Thanks for the links. This should make development easier - just add the cryptocurrency to the distributed cloud system. |
|
|
|
But this means that the valuation they're raising at is NOT fixed. Since the post-money valuation is 1.5X BTC, and the investors put in X BTC, the pre-money valuation must be 0.5X BTC. But that's not a fixed number: the more interest in the IPO, the higher the resulting valuation they raise money at (in direct linear proportion). If 1000 BTC of money wants to get in, then investors are collectively valuing the existing company at 500 BTC. But if 10,000 BTC wants to get in, then it must mean the company was worth 5,000 BTC initially. That's definitely not the way startups typically raise money, but it is not completely absurd, either. The more VCs that are competing to put money into a startup, the higher the valuation is going to be. The difference here, though, is that all the money doesn't go in at once. Only the people who invest BTC at the very end of the 60-day window will know approximately the actual valuation at which they're investing. The people who invest early on, might think they're getting 1% of the resulting company, but end up only getting 0.1% of the company.
If they chose to, the founders could address this in two ways. One way is to have an explicit pre-money valuation cap, of, say, 5,000 BTC. Then, the founders would receive min (0.5X, 5000) BTC worth of Ether, but they could end up owning less than 1/3 of the company. The other way would be to put a cap on the amount they're willing to raise in the IPO. If they committed to raise no more than 10,000 BTC, then the pre-money valuation is capped at 5,000 BTC, but the founders also guarantee they will still own 1/3 of the resulting company. This would be easy to do: simply return investments once 10,000 BTC had been reached. The benefit of both these approaches is that ALL investors, early and late, know the maximum they are paying for the company.
I do think it would be wise for the founders to do something of this nature, since it strains the imagination that a company which hasn't actually yet launched a product should be worth more than about $10 million (and even by Silicon Valley standards, that's a stretch). There's also a limit to how much and how quickly a large amount of capital could actually be effectively used. If they somehow raise $100M of BTC, it'd be awfully tempting just to split it up and go sit on a beach in a non-extradition country somewhere... So, just spare yourselves the temptation, guys. :-)
Good points, but the lower cost per share at the beginning of the funding compensates for the additional risk of not knowing the final dilution. It also allows investment at any level. Raising more capital is good as long as it can be put to use by accelerating development with concurrent engineering, so the increased rate of ROI offsets the increased dilution. If there is to be a maximum total investment, a Google style IPO with Dutch Auction makes sense, but it does favor large investors over small ones. I'm glad this is not a typical SV start-up, since with Ethereum, everyone has a change to enter at the initial seed round in very sall tranches instead of just Angels and VCs in large tranches. nobody read this massive wall of text
Confirmed. I did. That's why I use a desktop computer - to READ and LEARN things. Go back to your mobile device, watch Youtube, watch the Tweets come in for the attention-span challenged, and keep up with your Facebook page. |
|
|
|
|
5,000 more NXT for 250,000 more NEX, total 10,000 NXT for 500,000 total NEX
|
|
|
|
Liked it until I read the moderation part. I expected a Tahoe-LAFS type system, https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs and Freenet, where no one knows what or what kind of content is actually on any of the computers, and the data is partially redundent and completely encrypted. Adding the moderation capability amounts to designing in vulnerability. The system is no longer 'net neutral'. It has to be neutral. Whats the point of this otherwise? Right. The entire system and its content should be encrypted by default, with no unencrypted data, period. It should be impossible to know where any data is stored, and ideally, data is distributed in partially redundant encrypted pieces across servers. |
|
|
|
Liked it until I read the moderation part. I expected a Tahoe-LAFS type system, https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs and Freenet, where no one knows what or what kind of content is actually on any of the computers, and the data is partially redundent and completely encrypted. Adding the moderation capability amounts to designing in vulnerability. The system is no longer 'net neutral'. |
|
|
|
I believe that language is fine - remember it's only a low level, and can be always extended by higher level UI and services.
What more worries me, is that OP does not respond regarding any additional transparency or evidence requests.
Yes, clarifying ID with verification would really help move things along. This is for the benefit of David Elsinger as well, to determine that he really is the person soliciting funds and founding this project. |
|
|
|
Fully noted and everything is on the todo list  Rest assured we really want to have a trollbox on the front page xD i'm so excited by this. Learned a new term, didn't know what a troll box was and had to search for it. Now I know it's the chat window I really liked on Coingrounds, the short-lived PTS exchange. I loved it. It was a lot of fun and very informative watching the real time commentary on the trading by different types of stakeholders, along with my occasional question getting quick answers. |
|
|
|
Aside from the ID issue, until something is delivered we have know way to know whether this guy can code to save his life. No notable previous projects, etc.
Also... C? Really? I could understand C++, but C.... ?
I'm fine with him hiring others to do the code with him acting as project manager to oversee it, but it should be open source for the community to vet it. |
|
|
|
I think that if you post some innocent status update on Facebook (like "Moving on with my pet project "), and then reference it here, it will be enough for the most people here. @Level Coin: Would you please do this so we could tie up the identity issue? I'd like to invest once this is settled, but things are kind of up in the air now. Thanks |
|
|
|
Meanwhile I'm forging Nxt right now on my RasPi.
This is really cool. It will be very good for mining on always on, solid state gateway devices and routers. |
|
|
|
Both PoS and PoW are useful in different cases, PoW for resource allocation in a network where mining rewards useful work and resource contributions, PoS for allocating dividends and voting with proxy for investment funds and other applications for pooling resources.
Since Ethereum is a computing platform, and not a distributed corp, that would suggest that Ethereum would benefit more from PoW's contribution of useful work and mining resources, as opposed to PoS's earnings, dividents, and voting from speculative holders. Thanks for further clarification. Yes, executing the contracts will involve processing power, storage, and bandwidth, suggesting PoW mining. Other things built on top of Ethereum might use PoS for distribution and voting. |
|
|
|
|
I cruised online to get sexed,
with a wallet stuffed full of NXT
I found a hot honey,
to take all my money,
but when she got NXT she got vexed!
|
|
|
|
Pretty messed up seeing people discussing Ethereum on here from the point of view of "coin and profit," instead of "platform and possibilities." I guess it's mostly the same newbies that still see Bitcoin as just a coin/commodity to invest in, and not a financial platform to develop on top of. Personally, I would invest 20BTC in things like BitMessage and OpenTransactions, despite their "coins" themselves not having any value, just because the possibilities they offer as platforms are enormous! I will be investing in this as well. Not because of the possible return on the coins (though I suspect that will still be substantial), and not even because of the initially proposed technology (which, as someone pointed out, is similar to some other coins out there), but because of the team involved. Ask any top VC out there. They don't invest in ideas, they invest in people. It's also why Bitcoin will always be top coin, despite other altcoins constantly coming out with little fixes here and there. The quality, and quantity, of people working on it is way superior to any other alternatives. +1 I look at the idea, the people working on it,what has been produced so far, and the level of interest by the community. So far, my hot list is Ethereum, Mastercoin, Invictus, and XCP. Despite my personal issue with the pre-sale, I also have respect for NXT and the community which has evolved around it, and would recommend it as an investment to others.
<rant>
As for PoS, I really hope Ethereum doesn't take that route. PoW "decentralizes" the act of securing the currency from the currency itself. With PoW, I have a choice to either invest in the currency itself by buying it directly, OR invest in securing the currency by using it to buy mining hardware. There is also absolutely nothing to prevent a new miner from entering and competing with others, regardless of how many coins others hold. As a wealthy coin holder, I can't prevent a PoW miner from coming in and continuing to enforce rules on how I can spend my coins. The most I can do is spend some of my coins to buy some hardware and join him.
PoW, on the other hand, incentivises, and in fact directs, the flow of money to one or few people, since you invest in "mining" by holding the coins themselves, and continue to increase your wealth by having those same coins collect even more coins. Threat of 51% in PoW is quickly resolved by having miners switch pools and redistribute themselves. Threat of a 51% in PoS can't be fixed by having mining wealth redistributed. Worst case end-game scenario in PoS is wealthy PoS miners continuing to accumulate wealth until they get a majority of the stake, while allowing users to become more and more dependent on their PoS coins, then the wealthy few pool their resources together, create a single, completely controling PoS stake, and change the coin to do whatever they want, including causing it to inflate. If you think PoS owners will be incentivized not to inflate away their wealth, think again. Central Banks around the world are PoS systems, and they do just that, printing more and more to buy up more and more assets, while letting those they sell their inflating money to pay for the inflation.
</rant>
+0 Both PoS and PoW are useful in different cases, PoW for resource allocation in a network where mining rewards useful work and resource contributions, PoS for allocating dividends and voting with proxy for investment funds and other applications for pooling resources. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent optionality!
I'm in for 5000 NXT = 250,000 NEX
|
|
|
|
Yes that is my Linkdin. It is a bit outdated I might add, have not used it in years.
Thanks. I'll send a linkedin invite to verify, then I'm in. High risk at this point, but with a huge upside. How much are you looking for in total funding, and what is the minimum you need to see the project through? |
|
|
|
I'm very interested, but also wondering if this is you on Linkedin. A couple of details, MSU and currently working on learning software (apparently as PM), along with the name, match your info in this thread. Is this you? http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-elsinger/9/945/356I don't see any coding experience, so is this something you picked up, but forgot to add in your profile? Nevertheless, this sounds interesting, but I may hold off on investing until I see some indication you actually have something to back up your claims. |
|
|
|
hi
i have some questions about contracts even if it is way immature right now. i intend to build a service in the future which needs complex contract schemes and i am keeping a close eye to this project,OT and namecoin.
will you be able to have contracts that can be automatically executed/deleted past an expiry date?
can there be code executed( as in some style of actual computer code run from one of the random clients like an http request) in the time the contract will be executed
will you be able to produce a contract with someone but that someone is not aware about it before the contract execution but informed on that date?
can you have encrypted contracts in the blockchain or can everyone can see the contracts in the blockchain?
there is a good list of other features im just exploring how much complexity can your system handle.
thanks
Re: encrypted contracts, you'll have obfuscation but not encryption . Obfuscation will be expensive (because more steps to pay for). You should think at all the contracts being open source instead. It will make for an interesting ecosystem. This would be very useful to store and execute "deadman switch" contracts upon failure of a party to sign in within a time frame, keeping the contents secure unless executed. This can be used to distribute assets or release information automatically to intended recipients, or release keys and instructions to be followed by a trusted party. |
|
|
|
You are assuming the botnet in question has implemented this capability into their malicious software.
Implementing a captcha code prior to mining would be similar to asking for a serial number during product installation.
Sure there will be dedicated hackers that will bypass it, but if it filters even 1 or 2 botnets, then it is worth it.
If we applied your logic to everything then since some people can bypass serial keys during installation, then companies should never use serial keys.
DRM works to some extent, always has and always will. A captcha code aids in eliminating botnets, has little to no cost to implement, and the effects on legitimate miners is negligible.
i dont really like that idea for two reasons: 1) i hate to type in captchas. and this just seems not appropiate for a currency (just my opinion) 2) if you make it harder for botnets to join you raise the possibility that only a few botnets are able to mine Ethereum: which would increase the risk for attacks - do the opposit: make it as easy as possible to mine this coin and hope you get many different miners and multiple(!) botnets That's a bad idea. One botnet alone would absolutely destroy the ROI for anyone invested in the IPO. The amount of tears that would flood this forum would be high in quantity, but it still wouldn't be enough to quench the flames of chaos. How often do you turn your mining off, then on, then off, then on? The captcha would not phase most miners, but it sure will help in deterring botnets. I like the captchas which use a simple arithmetic expression to type in a number. If the mining has it's own set of images, it prevents use of previously solved images, especially if a new image is generated each time a mining instance is launched. Aren't botnets by definition hacked computers? Or are mining pools considered a type of botnet? |
|
|
|
|
Captcha solvers are pretty cheap, used by Black Hat SEO to post comment spam with programs like Scrapebox. Something like $.01 per captcha is pretty typical. Some even setup web sites just to have visitors solve captchas to sign in, keeping logs of solved captcha images to reuse for auto registration email address to then autoregister into blogs and forums to post spun (automatically rewritten using thesaurus) content and comment spam with backlinks to their money sites or embedded affiliate links.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
