Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.
They did have a working algo for the PoT. It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up. Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced. That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks. There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough. Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy). They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue. Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory. Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line? The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this. Come on Wulf, no one can do everything. There are times that there is a need to call in outside experts who specialize in a certain area. IT is no different than medicine or law Your doctor and lawyer refers to experts all the time. I am sure, that given enough time our team could come up with a satisfactory solution. But, since we are always thinking of the community, a business decision was made to use some of the IPO funds to hire a specialist. The time saved will benefit all. Your previous posts were all about "hurry up". Now we "hurry up", and you not happy? Yes, I realize my previous posts like many others here, were criticizing the slow progress being made, but my concern now is in the Crypti devs ability, or lack thereof, to deliver the rest of the features. The part that confuses me is that you are hiring an outside expert to analyze an algorithm that has never been implemented anywhere else before, therefore the only real "experts" should be the developers who actually developed the algorithm. I don't know the specifics of the situation so I may be wrong, but you shouldn't be hiring an expert to write the whole algorithm for you (if that is the case). The outside expert should only be hired to work on specific isolated issues, i.e. latency issues between nodes causing forks, not to re-write the whole algorithm. |
|
|
|
Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.
They did have a working algo for the PoT. It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up. Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced. That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks. There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough. Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy). They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue. Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory. Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line? The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this. Had this been open-sourced you could have had a whole bunch of experts look at the code. I understand that the developers don't want clones popping up, but had Crypti been open-sourced in the first place critical issues such as the PoT algo bugs could have been picked up and addressed much earlier. Crypti is kept closed-sourced for the time being as a counter-measure for the spread of its clones, however in my opinion, not open-sourcing Crypti has put the whole project a couple months behind. You could have countless experts, including Come-from-Beyond (which he requested to), analyse the code had it been open-sourced. If you look at NXT's history, which is what Crypti is most often compared to, you'll see that NXT started to make major leaps in progress once it was open-sourced. Judging from the "Bug Bounty Thread" that was opened with the purpose of offering bounties for bugs that were found in the NXT code-base, there must've been over 30 bugs that were fixed within weeks. I haven't posted much about this aspect of Crypti before, as there hasn't been the need to, but with these critical problems, I'd say open-sourcing the Crypti code-base (or only the affected parts of it) would go a long way to helping Crypti move forward. |
|
|
|
Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.
They did have a working algo for the PoT. It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up. Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced. That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks. There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough. Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy). They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue. Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory. Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line? |
|
|
|
The volume is almost 0 and the community still alive.  team is still here, and our loyal gang of 8 bloggers, and 4 trolls. There are about a hundred lurkers. The Crypti team, Litoshi. Not the "Cryptsi" team that you keep on misspelling.  |
|
|
|
Is this a joke? Give me a reason why you think NEM will be anywhere as successful as NXT?
This was an unnecessary burden of proof. If you actually ever bothered to read the NEM thread since March, you would find that it is a proprietary innovator and I think they have very good public relations. I think OP created this thread with the intent that serious replies would emerge, even though the "A or B" does tend to attract replies like the one you wrote. I'm sure you could retort but on the latter but I don't think NXT is any successful in its' external image. When you have someone like Jeff Garzik, a Bitcoin developer, who labelled NXT a scam - how do you recover from that? I'm ignoring all the thefts and hacks, initial distribution, Cointropolis, a lot of the assets on the asset exchange being questionable, et cetera. I hope you do realize that without NXT, NEM would have never existed. The whole concept of NEM was to improve on NXT's distribution, by offering stakes of the initial supply freely to BitcoinTalk users. In fact in it's initial stages NEM was supposed to be a direct fork of NXT. It was not until new developers came into the fray that NEM was being with its own code base and even now, close to 10 months after it was intially made public, NEM still only offers basic functionality, that being the ability to send transactions back and forth and to send messages via transactions, both which NXT easily accomplishes. Secondly the majority, if not all, investors into NEM are those who are hoping for it to become the next NXT (which of course will never happen). The two type of investors into NEM are investors who missed out on NXT, and NXT early-adopters who are looking to become NEM whales. So to conclude if NXT was never created neither would NEM. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. |
|
|
|
|
Is this a joke? Give me a reason why you think NEM will be anywhere as successful as NXT?
|
|
|
|
So is Xtester going to post something or was this a tease?
no tease.. just wait  NEM Launch tonight |
|
|
|
With all of that being said I do understand that we have some people who have been loyal and who are still here. We are working on something to help with this.
We weren't ready to do an official announcement yet but we are working on a script to run from the Foundation wallets that would transfer XCR every 60 seconds between accounts to provide a 1 XCR tx fee in every block. This will be instituted hopefully this week and would ensure that 1 XCR would be forged in every single block. We know that supporting and essentially helping test our network with 0 rewards in most blocks is frustrating. In order to reward those who have been loyal and who are helping with this process during this rough period, we want to make sure you are getting something in return. We will also be announcing bug bounty programs for those who catch issues in the current versions of the client and network.
I will announce more on these programs this week when we are ready to officially start the process.
Please understand that we listen to everything you say and that all of your opinions are very important to us. We know you are frustrated and that we can do more. We are open to ideas. I know you favor SuperNET and we actually had a majority that seemed positive about joining, but we want to deliver on our PoT first so that we have something to offer and can show progress.
We are working tirelessly to get to a point where we can show you the progress we are making and also to where we can focus on working with the community more and providing you all with a stable and innovative coin. Please don't give up yet. We are still going to build what we said we would. On our side, nothing has changed and we are working as hard as ever to build an innovative, unique, and revolutionary crypto currency for the commerce space with a system like no other. I know it is just words until we deliver, which many of you have pointed out. This is why we are focused on delivery.
As always we will keep you updated and appreciate your support! We will have an announcement about the new programs this week.
Thanks for the update and re-assuring words, GreXX. The things mentioned by 5000 are valid and makes sense. Forging throughout the day without any reward is not cool and the slow pace of development we've had plays tug-of-war with our belief in Crypti and you guys. However I'm here from the start of IPO and still believe in Crypti and would continue to do so.. I've been here since the start of the IPO, and despite my criticism, I'm still a Crypti supporter. I still hold all my XCR from the IPO (those, that I've sold I've bought back at a lower price), and will continue to hold far into the future... |
|
|
|
Qora promised Voting System and it was delivered.Qora promised Arbitrary Transactions and it was delivered.Qora promised wallet upgrades and it was delivered. Qora promised Asset Exchange and it was delivered.Now Turing Complete and new GUI is promised, so I would expect delivery  Why the volume is low? I don't know. This looks suspicious. All these features were in Nxt source code (even Voting System which simply lacked client support in NRS and hence wasn't considered as "released") and Qora didn't offer any unique feature. It looks like Qora is really Nxt but with its own client part. We could solve this riddle easily in such the manner: 1. Someone sends me complete source code of Qora. 2. I check if it can be a modified Nxt. 3. I don't share the source code and delete it after the analysis without any copies kept. Do you want to stop the FUD about Qora being a clone of Nxt? Shit just got real, ball is in your court now Qora. |
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, so is NEM launching today?
|
|
|
|
I swear if people knew all the good stuff going on behind the scenes all this time while everyone is waiting I assure you not one single person would be complaining about any delays!!!. If anything we would be told by everyone to delay further..
Launch is going to be EPIC!! Just have patience guys.. Soon all the amazing worked being done back stage will be known to all and at that point you will all be delighted that you stuck it out all these months..
I have a very good feeling about this. Can't wait to let the snowball roll.  Okay, I am expecting a lot now!!! Hahahaha But yes, I think this is amazing. I have already tested the Alpha extensively and it is better than most old coins regular wallet, and they have had months/years to do something better. Here NEM is pre-Nemesis and is already a better crypto than many much older. So who knows what it will be like in 6 months. Is the launch tomorrow? |
|
|
|
So let me just try to answer these as best I can.
1. What is ETA on permanent fix? If all goes well, we will start working with an external consultant on Monday to finalize a permanent solution to our initial PoT system as described. I believe this will take at least 2 weeks to find the solution and code it. That is just my internal rough estimate and is not meant to be final by any means. We have not announced this yet because we are finalizing terms on Monday after we get the documentation together with all of our algorithms, code, and what our intentions were, etc. We have had calls already and he and his partner are very interested and we are hoping to start Monday. Just for reference, they have done code / security reviews and audits for a lot of the top coins in the industry and have been doing so for a couple years now. They are very familiar with crypto currencies and the industry and how the code works and I believe will be able to work with us to find the best solution for Crypti. We felt like this was a necessary thing to do in order to ensure we fix some of the long standing issues with syncing, forking (on the old algo), and resource use. We will also be discussing our implementation plans for Custom Block Chains with them while we have them as a best use of our resources.
2. How about an ETA on Custom Block Chains? This is something I'm not as comfortable giving a timeframe on. This obviously depends on the work we do to get the PoT solution in order and working as planned. If it takes 2 weeks to complete the PoT, then it could take another 2-4 weeks after that to finalize Custom Block Chains. I know that sounds bad but remember that when we put out the initial timeline and roadmap, we thought our algorithm was good to go and that we would have had all of this time since launch to work on CMBs. With us having to do the temporary solution for PoT and go back to the drawing board so to speak with our initial solution, it will push the timeline for CMBs back as well.
3. Do we have a general ETA on the web design? The web DESIGN should be complete in 3-4 weeks. It will then need to be built which might take another week after that. Our goal is to sort of try and line up some of these developments so that we can launch the new PoT solution and node software with the launch of the new site. We would have loved to have had CMBs done for the new site which was our initial goal, but I just don't think we will make that timeline. Ultimately, we want to get this re-brand and new algo working and then sort of re-launch. Once that is all done and CMBs are done and working, we feel like we can start a broad marketing campaign to get the word out about Crypti and what it can do. But marketing without a solid web design and working wallets / CMBs (which is a main feature), I feel like the money would be wasted.
On top of that, we are working on coming up with some bounties and programs to help give back to the community and support you guys who have been supporting us. I am proposing one initiative in general that I think we will be doing a test run of, that I personally think you will all like and it will help reward those who are here now when we are in this sort of testing phase. I hope to be able to talk about it a little bit more soon.
I hope that helps answer some of your questions and clear the air a bit. If you have other questions, I will try to give as many specifics as I feel comfortable with and can give.
GreXX, thanks for the update, but the frustrating part, which I'm sure everyone agrees with me, is that you said those exact words 2 weeks ago (and work on it hasn't even started yet) : Blog Post : We are in a situation now where Crypti is close to 2 months behind schedule (excluding the current Roadmap you posted). With the Roadmap that you posted, I'd be surprised to even see Custom Blockchain Support this year, not spreading FUD, just my honest opinion based on what's happened in the past. I'll be holding onto my XCR, becuase I know that if Crypti becomes even slightly successful my XCR would be worth a whole lot, but please guys, try to at least hit the timeline that you've told us. |
|
|
|
uray, your miner reads plots by 4kB chunks. Maybe better enlarge that size? Even clustersizes are upto 64kB.
And what about single read-thread per path?
yeah its possible, but currently i am busy working on wallet hy uray, which features are you implementing on wallet??? if it is possible to know!!!  i am integrating java miner & plotter into wallet, and convert it to desktop app This looks amazing. Keep up the good work yes its great, can't wait to test it Uray, its Wulfcastle here, designer of the current Wallet UI & Burst Logo/OP Graphics. I dumped all of my BURST around a month back, mainly due to the supply being diluted with around ~3.7 Million BURST per day, but now it has reached the point where BURST has enough infrastructure, largely thanks to you, to make a big push to compete with the big names in the crypto-space. Everything is virtually set in place, all BURST needs now is an easier to use client and miner (which is what your desktop application will accomplish) and the right marketing and promotion, which I can provide. If you have a test version ready of your desktop app for Windows that I can try out, I will come back to BURST and begin designing and promoting BURST once again. uray, this offer still stands. If you can send me a test version of this client, that I can assess, I will come back to BURST and begin designing/promoting once again. |
|
|
|
|
So, what's happening now? I thought the BETA was supposed to launch yesterday on the 14th?
|
|
|
|
At this current moment in time AT is only available on NXT TestNet, no other coin has implemented it yet. I'm all for brotherhood and whatnot, but when shills post blatant lies, then it irritates me : Qora is about to have Turning complete implemented, I believe the first of the second gen coins, first ever basically.
Well it seems like the OP over here, forgot to mention the fact that NXT has already implemented it, which makes Qora virtually useless from that point of view. |
|
|
|
|
@Devs
Any status update now on Custom Blockchains and the progress on the permanent PoT solution (assuming that the temporary solution doesn't become the permanent solution)?
|
|
|
|
Qora is about to have Turning complete implemented, I believe the first of the second gen coins, first ever basically.
Qora isn't taking the credit though as the work is being done by Ian Knowles, CIYAM Lead Developer.
Ethererum raised thousands of BTC, Millions of dollars to implement in the future in their own words:
"When the grand experiment that is bitcoin began, the anonymous wizard desired to test two parameters- a trustless, decentralized database enjoying security enforced by the austere relentlessness of cryptography and a robust transaction system capable of sending value across the world without intermediaries. Yet the past five years years have painfully demonstrated a third missing feature: a sufficiently powerful Turing-complete scripting language."
So how can Ethererum with its big bank money investment ever have a chance? Hopefully it can't.
Congratulations to Qora for being part of this project and beating the big money banks.
*If people want to invest in the AT they can do so through Qora's AE for the next 14 days though I expect that to be over much quicker as we are 1/5 of the way in funding the project after a few hours.
You clown, Qora is borrowing this feature from NXT, where it is currently in TestNet. If NXT doesn't implement this feature then Qora is dead in the water. Don't try to act like Qora invented this, when it was developed specifically for NXT and is only being ported over to Qora. |
|
|
|
I am curious how "The whole SuperNet functionality can be replicated by Crypti's custom block chain support when it rolls out." is possible when SuperNET doesnt have a blockchain.
It seems that you do not really understand SuperNET as it is a way to connect different coins to each other and this can only be done via offchain. You do realize SuperNET is not a coin?
James
I realize that SuperNET is not a coin, nor does it have a blockchain, but are you sure that the only way that it can be done is offchain? Is it not possible at all to replicate SuperNET with blockchain support? Let's say for example when Ethereum launches (Ethereum's platform is described similarly to Crypti's custom block-chain support), are you absolutely sure that that a network similar to SuperNET can't be created via a custom blockchain, and linked with its own blockchain with coins used as the "fuel" for the system to perform arbitrary actions? Those arbitrary actions being the connections made between different coins. Since one of the privacy features of SuperNET is not having a blockchain that is permanently there for alltime and for everyone to be able to process it, yes I am sure that using a blockchain to replicate the non-blockchain aspect of SuperNET is not possible also SuperNET is a self-reinforcing financial engine that reinvests revenue into its participating coin communities. I guess it is possible to set this up with some sort of DAC, but will it be setup? That is the question. Anyway, if you dont want to be part of SuperNET, that is fine James Okay, technicalities aside, on the financial front, to become a part of SuperNET, any coin has to "surrender" 10% of it's total supply. Don't you think that it's quite a huge ask for a coin to give away 10% of its total supply, only to join a network where it will experience a few tiny benefits from other coins, all of which are probably leeching off other coins on SuperNET to maintain their own userbases. To me SuperNET seems like a network of shitcoins (plain and simple), bringing together their, mostly useless features, to try and rival other big-currencies in the crypto-space. Let me know when coins like Ethereum, MaidSafe, BitShares X and Peercoin join SuperNET, which of course will never happen. #Take note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect that of the Crypti Team, of which I am not a part ofWulf I like you but, you haven't done your due dilligence on the matter, and can't speak for the whole community in that sense either. That being said XCR can't compare to coins in the top 20s or coins/projects that raised millions of dollars yet because those projects are pretty self fulfilling To me SuperNET seems like a network of coins taking advantages over others to strengthen their networks because the ulterior goal is to break midcap and go top. What Crypti needs is exposure, userbase, forgers, contributors to appreciate it's innovations If Crypti connects to Supernet, it does not become "CryptiSuperNet" or labelled in the same section as Vericoin. I think you get the idea a little twisted that's all. It's more of a mutual suppliment. Just like we don't become Storj by partnering up with them but strengthen both bases. As I said, I don't speak for the community on this matter, I'm just stating my opinion. In fact my opinion is quite heavily biased, due to a number of reasons, most prominently being the fact that I dislike selling off 10% of a coin's supply to join another network. So my opinion is not from a neutral point of view. I don't really have a problem with SuperNET itself (barring some of it's financial requirements, e.g. needing 10% of a coin's supply to enter), what I have a problem with is some of the coins on the network. The difference between a partnership between Storj and Crypti and Crypti & SuperNET is that with Storj & Crypti, both are providing mutual benefits to each other. Storj will provide it's front-end apps, DriveShare and MetaDisk which will work with Crypti's custom blockchain support to facilitate the whole process (at least that's how it may work hypothetically). It would be a mutual partnership. However with SuperNET, you'll have coins like BoolBerry, which have no reason to really exist, keeping up their userbase by leeching of Crypti's features. Therefore BoolBerry would be providing Crypti zero functionality, while Crypti would be providing BoolBerry everything else. That's just one example I can think of, there are probably many more scenarios where other coins could leech off Crypti. Others may see it as a supplement to Crypti, in my opinion I see it as a chance for other coins to leech off Crypti. Then again, my opinion, is just my opinion, I'm probably not as open minded on things like this compared to others. |
|
|
|
I am curious how "The whole SuperNet functionality can be replicated by Crypti's custom block chain support when it rolls out." is possible when SuperNET doesnt have a blockchain.
It seems that you do not really understand SuperNET as it is a way to connect different coins to each other and this can only be done via offchain. You do realize SuperNET is not a coin?
James
I realize that SuperNET is not a coin, nor does it have a blockchain, but are you sure that the only way that it can be done is offchain? Is it not possible at all to replicate SuperNET with blockchain support? Let's say for example when Ethereum launches (Ethereum's platform is described similarly to Crypti's custom block-chain support), are you absolutely sure that that a network similar to SuperNET can't be created via a custom blockchain, and linked with its own blockchain with coins used as the "fuel" for the system to perform arbitrary actions? Those arbitrary actions being the connections made between different coins. Since one of the privacy features of SuperNET is not having a blockchain that is permanently there for alltime and for everyone to be able to process it, yes I am sure that using a blockchain to replicate the non-blockchain aspect of SuperNET is not possible also SuperNET is a self-reinforcing financial engine that reinvests revenue into its participating coin communities. I guess it is possible to set this up with some sort of DAC, but will it be setup? That is the question. Anyway, if you dont want to be part of SuperNET, that is fine James Okay, technicalities aside, on the financial front, to become a part of SuperNET, any coin has to "surrender" 10% of it's total supply. Don't you think that it's quite a huge ask for a coin to give away 10% of its total supply, only to join a network where it will experience a few tiny benefits from other coins, all of which are probably leeching off other coins on SuperNET to maintain their own userbases. To me SuperNET seems like a network of shitcoins (plain and simple), bringing together their, mostly useless features, to try and rival other big-currencies in the crypto-space. Let me know when coins like Ethereum, MaidSafe, BitShares X and Peercoin join SuperNET, which of course will never happen. #Take note this is my personal opinion and does not reflect that of the Crypti Team, of which I am not a part of |
|
|
|
I am curious how "The whole SuperNet functionality can be replicated by Crypti's custom block chain support when it rolls out." is possible when SuperNET doesnt have a blockchain.
It seems that you do not really understand SuperNET as it is a way to connect different coins to each other and this can only be done via offchain. You do realize SuperNET is not a coin?
James
I realize that SuperNET is not a coin, nor does it have a blockchain, but are you sure that the only way that it can be done is offchain? Is it not possible at all to replicate SuperNET with blockchain support? Let's say for example when Ethereum launches (Ethereum's platform is described similarly to Crypti's custom block-chain support), are you absolutely sure that that a network similar to SuperNET can't be created via a custom blockchain, and linked with its own blockchain with coins used as the "fuel" for the system to perform arbitrary actions? Those arbitrary actions being the connections made between different coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
