology wholesale, not least because the have no real PoW, or PoS or anything. Instead, and I'm not really a reliable source so I hope I'm right on this, each node is equal and must only perform a very small amount of PoW in order to submit a transaction.

The reason I mention it is because it was said that a possible solution of FAA is for it not to matter who is fastest. In Iota I think instead of having 1 person win the right to build the next block, and to have them do so by building on the longest chain, the network is able to store multiple possible chains and have multiple participants (in their case any node on network) select what they think is the best chain.

Although the Iota guy definitely knows what he is talking about, I also think that not everyone who knows what they are talking about agrees that this is a safe way to build a cryptocurrency network. In our case, however, I was just wondering if this shows a general principle by which miners could win the right to participate in consensus and be rewarded for it without it making any difference how fast they perform the work, but instead just worry about finding a way to check how much work they have done. Perhaps a miner becomes a masternode of some kind, able to take any transaction and confirm it as long as they have performed over a threshold level of PoW since the last time they did so.

Btw there is an interesting discussion on alternatives to the bitcoin blockchain approach, which includes some discussion of DAGs, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.0

Seems like my question was overseen:

Great, thanks!   :)

I like the idea of an alternative to blockchain. The only example I know of is the safenetwork. In that case it really will be advantageous. If I was directing this ship I would use this coming network along with others as a platform to develop all the characteristics we want for our coin. Temporal Instant Market Exchange built in to manage multiple computing resource backed coins. Effectively making elastic coin glue for different currencies focused on different aspects of computing. In this case most of the development is done already.   

This message was too old and has been purged

Well I like it. It seems to go in a similar direction that I as trying to go in when I was talking about the DAG model with having pow earn you the right to participate in consensus but breaking the automatic link between solving one specific piece of work the fastest and mining that specific block as a result, but your method does it in a much cleaner and more reliable way.

This message was too old and has been purged

Glad I could be of some use :D

I'll be interested to see what Dazza makes of doing it this way.

It might be a good investment of time to check Mini-Blockchain scheme which Cryptonite is using. It offers superb syncing from scratch (under 20 minutes to fully sync with few years of data) and much lighter blockchain because all transactions where previously unspent input was spent are discarded after a while (I think it is one week), it is not keeping all transactions at blockchain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=713538.0

Cryptonite looks good.

This is interesting (http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Withdrawal_limits) though I don't see how it can help merchants.  The very limits that prevent an account from being emptied too fast will prevent it from paying the merchant.

What I can see it being useful for, is account security.  Suppose the user has generated a key, call it the primary key  The user uses it to sign a secondary key. The user can then store the primary key in a safe place offline, and use the secondary key to authorise spends and to set, or lower a spending limit.  Only the primary key can be used to remove or raise a spending limit, or to revoke a secondary key.  (Edit: a secondary key could be used to revoke itself.)   This way, if the secondary key is compromised the true owner can regain control of the account before the attacker has time to loot it entirely.

This could also be a way for someone to use an online wallet without entirely handing over the keys to the kingdom.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

By "gas" do you just mean ELC?  Or do you envisage a second spendable commodity?


OK.  Eventually I think we will end up with many different types of transaction.


We need to distinguish between proof-of-work and proof-of-correctness.  Blockchain security requires PoW.  It doesn't care whether the worker is submitting correct results, so long as he has appropriately spun his wheels.  The buyer, on the other hand, wants to be sure that the results are correct, including negative results.  While he has the same interest in blockchain security as every other honest user, n this context, the buyer doesn't really care how the worker obtained the results.  A faster algorithm just means that he gets his results faster.  (This does not mean that the FAA is benign to the buyer, since in many attack scenarios the buyer gets incorrect results.)


I don't see how.  If PoW (rather than some other scheme) is still being used to secure the blockchain, then an attacker might use the FAA to control the consensus.


I have an even simpler idea.  Why not just have pure proof-of-stake but with no reward at all (or pehaps just the tiny transaction fees) for the PoS miner.

Without a reward, the perverse incentives criticised in the white paper and the website are eliminated.  But the work will still be done.  Coinholders have a strong interest in maintaining the blockchain - their coin is worthless if they don't.  Additionally many coinholders will also be participants in the market, and so have an additional interest in its smooth operation.

With pure PoS, the FAA is mostly dead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M).  My gut feel is that it will rear its ugly head again in proof-of-correctness, but even then, in the greatly attenuated form of DoS attacks.  As far as blockchain security is concerned, it's dead.

This message was too old and has been purged

"Your ideas are both original and good.  Unfortunately your good ideas are not original, and your original ideas are not good." -- Paraphrased from somewhere I don't recall.


PoS can be used in conjunction with PoW to mitigate problems with the latter.  You could also just alternate between PoW and PoS (This was an early idea of mine which I never posted, my brain runs much faster than my typing fingers.)

My preference at this stage remains for pure PoS.  User supplied PoW is going to be such a headache and incur so much computational overhead, to so little benefit, that I think we should just abandon the idea.

What does that leave us?  A distributed market for computer processing, supported by a computationally inexpensive cryptocurrency.  I think that is a worthy project, and more than enough work for us to be going on with.

Another advantage to dumping user-supplied PoW.  The project naturally splits into two subprojects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338) - a cryptocurrency, and the distributed market for computer processing.  As far as the cryptocurrency is concerned, we could maybe start by finding the existing one that best suits our purposes, and fork it.

Final remark before I go to bed.  With all the mental energy we've put into user-supplied PoW, we've hardly even began to think about proof-of-correctness.  I have, however, been thinking about it somewhat.  My main conclusion is that it's complicated.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

this project need a lot lot of work..but if you can turn this come true, it will rock..

but seems even you complete it, you can only solve EP problems, it's more like  seti@home project?

Ive always wanted a cluster. The world needs more clusters

This message was too old and has been purged

What is EP?

This message was too old and has been purged

something wrong on the website?

the ELC amount is not popping out

any idea about IOTA chaos?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354220.0

This message was too old and has been purged

lol, anyway that is very entertaining.

another noob question.

what we will get when ELC launch.  a token created on OMNI, XCP  or a real "ELC" on ELC chain or platform.

Will you be covering what typy of governance system you would like to see in place in the whitepaper?  Looking at bitcoin and the number of  miners that are now based in china l am not sure at what point and how much of bitcoin and the blockcain they will
control.   Are they the ones who should be controling it?  I dont think do.  Like order to disorder, decentralization leads to centralization unless there is a mechanisim in place to keep it in place.

just some thoughts

excuse the typos...tablet typing not my best

Edited to add an appropriate film reference.

In what way is this relevant to us?

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

Great to hear that work has already started with creating a fork and adding different transaction types.

As long as you're sure that you won't feel the need to go back and revise the earlier chapters when you start working on the later ones then publishing each chapter as you complete them would be nice too.

I read the white paper. Great ideas. Invested small amount in this project. I don't know much about coins but i do know most successful projects come from crazy ideas and crazy people. :P .BTW all the best EK and teams.

No new investments since yesterday. While I'm happy about my bigger share on one side, I'd be haopy if the sum would exceed 100BTC on the other side. So that you have more funds for development  :-\

Hi,
do you need german translation (for some ELC)?

best regards

I think more will come in once everything is figured out (like if it's mathematically possible this thing will work) and a dev team is announced. Still following the coin, just not willing to jump in until I know the coin could actually be made. Although by then the changing rewards could be an issue for me.

Hi we were talking a little bit about Elastic coin on our podcast last night.  It seems like one of the most technologically ambitious coins announced recently and we were having some trouble understanding the details.  The white paper is kind of over our heads.  We were wondering if anyone would want to come and say a few words about Elastic coin next weekend on our show.  Just describe what the project is about and whatever else you might want to say.

You can checkout our chat about Elastic coin at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1379730.msg14041973#msg14041973 Elastic coin is discussed at 16:13:00 .

We will be watching your project with interest!

Typo under Foreign pubkey box on this page: http://elastic.pro/send.html

ETH -> ELC

On that same page, I'd change this word:

How many ELC do you want to transfer? You can use up to 6 digits after the comma decimal point.


Typo in thread OP, third paragraph:

 Imagine you could move from the traditional cluster and
decide to have your tasks solved by the Elastic Coin network for as low as a few ETC coins.

ETC -> ELC

first line,... p2p through the Web.
third line elastic coin SDK....spell out SDK
last line - by the miners.  All at a fair and market driven price.

Pure PoS has its own version of the 51% attack - an attacker with 51% of the coins can subvert the consensus.  He doesn't have to own them outright, only control them for PoS purposes.  Online wallets present the same centralisation risk as mining pools do for PoW.

When you says "submitting PoW transactions increase your chances to find a PoS block" do you mean the buyer or the miner gets the enhanced chance?  Arguably it doesn't really matter any attacker is likely to be both.  He will arrange that his coin is spent only on his own miners.

How does proof of storage work?

I've looked a bit more into this, and I wish you the best with this project Evil-Knievel, but I think it's too early to ask for crowdfunding donations when major concepts of how this will work aren't laid down yet.

This message was too old and has been purged

Not sure if it was mentioned earlier but it would be better if all 5 million coins end up distributed no matter how much BTC end up donated. As it is now, based on BTC value, 7.69 % coins should be distributed which is less than 500k coins, quite a low supply. It would eventualy complicate commerce, even with 8 decimal places. Many argued on this forum that even Bitcoin with 21 million coins total could run into same issues so I think ELC community should not opt for very low coin supply.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

I like the introduction, it gives a good overview of the aims of this project. Also its good of you to include people who've contributed to the discussion in this thread in the acknowledgements.

Its the later parts I'm really looking forward to reading though, since I think we still don't really know how consensus is going to work and how it can be made resistant to attacks like FAA.

This message was too old and has been purged

As soon as that for the rest - excellent!

Sounds like Zennet.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736447.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736447.0)

Forgive my skepticism as your intentions maybe honorable and I respect lofty goals, but I cannot conceive of a project of this complexity ever getting off the ground with the amount of funding you are likely to raise.

I hope you prove me wrong but I'll be sitting on the sidelines for this one.  Good luck.

Regarding the intro, I think it would be better to go a bit deeper into the functions of distributed computing (scientific and economic). Another thing I would suggest for the project is to drop the 'Coin' or rebrand completely, by its concept this isn't another coin, but something in the ranks of ethereum/augur etc. so calling it a coin really devalues it, and hides it in the multitude of all the clonecoins.

This message was too old and has been purged

is ZINNET  going to this one? 

http://www.idni.org/pre-sale

agora tokens.

good point.
I would also drop the Coin and just name the project "Elastic"
and in the crowdfunding one can get "tokens" instead of coins.

[ELC] Elastic: A Revolutionary, Crypto-Driven Computation Cluster (weighted Crowdfunding)

This message was too old and has been purged

intro changes to consider

para 1:  previously infeasible research to be accomplished

para 2: drop sub and just use projects
              does not work in the general case. to  does not work well (efficently) in general.
              for the users to for the ordinary user to
para 3: change scheme to system

i to would shy away frow the use of coin and token... it gives a childish impression to the whole concept.

This message was too old and has been purged

no thanks , i like being invisible

This message was too old and has been purged

I'd like to know how its going to work before making a decision on this, but I think we may want to keep the 'coins' instead of tokens, even if we drop them from the main title which I don't mind at all.

My reasoning is that I would anticipate a distributed network being less efficient than a commercial operation with wholesale electricity and so on, meaning that providing a competitive price for computation may not be easy.

One thing that attracted me to this was the idea that miners would also earn transactions fees - effectively subsidizing the cost of computation for the customer (and subsidizing the cost of mining for the cryptocurrency as well) and making this network highly competitive on price. But for that to work, you need transactions taking place, which means marketing this as both a computation cluster and a digital currency or 'coin'.

This message was too old and has been purged

1.1 change to consider

para 1: about half way down - be on the safe sides to: be on the safe side
           near the bottom - get rewarded with a certain amount of ELC to: get rewarded with a determined amount of ELC crypto-currency, similar to
           the Bitcoin mining process.


I am a bit confused on the FAA attack ...it seems a miner would not know what he is working or at least should not know, so while he may submitted an algorithm he should not have access to nor know what he is working on.  It is stated in the Intro   "All this happens "behind the scenes" in a process called mining with out the requirement of manual intervention."  It seems there should be a seperation of miners from being able to know what they are working from the beginning.  I am assuming this manual intervention is equivalent to human intervention (miners). 

I realized my understanding of the behind the scenes is limited....

Phew, with all the technical talk about how it will work I have been worrying that the economic aspect may not end up being as I thought when I put my money in, so its good to know that this economic advantage will be preserved.


Minor things:

Is termed Blockchain and aims for preventing to prevent / for the prevention of

emerge from one block of which the longest eventually survives (add comma after survives)

the key idea is to working towards solving arbitrary computationally expensive tasks <- either 'to work towards' or just 'working towards', not 'to working'.

This message was too old and has been purged

Hadn't considered it before, but I think you are right. 'Elastic Coin' sounds like a generic crypto ... either just 'Elastic' or 'Elastic Cluster', or something similar does sound a bit more professional.

I like the token idea too. Tokens would allow earlier trading too (such as how assets are traded on NXT, or how Maidsafe did things). But I don't think EK wants to go that way.

Yup, I would have suggested to call this just "Elastix" (variant of "Elastics" as plural form of "Elastic")... But that name already is used by a popular Asterix-based PBX platform. Though telephony/VoIP is a different non-competing field, so probably the same name could be used here without implications.

I was thinking maybe something fun would be to call them "threads" instead of coins.  It might just be silly but there is kind of a fun double meaning because thread can be made of elastic and also threads of a processor.   :D

This  seems to be a well funded and well planned project I have never seen a coin that generate so much interest when it is still 144 days for a launch,this could be huge ,there will be excitement as it move to it's launching goodluck to your team will bookmarked this thread and see how it unfolds..

If you like the idea, it is is worth to investigate a feasibility of using that name, maybe later, when more important stuff is completed :)

One more unrelated input from me (hopefully useful) - the QR code shown on the crowdfunding page is either broken, or is really hard to read. My phone struggled for few minutes, and was not able to recognize it. I zoomed it in, inverted colors - no luck. I then just copied the address to first QR code generator website found by Google (http://www.qr-code-generator.com actually), made a QR code there, and my phone scanned it instantly without any problems.

So I suppose it is worth to check this QR code, and fix it, not to cause unnecessary strain on gadget-lover investors.. oh sorry - donators :)

I don't know enogh to be able to tell you what to add to the introduction, but I have some considerations.

Distributed computing dedicated to solve a single task is a virtual supercomputer, composed of many computers working together for a single purpose. Scientific projects harness the power of voulenteer computers to solve computational tasks, the scale of such virtual supercomputers is limited by beeing voulenteer projects, profitable cryptocurrencies on the other hand produce larger networks of computation, yet waste their power on competing for profit and can't be harnessed to solve useful tasks. Grid projects need to be made profitable to scale up and PoW needs to be made useful for arbitrary computational tasks, Elastic makes PoW useful, but grid projects now have to compete with the profitability of crypto mining. So if (I don't know how or if this is technically solved by Elastic) the use of blockchain can mitigate the vulnerability problem of malicious nodes producing false results in grid systems, this could make it even more difficult. Redundancy would be costly if some amount of power would be needed to form a consensus, so I think other mechanisms are needed. I think that costs will be the main problem of Elastic computing, usually grid projects are used precisely because of their low costs, but when its economic, any computing project will need to compete with crypto mining, this alone is a very significant problem for such projects and any additional costs only make it harder.

Also, arbitrariness enables recursivness, will it be possible to hire elastic network to attack elastic network?


As for the name, I think elastic, elasticity or any variation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elastic is cool, for the name of the coins or tokens, I'd just stay away from using the word token, as it now means something that serves as a temporary replacement. I personally prefer something that fits well with the name of the system and makes sense, for example elastic/elasticity.




I found some grammatical errors:

aims for preventing = aims to prevent

on the safe sides = on the safe side

This message was too old and has been purged

It looks like the diagram is missing to3, and there us no arrow back to the buyer for his answered algorithm.

i have some more sentence changes but it will ge a few hours, before i grit to them

changes to consider

para 1:  major driver  -  facilitating agent
               general idea - general objective
               in exchange for their.... -  in exchange for their resources contributed in the calculation of certain task.
               to solve their own task...  - to solve their submitted task (work packages)
                That is required so that... -  The escrow is required in the event a miner does not ...

This message was too old and has been purged

Great work ED!
Is the ICO going to end in around 190 days?

Overall I think you are headed in the right direction.  This section I would rename - Overview - The Eastic System , or just - The Elastic System.  Try to use the same terminology, through out, task, work program, algorithm are all used to describe the same thing, task suddenly became work program, in this section.  I would split this section in to 4 paragraphs,  couple lines intro, describe buyer and seller, describe flow process, conclusion with 1 or two lines.  review work flow chart i dont see to3 or an arrow back to buyer for his answered work program.  I think you would want to introduce here in a couple of words how this work program is created but the buyer...and save the details for the next section.

after re-reading the intro I think it should be shortened a bit.  I would review the absrtact and introduction and begin using the term "Elastic System" from the beginning of the whitepaper.


again excuse the tablet typos.

Hi,sorry i have to ask some stupid question.
1.Can i use Blockchain.info wallet to crowfunding?
2.Is it just send the Bitcoin to the crowfunding adress?Do i need to do some extra action?
3.How can i get my crowfunding coin?
My English is my second language,so i need to ask you those question directly.

hi,

i asked those questions to "Evil-Knievel" last days, His answers;

1 and 2 .
u can use blockchain.info wallet for crowfunding. If u send btc with old wallet, you must use export feature for private key the account.. if u send btc beta wallet, u must do that

The Wallet Recovery Phrase should be fine.
Setting->Wallet->Wallet Recovery Phrase

You get a phrase of many words. This is enough, just write it down and keep it somewhere safe. The words are enough.

3.
Once the program is done there will be an importer, which can import blockchain.info backups, private keys, bitcoin core wallets, and everything else. The main thing is that the private key is there.

You are so nice!Thanks a lot!!!!

this will be minable?

This message was too old and has been purged

I still confusing.Sorry for my poor understanding,so i just send 0.1BTC to the Crowfunding adress for a test.Can anyone tell what to do next?

so we mine coins that are already in circulation? it's like trading our hash for the coin itself right? what is the algo?

This message was too old and has been purged

cool seems like a sort of a multipool coin

Evil, What about the video? When will u publish the video?

Is there a date..

..

sorry guys i'm out, i'v selled my share today..

good luck i hope this projet will rocket soon.

-videodrome

What does it mean?

elastic.pro seems down, isn't it?

i think updating with new contents

This whole thing is crazy... Let's do it!

Hi , I am new to crypto currencies I need a guidance. How do I start with? I would like fund this project. can I crowed fund from coinbase bitcoin account? Your help is appreciated. Thanks

All you need is here:

http://www.elastic.pro/crowdsale

Hello everyone,

8000 ELC per 1BTC you get till 403000  block or till 412000 ?

As far as I know you would have get 8000ELC from 1 BTC if you have bought before the block 400000.

Hey, I have really enjoyed the promotional video, nice work!

https://vimeo.com/157901432

Ah,ok. So now 6000 is till 403000 or till 412000 ?

http://elastic.pro/crowdsale

As you can see from the picture in the bottom you will get a bit less than 8000, but more than 7500 ELC.

Ok, i didnt understand how to read this picture, i tough there are intervals 8000->6000->4000... Ty much for explanation.

Glad you did check with a lawyer ... think you misunderstood what I meant earlier in this thread about getting a lawyer involved. Always good to check to make sure what you are doing is strictly legal. Not exactly sure it's a great idea to just hand over the responsibility of the project to someone else, especially the funding part ... you sort of need to find the perfect manager type (or dev), who not only has a track record, but also is willing to provide his real information. A multi-signature vault on coinbase is one way some devs make sure the funds remain safe when there are several 'leads' on a coin. One of those parties having access could be the same lawyer.

A couple of quick observations on the new website/video.

Video looks good, although you may wish to remove the 'advanced beta stage' thing from the video ... I mean, how can it be in advanced beta stage when the white paper is still being worked on?

As for the FAQ, you'll of course need the obvious stuff, the details on how the coin works, how tokens will work, how to eventually get tokens (besides providing hardware power, exchanges I assume) and information on yourself and any other team members.

I sent Bitcoin from whats the next step I need to do?

Now keep safe ur wallet.dat . In future u will need private key from this wallet to pick up ur ELC.

This message was too old and has been purged

none of the links to github onthe first page work.  I see lionel keys name is back on the white paper is he still involved with this project?

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged