Bitcoin Forum
June 22, 2024, 05:50:27 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
81  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 11:01:06 PM
70% of posts here are made by zylon, sebastian and threat.. or maybe it's just the same person paid for his daily work to spam messages anti-CS ??
please man give us a break with each big news you become more and more ridiculous

Dont get angry my credit fella.
As long as you praise your sh*ty ico we will be here to warn newcomers for your scam project.
As some of your supporters said i helped the price going down so you can buy more credits in better price. You should thank me after all no?
Spam messages because we warn newcomers?! Thats a pathetic point of view from a scam supporter.
Actually, you are not helping to bring the price go down, try harder, please I have a huge buy order just below the 40 cents level but it's not happening the price even increased can you just give me more news about your scam accusations you are posting irrelevant links we appreciate if you can give an updated news keep posting we need you at this point.

We need to be a strong comunity, and someone just ban this useless spamers, unless their afirmations come with solid proofs!


You are being completely ignorant and retarded. You have like 10000 proofs available that they are doing pointless testings, pointless partnerships and yet you say this. They are not even trying too hard to hide their shit work. Nothing will ever be a fact for you, even if they come up and say we are just fucking with you all. 
82  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 10:47:26 PM
70% of posts here are made by zylon, sebastian and threat.. or maybe it's just the same person paid for his daily work to spam messages anti-CS ??
please man give us a break with each big news you become more and more ridiculous

Dont get angry my credit fella.
As long as you praise your sh*ty ico we will be here to warn newcomers for your scam project.
As some of your supporters said i helped the price going down so you can buy more credits in better price. You should thank me after all no?
Spam messages because we warn newcomers?! Thats a pathetic point of view from a scam supporter.
Actually, you are not helping to bring the price go down, try harder, please I have a huge buy order just below the 40 cents level but it's not happening the price even increased can you just give me more news about your scam accusations you are posting irrelevant links we appreciate if you can give an updated news keep posting we need you at this point.

I am just curious right now, do you actually believe in all the shit they come up with or you just dont care? Like do you just hope to buy and earn money if this gets hyped again? Because I really really find it hard to believe that so many people are pretty much completely ignorant and want to see those gains so hard that they ignore all the facts and just hope for the best. I assume at least half of you guys pretty much know whats this pump shit all about and hope that it is gonna last.
83  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 09:43:09 PM
I bet these guys are the people who said bitcoin and Ethereum were scam btw and you don't have to worry about peoples money

Rofl yeah, both eth and bitcoin had this kind of cheap shilling marketing around them.
I bet you are hoping every day that this shitcoin would give you some massive returns like those did.
84  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 08:40:58 PM
Ahahahahha people having a proper laugh on Reddit:

Oh for fuck's sake. I will not even comment on all the hilarious stuff Credits have claimed since who knows when, but just look at this most recent pile of shit.

https://medium.com/@credits/credits-has-successfully-completed-negotiations-with-messengerbank-6719c47cbb65

"Messenger Bank, one of the biggest players in mobile blockchain banking, with an advantage of unprecedented transaction speed, offers currency conversion, transfers and a full range of traditional banking services with appropriate licensing. They have a proven track record of being a reliable and stable online bank. By 2020, their customer base is expected to grow by more than 200 mln new users."

“The highest transaction speeds and self-executing smart contracts greatly motivate us to work with CREDITS!” says Kent Kristensen.CEO of Messenger Bank.
The Messenger Bank team has recently joined the testing of unique CREDITS platform."

Okay. Firstly, they announced it like it is fucking BNP Paribas. But no, it's actually an edgy looking http site (http://www.messengerbank.io) which is selling a fucking privacy coin. Videos are unreal cringe too. The team, no comment really...

"DebitCoin is a cryptocurrency (private internet currency), based on the Ethereum structure, that has a value based on the current market valuation. In other words, DebitCoin is an entirely decentralized open source worldwide currency, without any central authority. No traditional bank or financial institution will be managing, controlling or verifying your transactions."

Under Contacts it says they are from Bosnia (what the fuck).
Moreover they linked CEOs twitter: https://twitter.com/kentkristensen1
I just can't lol... This is too much, the pinned message, tweets, fake followers. What the fuck is going on with this shit?
Oh yeah, there's another his twitter acc, same shit in there:
https://twitter.com/kentkristensen2

Not to mention other 20 'partnerships' they have already claimed, some are looking even more stupid than this one.

Seriously all of this that is happening with Credits really got me thinking. I just can't get over how stupid people are. Anyone who is behind this shameless marketing shitshow deserves a proper slap. Cmon Suppo, shill it a bit more please!
85  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 07:11:56 PM
70% of posts here are made by zylon, sebastian and threat.. or maybe it's just the same person paid for his daily work to spam messages anti-CS ??
please man give us a break with each big news you become more and more ridiculous
The person needs to work off the money paid him for the negative publicity  Grin. I have no other thoughts. But I find it funny to read the posts of these people.

Rofl you dont find it funny to see all the paid shillers here and on reddit?
yeah thats all fud right
86  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 05:13:41 PM
70% of posts here are made by zylon, sebastian and threat.. or maybe it's just the same person paid for his daily work to spam messages anti-CS ??
please man give us a break with each big news you become more and more ridiculous

Lmao big news. Oh messenger bank sounds really awesome. It's just cheap and embarrasing how they announce everything in order to hype this shitcoin. Where did they find all those people to have them listed as partners lol. There is a guy from Estonia in Suppomans shill group on facebook saying that Comskill, which is listed as a partner, does not have an office in that building. http://comskill.com/  What a great and promising partnership that is... So legit and good looking partner. I will not even comment on others because those look so pathetic that any proper project would be ashamed to claim those as prtners. But hey, Credits is trashy enough to claim anything in order to create hype.

Yeah we are really excited over big news. Hilarious
87  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 04:32:28 PM

488 403 transactions per second during the testing, all your articles say that coding sucks etc but still 488TPS.
So if the coding sucks why is it still faster then all other competitors?
That means that all other competitors have more suckie coding because they don`t get 488TPS....


Have you EVEN read any of the articles?
https://np.reddit.com/r/credits/comments/85btx8/commentary_of_credits_second_alpha_test_post

The only thing they have is a pdf they created which they called it whitepaper and a video that shows transactions between 2 nodes running on same computer with zero network latency due to hyper-v.



Whatever, I can`t change your mind so doesn`t matter what I say. Good luck with calling this a scam, but I think you`re making a mistake..

Oh fuck it you can't be this dumb and ignorant, you just acting like it and trolling I hope...

No I`m not trolling. make your decision following things:
* Nitin Gaur and Kyle wang IBM ADVISORY BOARD
* Alpha test 488 TPS
* Partnership with Messenger Bank

You really think guy`s of IBM going to work with a scam project hahaha and you call me ignorant and dumb...



If you have gone a little deeper and had a talk with Mr. Nitin you would actually know what his role in this is. None.

They approached him offering money to be an advisor, like every single ico does. He makes one phone call a month to meet the agreement and that's about it. (https://i.imgur.com/a/Pob0B)

He accepted the money from some unknown fellas to follow them on twitter and watch the absurd tweets they make every day. Do you really think he cares or participates in this? Do you think this is connected to IBM in any way LOL?

You are still being ignorant and trying to shill their 'test' which is exposed right away as a retarded way of trying to delude people into thinking they are doing somethibg incredible.

Messenger bank is just another crap 'user' on their list, a fishy looking team apparently registered in Bosnia lol.

"Messenger Bank, one of the biggest players in mobile blockchain banking, with an advantage of unprecedented transaction speed, offers currency conversion, transfers and a full range of traditional banking services with appropriate licensing."  They are fucking announcing it like it's Goldman Sachs. Just a scam looking people selling some tokens for boarding process, what a joke.

Where do they find those scammy looking shitshow so called partners? Do you really think this is a revolutionary partnership or what exactly? I would be fucking embarrased to even announce such shitty looking partnerships but no, Credits has no shame in order to hype this. What a fucking disaster
88  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 04:03:02 PM

488 403 transactions per second during the testing, all your articles say that coding sucks etc but still 488TPS.
So if the coding sucks why is it still faster then all other competitors?
That means that all other competitors have more suckie coding because they don`t get 488TPS....


Have you EVEN read any of the articles?
https://np.reddit.com/r/credits/comments/85btx8/commentary_of_credits_second_alpha_test_post

The only thing they have is a pdf they created which they called it whitepaper and a video that shows transactions between 2 nodes running on same computer with zero network latency due to hyper-v.



Whatever, I can`t change your mind so doesn`t matter what I say. Good luck with calling this a scam, but I think you`re making a mistake..

Oh fuck it you can't be this dumb and ignorant, you just acting like it and trolling I hope...
89  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 03:26:10 PM
If processing 400K transactions per second was possibly believe me it would already be done by another devteam.

It`s done by Credits deal with it... You just jealous I guess?
 



No one will be jealous on idiots Credits lol

Apparently you're, you keep fudding here and can`t reply like a normal person.
Tell my why Credits sucks on a technical manner? 


Oh god now you are just trolling. Yeah let's pretend everything is just fine and dandy alright.

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@terminate1/people-deserve-to-know-the-facts-behind-credits-ico

https://np.reddit.com/r/credits/comments/85btx8/commentary_of_credits_second_alpha_test_post/

https://medium.com/@suchi.blackwing/cryptocurrency-code-review-credits-f6c42c3f6f80
90  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 12:25:50 PM
Unbelievable how naive people are for investing into this scamtoken. Reminds me of bitconnect, history repeating itself lol.
LOL at you comparing this to Bitconnect, which was known to everybody that it was a ponzi scheme from the beginning and is totally different to Credits, which you claim is a scam.

Take your pills you piece of sh*t and relax watching these scammers going to zero.
We dont care for your investment if you are such a looser.
We care for newcomers that they are seeing your bullsh*ts and they are thinking of investing.
They should know your true potential that its to scam them.
Create more new accounts to comment on us you sh*ts!
And LOL at you warning newcomers, who don't even know what Bitcointalk is. Everyone reading this thread (counting out alleged bots) who also invested in Credits are somewhat more knowledgeable and know the associated risks. We/they have also estimated that the possible reward is worth it.


No worries bud, it's all over the Reddit and Medium too. There is no such thing as 'associated' risk when people with half a brain are hearing x1000 from some pumping clowns on Youtube.
Only possible reward comes from new people buying into this shitcoin after seeing shillers cumming all over those cheap titles, articles and claims. So yeah, people are doing their absolute best to promote this crap. And the only thing different than Bitconnect is that they actually did waste some time and money on making a false product which would serve only to easily fool people. All other efforts are completely focused on mindless/cheap marketing and nothing more. Let the hype do all the work.
91  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 10:58:28 AM
I tire of you already. I guess your just trying to fud credits but either way I dont care. The more you post the more many will think this project is legit cause your points are weak and could be leveled at any project really. I got 90k of credits. Pretty sure its gonna make me some money. So
do yourself a favour and invest or put your energy into investing in something else.

Here is a good read for you: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.00184.pdf

It is a research paper clearly showing that ECDSA signature verification alone takes as long as 0.0002 s. Let's say that it is for a single core - that is 5000 tx/s. And that is just cryptographic verification.


This has no value to people like him and other cheap fucks. He bought his coins and no matter the scam, the tech, the shill, he just sets his goal, browses the internet researching what car or house he would buy when this shitcoin hits x1000 like Suppoman said. That's the truth. He blatantly defends his investment hoping that it would fool more and more people, he watches Suppos stream every day hoping he would mention Credits again.

What is however important, is to warn all the noobs who get blinded by this shameless marketing and explain what is actually behind it.
That's why I don't intend to stop driving those fucking scammers mad.

Well said here.


Well we really are feedup with your fucking comments..do u have a real job or somethning to do else than ..shitting here

we all a adults and know what we do ..we know there is a risk in every inversement in the crypto world..so damn shut up the shit and go to hell for once

no need you to bash us continously with your  f**cking shit..

I have invested and dont regret it..and ready to accept the loss if it is a scam ..are we clear fu**cking moron?


Good to see you getting excited over the facts.
You might be fed up hearing about it, but there are so many other people that need to be warned. So sit tight and watch this shitcoin gets exposed.
92  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 10:38:36 AM
I tire of you already. I guess your just trying to fud credits but either way I dont care. The more you post the more many will think this project is legit cause your points are weak and could be leveled at any project really. I got 90k of credits. Pretty sure its gonna make me some money. So
do yourself a favour and invest or put your energy into investing in something else.

Here is a good read for you: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1508/1508.00184.pdf

It is a research paper clearly showing that ECDSA signature verification alone takes as long as 0.0002 s. Let's say that it is for a single core - that is 5000 tx/s. And that is just cryptographic verification.


This has no value to people like him and other cheap fucks. He bought his coins and no matter the scam, the tech, the shill, he just sets his goal, browses the internet researching what car or house he would buy when this shitcoin hits x1000 like Suppoman said. That's the truth. He blatantly defends his investment hoping that it would fool more and more people, he watches Suppos stream every day hoping he would mention Credits again.

What is however important, is to warn all the noobs who get blinded by this shameless marketing and explain what is actually behind it.
That's why I don't intend to stop driving those fucking scammers mad.
93  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 07:04:05 AM
Looking at today's chart on CoinMarketCap reveals the desperate struggle to obtain Credits in an ever shrinking environment full of HOLDlers, who are hoping this coin breaks into the top 100, this week. Given the BIG surge today of 30%, there's an excellent chance of that. It's now sitting at #135.

Once it breaks into the top 100, it enters a whole new environment of investors, and people willing to take a chance.  Not to mention the possibility of become listed on Binance, which would be obviously be huge.

Congratulations again, to the team on a job well done, in terms of managing the resilient expectations of investors.

Again, regarding the CNBC rumor, this was just a rumor. I have no solid proof that CNBC will be featuring this as a potential "Ripple Killer" as early as Monday, but there's chatter among business news buffs that the transaction speed-test is raising eyebrows everywhere, as well they should.

"Ripple Killer" Grin Grin Grin
I would support this scam if it markets openly as a "Ripple Killer"

ROFL this guy is amazing. The amount of garbage he types almost matches the amount of shit Credits is publishing in their pointless articles and self reviews. Just incredible mindless pile of crap. Not a single thing around this shitcoin has ever looked serious for a moment.
94  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 19, 2018, 06:58:47 AM
Alrighty then, back to important facts regarding this shitcoin.
I doubt you would ever be able to understand any of this, but hey I'm gonna leave it here anyway.


So I thought I'd do a translation and commentary on the Credits second alpha test Medium post (https://medium.com/@credits/the-alpha-version-of-credits-showed-a-speed-of-488-403-transactions-per-second-during-the-testing-ca5c1045577). Below are just my thoughts and observations. Quoted passages throughout are verbatim from the Credits team post.

QUOTE: "The platform node was deployed on a virtual machine in Microsoft Hyper-V for x64-based systems. The hardware specifications were the following: Intel® Xeon® E5–2630, 15 MB cache, 2.30 GHz, 7.20 GT/s Intel® QPI, Turbo boost of 2.80 GHz, 8 GB RAM.

The virtual platform configuration involved the creation of 29 nodes and 1 signaling server with the processor speed from 2.2 to 2.8 GHz."

They mention this themselves later in the post, but this is pretty feeble hardware for a performance test. But the really eye-opening bit is that they are running all 30 nodes on just one processor (6-cores). This is a serious limit on both the amount of load generated and the validity of this as a test. There is literally NO network overhead modeled in this test. Some might argue that, they must have used other system to run the client robots to generate the actual load. This is never stated, and even if true there is no modeling of network overhead to reach consensus or to transfer blocks between nodes.

QUOTE: "The main objective of testing was the ability of network architecture to manage and process large volumes of transactions. That was the asynchronous transaction processing by all nodes on the network due to multi-threading operations. "

Of course there is a hard-limit on the possibility of multi-threading when you're running 30 nodes on just 12 threads (6-core processor + hypertheading).

QUOTE: "In total run, the test was accomplished about 30 times and consistently went from 300 to 500 thousand transactions per second, due to the fact that such a number of transactions occupies up to 385 MB of memory (500 thousand transactions per second). The transaction has a maximum size that is reserved in the database, i.e. up to 808 bytes depending on the balance, the length of the address, the transaction currency, availability of digital signature, etc. We have decided to cut the transaction to 120–150 bytes in order to simplify testing. Otherwise, we would have had to deploy very powerful nodes with a high network bandwidth and a large storage. For example, for 1 hour at 500 tp/s the volume would amount to 1,387 TB."

I pointed this out in chat groups. The storage requirements of the Credits system are out of hand. First off, since they've removed Merkle trees from their blocks, there is no transaction pruning. I have also confirmed via their Telegram group that all nodes are expected to store all blocks. So let's run the numbers:

400k TP/S * 135 bytes = 54 MB/s. That translates to 4.6 TB/day . And that's with their faked reduced load. Their max transaction size is 808 bytes, so a more reasonable average of 404 bytes per transaction yields: 13.9 TB/day in data.

QUOTE: "The absence of EDS. We were tasked to test the load on a stable version of the platform. EDS requires additional processing time and adds 64 bytes to the volume of one transaction. The function is implemented in later versions of the platform with the use of technology ЕВ25519..."

I'm guessing they mean an "Encrypted Data Store" since they never expand out the acronym. So all of this is without encrypting/storing the data. I'm pretty sure this isn't what they mean since they then mention "EB25519" (sic). I think they mean EC25519 - elliptic curve key agreement. Which is not for encrypting data as they suggest but for creating public & private keys. So this statement is either opaque or just nonsense. But let me take them at face value and just add that 64 bytes of data to the previous computations.

So we now have the following transactions sizes 184 bytes (min during testing), 468 bytes (average?), 872 bytes (max). Yielding daily storage requirements of: 6.4 TB/day, 16.1 TB/day, 30 TB/day. It's worth noting that each node needs a download speed of 3 Megabits per second (Mbps) to keep up with the max data rate. And this is assuming only 400k TP/S.

QUOTE: "Validation of nodes. We refused from the validation algorithm DPOS and implemented a stable version of the validation algorithm BFT. During the testing phase, it was decided to use a stripped-down, but a stable version of this protocol."

So they didn't implement their proposed dPoS (dPoW??) algorithm, instead using a stable version of BFT? So this test does not actually reflect running their own proposed solution, but some other solution that they don't really specify. BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) is the name of the problem, not the solution. The one solution ("Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" (PBFT) by Castro & Liskov -- Wikipedia) is an example of a solution. There are others, but stating "BFT" does not give any clue to the correctness, viability, speed, or applicability of the solution they used. Furthermore the resulting performance of the consensus (which must be reached by some majority of the nodes) is not reflective of their final solution. The consensus algorithm is the key bit of the system, it's the "crypto" part of cryptocurrency. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine the viability of their system when it doesn't contain critical parts of the code they intend to run.

QUOTE: "The checking of transaction uniqueness was performed without checking the account balance. It affects the speed only to inconsiderable ~1–2%, but we would have to create a lot of different accounts."

Wait, that means there was no checking for double-spending. Hell there was no storage and updating of account data. So the memory requirements of that subsystem are also absent from the test. While the time required might be low, the actually memory usage can be significant. If the memory usage exceeds the capacity of the node (which is likely at these transaction speeds) the total time while grow exponentially as the nodes start switching to virtual memory (which can be 100-1000x slower than RAM).

QUOTE: "The following issues were also absent as not required for testing the system bandwidth: - Charging of fees for processing to the main and trusted nodes; - Processing related to smart contracts;"

Uh right, so all of this ignores the actual performance costs of running smart contracts. In fact, I asked in their Telegram group where/when the virtual machines (VM) for running smart contracts would be running (never addressed in their white paper or technical paper) and never got an answer. The whole system will slow down drastically when they need to start running transaction that are more than just moving Credits from one account to another.

QUOTE: "The speed is also reduced as the load on the network increases."

They casually toss this in, and follow it up with:

QUOTE: "The environment always greatly affects the network bandwidth, and the same applies to the network load. The rule is always the same regardless of the complexity of the system."

Right! So they decide to test all of their nodes running on a single server running in virtual machines? There is no real Internet delays, no lag time, no bandwidth restrictions. The test they ran is an optimal speed test, not a real performance test. Their optimal speed is an AVERAGE of 100-1000 TPS, which is inline with the performance we see from the likes of STEEM and BitShares today. While they manage 1 second long peeks of 400K, that is in no way a sustained rate. But all of that assumes an unrealistically fast/reliable network, which the real Internet isn't. Besides they're not running their production code, but a stripped down version without a version of the critical component (dPoS/dPoW).

QUOTE: "We decided to remove the response request from the connector. However, this step increased the risk of data loss during the synchronization. At the same time, there emerged some problems with the data transfer protocol: the maximum packet datagram of 65,535 bytes for the UDP Protocol did not permit transmitting larger packets. Packet sizes were restricted to maximum size of the datagram to solve both of these problems, i.e. reducing the loss of data during transmission and increasing the speed of processing."

Sigh. Again, this was an optimal network. UDP is not reliable, the Internet prefers TCP since it guarantees transmission (unlike UDP). Max size UDP packets run the risk of being dropped by routers on the Internet due to fragmentation/errors. Dropped UDP packets are just lost, and the servers are required to recognize the problem and resend. That's the "response request" they dropped from the test. Which would have slowed down their system! UDP is great when an unreliable data stream is acceptable (Eg. video). If one or more packets are lost, things like YouTube can just stall for a fraction of a second and continue playing, sometime unnoticed. I don't think you want your cryptocurrency failing to send synchronization packets between nodes. The result is delayed transaction times and the possibility of double-spending errors. In the case of slower protocols (BTC, ETH) where are are often large amounts of times to resend data (10 mins, 30 seconds respectively) UDP is probably acceptable. Credits is targeting 0.1sec. transaction times -- there isn't time for multiple resends between confirming nodes. Remember 51% of the trusted nodes have to agree on the ledger for a transaction to have a single confirmation.

QUOTE: "The average minimum time of passing a transaction record into the database is 1.302 microseconds ( 10 –6 sec) (transfer between nodes, processing and preservation in the storage). "

That's "average MINIMUM time" (emphasis mine). That of course is transfer between nodes RUNNING ON THE SAME COMPUTER AND IN PARALLEL THREADS ON DIFFERENT CORES! For freak's sake, that's no way indicative of even optimistic processing on a real network. For comparison, sending 56 bytes of data 8 feet on gigabit ethernet takes 450 microseconds, or 300 times longer. That's no router, no "real" Internet. Just a quick UDP transmit from my desk to the router in the corner.

Look, can the Credits team build a system? Probably. I think they still have a lot to learn about cryptocurrency, but they can learn it a build something. Will it handle 1 million tp/s in the real world? No. Will it handle 100k tp/s in the real world? Not likely. Will it handle 10k tp/s (peak) and 1-2k sustained? That's a possible outcome WITHOUT smart contracts. Which would make it approximately as fast as some of the non-contract capable blockchain solutions out there today. Will this team implement secure smart contracts, reliable/secure transactions at 1000+ tp/s? I don't think they'll be first or best at it.




It's all lies and bedtime stories kids. No matter how hard you try to shill, it's still only a shitcoin made to steal money from ignorant people.

fuck you



Funny, the truth strikes right in the middle.
Why the excitement?
Because you know all this is true and they are deluding people with their marketing and paid shillers?
Or you don't know a flying shit about the tech and just believe in everything those idiots say?
95  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 18, 2018, 11:01:06 PM
Alrighty then, back to important facts regarding this shitcoin.
I doubt you would ever be able to understand any of this, but hey I'm gonna leave it here anyway.


So I thought I'd do a translation and commentary on the Credits second alpha test Medium post (https://medium.com/@credits/the-alpha-version-of-credits-showed-a-speed-of-488-403-transactions-per-second-during-the-testing-ca5c1045577). Below are just my thoughts and observations. Quoted passages throughout are verbatim from the Credits team post.

QUOTE: "The platform node was deployed on a virtual machine in Microsoft Hyper-V for x64-based systems. The hardware specifications were the following: Intel® Xeon® E5–2630, 15 MB cache, 2.30 GHz, 7.20 GT/s Intel® QPI, Turbo boost of 2.80 GHz, 8 GB RAM.

The virtual platform configuration involved the creation of 29 nodes and 1 signaling server with the processor speed from 2.2 to 2.8 GHz."

They mention this themselves later in the post, but this is pretty feeble hardware for a performance test. But the really eye-opening bit is that they are running all 30 nodes on just one processor (6-cores). This is a serious limit on both the amount of load generated and the validity of this as a test. There is literally NO network overhead modeled in this test. Some might argue that, they must have used other system to run the client robots to generate the actual load. This is never stated, and even if true there is no modeling of network overhead to reach consensus or to transfer blocks between nodes.

QUOTE: "The main objective of testing was the ability of network architecture to manage and process large volumes of transactions. That was the asynchronous transaction processing by all nodes on the network due to multi-threading operations. "

Of course there is a hard-limit on the possibility of multi-threading when you're running 30 nodes on just 12 threads (6-core processor + hypertheading).

QUOTE: "In total run, the test was accomplished about 30 times and consistently went from 300 to 500 thousand transactions per second, due to the fact that such a number of transactions occupies up to 385 MB of memory (500 thousand transactions per second). The transaction has a maximum size that is reserved in the database, i.e. up to 808 bytes depending on the balance, the length of the address, the transaction currency, availability of digital signature, etc. We have decided to cut the transaction to 120–150 bytes in order to simplify testing. Otherwise, we would have had to deploy very powerful nodes with a high network bandwidth and a large storage. For example, for 1 hour at 500 tp/s the volume would amount to 1,387 TB."

I pointed this out in chat groups. The storage requirements of the Credits system are out of hand. First off, since they've removed Merkle trees from their blocks, there is no transaction pruning. I have also confirmed via their Telegram group that all nodes are expected to store all blocks. So let's run the numbers:

400k TP/S * 135 bytes = 54 MB/s. That translates to 4.6 TB/day . And that's with their faked reduced load. Their max transaction size is 808 bytes, so a more reasonable average of 404 bytes per transaction yields: 13.9 TB/day in data.

QUOTE: "The absence of EDS. We were tasked to test the load on a stable version of the platform. EDS requires additional processing time and adds 64 bytes to the volume of one transaction. The function is implemented in later versions of the platform with the use of technology ЕВ25519..."

I'm guessing they mean an "Encrypted Data Store" since they never expand out the acronym. So all of this is without encrypting/storing the data. I'm pretty sure this isn't what they mean since they then mention "EB25519" (sic). I think they mean EC25519 - elliptic curve key agreement. Which is not for encrypting data as they suggest but for creating public & private keys. So this statement is either opaque or just nonsense. But let me take them at face value and just add that 64 bytes of data to the previous computations.

So we now have the following transactions sizes 184 bytes (min during testing), 468 bytes (average?), 872 bytes (max). Yielding daily storage requirements of: 6.4 TB/day, 16.1 TB/day, 30 TB/day. It's worth noting that each node needs a download speed of 3 Megabits per second (Mbps) to keep up with the max data rate. And this is assuming only 400k TP/S.

QUOTE: "Validation of nodes. We refused from the validation algorithm DPOS and implemented a stable version of the validation algorithm BFT. During the testing phase, it was decided to use a stripped-down, but a stable version of this protocol."

So they didn't implement their proposed dPoS (dPoW??) algorithm, instead using a stable version of BFT? So this test does not actually reflect running their own proposed solution, but some other solution that they don't really specify. BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) is the name of the problem, not the solution. The one solution ("Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" (PBFT) by Castro & Liskov -- Wikipedia) is an example of a solution. There are others, but stating "BFT" does not give any clue to the correctness, viability, speed, or applicability of the solution they used. Furthermore the resulting performance of the consensus (which must be reached by some majority of the nodes) is not reflective of their final solution. The consensus algorithm is the key bit of the system, it's the "crypto" part of cryptocurrency. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine the viability of their system when it doesn't contain critical parts of the code they intend to run.

QUOTE: "The checking of transaction uniqueness was performed without checking the account balance. It affects the speed only to inconsiderable ~1–2%, but we would have to create a lot of different accounts."

Wait, that means there was no checking for double-spending. Hell there was no storage and updating of account data. So the memory requirements of that subsystem are also absent from the test. While the time required might be low, the actually memory usage can be significant. If the memory usage exceeds the capacity of the node (which is likely at these transaction speeds) the total time while grow exponentially as the nodes start switching to virtual memory (which can be 100-1000x slower than RAM).

QUOTE: "The following issues were also absent as not required for testing the system bandwidth: - Charging of fees for processing to the main and trusted nodes; - Processing related to smart contracts;"

Uh right, so all of this ignores the actual performance costs of running smart contracts. In fact, I asked in their Telegram group where/when the virtual machines (VM) for running smart contracts would be running (never addressed in their white paper or technical paper) and never got an answer. The whole system will slow down drastically when they need to start running transaction that are more than just moving Credits from one account to another.

QUOTE: "The speed is also reduced as the load on the network increases."

They casually toss this in, and follow it up with:

QUOTE: "The environment always greatly affects the network bandwidth, and the same applies to the network load. The rule is always the same regardless of the complexity of the system."

Right! So they decide to test all of their nodes running on a single server running in virtual machines? There is no real Internet delays, no lag time, no bandwidth restrictions. The test they ran is an optimal speed test, not a real performance test. Their optimal speed is an AVERAGE of 100-1000 TPS, which is inline with the performance we see from the likes of STEEM and BitShares today. While they manage 1 second long peeks of 400K, that is in no way a sustained rate. But all of that assumes an unrealistically fast/reliable network, which the real Internet isn't. Besides they're not running their production code, but a stripped down version without a version of the critical component (dPoS/dPoW).

QUOTE: "We decided to remove the response request from the connector. However, this step increased the risk of data loss during the synchronization. At the same time, there emerged some problems with the data transfer protocol: the maximum packet datagram of 65,535 bytes for the UDP Protocol did not permit transmitting larger packets. Packet sizes were restricted to maximum size of the datagram to solve both of these problems, i.e. reducing the loss of data during transmission and increasing the speed of processing."

Sigh. Again, this was an optimal network. UDP is not reliable, the Internet prefers TCP since it guarantees transmission (unlike UDP). Max size UDP packets run the risk of being dropped by routers on the Internet due to fragmentation/errors. Dropped UDP packets are just lost, and the servers are required to recognize the problem and resend. That's the "response request" they dropped from the test. Which would have slowed down their system! UDP is great when an unreliable data stream is acceptable (Eg. video). If one or more packets are lost, things like YouTube can just stall for a fraction of a second and continue playing, sometime unnoticed. I don't think you want your cryptocurrency failing to send synchronization packets between nodes. The result is delayed transaction times and the possibility of double-spending errors. In the case of slower protocols (BTC, ETH) where are are often large amounts of times to resend data (10 mins, 30 seconds respectively) UDP is probably acceptable. Credits is targeting 0.1sec. transaction times -- there isn't time for multiple resends between confirming nodes. Remember 51% of the trusted nodes have to agree on the ledger for a transaction to have a single confirmation.

QUOTE: "The average minimum time of passing a transaction record into the database is 1.302 microseconds ( 10 –6 sec) (transfer between nodes, processing and preservation in the storage). "

That's "average MINIMUM time" (emphasis mine). That of course is transfer between nodes RUNNING ON THE SAME COMPUTER AND IN PARALLEL THREADS ON DIFFERENT CORES! For freak's sake, that's no way indicative of even optimistic processing on a real network. For comparison, sending 56 bytes of data 8 feet on gigabit ethernet takes 450 microseconds, or 300 times longer. That's no router, no "real" Internet. Just a quick UDP transmit from my desk to the router in the corner.

Look, can the Credits team build a system? Probably. I think they still have a lot to learn about cryptocurrency, but they can learn it a build something. Will it handle 1 million tp/s in the real world? No. Will it handle 100k tp/s in the real world? Not likely. Will it handle 10k tp/s (peak) and 1-2k sustained? That's a possible outcome WITHOUT smart contracts. Which would make it approximately as fast as some of the non-contract capable blockchain solutions out there today. Will this team implement secure smart contracts, reliable/secure transactions at 1000+ tp/s? I don't think they'll be first or best at it.




It's all lies and bedtime stories kids. No matter how hard you try to shill, it's still only a shitcoin made to steal money from ignorant people.
96  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 18, 2018, 10:29:16 PM
Vladimir Putin decisively re-elected as Russian president – preliminary results - https://www.rt.com/news/421639-russian-presidential-election-results/

Russian Election Results COINCIDE with Credit$ Protocol Video showing 400k transaction speed?  

How interesting ... which underlines my theory of how secret state help and money, could help propel Credits far ahead of the competition.  

Congratulations to the Credits Team on the perfect timing, which also helps the bounty holders. For the record, I have no bounty tokens, although perhaps I should, given the amount of time I have devoted to Credits. Wink

I repeat my assertion that no one on earth needs this protocol more than the Russians, who are currently being hamstrung by Western governments and King Dollar. We can argue if the sanctions are right or wrong, all we want to, but the underlying truth is, business is WAR, and with this transaction speed, it moves Credit$ much further into the limelight.

Don't be fools, this was never a scam.  It's real for a reason, and the reason is necessity, which is the Mother of Invention.



You seriously gotta have some kind of a mental condition, because the amount of mindless shit that you have been posting in here is pretty fucking outstanding. Who do you think you gonna fool with this, some pajeets doing bounties for a bunch of coins worth $5? This shitcoin will never ever attract a proper investor with more than half a brain. This is now beyond pathetic with all the lies and fake tests, fake reviews and paid shillers.

Dude, you must have a really small pen*s, to think that wasting your time as a FUD artist is worth half as much as my time as an investor.

No one wastes their time FUDDing, unless they're either being paid, have some sort of twisted axe to grind, or are psychotic, and they have a small pen*s(combined.)

Cool story kiddo. Let's keep this mental fucking shit going, this might be a competition for the best article that Credits gonna publish next week. I bet people gonna fucking believe it like everything before.

I heard a rumor that Credits is gonna be an official currency during the football World cup in Russia! How crazy is that!? Russian national team is going to have logos on jerseys and stuff, what a great exposure for this amazing coin! 
97  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 18, 2018, 09:11:22 PM
Vladimir Putin decisively re-elected as Russian president – preliminary results - https://www.rt.com/news/421639-russian-presidential-election-results/

Russian Election Results COINCIDE with Credit$ Protocol Video showing 400k transaction speed?  

How interesting ... which underlines my theory of how secret state help and money, could help propel Credits far ahead of the competition.  

Congratulations to the Credits Team on the perfect timing, which also helps the bounty holders. For the record, I have no bounty tokens, although perhaps I should, given the amount of time I have devoted to Credits. Wink

I repeat my assertion that no one on earth needs this protocol more than the Russians, who are currently being hamstrung by Western governments and King Dollar. We can argue if the sanctions are right or wrong, all we want to, but the underlying truth is, business is WAR, and with this transaction speed, it moves Credit$ much further into the limelight.

Don't be fools, this was never a scam.  It's real for a reason, and the reason is necessity, which is the Mother of Invention.






You seriously gotta have some kind of a mental condition, because the amount of mindless shit that you have been posting in here is pretty fucking outstanding. Who do you think you gonna fool with this, some pajeets doing bounties for a bunch of coins worth $5? This shitcoin will never ever attract a proper investor with more than half a brain. This is now beyond pathetic with all the lies and fake tests, fake reviews and paid shillers.
98  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 18, 2018, 12:31:08 PM
Ahahaha yeah it's always the same 'team is working hard, they know what they are doing, don't worry friends'
and then they publish a code that any 15 year old can manage to come up with after 3 months of learning.  Then some pointless articles and celebrations of price and volume on kucoin. Then some massive shilling on every possible social network

Team really knows what they doing, fucking with your brains and money.

Yep trash whitepaper,no github and crap code gave 6X Grin Grin
Scams deliver pretty good so stop educating people and just take benefit of the dumb money in the market.

Yeah and now it's over. I did take advantage of dumb people but this shit needs to stop eventually in order to become a mature place for proper projects. It will get regulated and hopefully the sooner the better. All this is just a fucking hilarious marketing show lead by scammers and influencers. And that is exactly how crypto looks to people out of it.
99  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 18, 2018, 10:57:21 AM
Ahahaha yeah it's always the same 'team is working hard, they know what they are doing, don't worry friends'
and then they publish a code that any 15 year old can manage to come up with after 3 months of learning.  Then some pointless articles and celebrations of price and volume on kucoin. Then some massive shilling on every possible social network

Team really knows what they doing, fucking with your brains and money.
100  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][ICO]CREDITS - New Blockchain for financial industry [15 Feb-28 Feb] on: March 17, 2018, 06:28:21 PM
More nice words about Credits.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/84xrnp/beware_heavily_shilled_new_coin_credits_cs_is_a/?st=JEVPF5LL&sh=23a6491f
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!