1. this is exactly the reason why we decided to destroy half of the ICO coins leaving only 3,500,000 CLSTR
2. project timeline is available at http://clustercoin.org

Each geo-specific cluster will have its own blockchain and sync blocks will be a single block with only cross-cluster transactions, i.e. there will be no info in sync blocks regarding within-cluster transactions. Therefore, there will be multiple blockchains that are separate and at the same time somewhat intertwined. This is not the same as having multiple alts as clusters are geo-IP targeted, i.e. with a specific IP you will be connected to the geo-IP targeted cluster and there will be no possibility to choose a cluster to which you want to be connected. It is similar to some extant how wireless carriers are operating. Cross-cluster transactions (from cluster A to cluster B) will not flow quickly as they will be served by sync blocks. However, there is no need to be connected to cluster B to send transaction to cluster B. 

Banking system is a complex system and some parts are working pretty well, others are bloated with regulation (capital adequacy, M2, collateral etc.). We think that payments systems are executed pretty well in banking and this is the part of banking that we are looking at.
The closest cluster will be the one with the lowest latency to cluster nodes and that will be the serving cluster. If one controls cluster nodes in various clusters one would be able to track down every person when clusters become sufficiently small, this is why it is crucial to have distributed node ownership network.

Block confirmation time across clusters shouldn’t be compared with bitcoin block confirmation time, as within a cluster transactions will flow quickly regardless of this time. Transferring funds across clusters might take longer, but we don’t see this as a problem.  Current financial system works in a similar vein and we used it as a model for ClusterCoin.  Analog of a cluster would be a network of local banks (local payments are processed by local banks with a prompt transaction); across cluster transactions (served by sync blocks) correspond to SWIFT transactions.
Regarding fork risk of sync blocks – it is not clear that these blocks (which contain more transactions than an average block) pose more risk than any other block. What are you basing your claims on?



I am sorry for this confusion; this was the part of old FAQ which was corrected in the White Paper but not in the thread. Sync blocks will be reward with a higher reward rather than zero reward. Sync block reward is still an open question in terms of how much rewarding it should be relative to a regular block.
 
Clusters will not be managed by a central authority but rather by wallets themselves. Whether or not a cluster should be generated will be based on a voting by miners/pools. Comparison with wireless carriers seems farfetched.

It is easy to imagine like this - separate forks are totally independent (like different altcoins). Nothing can travel between them. Once in a while you can send transaction between forks, but it must be confirmed by both forks. In theory there is no possibility of double spending.

We have agreed with Bittrex to remove 3.5m coins from the market today. The coins will be destroyed once the ICO is over. This is reducing the ICO cap to 3.5m coins. Once Bittrex makes an official announcement we will update the OP/website and make an announcement.

http://cryptoasian.com/
They provide Proof of Dev service.

You are quite vocal about your position and I have to admit that it has some merits. We are open about asking Bittrex to destroy 4 million coins, however it is not quite clear why the market cannot decide on its own. The idea we had in mind is to offer the number of coins for the ICO that is well above the expected demand (we've never expected to sell all coins) and let the market decide how much coins will be sold, i.e. let the supply be big enough so that the number of coins outstanding will be driven by the demand only. What some of you are suggesting is to limit the supply so that the demand can exceed it, thereby there will be excess demand after the ICO which will provide price support. Is that the logic?

I have contacted cryptasian yesterday, but they are slow in responding. We are hoping to get their rating asap.

I apologize if I offended you or someone else. The reason I was trying to push conversation to the OP is because some people were commenting that I was repeating myself too much which was my feeling as well.
Bittrex will destroy any unsold coins. You are suggesting to destroy 4 mln today (as these coins will not be sold anyways), instead of waiting until the end of ICO to destroy any unsold coins. Would you mind explaining what is the difference in destroying part of the coins today (and maybe then destroying some more at the end of ICO) vs waiting for 6 more days and destroying whatever is unsold?

Cryptasian POD is coming soon. Hopefully, that will relief some of your concerns.

For the last time I will comment on this -  please read the OP before making price statements. Saying "the price is high" makes sense only if you know how much coins will be sold, but nobody knows this. We could sell as low as 700k coins (the max is 7m) - the actual number of coins sold in the ICO depends on investors interests. In 6 days we will see how much coins will be outstanding.

We are changing block rewards from 30 down to 3 to make your investments more valuable.

We really aimed for the tech in this project. We believe in our tech and we are willing to deliver this tech. Have a glance at the whitepaper - ClusterCoin is market changing idea. It upsets me that everything that matters nowadays is price.

This is an interesting comment. We are currently thinking about lowering mining reward before the mining starts in order to protect early investors.

As all the slides were made by us I am quite curious which slides have you seen before. Could you please provide the links?

This is the ICO fund.
Bittrex selling 700 BTC worth of ClusterCoins. If at least 10% of this will be sold project will be funded and development will be continued (otherwise Bittrex will return all investments).

Currently gathered 9,2 BTC - pretty good considering ICO just started few hours ago.

Firstly, ICO proceeds will be published in the public address. Every use of funds will be publicly disclosed.
Secondly, we are not aiming to raise 700 BTC, this is the upper limit. As along as we raise 70 BTC or more we will proceed with the project.

The more we raise the more funds we will have to develop the project to its full scale, which should be positive in the long-run.

Source code and Windows wallet are now available! I've updated OP

Please, read the OP carefully. This is the max amount that potentially can be raised from the ICO. We are not claiming that we will raise this much. The minimum is 70 BTC. Any price comment at this point is really irrelevant as nobody knows how much coins will be outstanding after the ICO.

ICO ends in 7 days.


On the side note I really expected more tech questions rather than price questions.