but I don't exactly like the distribution part of it
reserving up to 8% of the coins to fund the dev would be ok
Thanks for your remarks, we are discussing this within the team. |
|
|
|
Let's talk more in depth about where we can make Chancecoin transactions faster. When you place a bet, the first thing that happens is it goes into "pending" state, which means that you've sent the transaction successfully, but it hasn't been confirmed yet in the Bitcoin blockchain. It takes an average of 10 minutes for a transaction to be confirmed by the Bitcoin blockchain. It's possible for us to use an alternate Blockchain (such as Dogecoin or NXT) for betting transactions in order to speed up this part of the process. One possible drawback is that Chancecoin users would need to have Dogecoin or NXT funds available in order to take advantage of such a feature.
The other possible solution is to go back to using the Bitcoin blockchain hash as the source of randomness. The drawback here (as has been previously discussed) is that someone with a lot of hashing power could manipulate Chancecoin by waiting for a hash that is favorable to them. Note that this isn't exactly the easiest thing to do. A miner would literally have to decide to throw away a block (along with the 25 BTC + fees reward) if the hash doesn't favor their Chancecoin transactions. I propose that we go back to using Blockchain hashes as our source of randomness for transactions in blocks where the total amount of CHA that can possibly be won (for all bets in the block) is less than 2,000 CHA. If the total amount that can possibly be won exceeds 2,000 CHA then the NY Lottery numbers would be used. This should sufficiently minimize the incentive to manipulate blocks. Thoughts?
What about launching your own chain (based on NXT or BC code for example)? Then these transfer fees could be deducted from the winnings, and paid out to nodes holder whose sole role will be maintaining this transactions blockchain. You also reminded me where I heard this discussion and the solution presented there - indeed, using BTC itself might be the solution, just take each block hash (or portion of it) as the source. Mounting an attack is possible (see the relevant ghash.io / Satoshi Dice thread), though I pretty much would rely here on the miner community, who seeing this will quickly abandon such pool. Having big bets still coming from NY lottery (where any fraud would be much more seriously treated), is also a good option. |
|
|
|
I have been burnt MANY MANY times in the past, where after the coin is released the Devs have lost interest or motivation to innovate.
If you can cover and calm my concern with the above you can count me in.
Thanks in advance.
We are discussing some form of vesting to keep developers committed to the long terms, and in case we reach one, we will announce it towards the pre-sale start. |
|
|
|
Тоже надеюсь что за странностями этого Nxtchg, нет ничего кроме личных особенностей. У меня на его sim бирже уже немало монет, но я, пока, за них не беспокоюсь, несмотря на вчерашние события.
Все с ним в порядке, я с ним торчу на закрытом канале (для IPO инвесторов), вполне нормальный парень. А юмор его - бог с ним, если это ему помогает легче справляться с троллями и спекулянтами. Кстати, рад видет что ждете наш Crypti, мы усиленно работаем что-бы запустить хороший продукт. |
|
|
|
Is there any strong opposition to moving to a faster blockchain?
Would Dogecoin be the best blockchain?
On a related note, this might not completely solve the issue, as it seems that the NY Lottery numbers have been slightly delayed recently, which also contributes to the slowness, so we may still have to consider other sources of randomness.
What about PoS cryptos, like NXT or BlackCoin? Both of them feature very fast confirmation times. As per randomness source, I recall there was a discussion about Cha origin in some place (where NY was criticized as possible, albeit unlikely, to be manipulated), and some natural sources of randomness like seismic activity were suggested. |
|
|
|
Actually buyers still can send BTC to anon136 for this kind AE escrow. anon136 will issue the tokens to the buyers through AE (all buyers do need to get a Nxt account). In the end, after the launch, all buyers just need simply transfer the tokens back to anon's issuer account with a message (through Nxt messaging feature) including their crypti account # for either you or anon136 (you send all escrowed coins to anon) to distribute their coins to.
anon136 is a very well known and trusted escrow agent here. Allowing prospective IPO investors to buy using his service would give people a great deal ore confidence in Crypti. You could offer a choice of other escrow agents for investors who do not want to use the AE. Please see the opening - maxmint, who is actually one of the oldest and respected escrow providers, has agreed to participate. We are looking to simplify the buying process as much as possible, without the need to open additional accounts anywhere. Buyers will just need to specify their test-net Crypti address in public comment when sending the BTC to escrow, and after the main-net is launched, Crypti will be distributed to these addresses. As the wallet is deterministic, same passwords from test-net will allow access main-net Cryptis. There will be also a public ledger, showing Crypti addresses and their Crypti estimated ownership. |
|
|
|
I disagree with the distribution. I think this would be best:
Coins:
90% (90,000,000) will go to those who invested in the Pre-Sale.
10% (10,000,000) will go to the team that created Crypti.
IPO (100-200 BTC):
10% (10-20 BTC) will go to the team that created Crypti.
90% (90-180 BTC) will go to the development fund.
Donīt be greedy.
There is no relation to greed, we are looking to raise enough funds to maintain the development progress for as long term as possible. That said, we will discuss your suggestions as well. |
|
|
|
Other potential sources of funding could include:
1. Taking a small percentage of the merchant fee. If transaction volumes are large enough then even a small fraction say 1% of the 1% merchant fee could add up. You won't see this in the short term but if the concept is successful it could provide much needed income in the longer term.
2. Look at charging a subscription fee on merchant and even consumer wallets in the future. Continuous improvement does come at a cost and someone needs to bear that cost and it should be its users if they expect the infrastructure to be maintained.
3. Charging for support and maintenance services to merchants. There are always end users after higher levels of support services and are willing to pay to get it.
Thanks for the suggestions, we will discuss them. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarifications on the fee issue. One question I still have: if the fee is charged to merchants, what about transactions not involving merchants, e.g. transferring funds from an exchange to a personal wallet; is the 1% fee still charged? And how exactly is the "merchant" defined here. Does it refer specifically to commercial businesses, or does it include basically anyone who is receiving Crypti?
Currently it's 1% per every transaction, we are discussing this matter in the team. Merchants will have special business addresses, validated via real-life identification. |
|
|
|
maximum and minimum investment set?
Both are unlimited - buy as little or as lot as you want. |
|
|
|
We are happy to announce, that a respected community member maxmint has agreed to provide Escrow for this pre-sale! It's our true belief that a presence of such member will assure the community in our intentions and result in a very successful pre-sale. Maxmint will confirm this by posting here and in separate thread with the Escrow terms. |
|
|
|
Have you talked to Tomatocage ?
See PM. |
|
|
|
Awesome news! I will ask him again. Unfortunately Anon only willing to do future escrows on top of the NXT Assets Exchange which, in our opinion, complicates matters for the casual buyer. We want to give a simple BTC sending experience to an Escrow address, and have a ledger showing the estimated amount of Crypti that one will receive. However we are in talks with several other Escrow providers, and looking to have one available towards the pre-sale start. |
|
|
|
The fee should be to the merchant, not the sender.
Corrected in white-paper. |
|
|
|
There's column 'type' added which can be 'sell' or 'buy'. Other than that, it's the same. I actually was about to suggest this  . Next stop is coinmarketcap - can we do it or it's too early? |
|
|
|
pics seem like PS
It's indeed a UI prototyping in Photoshop, it is being sliced and coded into HTML/CSS these days. |
|
|
|
Would be better to have deadline not only in time but in btc too. For example max amount limited by 200 btc and so if all 200 btc will be collected in first 2 weeks, IPO should be closed. I agree that we need limit in btc for one person. 25 % for devs is so big. Devs will get btc for their previous work and for their future work they will get 15% of coins. After coin will be widely accepted it will be driven by community.
It's actually a bit in reverse, the dev team will get 15% for continuation of the development. The raised funds will be used by the foundation for additional bounties and activities. |
|
|
|
what innovations does this coin offer the common user, those people that need a digital currency?
Please see the opening post and the white-paper link in the bottom of it. |
|
|
|
Interesting coin, but I can't get past that 1% transaction fee. Merchants may like getting 50% of those fees, but users will hate having to pay that much, and that seems like a deal-breaker to me. Who would actually use this coin for real-world purchases and transactions, when the transaction fees are nowhere near competitive with BTC and other cryptos?
Are there plans to reduce the fee if/when Crypti gains traction with lots of merchants and the incentive is no longer as effective?
We are aware of this concern, and discussing it internally in the team to reach a solution. |
|
|
|
Awesome news! I will ask him again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
