Yes, we're currently working on getting the design up and running and used something similar to the typical lorem ipsum texts, so that topics can be determined more easily.
Once that's done, the entire text on the site will be rewritten by someone whose mother tongue is english. After that, it's going to be double checked for correctness using grammarly and only then it's published.
The current website is mainly a placeholder, I'd expect the final one to be up by the beginning of november, but can't promise anything, since I'm not its developer.

In certain communities, sanic the hegehog is synonymous for incredible speed. To put numbers to it, we expect each residential node to add approximately 1.4kTPS to the speed of the sharded aptum network.
While this certainly is an incredible claim, you'll soon be able to verify my math in a more elaborate paper about our interpretation of sharding.

The future whitepaper is currently being written and is not online. We wrote an initial script to have a short description of our rough plans and I also added a couple AIPs. None of these would be used as marketing material, as they assume too much knowledge yet don't go into detail at all. The whitepaper that's currently in progress, written by chris/elambert, is much more in-depth and both humanly understandable and readable.

The ambitious phrase you criticized is not exactly "too ambitious", as this is exactly what aptum is about. Aptum is not a cryptocurrency, aptum is a payment processor leveraging decentralized computing by artificially creating trust in a trustless economy. While VISA offers instant verification of many transactions per second, Aptum uses synchronous processing to be slightly "slower" yet, thanks to the power of the crowd, much more powerful. With just 20 active residential nodes, you'll easily be able to process all non-cash transactions. Every other node adds more power to the network, which can be used to reduce fees, increase speeds and become available to more people and use cases.
The reason this works in Aptum, but not in bitcoin, is because people work together, not against eachother.

---

I honestly have no idea what you looked for. When looking up "aptum cryptocurrency", http://aptum.io is the 6th link. This is mostly because our website is work-in-progress and therefore has no SEO yet.

Concerning the post you quoted (which ironically I'm unable to find), I've participated in the audience and spread awareness about aptum by talking to people at cryptocurrency events. Due to us being relatively small, I doubt that any major event would even accept a talk.

In case you are in Berlin, you could send me a direct message after joining our discord server, so that we could meet at one of the various cryptocurrency events in here.

After five days, the results of the vote are in.
After summing up the votes of the telegram channel and bitcointalk, we have eleven votes for nine decimals, two votes for 6 decimals and one vote for no decimals.

That's 78.5% for nine decimals, which means that this option won the poll with a strong lead.

Mono has been replaced by it's successor "Aptum", take a look at it in here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149835.60

Whitepaper: https://github.com/aptumproject/papers/blob/master/aptum.pdf
Code: https://github.com/mono-project/papers/

Discord: https://discord.gg/DEYNzDA
Telegram: https://t.me/aptumproject

The best way I would know to implement such a system without generating new coins would be to take from everyone and give to the active.
The issue with that is, you'll lose coins over time if you are not active or do not hold enough coins to be a validator node. If you simply vote for a delegate you are still counted as an inactive node, since you provide no service to the network.

Difficult situation, I agree. Care to discuss it?

I am currently looking into different versions how to implement the P2P protocol as well as the DPoS protocol. Feeless currencies and their incentive for you to include transactions and propagate the network are also being researched right now.
If you've got any resources about these or any more thoughts on the discussion above, please share them with me.

Clash has been replaced by its successor. For more information view the updated thread above.

The official Aptum discord server is now available in here: https://discord.gg/DEYNzDA

---

An official telegram channel for Aptum has been created in here: https://t.me/aptumproject
As of right now, there is only one bot to prevent spam. Further testing is required.

---

The Aptum Token [APT] has been launched on the ethereum mainnet and can be found in here
https://etherscan.io/token/0x83f77849243678979b52c85e25b939588b256f77

ICO price and faucet rewards are TBD, we expect them to launch next month.

Who needs emission anyway, am I rite?

Are there any thoughts in here on having no emission of new coins but still have a transaction fee? This way you cant say that new coins are created unfairly and that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
With 1000 DPoS nodes, a 2ct transaction fee and a maximum utilization of the resources the network has, a node would still make 76M USD/Year.

Many people in here are just advertising their coins, which is very exptected, instead of giving actual recommendations.
If you seriously want to have a CPU-only coin, monero, karbovanets and microbitcoin are doing their best to keep not just ASICs and FPGAs away from their consensus but also GPUs.
Since those are giants compared to the other coins, you can rest assured that none of them is a shit coin you cant even sell anywhere.

Happy Mining,
Luke

Thank you for your trust!

---

After a week, there are nine votes for DPoS and three votes for PoA.
Congratulations everyone who voted for DPoS!

---

Aptum logo was created and has been added to the thread, community feedback would be very much appreciated.

In the current implementation, DPoS has no requirement of coin age, correct.

You can use your funds to stake every block, correct; but it's not entirely the same as PoS, as you don't ralley towards being the first to get the block, but instead define someone who creates the next block right after the previous block was published.

The validator nodes have no requirement other than someone staking more than a certain percentage. I personally favour the usage of 0.1% in the initial stage, but it can be reduced later on. Therefore it is entirely dependent on the size of the developer fund which is currently being discussed.

DPoS is just like normal PoS, with the tiny change that there is a minimum requirement for hosting a node. Just like how hosting a masternode requires some minimum, but in DPoS you dont have to burn your coins to form a collateral.

PoA needs PoW and PoS to have security against 51% attacks from both sides, the complexity of forcing 100 people to sign the block is a requirement to be secure against orphans and chain splits.
Those would kill the coin and have to be avoided at any cost.

Therefore, no, it is not possible to use or adapt a casual PoS, because you either have to skip a large portion of the blocks or predefine the one and only validator to make sure that there are no chain splits.

Since predefining a validator is much better on a pure efficiency basis, but might be slightly worse if you are trying to achieve an unweighted distributed consensus, I would go for DPoS all day. Just think about how PoW is. You can theoretically participate, but you seriously have no chance of getting a block whatsoever. Additionally, there are mining farms which will always be more efficient than you are, which basically kick you out, unless the coin doubles its price; and to even have a chance of getting any rewards, you join a pool. Why not join a pool in here? All you need to do is form a trusted group (or trustless group using smart contracts) and let one participant set up a validator. Other than defining the maximum number of pools (which can be changed in forks), there is no real change compared to a PoW network. I mean, other than that it is PoS not PoW, but PoW is just PoS with more layers.

---

I just noticed your offer about graphics, thank you very much, that would be amazing if you could help.
I'll ask our web developer to send you a private message, if that's okay with you.

I'm afraid aptum currently has no community channels, as its still in its initial steps.
If you want to, you could however join the communities of both predecessors.
Bullion Telegram Channel: https://t.me/joinchat/FkBLVEimXQscVn1cetdd4g
Mono Discord Server: https://discord.gg/mbgWXgJ

DPoS would basically be PoS with preselected validators which have to be online.
If a validator is not online, the block will be skipped.
DPoS is chosen instead of PoS to have a minimum weight for every participant, which ensures that the block creator will be online.
In the beginning, I would like to set the minimum to 0.1%, which of course would be lowered later on.

PoA is PoW combined with PoS, to ensure that there are no 51% attacks and no orphans. First one will randomly find a proof of work block and submit it. Then 100 previously selected (dependent on the previous block) validators will sign the block, and if one of them did not sign the block, the block will be invalid and you will be forced to wait for the next one.

PoA would be much more difficult to implement, add more garbage that has to be sent from one node to another. It would drastically increase the time needed for each block to be confirmed, implying that the block time has to be increased from 15s to 2 minutes or more, increasing the average confirmation time to approximately six minutes, assuming just 1% of the nodes are offline; with 10% of the nodes being offline, it would be one block every 26 days.

On the other hand PoA would be the only way of having not just a decentralised, but also a distributed consensus.

As you might see, I, as the developer and visionary, definitely vote for DPoS, because this is much better for the future of the network.
Unless someone has a better solution, I will vote for DPoS, but I can also see why other people would vote for the only way of having a distributed consensus that's resistant against orphans.

The poll in telegram had four votes for a large supply and three votes for a medium supply, resulting in 4 votes for a small supply, 4 votes for a large supply and 8 votes for a medium supply. The "medium supply"-option won with a strong lead.

I recently updated the whitepaper to further improve checkpoints, or states, and reduce the size of the chain (for newly synchronizing people) to a couple megabytes.
Read through the most recent update in here: https://github.com/aptumproject/papers/blob/master/aptum.pdf

This is what true scalability looks like!

---

A new poll has been added to the telegram group, a poll to determine whether DPoS or PoA (Proof of Activity; PoW+PoS) should be used as our consensus mechanism.
To vote, please comment your preferred choice (DPoS/PoA) or vote in the bullion telegram channel, which can be joined here: https://t.me/joinchat/Huox0UimXQuZyNaupwJp-Q
It's important to note that while you can add your personal reason why you chose a specific algorithm, you don't necessarily have to. It may help others decide in favour of your choice.

Thank you very much. You might want to bookmark the repository, since this is where future papers and updates will be uploaded to.

It is possible to use two digits, yes - on the other hand - without changing much, other than adding another digit - we could also use three digits.
The most famous cryptocurreny I know that uses two digits is turtlecoin (#500 on coingecko).

Pro two digits: They would allow for a 10x higher (theoretical) maximum supply (184 trillion).
Con two digits (in contrast to 3): Since it would take already take over 9000 years to reach the supply, we don't need to make that 90'000 (assuming maximum emission).

---

That depends, as of right now, there is no marketing campaign set up implying that there is no bounty right now.
However we will shortly, or more precise: within the next two months, release a website. With the release of that site the marketing can officially start, including possible bounties.

Other than that, there is only one thing that is fixed. A faucet that can be used to redeem funds. This will be similar to what Nano (previously RaiBlocks) did. See here: https://medium.com/@DecentRally/raiblocks-is-what-bitcoin-should-have-been-from-the-start-1d91c4c61d2d
This allows us to distribute coins fairly without giving them away for free.

Perfect! So you would recommend an emission of 1000 coins per block and the usage of two digets if I understand correctly?
My proposal would be the same thing, but three digets, to allow for higher accuracy (if needed).

I dont understand.
mXYZ is milli-XYZ -> thousandths.

I know what you mean by "using two digets - not three - not none - two".
The issue is that the emission in atomic units is set right now.
So we emit one million atomic units, and the question is - where to put the digets.
If you want to have two digets, we could either use the same design as before, and emit 10k coins - or we reduce it to 1k.
Reducing it to 1k would make us use a more beautiful number and have 10x smaller emission.
Staying at 10k would have an emission of 22 billion whole coins per year.

---

The aptum whitepaper is released and can be viewed here: https://github.com/aptumproject/papers/blob/master/aptum.pdf

I have to ask, do you mean two decimals with 10'000x the normal emission, so that instead of 2.2M coins per year (small supply) 22bln coins per year emitted. Or do you mean that two decimals with 1000x the emission and 10'000x the maximum supply?