Bitcoin Forum

Join our discussion in our official announcement thread.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

Algo?

also 404 on http://elastic.pro/send.html

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

watching    .   good luck :)

Also watching, looks nice!

Will there be a wallet to hold ELC ? When is the launch date?

It says on your website: 9.10 % of all coins distributed. If no more people buy ELC, what will happen to the other 90.9 % of coins? Burned?

What is the maximum number of ELC that will exist?

Nice project, i will buy some!

This message was too old and has been purged

Hey there EK, I have few questions as investor.
Who are the developers?
Do you believe that a former dev team isn't needed for such a quite bleeding edge project?
Who is Lannister:? What is his background and how has he been choosen?
What will your role be? I really liked your way of thinking, I hope you will take anyway a huge part of this.

I'd like to add:  What is Lionel's current role in the project.  He seems to have disappeared without trace.

From the previous thread


The original engine design proved to be unfeasible, and we've changed it.  Otherwise the ship is the same and the destination is the same.  The passenger experience should be the same too.

From the previous thread


Until someone comes up with a practical implementation of homomorphic encryption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption) it will not be possible to prevent a miner from having access to or knowing what he is working on.  In respect of the FAA, we are not talking about an arbitrary miner, but a malicious attacker who, we must assume, will be capable of manipulating the system in various ways, some of which we may not be able to anticipate or prevent.


I agree that manual intervention should not be required, i.e., there should be simple setup options that do not require manual intervention.  However I think some miners will prefer to exercise more control over the work that they do, and I think they should be allowed to do this.


Not possible, without homomorphic encryption as mentioned above.  Otherwise the problem is like implementing DRM in a consumer product.  You can keep out unsophisticated users, but you will never be able to keep out dedicated and skilled hackers.

When the will the project be finished.
Do you have a detail plan?

From the previous thread


I have thought about this too.  I think there are three factors which will tend to mitigate this issue.

First by "commercial operation" I assume you mean data centres and the like.  In addition to the cost of the electricity, these will have to pay staff and rent, and amortise the cost of the hardware.  A home user who bought his computer for other purposes will not need to consider these costs.

Similarly, for a home user who is just using his spare cycles while his computer is on for another purpose, only needs to consider the difference in his computer's electricity usage between active and on-but-idle, not the difference between active and off.

Finally if the weather is cold, any extra heat produced by the computer serves to reduce his other heating costs.


I entirely agree with marketing it as (and on the technical side, making it into) the best, most useful general cryptocurrency there is, independent of its role as an infrastructure to a distributed computing market.  To that end, I am in favour of keeping the transaction fees as low as possible.

From the previous thread


I agree that we should drop the word coin from the project as a whole, (and we appear to have already done so (http://elastic.pro/)).  "Elastic Coin" is a reasonable name for the cryptocurrency component.  People understand the word "coin".

From the previous thread


I had a look at that thread.  My first thought was that it was functionally identical to what we are trying to do here.

I wanted to see how far they'd gotten with it, so I skipped over to the last page in that thread, and discovered that it had morphed into Tau-chain, a project which I criticised here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1374480.msg14003690#msg14003690).  Even if Tau-chain is a worthwhile project, it doesn't appear to be the same project that Zennet started as.

But thank you very much for your link anyway, and I would strongly encourage people here to post links to other interesting projects which you think might be relevant.


I agree that the challenges to be overcome are formidable.  This might be why Zennet abandoned its original goal.

From the previous thread


I was really hoping for something smarter than that.


That just opens us up to FAA again.

PoS with no (financial) reward for the block-winner, (or just the transaction fees which I continue to advocate should be minimal) would also leave only the hard-working (financially) rewarded.  Those who just hold coin would be rewarded by the maintenance and possible appreciation of the value of their holding, which can only happen if blocks are regularly generated.

i would prefer if there was an air drop like decred, than paying for something unknown
this will have mining after launch at least?

That ship has already sailed.

From the previous thread


Are we committed to bitcoin as the base system?

The reason I ask is because I can see some advantages to Cryptonite's Mini-blockchain system.  I know that both have a solution to endless blockchain bloat, but they seem to differ in their tolerances to different kinds of spam.  Bitcoin doesn't like transaction spam, while Cryptonite doesn't like account spam.  Of the two, I think tolerance of many small transactions is likely to be beneficial as it will allow our currency to support micro-payments.  I don't see a lot of use for zillions of tiny accounts.

Someone in a previous thread referred to MaidSafe (http://maidsafe.net/) and the SAFE network.

I've had a look at this, and it seems primarily to be a distributed storage served.  It does not compete with what we are trying to do here.

I am concerned that its "pay once, store forever" model which requires exponentially declining storage cost will prove unsustainable in the long run.  Nevertheless, it is worth watching.  It it takes off, there may be benefits to be had from interoperating.

Please keep on referring us to other interesting projects.

This message was too old and has been purged

http://www.mkomo.com/assets/hd-cost-graph.png

It is following exactly the same model of actual storage space decreasing exponentially , If network space doesn't follow the trend, less free space is added to the network , the cost to PUT data onto the network would rise. Incentive to add extra data onto the network would happen, more data would be added to the network or costs would increase over time if there wasn't anymore available.

You might want to read further into it, this is not even MVP currently and the devs are planning in the near future to add the ability to handle large amounts of distributed computer power , like a super computer .

The consensus system of maidsafe would be much easier for what you want to do compared to a blockchain type consensus system

This message was too old and has been purged

Hello, explain me pls how much I'll get for investing 1 bitcoins right now? As I see now it's 24229 Blocks so why looking at the graphics I see that we are between 400000 and 403000 blocks?

We are on block 401693. Where do you check it? I check on BLOCKCHAIN.INFO

I've checked it here http://www.elastic.pro/crowdsaleGive me exactly the link where you checked that it's 401693

This message was too old and has been purged

What is b here and where did you got 401700? Where I can check this?

https://blockchain.info/

This message was too old and has been purged

Ok, ty.

This message was too old and has been purged

Wow, things are changing fast with Elastic - new management again! Welcome Lannister

The new website and the video are really good too.

Chinese Translation

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391693.new#new


good luck

Lannister, could you please introduce yourself and tell us a little about your background? What qualifies you to manage this project?

Do I get it right...
Countdown follows BTC mined blocks (24208 to go now).
About 150 new blocks per day are found, so the crowdfunding will end in about 160 days?

This message was too old and has been purged

Is it okay to send btc with a blockchain.info wallet to redeem ELC?

This message was too old and has been purged

Dazza, thank you for explaining the FAA problems.  I am reading more on Homomorphic Encryption.

This message was too old and has been purged

When will the crowd sale end and mining begin?  What algo will it use or is it something new?  Will it utilise CPU and GPU computational power or just one to start off with?  Lastly, will these functions be available upon release?

Hi there, i'm interested to donate in the crowdfunding.
But i'm still new to this crowdfunding, can somebody explaining to me how i can donate, and what are the other steps i need to do?

By the way, can i send BTC from my BTC Electrum wallet address?  just curious



.

This message was too old and has been purged

Yes you can. Before proceeding store your private keys in a safe place (wallet > private keys).
Then send the amount you wish to the address of the crowdfunding that is shown at http://elastic.pro/crowdsale.
The private key of the address you sent from is all you'll need to have your ELC balance accredited.

edit: ninjaed by EK :D

This message was too old and has been purged

article with some interest


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_computing

This message was too old and has been purged

Thanks for the tips @Evil-Knievel  :)





Thanks for the tips @xxxgoodgirls  :)

I also labeled my transaction so if I do need a specific key I can easily track it down.  I used my electrum wallet for the payment.

I am going to keep a eye on this one.

But I am not convinced yet about this.
Just because there is no real leader who can be hold responsible, if something goes wrong.

Also there is no real information about what the future will be like for Elastic a real plan where this is heading.
And is the decentralized supercomputer like Ethereum? or is it going to be something different?

Yes i think we all agree on a shorter period of time!

make it 60 days from now on. 

this may have allready made the rounds

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing

idk about u guys, somehow I have a feeling this dev is just a simple programmer.

I was looking at that too.  In particular I looked at the tenth reference (http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/138316/submitted-CRYPTO-2010-camera-ready.pdf).  Much of it was over my head, but I was able to understand enough to make the following observations.  First, it uses Boolean Circuits as its model of computation. BCs are not Turing-complete.  Second, it requires full homomorphic encryption.  As I have previously remarked, existing homomorphic cryptosystems are not practical.  Third, it only considers malicious workers.  Our threat model should include malicious clients, as well as clients and workers collaborating to attack the network.

In conclusion, its an interesting field of research, and one which we should keep our eyes on, but its not ready for prime-time..  I am now looking at the four projects linked to in the wiki page, which purport to make verifiable computing a practical reality.

I'm recommitting to the stricken sentence.  This is not ready for prime time.  See for example this (http://www.pepper-project.org/summary-perf.htm):

http://mybiasedcoin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/guest-post-by-justin-thaler-mini-survey.html

http://eccc.hpi-web.de/report/2013/165/

This message was too old and has been purged

Much like PrimeCoin to solve a meaningful puzzle?

Seems need more info let more ppl take part in this super project. ;)

Hey dev,

How do I buy some?

Didn't understand the public keys thing.
Can you please elaborate?

Thanks

This message was too old and has been purged

Thanks
Buying :D

Is Lannister the only one who has access to the official github repo?

reserved, like the new site btw  :D

I contributed 1btc to the ICO already at the very beginning, before the site upgrade:

https://blockchain.info/tx-index/df71cd7e97c66a899db7f7c66965856323c4b9fdf801eea2fa9b629a2dd47770


both sound good to me :)

might throw some btc into this myself interesting project

The purpose of this statement is to communicate the following:

The Elastic project is offering bounties on some specific development tasks that have to be carried out as soon as possible.
If you have an idea for a bounty that is not already listed here but also has a high urgency, please send me a private message with your suggestion.

1. The donation address is a multisig address, an address that is associated with more than one private key. Sending bitcoins from this address requires signatures from at least 2 keys (1 signature from me and one from a community member). We need a convenient way to spend the donated funds that is easy and comfortable to use. I thought about a python script that is able to prepare a raw transaction (change should go back to the donation address) and sign it with the key that the user owns. Also, it should be possible to load a partially signed transaction and add signatures to it. When all signatures are collected, it should be possible to push the transaction to the Bitcoin network. All without running a full node. The adoption of open source solutions is fine.
-> 0.15 BTC

2. We need a FAQ section so people don't have to ask the same questions over and over again.
The website is developed in NodeJS and is available in our repository. Please feel free to fork it and play with it.
The FAQ section should be neatly integrated into the site's design and be administrable from the web browser. The adoption of open source solutions is fine.
-> 0.25 BTC

... Please apply for the bounties by leaving a short notice. We do not want the work done more than once.

If no veto is issued I would shorten the duration of the donation based ELC distribution to 45 days starting from now.

Your coin has been listed on Crypto Database, if it is missing information or some information is incorrect please let me know.

You can view it here, http://cryptodatabase.net/coins.php?cat=E

Veto. I see neither necessity nor advantage.

A shorter time frame has been brought up several times in this thread.
Because originally it was stated that a change to the rules shouldn’t be a matter for debate and only one veto is enough that we cannot come to full consensus, we will leave the time frame as it is.

Hey Dev,

I Wanna invest some, but i use mainly wallets on Exchanges is there anyway to send money from for example Bittrex or poloniex?

Would like to know ;).

Kind Regards

This message was too old and has been purged

I have a Bitcoin Core wallet would that work ?

This message was too old and has been purged

Thx for the help does anyone know what block it started

now it says

62.30 BTC

DONATED BY 120 PEOPLE

9.90 %

OF ALL COINS DISTRIBUTED

23915 Blocks

what block it started so i can see how much % they get more each btc ;)


Ahh nvm i see its bitcoin block;)

Development team can i ask you one question?

I love the idea and wanting to invest but then i read this

Once we have added you to the genesis block, our voluntary action is finished. Please do not consider Elastic Coins (ELC) to be shares, futures, certificates, securities, bonds, treasures, profit-sharing agreements, or anything similar. All donations are strictly non-refundable.


What do you mean with voluntary action , you will just release it and then dont innovate or develop anymore ?

Cause this sentence makes me worried that it just will be deployed and left for everyone to slowly decrease ?

Making a coin will involve much more if you ask me like contacting exchanges making a platform for companys to buy the coin like for example Factom does.

I am responsible for the Elastic project and I do not want to formate any agreements, contractual obligations, or future promises that can be enforced in court. So in order to prevent any kind of legal detriments, either now or in the future, I explicitly do not agree in any form to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions in relation with the Elastic project now or in the future.

This is the basic reason why I want to stick with voluntary donations and a voluntary development process. But I can assure you that we all are passionate about crypto currencies and we are eager to see this pioneering coin being developed, used and maintained even after its launch.

Can i ask you if you had any developer projects before in cryptocurrency ? Or a track of development skills, cause i think many people need it to be convinced into a ICO

I am open to conviction. I only see potential disadvantages: less reliability, worse distribution, less funding.

Just there are many what if and those are not yet answered.

for example this

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393303.0

Why does the wallet only say you received 8.30973439 BTC and the website says something diffrent ?
Also the previous btc amounts are transferred between wallets is that possible with multi-sig wallets that easy ?

Why is there not been released anything about the persons involved, you dont need to run this ico but just some evidence of truth.

Also they say your whitepaper wont work why would they say that ?

So having questions means Elastic isnt for me ? That makes no sense at all.
When your having a Ico without a Escrow means people will have questions.

Ans those Glossy coins like Iota, Ethereum, Factom i do love those yea i support them since there ICO. Cause they bring something innovative to
the Table same as Elastic but about them there was much more known then here atm.

And when im reading that people think its a scam i wonder why and make me think twice before investing.
Also i came here with questions i never ever said it was a scam im just trying to figure out what Elastic is and the dev teams background.

A investor that does a good research decrease the chance of beeing scammed or buying into garbage.

Btw 5 languages are not that hard even i speak 5, and i aint a rocket scientist ;)

One more thing there is a coin that already is called ELC called Elacoin

MrBoot,  You have every right to ask the pointed questions that you do, that is what doing research is all about.  Not asking would be negligent on your part.  Only you can decide if this coin is for you, no one else can.

Until there is more honesty and transperancy in the altcoin world there will always be post screaming scam.

Is this coin a scam?  I dont know, I would like to think it is not.  But the way it is unwinding with the change in wallets, change in leadership, unanswereded questions, no escrow, it seems to be headed down that path.

I have been following this coin from the first thread, it is a great concept, but it is slowly coming undone.

Can you deposit twice from one wallet ?

Oke, I think I understand it a little better now, So you want to build A Real supercomputer and then rent the computer,
To Scientist and people who really need the computer power for it?
I had to rewatch the video again to really understand it, I like the idea but I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for it.
But I might invest a little in this project because I think it might be something useful, and small businesses and scientists who cant afford such a computer could really use it!

There is no FUD!  Just as you said these are opionions, as well as questions that need to be answered.  If Lannister does not answer them then some one should.  If I wanted to fud I would not have stuck coins in this project.  Going back and trying to do an escrow at this point is ridiculous, it was a y in the road that should not have been taken.

I agree we dont need escrow. Escrow is counterproducive for this kind of project. But there are frequently raised concerns, which should be addressed however, to stop the ongoing debate and move on. Biggest concern is probably the control of funds, (possible mismanagement, possible abuse, etc.). This could easily be addressed by a wider distribution of Multisig key storage. Total of six keys, four of which are required to send bitcoin, for instance, public applications, open discussion, transparent nomination, anyone already participated in either this one or one of the previous two threads is eligible to candidate. What do you guys think?

Will thw whitepaper include a section on limitations ...verifiable computations and homomorphic encryption which are not yet  possible for our purposes?

You did not solve the The Faster Algorithm Attack (FAA). Your proposed solution is incoherent and it doesn't matter what you propose, it will always be flawed because the problem is insoluble:


Also the attacker can DDoS the system by submitting a verification algorithm that is orders-of-magnitude slower than the attacker's proving algorithm.

This entire concept is insoluble and flawed and any fool who invests in this shit deserves to lose their money.

"Elastic - Scam or legit?"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393303.msg14158698#msg14158698

There are some very simple things that could be answered here to help with some concerns:

What happened exactly with Lionel? Who was Lionel and is he completely detached from the coin at this point? What was his actual plan?

Who is Lannister? His real name, his background, and who exactly has access to the donated funds?

Is there a ledger somewhere listing how these funds are used?

EK has made statements like without the donated funds the promotional video couldn't be made, or new website couldn't be created ... yet the donated funds weren't supposed to be touched yet (at least that was stated on the old thread). Can't have it both ways, one time saying all funds are safe and not to be touched, and later saying the funds are needed now to create videos/website.

Putting that argument aside, let us know who is on the dev team, what coders are attached and if Lannister is actually in charge of this thing now, it'd probably be nice if he posted once in a rare while. So far, there have been two 'silent lead devs', while EK is the one doing the talking all the time.

The technical aspects of the coin are obviously important, but most of that stuff will go over the head of the average investor. Basic info on the devs involved, how funds are handled, and so on, is basic ICO 101 ... no excuse not to provide this information.

This message was too old and has been purged

I am simply going by the original ICO rules (if you remember the old thread for this coin). Supposedly donations weren't supposed to be touched for a while (forget exactly how long). I believe you were the one who even suggested it, then Lionel confirmed.

But again, forget about that. You want all of the money right now, that's fine... not sure if anyone knows who even has access to the funds in the first place.

Please answer the other questions though.

This raises some red flags for me tho, I mean there are other Ico's At the moment who are open about everything.
You know the people behind it and what the plans are, Why wouldn't you do that?
This sounds like I don't want anything to do with this if it goes sideways.
For me It is really important in Ico's who I am going to give my money to and what are they going to do with it, this is way to unclear for me guys sorry.

I hope nothing in that sentence was intended to refer to me.  I'm not any of these things.  As I've repeatedly said, I'm just a guy on the internet.

I don't understand why the question about Lionel's continued involvement (or not) in the project gets continually ignored. It's a reasonable question; it's one I've asked myself; and its been ignored to the point that you are starting to look cagey.

This message was too old and has been purged

To be more specific, I think the scheme outlined in section 2.4 of the whitepaper is still vulnerable to a form of the FAA.  It doesn't affect blockchain security, but it could allow a malicious miner to claim all the rewards (but not the bounties) without doing the (honest) buyers work.  I don't think this dooms the project.  I do think that we will have to address the issue of veifiability in a fundamentally different way.

I have a busy day ahead of me, but I will try to find time this weekend to do a thorough critique of the current iteration of the whitepaper.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

Hmm, good job. It seems awesome.

I thought as much, yet, by giving us the barest minimum answer to the question, after ignoring it for so long, you still look cagey.  How did this happen?  Did you, for example, pay him to hand over everything and go away?  Did you get the crowdfunds off him before he left, or did he run off with the money, which you are making good out of your own funds?

This is speculation of course, and wild speculation at that, but by being less-than-forthcoming, you invite such.

I understand that it is frustrating for you to have deal with such issues, when all you want to do is get on and develop.  But I really do wish you would make a full disclosure on this.

It's also not clear who are the "3 developers and theoretical computer scientists and one designer around in this thread" are.  If they've participated in the thread, you should be able to give their user names.  Presumably two of the developers are yourself and Lannister.  Who is the third?  Does Lannister code?  the "theoretiical computer scientist" is presumably me, though I dispute the characterisation.  Who is the designer?

I have to go now, but briefly, could you please include a version number on each iteration.

With all the unanswered questions it is sad that we have been reduced to ...  Cagey

Can anyone tell me the block time and block reward ?

For aswell pow as pos please ?

Oke im in cant resist, tonight i buy some into the ICO and hope to support this project.

The problem, as I have mentioned to you, is that there are unanswered questions. When people ask them, you either answer in a vague, blunt manner, or just ignore them completely. Then you go off on a technical tangent regarding the coin. Yet we are all still sitting here, wondering who the dev team is, who has access to the funds,  and wondering why you ignored our questions. So that is why people think there may be some issues.

I'll assume Lionel was paid off. Although I still wonder what his original plan was, if he had devs onboard who simply transferred to you, etc.

I get this is supposed to be a loose collection of crypto enthusiasts working on the coin, but there is loose, and then there is 'so loose that we have no idea who anybody is, or who is in charge'. Even the latter could work (but is hardly ideal), if you weren't taking money for the project.

There needs to be one lead developer regardless, and at least one good coder. Everyone else can be that 'loose collection of devs'. Lannister supposedly is in charge, but he's not the one replying to people here. In fact, does he even read this thread at all? What is his background? Does he have coding skills? Who has access to the donated funds? Will you list how these funds are used, as you use them? Basic stuff.

I have another meeting in a few minutes, so I will confine myself to brief remarks


I'm sorry that I find it cagey too.


I think there are major - in fact fatal - issues, with the current approach.  I intend to show a devastating form of the FAA, one which I can see no way of preventing, or even significantly mitigating.

Consequently I think we will have to go in a completely different direction in respect of verifiability.   I have some ideas about what that direction could be.


I don't think the coding will be that sophisticated.  I think there could be an awful lot more of it than you anticipate.


In my opinion the block reward should be negligable or zero, but as it will be PoS, the computational effort will be minimal too.  The incentive to coinholders to do this work is inherent - if they don't, the currency collapses and their stake becomes worthless. The real rewards will come from running the buyers' programs.  These rewards will be determined by the market.

The reason for the low or zero block reward is that, because the total coin will be fixed, rewards can only come from transaction fees which I'd like to be as low as possible.  I think this could be a significant factor encouraging the adoption of our coin for general purposes, i.e., beyond the distributed computing market.

If the user submitted work is not used for securing the blockchain then what relevance does the FAA still have? Would people not just be either earning their own payments back? Or is this just shorthand for an attack in which somebody fakes having done somebody else's work but actually does nothing useful at all?

Conversely, if you can find a solution to FAA for verification then why can't it be used for PoW?

I think one of the issues is collecting funds while not even knowing whether the system can ever work.

What if there is a problem that can't be overcome, will the non-spent funds be returned?

This worries me now aswell i was about to buy some elastic coins, but if one dev says it are small things and another say fatal, then this makes no sense and worrieing a lot.

I believe this idea is great but its just so messy and unfollowble if your new, like team changes , who is in or who isnt , who is the actual dev or who isnt, who manage the funds or isnt, what if the total coin amount isnt reach will the coins be burned or distributed on the ico particepent and on what base.

And im just getting warm

Maybe a big meeting is needed in your organisation and sort some things ;)

I think its pretty safe to infer two things at this point:

• Since the funds are already being spent, they cannot under any circumstances be refunded.
  
  
• There is no 'organisation'.

 By making it minimal, I think you could be inviting tragedy of the commons or at least some of its ill effects. Sure there is an incentive to protect your currency, but a very limited one. A user will either trust in the network, and think why bother staking, others are staking, or he will lack this trust in the network, and more likely than stake sell his elastic. If there are no stake rewards, miners will get them as payment and sell them (if its not profitable to hold them), so they only have the incentive while they are on the job, but while on the job, they haven't gotten the coins yet and can't stake them. If the network pays the miners, the network has to stake and it has to ensure that it stakes even if no miner does.

I get that block rewards should be negligable, but why make PoS rewards close to zero?


I'd make a very large money supply with not too large inflation, make a significant premine and donate it all to specific noncomerical project that require computation (seti, folding, einstein, prime, etc.) or something like that...

Since I don't control the funds, I can't answer that.


Three comments:

First, I said fatal to the current approach to verifiability, by which I meant the one described in the current revision (04) of the whitepaper.  I did not say fatal to the project as a whole.  It just means that we will have to adopt a different approach.  I don't believe that tweaking the current approach.will work.  I also said that I had some ideas about what that different approach could be.

Second, am I a dev?  On the one hand, I find myself writing "we" a lot of the time, as in "we could do this, we shouldn't do that", so I guess that means that at some psychological level I think of myself as part of the project.  On the other, I'm not writing any code, which ultimately is the only thing which needs to be developed.  I'm just a guy on the internet with some ideas about what could work, and what won't.

Third, if you're worrying, then don't invest, in this altcoin or any other start-up.  None of them come with any guarantee of success.  Even the established coins including BTC come with no guarantee that they will be worth anything in a year's time.

In my opinion - and you are welcome to disagree - ELC is as good a bet as any other start-up coin out there, and better than most.  And I say that, fully cognizant of all the concerns and doubts that have been raised, including concerns and doubts that I have raised myself.  My stake in this is 3.5 BTC worth at the start of the crowdfunding, amounting to 28,000 ELC.  I've never paid any BTC myself, as I don't have any.  Instead EK promised me half his own investment at the time (I don't know if he has invested more since then) to keep me on board.  I trust him to honour that pledge.

And right now, I am not sitting here thinking, I'd rather have the 3.5 BTC.  I'm very happy with my ELC stake.  If anything, I wish I had more.  I think it is possible, though unlikely, that ELC will be so wildly successful that in a few years time my 28,000 could be worth $millions, which would be wonderful.  Far more likely is that it will be modestly successful and my stake worth $thousands.  Or it could end up worthless, in which case c'est la vie.

It's a punt, a gamble.  But I'm not worrying about it.

Why bother not staking, given that the activity is essentially cost-free to the user?

We could build staking into the reference wallet - active by default - and encourage any third-party wallet developers to do the same, also the mining package, which would have to have access to a wallet (or have wallet functions built in) to be able to collect the fees, could stake by default.


I assume that by block rewards, you mean rewards for successfully winning 10ms segments.  I see nothing else that could reasonably be described as a block reward other than PoS rewards.

Under the "different approach" I have alluded to, there will be no such rewards because there will be no such blocks.

As for why they PoS rewards should be negligible:  First, part of the original crowdfunding covenant was that the total number of coin would be fixed, and entirely distributed to the crowdfunders.  This was not EK's idea originally; it's what he inherited when he took over the project, and he has ruled out changing it.  This means that the only source of coin available to fund PoS rewards would be transaction fees, and I want those to be as low as possible (consistent with the need to suppress transaction spam), because high transaction fees act as a disincentive to trade.   Similarly high staking fees would be an incentive to hoard, hence a disincentive to trade.

Why am I so keen to incentivise trade?  Let me ask another (rhetorical) question:  What is the intrinsic value in a coin?  If the answer is "nothing", then we have a problem, because a commodity with a high and increasing price but no little to no intrinsic value is tulip mania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania).

I don't know how to value a coin, or a real-world currency for that matter, but I do believe that it does have an intrinsic value, which will be a function of the size of the trade economy it supports.  One of the things that attracts me to this coin is that, if we are successful, then it will come with a trade economy built in.  Bitcoin doesn't have that.  Few altcoins do.  But I'm not content with just the built-in economy.  I want our coin to be used to trade other things, and I want to make it as attractive and useful for that purpose as I possibly can, hence low transaction fees.  (I also want escrow built into the blockchain, for exactly the same reason.)


That would require altering the crowdfunding covenant, which EK ruled out when he took over.  I didn't agree with the decision at the time, but it was the decision, and we have to live with it.  There's nothing to stop individual crowdfunders from donating a portion of their holdings to these projects

Now we're really going down the rabbit hole...

No blocks? So something other than a blockchain then. Interesting.

I think my question to you before got buried - you mentioned the FAA earlier saying there was a devastating version you'd thought of, but I don't understand why its an issue at all if the work being done isn't for securing the blockchain?

Do you mean the worker pretending to do useful work but actually faking it entirely? If so I think that needs a new name because its not entirely the same as the faster algorithm attack discussed earlier.

My observations so far (my 0.00000002BTC):

Interesting idea. Cagey practices. Seems like a total gamble (and the house always wins).

Looking at the git repo, not much action yet for something that's 'working fine'. I'm also wildly guessing that Lannister is currently running 's/NovaCoin/ElasticCoin/g' on the elasticd repo.

The video states "elastic is currently in an advanced beta stage". How is that possible with no code, no wallet, and devs barely starting to work on the project?

On the bright side two people possessing higher than average intelligence are at least somewhat involved in the project.

To gamble or not to gamble. That is the question.

How is this person relevant?

Ah, you overestimate human nature, even one click is not cost-free. To have the wallet open is too much of a hassle for people. Lets look at blackcoin, as I think it has the lowest staking %, right now only 17% of the network is staking, (of course this is only a problem when there is more money on a certain exchange than in wallets, because exchanges have a free attack). But I get it, if its pledged to be fixed thats that, I think its unwise to set in stone economic parts of the system before the the whole is known, but I guess secondary solutions can always be found, like the ones you proposed and more.


Saying that a coin has a value that is a function of the size of the economy it supports (+its velocity) is the opposite of saying it has inherent value. Nothing has inherent exchange value, it depends on the exchange and so on the economy, thats exactly why trade is important. By block rewards I meant the rewards for winning segments fed by transaction fees, because I agree those disincentivize trade.

Elastic has its own economy, and I think thats where the focus should be, as a specialized currency for computing not a general currency ( I mean of course that could happen accidentially). I imagine Elastic and hashpower as envisioned now are economically separate, right?  I mean that its value is not a direct function of the hashpower being traded, but only a market price of its exchange for other currencies, like normal coins. I doesn't matter if you pay 1ELC or 0.000001ELC for the ammount of hashpower that mines 1Bitcoin, not to the market and not to the network, but perhaps this aspect could be exploited, what if the network considered that x amount of hash = y amount of ELC.

I like the idea of Elastic.
How's the ICO doing?

I apologise for not being clear in my explanations


I said "no such blocks", not "no blocks".  There will be a blockchain secured by PoS.

nihilnegativum wrote


If "block reward" is synonymous with "PoS reward" then the two clauses do not cohere.  I tried to construe his question in such a way that the two phrases were not synonymous.  Since "PoS rewards" refers unambiguously to the generation of the blockchain, "block reward" had to refer to something else.  I could think of nothing other than the PoW rewards earned by executing a 10ms segment of the program, which might reasonably be referred to as a "block" of instructions.


That's exactly what I mean.


One might reasonably call it a "run once, hash many times" attack applied to a 10ms segment.

But these (and other) superficially different attacks are really just variations on a theme.  The attacker finds a faster way of doing something - the precise "something" varies from attack to attack - which profits him at the expense of subverting the system at the expense other participants.  Since the phrase "way of doing something" more or less defines the word "algorithm", "faster algorithm attack" seems appropriate.

Note than not every use of a faster algorithm will be an FAA.  The key phrase is "subverting the system".  A person who find a way of genuinely running the customers program faster, even at the expense of other workers, is not subverting the system, and I think most people would regard his actions as legitimate.

63 BTC raised so far, 10% of the coins been distributed.

This message was too old and has been purged

In comparison to commercially available computation clusters this will be much more expensive won't it? Because decentralization has efficiency costs. As a result the hashing power will be close to zero -  at most a few volunteers who don't mind making a big loss.

As soon as you gave up on user-supplied PoW this whole thing ceased to make any sense to me at all. Am I missing something here? Is there some magic bullet which is going to make miners work for less than cost or make customers pay substantially more than they need to?

This message was too old and has been purged

Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.

This message was too old and has been purged

I'm not a mathematician so mathematical notation means nothing to me. Does factor two mean double? If so that's quite a lot. Even if its less, miners are unlikely to be able to compete with giant data centres and actual supercomputers even with 0 overhead.

Hey just bought some coins, just one more thing is it possible to send more then 1 payment from 1 wallet?

Also about the rest of the coins i think best is to devide them under the crowdfunding particepant,

some reasons a coins needs spreading so a bigger amount (1 mil already aint a lot) will be eventually more distribution, while the market cap stays the same. Also its prob a more fair way to award the people that supported the coin in the ico compared to the block reward.

Exactly as fast, but also exactly twice as expensive - and that's assuming the average miner gets his hardware and electricity at the same price as giant data centres run by the likes of Google. So in actual fact, its almost certainly a lot more than twice as expensive.


 Saying this is a feedback loop that will regulate itself is totally irrelevant to whether it will regulate itself into a situation in which nobody 'mines' and nobody buys computation or whether it will regulate itself to something that people will actually want to use.


I' don't understand what the amount of money bitcoin emits per time unit has to do with it and I don't know where the figures you are using come from, but none of this explains why either the miners will take work for half the price it costs them to do, or customers will pay twice the price they could get something done elsewhere.

This message was too old and has been purged

This message was too old and has been purged

You're not taking transaction fees into account, nor merged mining, nor perhaps the differences in electricity cost around the world, and in any case these other factors (such as influencing the future direction of bitcoin) may not be present here. Counting on miners working for a substantial loss and then on the amount of mining to be a fundamental basis for the value of the coin seems to me to be very naive.

I also don't really understand why all the details of the crowdsale can't be changed apart from one - you are now building an entirely different coin to the one at the start of the crowdsale. The single most significant feature of the original coin was user-supplied PoW, that was the entire purpose and nature of this coin, and for some reason it is ok change that one most important thing but nothing else can be changed because that would be unfair. I'm really starting to think that if you want to go ahead and build this new coin you shouldn't be doing it here with the ICO funds from a different coin that you've taken over - you should just start again from scratch.

Edit: I take that last bit back,  but i really think the consequences of this profound change need to be taken more seriously.

I just want to know where you discussed these problems.

Relation between Elastic  and Zennet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736447.0)?
Seems the idea is same.

Thread 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362006.0

Thread 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1374480.0

Sounds interesting,

has there been any development jet?
Git appears to me, to be just the Novacoin clone, or do i have missed something?
Building a decentralized usecase agnostic cloudcomputing would be great, many tried before, but none delivered jet

watching this with excitement
Matthjias

Nope, still not getting it.  The first two links provide evidence that Lannister and togesix are the same person, or at least are associated.  I don't see what links him/them to Muhammad Arandi.

But assuming they are all the same person, again I ask, how is this relevant?

I already invested some but I might wanna buy some more, but before I do is there a possibility to see what will be done with the rest of the coins if the icon is not full?

Cause if you burn them the Total amount decrease but the block reward is high compared to the coin amount
So actually bad for investors.

If the coin amount is split on investments with the time of investment means more Coins and better and easier distribution in the future.

But iT would be awesome to know before Maybe invest Some more.

Dazza your not a dev right ? But so far you seem to know a lot About iT! Awesome to see Some good
People around here ;)

I would say this doesn't matter much if the block reward is designed in consideration of the initial supply.

This message was too old and has been purged

Would it be possible to implement mini-blockchain as PoS?

@EK, Lannister what are the current plans for the distribution of the private keys of the funds among the community members?
Cheers!

This message was too old and has been purged

That seems way better than all existing PoS, I wonder why noone did it before, cryptonite isn't that new...
In the same spirit against wheel reinventing, it would be useful to check out the abandoned zennet that someone before mentioned, if you haven't already.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
Please continue the discussion here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233)

so much drama here:)