- We don't know the Poloniex account, but we can ask them.
Yes, please do and let us know. Also, is there a Cryptsy exchange wallet? There's only about 50M on Bter at the moment. 15M were withdrew within a couple of days. In one week we should be at the point where devs are able to launch 0.2.0
Yes.  So is there more detailed written documentation anywhere yet on just how 0.2.0 voting is going to work? How many nodes are up now and how do you see them? Do we have 100 now? How often will delegate votes occur? |
|
|
|
I can see BTER has increased the withdrawal limit to 100000 XCR !  YES>>>> And I see several large transactions now going thru the blockchain, including my own What fee is Bter charging? |
|
|
|
As I stated earlier, California has declared BTC to be a legal currency. Why? Taxes of course.
The California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Franchise_Tax_Board has not declared Bitcoin to be "legal" anymore than the Federal IRS has. They both have "only" declared profits from Bitcoin speculation and appreciation to be a taxable form of income. Technically, criminal drug dealers and prostitutes are supposed to declare their earnings as taxable income, too, even tho what they are selling is illegal. This is how they put Al Capone behind bars. They never arrested him for selling illegal booze during Prohibition - they jailed him for not paying taxes on that income. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone Tax organizations like IRS and CFTB are parts of a governing body's "Department of Treasury (DOT)" and do not have the authority to declare something "legal" or "illegal" under that governing body's established law. That is the duty of the governing body's "Department of Justice (DOJ)" and for States, the top DOJ officer is the State Attorney General. There are 50+ of these (see http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php ), and not a single one has made a statement declaring Bitcoin to be legal. I maintain that they will be forced to declare Bitcoin mining illegal if and when its specifics are clearly explained to them. Your other comments about "progressively changing chance" does not alter the legal fact that a chance mechanism is involved to select the winning miner that wins a 25 Bitcoin prize every ten minutes. Use some of the 750 BTC in the Crypti fund to buy an hour or two of a professional lawyer's time to prove me wrong: http://www.theiaga.org/http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/gaming-lawFor now, I stand by my claims. Mal, California has declared BTC to be LEGAL INCOME. as versus ILLEGAL INCOME. One of the little 'gotchas" in California Tax Law is that you have to declare all income, legal and illegal, but you cannot deduct expenses for illegal income. A dope dealer that sells dope for 100,000 dollars, but bought it for 80,000 dollars is liable for tax on the whole 100,000, not just he 20,000 dollar profit. If BTC was illegal income, the expense of mining would not be deductible under Calif law, but is under Federal law. For now we can agree to disagree. I stand by my statement that the CTFB does not have the authority to interpret California gaming law and did not issue their ruling with "prize / chance and consideration" in mind. These bureaucrats do not understand just what is under the hood of PoW mining, all they see is lots of piles of money they can tax. Bitcoin has been on the public radar for only a year or so. There is much more legal interpretation on its status yet to come. It will only take one AG to declare it an illegal lottery to start the FUD ball rolling and a huge movement to a non-lottery based cryptocoin - which will be somebody and could be Crypti. A declaration that PoW mining is an illegal lottery would make existing coins tainted and eligible for confiscation because they came from a poisoned source. Don't believe me? See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z3 |
|
|
|
As I stated earlier, California has declared BTC to be a legal currency. Why? Taxes of course.
The California Franchise Tax Board (CFTB - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Franchise_Tax_Board has not declared Bitcoin to be "legal" anymore than the Federal IRS has. They both have "only" declared profits from Bitcoin speculation and appreciation to be a taxable form of income. Technically, criminal drug dealers and prostitutes are supposed to declare their earnings as taxable income, too, even tho what they are selling is illegal. This is how they put Al Capone behind bars. They never arrested him for selling illegal booze during Prohibition - they jailed him for not paying taxes on that income. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone Tax organizations like IRS and CFTB are parts of a governing body's "Department of Treasury (DOT)" and do not have the authority to declare something "legal" or "illegal" under that governing body's established law. That is the duty of the governing body's "Department of Justice (DOJ)" and for States, the top DOJ officer is the State Attorney General. There are 50+ of these (see http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php ), and not a single one has made a statement declaring Bitcoin to be legal. I maintain that they will be forced to declare Bitcoin mining to be an illegal lottery if and when its specifics are clearly explained to them. Your other comments about "progressively changing chance" does not alter the legal fact that a chance mechanism is involved to select the winning miner that wins a 25 Bitcoin prize every ten minutes. Also, a declaration that PoW mining is an illegal lottery would make existing coins tainted and eligible for confiscation because they came from a poisoned source. Don't believe me? See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z3I believe that a ruling that Bitcoin was an illegal lottery would send vendors to a no-forging Crypti in droves, overnight. Use some of the 750 BTC in the Crypti fund to buy an hour or two of a professional lawyer's time to prove me wrong: http://www.theiaga.org/http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/gaming-lawFor now, I stand by my claims. |
|
|
|
Mal, these are some serious statements about attacking Bitcoin. I dont like that at all. I mean hurting Bitcoin means hurting everyone in Crypto and this is not a solution or proper way to start new currency or any project for that matter. If Crypti should overcome Bitcoin thats great, but intentionally trying to destroy Bitcoin – i wont be participating in that, thats for sure!
Sigh. That's exactly what they said to me at NXT. History shows that new world orders are established by revolutions, which are messy and inflict some hurt on everybody. Bitcoin has serious flaws that are eventually going to kill it, and its legal status is only one of them. Bitcoin IS an illegal lottery under US State law. Keeping that fact "quiet" doesn't make it untrue. Today Bitcoin has a market cap of 4.8 billion dollars. Crypti has a market cap of 183 thousand dollars. Bitcoin's market cap is over 25,000 times that of Crypti. The only way that Crypti can become a key cryptocurrency is by using every edge at its disposal. I'm ready to do that. |
|
|
|
1. Without forging fees, how will you combat spam? I have only talked to one developer that has said he can do this and his coin hasn't been released so there you go.
Transaction fees, if implemented to prevent spam, don't automatically have to go to forgers as a "prize". They can go to a single pot under control of the Crypsi Foundation and be spent by committee vote on worthy projects that benefit everybody. Then it's a "tax", not a "prize", and Crypti would still be the only legal cryptocoin not running an illegal lottery. 2. The approach of putting it all on vendors and their hardware is in theory a sustainable model, and one I think is a good idea, just not from Crypti. The problem is the bootstrap. It would literally take a company like Apple or Google to release their iBits or Gbits to get mass amounts of retailers to update their hardware.
Crypti doesn't have the money, power, or pull of Google or Apple, so trying to get vendors to install new hardware is a dream. Your best bet would be to find some pre-existing hardware that would be compatible with Crypti and try to get a firmware update. It couldn't be a hack because nobody is going to trust a third party changing the code in their POS terminal. That is unwise. Sooooo, that means talking directly to the manufacturer and good luck with that. I'm not sure if you could even get somebody high up to even answer the phone.
The Coinbox guys are talking to pcDuino about using their $39 nano : http://liliputing.com/2014/09/pcduino3-nano-smaller-cheaper-mini-pc-arduino-support.htmlI totally agree that getting vendors to buy in cold and install one of these as JUST a Crypti node is a fantasy. However, if it ALSO supported Bitcoin transactions at the same time as it was running Crypti node software, Bitcoin vendors would buy it for the flexibility it would offer their existing Bitcoin transactions. The initial sales pitch would educate them by highlighting that Bitcoin is an illegal lottery and is going to be declared illegal soon, Bitcoin is on the decline, Cryptsi is on the upswing and this board is not only a valuable tool for today but insurance for an uncertain tomorrow as well. On the day a State AG issues a ruling that Bitcoin mining is illegal in his State and violates his lottery laws, our message goes viral and demand for our dual-purpose board would skyrocket. 3. As Starik pointed out, then this system isn't decentralized which of course is not necessary, but it is, because it is an established cannon rule that whatever crypto win the alt wars be, it must be decentralized and open sourced.
I presume you are talking about the various proposed PoT system upgrades. As I understand it (and I may be wrong, and maybe the consultant can come up with some other approach), the original PoT implementation used identical decentralized peers but wouldn't scale beyond 50 nodes. The upgrades being evaluated to allow PoT scaling involve either (a) a tree structure with comm-linked "super-peers" controlling groups of identical peers under them, with ALL nodes having the possibility of forging a block every blocktime, or (b) numerous small networks of comm-linked identical peers that are rotated in to forge a block by some central authority when their turn comes, with only SOME nodes having the possibility of forging a block every blocktime. Neither (a) nor (b) is a decentralized approach. There are only three possible outcomes here. First, Crypti gets its original decentralized all-equal-peer PoT algorithm working despite initial latency problems. Second, Crypti goes with a PoT system that is not decentralized and has one-or-more privileged "super-peers" at centralized locations within the algorithm. Third, Crypti goes with a non-PoT system. If Boris & Co. are successful with the first outcome (and if there is no community effort made to change the development course for Crypti), then there is no further decision to be made. The Crypti team delivers a PoT algorithm exactly as they said they would, forgers are selected by decentralized PoT and get paid exactly as they expected to be paid, and as vendors slowly come to dominate the Crypti system in the future, forgers will eventually "weed themselves out naturally" over RoI considerations. If the first possible outcome fails, Crypti will be forced to go with the second or third outcome. If Boris & Co. are successful with the second outcome (and if there is no community effort made to change the development course for Crypti), then there is no further decision to be made. The Crypti team delivers a PoT algorithm exactly as they said they would, forgers are selected by centralized PoT and get paid exactly as they expected to be paid, and as vendors slowly come to dominate the Crypti system in the future, forgers will eventually "weed themselves out naturally" over RoI considerations. Plus, Crypti is a weaker-than-desired cryptocoin because of its unfortunately-necessary embedded centralization. Note second outcome ("centralized super-peer PoT") may be infeasible and so never released by the devs. It may also be undesirable to a point where it is rejected by the community even if released by the devs. Note that infeasible and undesirable are two different sets of circumstances, but both lead to selecting the third option (non-PoT). There are many possible non-PoT variants for Crypti. My proposed vendor-oriented, no forging version and starting an illegal-lottery PR war with Bitcoin is only one possibility. Let's hear yours. 4. There is some great theoretically ideas being tossed around here about how to solve many of the PoW problems that Bitcoin has plagued us with, but the [final] answer just hasn't come yet.
We're not done introducing new ideas yet, either. At least, I'm not. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Stating presumptions as fact does NOT make them actual facts... just saying...  I welcome all challenging commentary by others that would show any of my presumptions to be incorrect. |
|
|
|
We have not at any point slowed down or abandoned working towards the solution we originally proposed and as mentioned, are working with an outside consultant on some possible options as we speak....
I want to be completely 100% CLEAR here and state that The Crypti Foundation at has not, at any point, voted to make this change or progress with one of the possible secondary efforts to build a different form of Crypti. We ARE building background contingencies, but it is our full intention to continue developing the same solution we proposed from day 1. The conversation we are having here is about possible contingencies only at this point and is just an interesting conversation about possible innovations in the industry and ways to build out a network for a second generation currency.
I hope that clears up some possible confusion and relieves some of the worry that we will simply abandon forgers. Our goal right now is to find a solution to build the system that we said we would, build it, and then bring it to market.
Please Keep in mind that anything I say in regards to my thoughts or views on proposed solutions or systems here is only my view and comments and that the Crypti Foundation requires a majority vote of the Board members in order to make any changes, small or large, to the fundamental system. So even if I like the ideas here from time to time, or talk positively about them, it does not mean anything has changed.
We would have serious discussions here, initiated by us and probably with polls, before making any fundamental changes.
So while Crypti leadership continues with the PoT Plan A (as they should), let me discuss another critically important aspect of my blue-sky proposed Crypti Plan B. The Plan B "no-PoT, vendor-oriented, random-selection, no-forging, zero-transaction-fee" system would make Crypti the ONLY legal cryptocoin in the United States and many other countries. This would force ALL current Bitcoin vendors to buy into a Crypti system ASAP to cover their asses and have a viable fallback cryptocurrency if and when Bitcoin (and its clones) crashes upon being declared illegal. Before you call me crazy, hear me out. My logic is this. Bitcoin has been declared legal by the US FEDERAL government agencies of the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service. DOJ has said BTC (and by extension all cryptocurrencies) are a "legitimate financial instrument": http://www.dailydot.com/news/bitcoin-department-of-justice-securities-exchange-commission/IRS has said BTC (and by extension all cryptocurrencies) are "legal taxable property": http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-GuidanceSo far, so good. But gaming / gambling law in the United States is handled by the STATES, not the FEDS, and the State Attorney Generals (AGs) have yet to rule on the legality of cryptocurrency mining / forging as a form of illegal gambling. Which it is, once you truly understand how BTC mining (and even PoS forging) works. The AGs don't understand this because nobody has made it clear yet to the State AGs how Bitcoin (and clones, and even NXT) is running an illegal lottery. By US Federal and State law, only US States can legally run lotteries. An illegal lottery is defined as any non-State activity that exhibits ALL THREE elements of prize, chance and consideration. Google "lottery prize chance consideration" and you will come up with links like these : http://www.marketingresources.com/pages/sweepstakes-101/38.phphttp://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/u-2.shtmlhttp://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1069.htmlhttp://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=2300So let's talk about prize, chance and consideration in the context of PoW / PoS mining / forging. Prize: In general, anything of value provided to a "winner" of a lottery activity. For Bitcoin, this is currently 25 bitcoins currently worth between $7.5K-$10K awarded every ten minutes. Other PoW coins make similar awards differing only in their amount and timing, as determined by the rules of that coin. For "fixed supply" coins like NXT, the "prize" is the forging fees awarded every blocktime. If XCR implements PoT, it will have a forging fee prize.Chance: In general, any factor that makes the selection of the prize winner to have an element of randomness (as opposed to, say, skill - being judged by a fair panel of experts to have the best essay, for example). For Bitcoin and other PoW coins, this chance factor is determined by the nonce, difficulty factor and target. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Noncehttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficultyhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/TargetFor PoW Bitcoin, miners around the world compete against each other in an (illegal) lottery every ten minutes to win a prize of 25 bitcoins. They are running mining rigs to create cryptographically encoded blocks recording for posterity all Bitcoin transactions occurring in the previous ten minutes. Literally tens of thousands of mining rigs create literally thousands of millions of billions of trial blocks in the ten minute blocktime period. Each of these trial blocks are different from one another because they all use a different nonce that is randomly selected by the mining rig as part of the calculation process for each trial block. ANY ONE of these trial blocks could THEORETICALLY be added to the blockchain as the valid next block. IN PRACTICE, trillions of these trial blocks are rejected until one is created by accident and by chance that has a required number of initial leading zeros specified by the current Bitcoin "difficulty factor". This determines the "winning miner" who actually DOES get to add his block to the blockchain- and he is determined BY CHANCE. Bitcoin is no different that a bunch of guys throwing dice in a back alley, only the "dice" are mining rigs and the "back alley" is the Internet. Warehouses of ASIC mining rigs like this one is no different than an unlicensed basement casino : http://www.coindesk.com/inside-north-americas-8m-bitcoin-mining-operation/PoS NXT uses something called "transparent forging" (too complicated to get into here) in selecting the forger who will add the next block to the block chain, and TF has a chance element, too. If XCR implements PoT, it will choose between nodes that have been operational for identical lengths of time by using some kind of chance function.Consideration: In general, anything that requires a participant to expend a monetary amount or significant effort to participate, and in particular something that benefits the operator of the lottery activity. For any cryptocoin, this would be operation of computers by miners/forgers/vendors/users to calculate blocks during a blocktime, and in particular the addition by a "lottery winner" of a valid block to a blockchain. Let me cut to the chase. If Crypti is successful in perfecting a Plan A - "PoT" system and awards forging fees to forgers in return for those forgers adding valid blocks to its blockchains, then (just like Bitcoin, NXT, and every single other PoW crapcoin out there) CRYPTI WILL BE RUNNING AN ILLEGAL LOTTERY. If Crypti chooses to implement a Plan B - "no-PoT, vendor-oriented, random-selection, no-forging, zero-transaction-fee" system, then CRYPTI WILL NOT BE A LOTTERY AT ALL BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRIZE.
The competitive advantages between these two situations is HUGE. Plan A makes Crypti just like everybody else with little or no competitive advantage at all. Plan B makes Crypti legal when everybody else including Bitcoin is illegal - and that is the ULTIMATE competitive advantage. If we get Crypti lined up and ready to go as a no-forging / no-transaction fee service, then on one single day of our choosing we can throw down the gauntlet by emailing every US State AG (here they are: http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php ) demanding they enforce their State lottery laws against Bitcoin and shut down all Bitcoin miners in their State. On that same day we email every Bitcoin journalist and vendor we can find saying that the king is dead, long live the king - Bitcoin just had a heart attack and Crypti is ready to take its place starting today. Once we start this ball rolling, a decree from any one of 50+ State AGs could come at any time. The FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) factor alone would force everybody to grab a stake in Crypri ASAP just as insurance in case Bitcoin really DOES stumble and crash via a subsequent surprise press release from an AG declaring Bitcoin an illegal lottery. I call this the nuclear option. We nuke Bitcoin by going to war with it on day one, and we have the key advantage of being in the right while they are in the wrong. I agitated behind the scenes at NXT about setting their forging fees to zero and using this approach to nuke and sink Bitcoin, allowing NXT to slipstream into the lead. The NXT powers-that-be didn't even want to discuss this approach because they didn't want to rock the boat, much less start a war. Round two. Now I am at Crypti. I say let's go big or go home....with Plan B. |
|
|
|
In essence, the network would weed itself out in this manner naturally. Once it grew to a certain number of merchants, who were running their own nodes / implementation, whether it be through ATMs, Point of Sale terminals, etc, the network would start to adjust itself based on the RoI. People would only run a node and forge so long as it was profitable. We see this in Bitcoin mining.
Early adoption would be from individual users who would be supporting the network and forging, but over time it would adapt to be run by those who weren't concerned with RoI due to the declining rewards as more nodes enter the network and limit the amount of blocks each node forges. This, as you said, leads you to assume it would be vendors running a Point of Sale terminal. I had already considered the possibility and likelihood that this would eventually occur organically, but the initial adoption and user base is an important aspect of building and making Crypti successful in my mind.
Fundamentally speaking, if you are going to eliminate PoT and build the network irrespective and unconcerned with user base issues, why not just build a centralized network internally and then build it out through PoS terminals to vendors without ever involving any form of community in the actual running of the nodes? At that point all you would need is a strong web wallet with multi-sig, 3 factor auth on transfers, and added features such as a merchant directory and built in promotions, etc. You could focus the majority of your development around merchant outreach and the web wallet.
You still run into the same issue with early adoption. Merchants won't sign up if no one is there to spend it and users won't sign up if they get nothing in return. Chicken / Egg.
GreXX, I think all of you guys are doing exactly the right thing under pressure of initial failure, with getting outside review and keeping your commitment to reaching your final stated goal. Just keep going as you are. If there's a way out of this mess, I believe you will find it. You and I are on exactly the same wavelength in a lot of ways, particularly based on your most recent posts. You "get" what I am trying to propose about focusing the emphasis in XCR from forging to vendors. So I am going back and quoting this earlier comment of yours to discuss some of the other aspects that still need airing. Say you do get PoT to work. From your comments above, even in your own mind you know and acknowledge that economics of XCR rewards will eventually turn against forgers anyway. You know this and are promoting PoT and trying to draw in forgers as initial supporters of your network by offering them rewards anyway. This isn't dishonest, in my opinion; every other coin before XCR has done exactly the same thing. But there are two factors at work here that everybody needs to understand. First factor, you're gonna disillusion and disappoint most initial XCR supporters later on when they learn the economical truth of XCR forging. I saw this over and over and over at NXT. Newbies would show up because they heard they could forge NXT on a $35 Raspberry Pi and didn't have to spend $2000 like they would on a Bitcoin ASIC miner. They were very excited at this innovation by NXT! Thank you NXT! Then they would discover with their small of NXT they parked on their forging board, they were only going to forge one block per year. How can this be? they would ask. Soon they come to understand whales dominate forging in a PoS system by parking / hoarding large amounts of NXT on their forging node. Most newbies would leave in disappointment at this point. The few that were left would buy bigger stakes of NXT for their forging board and eventually forge a few blocks. Hey, they would say, these forging fees are ridiculously low!!! I'm not making enough to pay for this RPi board, and CERTAINLY not enough to keep running a cloud server with its bandwidth costs. I'm outta here. This is the key problem with a "fixed coin supply / forging fee" system - the forging fees don't pay enough for running a network node. NXT still doesn't acknowledge the seriousness of this problem even though they set up an "infrastructure committee" specifically to look at issues like that. PoT is an attempt by XCR to deal with the whale domination problem of a PoS system like NXT. It is a good and noble attempt that may very well solve the PoS whale / hoarding problem. However, PoT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF REWARDING A FORGER IN A SUFFICENT, SUSTAINABLE AND SCALABLE MANNER - IT IS ONLY A "NON-SIMPLE" METHOD TO SELECT WHO FORGES A BLOCK NEXT. Why wait for disillusioned forgers to solve it for you later by "weeding themselves out naturally"? Why not try to solve that problem YOURSELVES, NOW by going to a vendor oriented network from the start? Second factor, forgers would be only a tiny part of a mature Crypti ecosystem. Most people who would use a " simple, fast and scalable coin for commerce" are USERS interested in buying a candybar or a song or an EBay win and not running a node. They will not care about PoT, or forging, or accumulating coins from running Crypti software. The only software they are interested in running is a smartphone app that allows them to access coins in a Crypti wallet, and that's an app that doesn't require them to type in a 35 character Ed25519 password every time, either. Instead of trying to work on PoT now and spare the feelings of a few hundred initial investors / forgers now (who will "weed themselves out naturally" later anyway), maybe try to focus on a user app that will thrill hundreds of thousands of new users a year from now? So, forgers are not going to find a happy place in a fully mature Crypti ecosystem where users dominate. Most of those future end users haven't even heard of Crypti yet and in years to come will not care at all about the heroic history of how you finally managed to successfully implement PoT...or not. So if the whole point of perfecting PoT up front is to draw in forgers initially as pioneer node runners for the embryonic Crypti network only to cast them aside later when the mature network has nodes only run by vendors, then isn't a viable Plan B no-PoT path one that gets those vendors to set the initial nodes up in the first place? As I've said, a node that lets them process Bitcoin now as a hook and Crypti later as another feature? |
|
|
|
Cryptsi team is still here, and our loyal gang of 8 bloggers, and 4 trolls.
Just curious, do you consider me a blogger or a troll?  Seriously, this is a problem. Once you've fallen off the radar it's hard to get the attention of potential users again. At the very least there should be an effort to identify a (big) list of cryptocoin journalists and a plan to contact them via email with the Incredible Crypti Return From The Dead story. Hopefully by Halloween. |
|
|
|
Since the price of XCR is now BELOW the IPO price on Bter, that must mean that you have the utmost confidence that the Cryptsi team can deliver a highly competitive product to the crypto world and thus make a few bucks for yourself.
No coin, not TimeCoin, not NODE, or any other, has been able to successfully write a PoT algo so far. If they had, we would have copied it. They either use random choices (NODE) like we are right now, or go by the timestamp.
I am hodling on Crypti because it is a "fixed supply / zero inflation" coin with a stated goal of being a " simple, fast, scalable currency for commerce", and is exploring a cheap hardware access solution via Coinbox for processing of vendors transactions. These two things are killer apps that have yet to be achieved in the cryptocoin world. Crypti may yet become the first to get there. However, PoT is totally irrelevant in achieving these Crypti goals. Even worse, in my opinion PoT is currently holding Crypti back from getting to its stated goals, and will continue to do so until it is abandoned. PoT is not "simple" because you list a whole bunch of other people who have been unable to implement it in the past, and so far Crypti hasn't been able to implement it either. PoT is "fast" only if it can support all required peer-to-peer packet transactions in the one minute Crypti block time for a network of any size. PoT is not readily "scalable" because it embodies a summation function, which is a tough hill to climb mathematically, computationally and algorithmically. This is the real reason nobody has done it before and Crypti is having trouble doing it now. Obviously I don't know the actual secret-sauce code being used. But logically (and assuming all nodes were equal peers!), in the original 50 node PoT test network there had to be a minimum of sum1to49 = 1,225 node-to-node packet exchanges in the one minute block time. (See for yourself: http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/sigma-calculator.html). Doubling the network to 100 equal peers implies sum1to99 = 4,950 node-to-node packets in the blocktime. Doubling it again to 200 implies 19,900. Doubling it again to 400 implies 79,800. Doubling it again to 800 implies 319,600. Doubling it again to 1600 implies 1,279,200. Doubling it again to 3200 implies 5,118,440. Going from a 50 node network to a 800 node network means forgers deploying 16 times the nodes while the code has to process 260 times the peer-to-peer packets in the one minute blocktime. Etc. Etc. Etc. You can do the math. Roughly speaking, doubling the node network size means quadrupling the number of peer-to-peer packets that have to be processed in one block time. To quote Obi-Wan, "These are not the scaling factors you are looking for". If you want to play this PoT game with large (apparently above 50 node) networks, then you have two choices. Choice one, you can maintain one giant network where some nodes are "super-peers" in some kind of hierarchical tree structure that communicate directly with each other and only the normal peers that are under them, thus cutting down the number of peer-to-peer packet exchanges required. Choice two, you can maintain numerous small networks (say 50 nodes each?) of equal peer nodes that are rotated in as appropriate to forge blocks when their turn comes - but somehow they've still got to get the blockchain results from the blocktimes the were not eligible to forge, an additional complexity. Neither of these two choices are as "simple" as the currently running "random selector" algorithm running Crypti right now, and this "random selector" algorithm would be perfectly adequate to run a vendor-only network with no forgers and zero transaction fees. So yeah, I'm holding Crypsi and have faith it will become a big, important cryptocurrency in the near future that makes me money. But it will not achieve that status because it finally solved the PoT problem and made me rich by forging. It will achieve that status because it became a "simple, fast, scalable currency for commerce", implemented a cheap hardware access solution via Coinbox for processing of vendors transactions that also doubled as a node, and its market cap soared. |
|
|
|
Mal,
If you are so upset at the progress here, and are worried about your investment, I suggest that the Foundation buy back your XCR for the IPO price.
Deal?
Thanks for the offer. I'm hodling. |
|
|
|
constructive suggestions Yeah......... I had a drill sergeant like that too.
Ha ha ha. I'm not bossing anybody around like a drill sergent, I'm watching what you guys do on Crypti with no control over your actions. And YOU are dissing ME? I understand that PoT has been a key part of the Crypti concept from its inception. But here's facts: PoT didn't scale beyond a 50 node testnet. PoT is currently off-line. Outsiders have been called in to implement an improved PoT algorithm. There has been no indication yet from devs or outsiders that an improved PoT algorithm is even feasible. The bandwidth required by an improved PoT algorithm is unknown. The max number of nodes that can be supported by an improved PoT algorithm in a one minute blocktime is unknown. The steps and time required to test and verify an improved PoT algorithm is unknown. The restart date of Crypti under an improved PoT algorithm is unknown. And I have provided a reasonable numerical analysis (adjusted downward to accommodate YOUR constructive suggestions!) that PoT forging is going to require at least $3K of annual sales per Crypti node to compensate participating forgers for their annual node expenses just so they can break even, yet there is no Crypti plan to throttle or control the number of PoT forging nodes that go online and so assure this break-even threshold is maintained for the good of the forgers. Despite these facts, PoT is still Crypti's Plan A. OK, so be it. All I have been talking about is a vendor-and-commerce-oriented Crypti Plan B WITHOUT PoT as a backup if Crypti Plan A WITH PoT you guys are working on doesn't get back on track. IF your drill sergeant was any good, he told you that no plan survives contact with the enemy. That's why you had better have a Plan B in your back pocket when you go into battle, and a predetermined decision threshold on when to use it. |
|
|
|
SO now we have established that you dont have any constructive suggestions, and only offer criticism.
A merchant also can earn back half the transaction fees......... so yes, Crypti is slanted towards the merchant. However, compare this with the 3-5% fee that credit cards charge the same merchants.
A low blow, my friend. I have only offered constructive suggestions here, and food for thought. My suggestions would offer a 0% transaction fee for Crypti. There is no better transaction fee that a cryptocoin can have. |
|
|
|
I agree that this is a potential marketing technique that could work in certain parts of the world. This portion would be the only part that would be a radical departure from our current plans and would require serious thought. Ultimately, I don't think that what you are describing is bad and I think that it could be hugely successful, but at this point you have to gauge the damage of alienating the entire current base of those who invested and stuck with Crypti and the morale aspect of completely re-writing the playbook essentially.
Thanks for your acknowledgement that the play I am suggesting could be hugely successful. Crypti is rewriting the playbook right now, and it sure ain't "first-and-ten on the twenty" anymore. I'm just talking in the huddle til we go out for the next snap. |
|
|
|
Mal,
Did you see the posts on the coinbox we are coming out with?
The unit will run 2 nodes simultaneously, allowing a user to forge other coins. This makes supporting the XCR network cheaper due to income from another coin.
I talked previously about a dual Bitcoin / Crypti box, but for vendor access in accepting both coins for transactions, not mining. Vendors would buy the box to process Bitcoin, and stay for the use of Crypti once Bitcoin crashes. As it will. A desire to Mine / forge is a get-rich-quick attitude that must be transcended to implement a cryptocoin commerce system where vendors run nodes only to process transactions and the network is "formed" and "strengthened" from that motivation alone. For crying out loud, do we print dollar bills on laser printers at home to "strengthen" the paper currency network? We gotta go BEYOND Bitcoin.... |
|
|
|
Mal,
The PoT algo is merely to give each and every node a turn at forging a block. irregardless of number of XCR owned. There is a small boost to merchants based on their total sales. With a 100 node network, the average guy will get 14 forges a day. A merchant with several sales a day may get 17-20.
Do you have a suggestion for how to make the forging equitable for all nodes, irregardless of stake?
No. Apparently you don't either - you are stating right here, right now that a vendor is going to make more in total transaction fees than a forger. Thus Crypti is not an equitable system, it is a system that prefers and preferentially rewards vendors. Which is my point. |
|
|
|
Fundamentally speaking, if you are going to eliminate PoT and build the network irrespective and unconcerned with user base issues, why not just build a centralized network internally and then build it out through PoS terminals to vendors without ever involving any form of community in the actual running of the nodes? At that point all you would need is a strong web wallet with multi-sig, 3 factor auth on transfers, and added features such as a merchant directory and built in promotions, etc. You could focus the majority of your development around merchant outreach and the web wallet.
Sounds like a great idea to me. Why do you think this is bad?You still run into the same issue with early adoption. Merchants won't sign up if no one is there to spend it and users won't sign up if they get nothing in return. Chicken / Egg.
PoT forging does nothing to address vendor Chicken / Egg. Before the merchants show up, there's only "lottery winnings" to motivate a few forgers, not a stable system that rewards all forgers equally. Viral spread of a cool app for electronic payment via smartphone using purchased "tokens" called Cryptis does. Refocus from PoT to that app - it is what users will sign up for to download. Start spreading it in Africa - they already understand and use this technique because they don't have banks. |
|
|
|
Interesting essay Mal. I have a few comments:
the key cost is bandwidth at $20 per month
This assumes that a forger will have a DSL line dedicated to just the node. I doubt that...... most if not all forgers will use the same DSL or work T1 lines that they use for all other internet communications. Merchants wil already have DSL lines set up for their credit card transactions. Homeowners already have their DSL set up, so a node connection presents no additional bandwidth fees. That lowers your estimate of $300 a year to $60 a year.
Your assumption of "$3/mo" shared bandwidth and so only $60 per year as the total cost of running a node changes the number in my key point from $15K per year to $3K per year without changing my logic. So here is my logic with your number:
Bottom line, if you assume $5 per month to run a node and specify a 2% forging fee per block, each and every newly added node needs to support an additional $3K in sales per year just to break even via a PoT forging reward for running the node.
In reality, I will back off of a $20/mo dedicated DSL line to your number of $3/mo for shared bandwidth when you show me a working every-node-to-every-node PoT algorithm that uses only 20% of a DSL line's bandwidth. Just what IS the bandwidth requirement for a PoT algorithm that's got to communicate to every node once per minute the online status of every other node?
There's only 1440 Crypti blocks to be forged in a day
FOR A COMMERCE BASED CRYPTOCOIN THAT USES FORGING AS A REWARD, THE NUMBER OF NODES MUST BE KEPT IN LOCKSTEP WITH THE INCREASE IN SALES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT IT
But you assume that the only transactions going thru the node for the next year are the Cryptsi Node Reward Program transactions. There will not only be other transactions, but each block can contain 254 transactions. So we ar elimited to 365.000 or so transactions a day. A reward for forging 1 million XCR is 5000XCR.
Today there were three blocks that went thru with 100XCR fees, and one with a 1000XCR fee. Lucky Forger indeed.
Additionally, you are also assuming that XCR will stay the same price relative to the USD as it is today. I doubt that very much, and so do our frequent bloggers.
For a merchant to become a verified merchant, they must apply and pay a 1000XCR fee. Then 10 forgers must verify the merchant. Those 10 forgers earn 100XCR each.
With all due respect, you are comparing apples and oranges here while using smoke and mirrors.
It costs money to put a node on the network: money for a computer, money for electricity, and money for bandwidth. Today none of these can be bought with Crypti, so I have estimated their costs in US Dollars. My original estimate was $300 per year to put a Crypti node on the network. Your SWAG low-bandwidth PoT estimate was $60 per year. That's the cost to start forging, estimated in dollars.
To keep consistent, you've got to estimate the payback from forging in dollars, too. It doesn't matter what the XCR to USD exchange rate is, it doesn't matter what the number of transactions in a day or a block is, it doesn't matter what toy XCR rewards get handed out as party favors before the transition to the true Crypti commerce marketplace. All of these things are useless diversions that add nothing to the discussion or point I am trying to make.
Fact: If the annual dollars earned from forging doesn't equal or exceed the annual expense in dollars for running the node, the forger is not motivated to continue.
Once the dust settles and Crypti is in routine operations mode, all that matters is what volume of commerce the nodes handle on a per block basis, measured in dollars since that's that's the currency unit that bought the forging nodes. And my calculation stands: For a 2% transaction fee, each node must support $15K (my dedicated DSL number) to $3K (your low bandwidth use number) in new commerce. My logic stands for this statement.
Bottom line, letting somebody add a node without also requiring them to add an online shop is destabilizing the network by undermining its reward structure.
The new forger wants a cut of the ongoing effort. This cut has to come from somewhere. It can only come from increased sales that generate increased fees. A forger that does not add an online shop is expecting a vendor to generate the increased sales required to give the forger his expected cut. This makes the forger a parasite, doing something the vendor already did when the vendor added HIS node as part of a new online shop.
This is a logical conclusion. Open your mind to embrace its implications. The key to Crypti success is vendors, not forgers.
Of course, if you were to DROP PoT..
PoT is the backbone of XCR. The team here has been working on the specs for PoT the past few weeks. The current plan calls for it to be the main algo to determine what node forges a block. The other algos are just frosting on the cake, adding a little to the value, but not a lot.
I know you've been working for months on PoT. It didn't work like you thought. It's broken. You're embarrassed. You want redemption, you are calling in outside experts. I get all that. I understand you think PoT ***IS*** Crypti - BUT IT'S NOT. The soul of Crypti is not PoT rewarding of forgers. The soul of Crypti is a focus on commerce and vendors. FOCUS ON COMMERCE AND VENDORS.PoT will not allow a long-time up node to dominate the forging. Each node is given one point for every block it is up, and once it forges a block, the PoT value is reset to 0. That allows the other nodes to in the queue to forge, and prevents a type of attack.
All you are saying here is that my calculations are correct of how many blocks per day a single node will forge in a 100/200/500/750/1000/3000 node network. Embrace their implications.The other value for merchants is the sharing of the transaction fee. Even your wildly estimated cost of $300 a year ($1 a day maybe) can be made up with just one daily earned fee from a $200 sale.
Again, if there were no transaction fees and only vendor nodes as I suggest: (1) the vendors would make exactly the same amount by adjusting their prices upward slightly; (2) there would be no forgers, disappointed or otherwise; and (3) customers would be paying less in a more price-transparent system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
