Just thought I'd throw this out there:
Overheard on IRC: ATCSECURE: "there is a new LTE update coming which XC will be leveraging for ad-hoc [physical] mesh networking via direct p2p."
What is LTE? It's 4G for mobile phones. P.S. Physical mesh networks are not in XC's mid-term future. We're not currently coding it. Can you elaborate a bit more on this Arlyn. Is this the beginning of the development of the Tech that will allow users to connect to to the internet using XC app via phone trough LTE? How it will get access to LTE withouth a sim card? is XC app communicating directly with LTE radio signals withouth the use of a SIM card in the future?, hence it will create a network based on the hardware with XC...hmmm yes I need more explanations about this please If it's what I think it is, it's gonna be based on LTE Direct http://www.telecomstechnews.com/news/2014/sep/30/lte-direct-mesh-networks-are-future-connectivity/According to this whitepaper, it's gonna use a licensed band on LTE and providers will charge a fee for using it. https://www.qualcomm.com/system/files/document/files/Research_LTE-D_White_Paper.pdfSo, yes it's device 2 device (d2d), but it's still depending on a subscription from your provider. It's like when we just discovered (if your old enough) using text messages. A whole new level of applications will become available with this. Dan, can you confirm your anticipating on this technology? Front row seats people! Front row!! Arlyn can you comment on this as well please? I've just been reading an executive summary on LTE Direct, and it'll use a licensed spectrum. This means that mobile operators will be able to charge both developers (for API access) and customers. This is a little odd since it won't be the mobile operators' infrastructure transmitting data, but customers' hardware. I'm unaware of how feasible it'll be to hack LTE to make it just function without the interference of mobile operators, but since no central infrastructure will be needed, it's at least a practical possibility. Perhaps hackers will develop alternative firmware or drivers for LTE D-compatible hardware that'll make this happen. Lastly, I'm not certain that this is what Dan is going to use. I'm also not yet sure that it'll be a problem (or a cost) to customers to use licensed spectrum. |
|
|
|
I believe now, especially coupled with FinCen's latest ruling, that Blocknet's nature puts it ahead of other public offering styled events. It being fully decentralized (not having any set of core coins, which I admit I argued against before the FinCen ruling ), and lack of trust on one single team(It's composed of a large set of different decentralized coins), makes it an even better contender than Supenet was.
Every coin in SuperNET is a 'core' coin. There's no practical difference in this regard between the two systems. BTCD? TL;DR BTCD is technically equivalent to every other coin, but since all the developers from BTCD+jl777 are currently working on making the first reference implementation of SuperNET part of BTCD it makes it seem like it's exclusive to BTCD. When in fact the situation is almost perfectly analogous to how XC and atcsecure are providing Xbridge and Xmixers to Blocknet. So BTCD and XC are 'special' in the sense that they provide critical technology, but are not 'above' any other coin in their respective networks. Same goes for NXT and NHZ, both will be provided the asset exchange tech for SuperNET and Blocknet. From my post earlier in this thread: I got a little bit more information regarding the first two points we were discussing yesterday: every SuperNET node becomes one via libjl777, I made a reference implementation of a SuperNET node:
jl777 [03:33]
//
// main.c
// libtest
//
// Created by jl777 on 8/13/14.
// Copyright (c) 2014 jl777. MIT License.
//
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <memory.h>
#include "SuperNET.h"
...code...
jl777 [03:35]
The SuperNET_start call and the broadcast/narrowcast are how it is integrated into a coin
jl777 [03:35]
BTCD has done this already
jl777 [03:35]
also every SuperNET node is a "server" and a private node, both
The issue here is that jl777 and the other BTCD devs have all been working on implementing libjl777 which I think is analogous to Xbridge in this case and BTCD is just the first reference implementation. But the idea behind libjl777 is that it's supposed to be implemented in to every coin in superNET. Right now that's BBR, VRC, BITS, NXT, BTCD (all equal memebers but providing different technology or assets). Each developer of coins in superNET will eventually add libjl777, but for now the attention is focused on getting it in to BTCD first. Crypto_Zoidberg the lead dev for BBR only just started talking with jl777 about integration last week, so it's probably going to be a little while. But every coin is supposed to be equal, even though it may seem like BTCD is special, it's only really special in the sense that it has a bunch of people working full time and testing at the moment making it the first implementation of superNET. And of course in the same way that XC is meant to provide its mixers BTCD provides teleport. But BTCD isn't a necessary condition for someone to use superNET. The majority of people might end up using BTCD as their 'gateway' to superNET in a similar way that XC people would presumably hope that people will be using XC as a their coin of choice when using Blocknet. Also, from what I can understand everyone person running superNET is equal and node and there's no particular server(other than each node being a "server" in the p2p sense) so I unless I'm missing something I would expect that to qualify as true p2p considering there are no central servers. Personally, I don't think you need to justify Blocknet anyway based on those contrasting points you were using. A good idea is a good idea. And a new implementation of the same concept with a different network of coins should be sufficient in my opinion. Thanks for clarifying  Morning all Hmm... point broadly accepted, but: - Dan is not providing Xmixer tech to the Blocknet. That's an XC feature only. - There are no plans for development of the XBridge to run on XC first. It's not an analogous situation to BTCD. There is no "internet of blockchains" if one coin has superordinate status over another. This would be like one website having superordinate status over others. It's great to hear that BTCD's position is temporary BTW. On the other hand, the SuperNET runs on NXT's blockchain and as far as I know that can't change. This could be a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Hi all
Just to let you know that the Blocknet interim wallet will be released tomorrow!
These will serve to store your Blocknet tokens until they can begin earning fees, at which point they'll be redeemable for NHZ assets.
|
|
|
|
I've been analysing the investment potential of this project and detail my methodology below. Essentially these tokens derive their value from the micro fees they receive. As the OP explains these aren't coins - "is not a coin but a token of value the blocknet adds to every service it enables."
Let's assume you have 1 BTC worth of these tokens out of the 2500 BTC worth of tokens out there. Typically for an ordinary investment, 10% return would be amazing for a year. In crypto where things are very high risk and volatile, people would expect more like a 100% return in a year.
So 1 BTC should give 1 BTC in terms of "paid feeds" over the course of a year. Which means 2500 BTC worth of paid fees across the network. I don't believe the fee structure has been made public or is even known? The term micro fee suggests it will be small. I'm speculating a complete guess at 0.5%. But fees don't just go to the token holders they also go to the node which renders the service, so if that is split 50-50, the amount going to the token holders would be half that. But let's assume it's 0.5%.
For 2500 BTC worth of fees to have been paid, that means 2500 BTC represents 0.5% of all the transactions that have occurred - giving a total figure of 500,000 BTC.
That is right. According to my rough calculations, the network needs to be handling 500,000 BTC worth of volume per year for 1 BTC worth of these tokens to generate 100% return in terms of fees paid. That to me seems unlikely to be happening early on in the life of the Blocknet.
Any thoughts/discussion on my post?
Think of how many coins will be added to the Blocknet. Basically I see it as the more coins added to blocknet(which is what blocknet is about?), the easier it will be to get that 500k btc worth of volume in a year. Thanks Mr_Random. I don't have much to add, but here's a point or two: Blocknet tokens will still be tradable and speculators and investors can gain or lose based on their market value. Short-term gains (i.e. before the Blocknet launches or grows large) will be purely on the basis of tokens' value. As the Blocknet grows, fees will become an increasingly lucrative revenue source. Fees: service providers are free to set any fee they want for a service, and nodes that provide the service keep the fee. In addition, service providers pay Blocknet fees, and it is this that is paid to shareholders. This will be a microfee, but its value has not yet been set, due to the fact that we're not yet sure how many instances of Blocknet-fee-charging are likely to occur across a broad range of services. The idea is that a fee will be charged for a given function that the XBridge performs; certain services might require very small or very large numbers of functions, and we will first need to be able to model this before we can create fee structures that track both the cost to the Blocknet of delivering the service and the value of the service to clients. Interesting comments; they've been noted. Will the ultimate goal be to make the fee structure decentralised? For example if someone makes a change to the Bitcoin code, miners can choose which fork to be on. How would that work with Blocknet if there are two competing sets of fee structures proposed to the nodes. I guess I'm trying to establish if the fee structure can ultimately be built into the system or will the decision of the fees be centralised. I'm also wondering whether going open source is a good idea or not. If a clone platform comes out where fees are half the price, won't ordinary everyday users who want things like cloud storage just go with the cheapest option? This isn't like Bitcoin, since the value of this platform is derived from the services not from a currency... I therefore anticipate clones to be more damaging than ordinary coin clones. If I can probe further, what timeline is the Blocknet development projected to follow? At what stage in the next 12 months can investors expect to see the technology working? What is the projected estimate for completion of the decentralised exchange? Hmm... forks for lower fees? Interesting scenario! This would happen if participating coins saw greater value in implementing an alternative version of the XBridge into their wallets. Or if non-participating coins wanted their own Blocknet, didn't like the fees, and colluded to create a fork. Against the possibility of participating coins doing this, they could instead just use their seats on the Foundation's board to discuss and propose changes. Also, what if their community protested at losing service X due to changing forks? The coin itself could fork. As for non-participating coins creating their own forks, there are of course additional reasons to do so, like being excluded from the Blocknet. This might happen, but it would be at the expense not having access to whatever valuable services are in the Blocknet. I suppose that the major force in operation here is market centralisation (Hotelling's law); being in the Blocknet is a whole lot better than being out of it, and so, like having a shop in a shopping mall vs. having one outside of it, service providers will flock to the Blocknet. P.S. We'll be releasing a timeline very soon. |
|
|
|
Just thought I'd throw this out there:
Overheard on IRC: ATCSECURE: "there is a new LTE update coming which XC will be leveraging for ad-hoc [physical] mesh networking via direct p2p."
If only people realize how big this is... think Firechat, but 10x better... because it doesn't use bluetooth which is limited to 30-100 feet. LTE is many times greater distance than that. Imagine even if you don't have internet and you can still chat with people in the forest using LTE radio built into your phone.... Yes, it will be a massive development. It's one thing to have an ad hoc virtual mesh network (which XC has already). It's another thing entirely for the physical hardware of a network to form a mesh. This restructures some pretty long-standing power relations. |
|
|
|
Just thought I'd throw this out there:
Overheard on IRC: ATCSECURE: "there is a new LTE update coming which XC will be leveraging for ad-hoc [physical] mesh networking via direct p2p."
What is LTE? It's 4G for mobile phones. P.S. Physical mesh networks are not in XC's mid-term future. We're not currently coding it. |
|
|
|
|
Just thought I'd throw this out there:
Overheard on IRC: ATCSECURE: "there is a new LTE update coming which XC will be leveraging for ad-hoc [physical] mesh networking via direct p2p."
|
|
|
|
I've been analysing the investment potential of this project and detail my methodology below. Essentially these tokens derive their value from the micro fees they receive. As the OP explains these aren't coins - "is not a coin but a token of value the blocknet adds to every service it enables."
Let's assume you have 1 BTC worth of these tokens out of the 2500 BTC worth of tokens out there. Typically for an ordinary investment, 10% return would be amazing for a year. In crypto where things are very high risk and volatile, people would expect more like a 100% return in a year.
So 1 BTC should give 1 BTC in terms of "paid feeds" over the course of a year. Which means 2500 BTC worth of paid fees across the network. I don't believe the fee structure has been made public or is even known? The term micro fee suggests it will be small. I'm speculating a complete guess at 0.5%. But fees don't just go to the token holders they also go to the node which renders the service, so if that is split 50-50, the amount going to the token holders would be half that. But let's assume it's 0.5%.
For 2500 BTC worth of fees to have been paid, that means 2500 BTC represents 0.5% of all the transactions that have occurred - giving a total figure of 500,000 BTC.
That is right. According to my rough calculations, the network needs to be handling 500,000 BTC worth of volume per year for 1 BTC worth of these tokens to generate 100% return in terms of fees paid. That to me seems unlikely to be happening early on in the life of the Blocknet.
Any thoughts/discussion on my post?
Think of how many coins will be added to the Blocknet. Basically I see it as the more coins added to blocknet(which is what blocknet is about?), the easier it will be to get that 500k btc worth of volume in a year. Thanks Mr_Random. I don't have much to add, but here's a point or two: Blocknet tokens will still be tradable and speculators and investors can gain or lose based on their market value. Short-term gains (i.e. before the Blocknet launches or grows large) will be purely on the basis of tokens' value. As the Blocknet grows, fees will become an increasingly lucrative revenue source. Fees: service providers are free to set any fee they want for a service, and nodes that provide the service keep the fee. In addition, service providers pay Blocknet fees, and it is this that is paid to shareholders. This will be a microfee, but its value has not yet been set, due to the fact that we're not yet sure how many instances of Blocknet-fee-charging are likely to occur across a broad range of services. The idea is that a fee will be charged for a given function that the XBridge performs; certain services might require very small or very large numbers of functions, and we will first need to be able to model this before we can create fee structures that track both the cost to the Blocknet of delivering the service and the value of the service to clients. |
|
|
|
A few more questions:
1. The Blocknet Foundation issues the tokens and puts up all for sale? Why does the foundation not keep some of the tokens for itself? I think that would show more commitment for the success of the project.
2. Who will be working on the implementation of the Blocknet? Dan from XC, I guess. But anybody else? As I understand the developers of the participating coins will mostly work on the services of their coins, right?
Synechist, could you please address these questions?
The Blocknet Foundation does not exist yet and so it's not straightforward to create a Foundation-specific multisig address without a single person controlling it initially. However the teams of participating coins are all particularly excited about the Blocknet and will be investing accordingly. The people involved will have a stake in the Blocknet's success. Also, participating coins stand to benefit hugely from its success, so there's a non-monetary incentive too. As for who will be working on the code, the Blocknet Foundation will allocate funds to developers best suited to deliver specific code. These developers may be from participating coins, but not necessarily so. |
|
|
|
I'm specifically testing XChat now. After that we can move on to private payments, and then to the Xmixer.
What are you hoping to achieve? Usually testing and Q&A demonstrates specific goals in controlled scenarios which help a developer fix problems. Just random and unorganized testing from a PR guy does not drive solid software releases...especially not with 2 days left. Let's change the word "testing" to "checking," to match my proficiency. This release has worked; I just want to check again that it works. Now that Dan's here, perhaps he can handle it somewhat more professionally... |
|
|
|
Are there any specific plans or goals for software release(s) before the 29th that will inspire investor and user confidence? It seems like we may of moved from XChat development on traditional systems to mobile development? I realize you are very busy with the upcoming release of BlockNet infrastructure. Thanks.
A stable release of XChat across all platforms. 2 days left. Been ready to test new builds and help discover bugs. I'm willing to work for free here. Haven't heard about XChat much lately though. Everything is still on track...right???  I was not able to follow along over the weekend, did the actual android app get released for testing (not just the UI sneak peak)? if i didnt missed anything, so we didnt see Dan here all weekend. it would be nice to know when devs are planning to realease test and final mobile wallet and rev2.5 I don't think another version was released yet. The UI sneak peek had some working functionality however. Take a step back though. XChat and the mixer still are not working for me and many others. I'm ready and available to provide details and testing. Seems like quite a bit of testing would need to be done if it's spanning across 3 platforms. Adding mobile to the eco-system before the 3 main platforms are solid seems odd. I've had multiple software Q&A jobs in my lifetime so I speak from some experience. Hey Ursay What problems are you having with XChat, and with private transactions? They're working fine for me. Keen to do some testing of the stable version? - http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/windows/XCurrency_2.49.08.exeI'm on a Mac. The problem is the mixer and XChat don't work. XChat issues have already been documented in this thread quite a bit. Mixer issues were sent to Dan via PM. Was there other specific testing I can do which would be helpful and push towards stable releases? When was this? The stable release has been well-tested before we started the group chat test releases, and XChat (without group chat) worked fine, as well as private transactions. What were the mixer issues? Edit: the Mac build is new and therefore was not tested previously. So we need to test it: http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/OSX/XCurrency-qt-08_prod.dmgThis was 2 weeks ago when multiple users in this thread were testing. There was not much success. XChat does NOT work fine. Private transactions do NOT work fine. The mixer issues are that it does not work. I tested with XCurrency-qt-multichat_08i and my xc just disappeared into thin air. After Dan asked me to try XCurrency-qt-08_prod I got... searching, then processing, then timeout expired After that I haven't heard from Dan. 08i? But that's not the stable build. By my recollection, XChat (without group chat) does work very well and was tested more than two weeks ago. Same goes for private transactions. But hey, let's not go by memory. Let's test the thing. Send me a message. Synechist, Can we try to bring some structure into this test & start with the basics? Where/who is the XC test manager? Testing is a job for a skilled professional, you are great with communication but maybe it is more smart to structure this endevor by switching first to the XC forum and get someone tech from the team to coordinate everything. Including (but not limited to) basic setup & checks and a simple checklist that can be crossed of after x no of confirmations from independed users opn the specified platform. Im my day job i handle acceptance test with a lot more care & preparation that what seems to be happening here. And this is cross platform with cutting edge tech I just installed from the .exe you just posted as the stable version over the current one(eg: did not de-install anything) , the wallet reports "v0.9.2.49.08.XCurrency-REV2" as the version. Is this correct? Second: in my (windows) explorer i still see something i do not understand. The XCurrency-qt.exe reports Date Modified: 10/1/2014 12:43PM Following this thread i would expect a more recent timestamp. Is this correct? but first ... i have a 4 year old that needs me to read here a bedtime story ... will be back online in an hour or so If you're on Windows and that's the version, it's correct. Very good suggestion about software testing. As you've correctly guessed, it's not my specialization. But the reason I'm doing this now is because I remember this version being tested and people being happy. I just want to test it lightly and somewhat informally now, so check that everything's still all good. |
|
|
|
08i? But that's not the stable build.
By my recollection, XChat (without group chat) does work very well and was tested more than two weeks ago. Same goes for private transactions.
But hey, let's not go by memory. Let's test the thing.
Send me a message.
Please keep us posted with the results Well I'm chatting with Dan and all's well. Ursay, you still here? Please read my posts in FULL. Here's what you seem to have missed... "After Dan asked me to try XCurrency-qt-08_prod I got... searching, then processing, then timeout expired" I did see that. I'm specifically testing XChat now. After that we can move on to private payments, and then to the Xmixer. |
|
|
|
Are there rewards for early investors? Or is it the same invest the first day or the last day?
The rewards are the same. After all, the ITO is only a few days long. :-) |
|
|
|
08i? But that's not the stable build.
By my recollection, XChat (without group chat) does work very well and was tested more than two weeks ago. Same goes for private transactions.
But hey, let's not go by memory. Let's test the thing.
Send me a message.
Please keep us posted with the results Well I'm chatting with Dan and all's well. Ursay, you still here? |
|
|
|
Are there any specific plans or goals for software release(s) before the 29th that will inspire investor and user confidence? It seems like we may of moved from XChat development on traditional systems to mobile development? I realize you are very busy with the upcoming release of BlockNet infrastructure. Thanks.
A stable release of XChat across all platforms. 2 days left. Been ready to test new builds and help discover bugs. I'm willing to work for free here. Haven't heard about XChat much lately though. Everything is still on track...right??? I was not able to follow along over the weekend, did the actual android app get released for testing (not just the UI sneak peak)? if i didnt missed anything, so we didnt see Dan here all weekend. it would be nice to know when devs are planning to realease test and final mobile wallet and rev2.5 I don't think another version was released yet. The UI sneak peek had some working functionality however. Take a step back though. XChat and the mixer still are not working for me and many others. I'm ready and available to provide details and testing. Seems like quite a bit of testing would need to be done if it's spanning across 3 platforms. Adding mobile to the eco-system before the 3 main platforms are solid seems odd. I've had multiple software Q&A jobs in my lifetime so I speak from some experience. Hey Ursay What problems are you having with XChat, and with private transactions? They're working fine for me. Keen to do some testing of the stable version? - http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/windows/XCurrency_2.49.08.exeI'm on a Mac. The problem is the mixer and XChat don't work. XChat issues have already been documented in this thread quite a bit. Mixer issues were sent to Dan via PM. Was there other specific testing I can do which would be helpful and push towards stable releases? When was this? The stable release has been well-tested before we started the group chat test releases, and XChat (without group chat) worked fine, as well as private transactions. What were the mixer issues? Edit: the Mac build is new and therefore was not tested previously. So we need to test it: http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/OSX/XCurrency-qt-08_prod.dmgThis was 2 weeks ago when multiple users in this thread were testing. There was not much success. XChat does NOT work fine. Private transactions do NOT work fine. The mixer issues are that it does not work. I tested with XCurrency-qt-multichat_08i and my xc just disappeared into thin air. After Dan asked me to try XCurrency-qt-08_prod I got... searching, then processing, then timeout expired After that I haven't heard from Dan. 08i? But that's not the stable build. By my recollection, XChat (without group chat) does work very well and was tested more than two weeks ago. Same goes for private transactions. But hey, let's not go by memory. Let's test the thing. Send me a message. |
|
|
|
Are there any specific plans or goals for software release(s) before the 29th that will inspire investor and user confidence? It seems like we may of moved from XChat development on traditional systems to mobile development? I realize you are very busy with the upcoming release of BlockNet infrastructure. Thanks.
A stable release of XChat across all platforms. 2 days left. Been ready to test new builds and help discover bugs. I'm willing to work for free here. Haven't heard about XChat much lately though. Everything is still on track...right??? I was not able to follow along over the weekend, did the actual android app get released for testing (not just the UI sneak peak)? if i didnt missed anything, so we didnt see Dan here all weekend. it would be nice to know when devs are planning to realease test and final mobile wallet and rev2.5 I don't think another version was released yet. The UI sneak peek had some working functionality however. Take a step back though. XChat and the mixer still are not working for me and many others. I'm ready and available to provide details and testing. Seems like quite a bit of testing would need to be done if it's spanning across 3 platforms. Adding mobile to the eco-system before the 3 main platforms are solid seems odd. I've had multiple software Q&A jobs in my lifetime so I speak from some experience. Hey Ursay What problems are you having with XChat, and with private transactions? They're working fine for me. Keen to do some testing of the stable version? - http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/windows/XCurrency_2.49.08.exeI'm on a Mac. The problem is the mixer and XChat don't work. XChat issues have already been documented in this thread quite a bit. Mixer issues were sent to Dan via PM. Was there other specific testing I can do which would be helpful and push towards stable releases? When was this? The stable release has been well-tested before we started the group chat test releases, and XChat (without group chat) worked fine, as well as private transactions. What were the mixer issues? Edit: the Mac build is new (but the same code as the older Windows build) and therefore was not tested previously. So we need to test it: http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/OSX/XCurrency-qt-08_prod.dmg |
|
|
|
ito launch time & zone? (sorry if asked before)
this information still not available? It's on the OP FAQ and on the website. (Has been for some time.) |
|
|
|
|
Who else is up for testing?
I'm available.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
