Ok look like safe network is heading forward. Very good progress on development also price spike.
Meanwhile eth still drama on the new chain and old chain....sign...
It's easy to avoid drama WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A WORKING PRODUCT and are still deep in the hopey-dreamy vaporware phase. I doubt MAID will make it as far as ETH did (about two years) before suffering a catastrophic DAO-type debacle and ensuing ETC-type contentious hard fork. What I like in MAID is that they are moving very carefully. I'm kind of new to Maidsafe. Bought over the last two months or so because I figured that a lot of people are excited about the tests. But I also found out that many are kind of disappointed because progress seems to be slow compared with some other projects. But I personally like exactly that because for me it stands for professionalism. If I see a big project rushing out something my conclusion is: Price is priority, money over quality. So, I doubt that MAID will have to face such an catastrophic event because the DAO was a consequence of a rushed out and hyped up bullshit-project. It even would have failed without all the security-issues because of economical issues. And just btw: It could be considered as a scam with all the self-buying of the team at one side, and their power over proposals to get funds out of it for their projects on the other side. In my eyes it was a shady magic-trick - weakly designed. |
|
|
|
Another things is, appreciate for your info on the current price for 1 ANS ?
There is a cool trick to check the price: I'll tell you guys a secret! If you click three times quickly at the word "ICO" you will find the current ANS price based on the BTC raised! Like this:   The current price is still low! (current is about 0.62 RMB/ANS, the expectation is about 1.5-2RMB/ANS) You still have the option to open your position at low cost! |
|
|
|
Ha! Nice to see Neos back on track! Time to join the IRC again!  |
|
|
|
Anyone know the current size if the Factom blockchain? I'm syncing the wallet now and it's at about 1.29 GB. I didn't see the size listed on the block explorer. Is there anywhere else I can look, or just wait until fully synced. Thanks!
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Factom has a blockchain. They basically hash large amounts on data very efficiently onto secure, pre-existing blockchains, e.g. on Bitcoin or Ethereum or ... So they use those blockchains as an "anchor" to secure the data, but what they bring to the table is the ability to scale data entries in a massive way onto already-secure blockchains. It's most likely right to say that Factom is not about one Blockchain. But it's a hierarchical Blockchain-Concept. Factoids for example are running on a Blockchain and each customer can build it's own chain and it all goes into Directory Blocks before it's hashed into the Bitcoin-Blockchain. Under the line it's an independent system plus "Bitcoin-Blockchain-extra-security". |
|
|
|
Lets say I'm a company that paid to use factom. Factom saves it's hashes to the bitcoin blockchain. If Bicoin fails. I will lost all my fund?
No. Factom has it's own Blockchain and that's the place for companies. It also puts hashes in the bitcoin-blockchain to proof it wasn't altered in any way. If Bitcoin would fail the history would still be there (in Factom of course but also the history in Bitcoin). And more important: Factom can do that with any Blockchain and most likely they will do it with others. There are or were plans to anchor in Ethereum as well: Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/I don't know if that is still the plan after the hard-fork. But in general: Factom is not dependent on Bitcoin. If we think two and more years into the future and expect other big blockchains it's likely that they will anchor in and connect to others as well. By the way: That's another great point in Factom that it's kind of complementary to a lot of potential Blockchain-projects. There are many potential scenarios for "win-win-situations". Edit: I also thought about "bitcoin-fail-scenarios". And I believe it could hurt the price if a catastrophic-event in Bitcoin would happen "now" (or the next weeks or months). But it even could be the opposite because many would try to get rid of their Bitcoins and buy into other projects. And what I expect in the next 12 months is a hard fork of Bitcoin and that we could have to face a scenario like we see it with ETH and ETC. I can't know it, but it's possible that there will be Bitcoin like we know it and a "new Bitcoin" with bigger Blocks. That's one reason why I don't hold much in Bitcoin even if some believe it should shoot up because of the halving - possible of course. But I expect troubles. For Factom it could even be an interesting scenario, because Factom could anchor in both and it could be helpful in future regarding the block-size-problem. Safe is in my opinion: It won't be boring. |
|
|
|
I already have some more questions while thinking about ANS and ANC and fees and the nodes.
In the whitepaper is said:
"ANC are used for
Accounting Charge payment
Extra Service Charge payment
Bookkeeper Nominee Deposit as collateral"
....and:
"ANC will be written into the corresponding ANS addresses proportionally. ANS holders could claim these ANC to their ANS address anytime they wish to. For example, a shareholder who has 1% of all the ANS could acquire 8*0.01=0.08 ANC in every block of the 1st year, meaning 460.8 ANC everyday."
...and:
"To write a transaction onchain, a certain number of AntCoins will be charged as accounting fees, which goes to the bookkeepers to compensate their expenditures in storage, connection and computing resources. (...) As long as more than 2/3 of the bookkeepers are willing to, a transaction can be free of charge when writing into the Antshares Blockchain. Thus, organizations using Antshares in bulk could pay the bookkeeper offchain with fiat currency without further the hassle of paying AntCoins onchain."
Bookkeeper = nodes? There is said "could pay the bookkeeper offchain" - singular? Or is that just a typo/error?
There will be 8 ANC per Block and those new created ANC will be distributed to 100% to the shareholders, right?
And those who will run the nodes will be paid with fees whenever the system is used or if 2/3 of the bookkeepers agree in fiat.
I try to think about possible price-scenarios of ANC. Thing is: If those who will run the servers could agree to take no fee but Fiat off-chain, there would be not that much incentive to care about the price of ANC or am I wrong? It's a very theoretical scenario, because it can be expected that those who will run the nodes will also hold shares and get payouts in ANC and some fees in ANC but what I try to find out in short words: Will the price of ANS and the price of ANC be connected in a predictable way or will it be more kind of surprise? ;-)
And when it comes to the question of immutability and decentralization: What could prevent a centralized scenario if, for example, a big company would hold so many shares that they could vote that many own servers as bookkeepers to get the whole system under centralized control?
My questions are really not meant critical in any way because in my opinion it's the most interesting economical design since Factom - but more complex and really not easy to understand. ;-)
Ah yes, it should be bookkeepers! Yes, all new ANC will be distributed 100% to ANS holders. And yes for the bookkeeping fees. For the ANC consumption, bookkeeping fees could use fiat directly but other activities such as asset registration requires ANC consumption and those consumed ANC is back to the system awaiting ANS holders to initiate a claim transaction. Price of ANS is the present value of a serial of ANC payments. It's like a bond. As for this ICO we are mainly distributing ANS to individual investors. In the future there might be a big company trying to buy Antshares. But as you may see from historical merger & acquisition cases, hostile takeover will definitely cost a lot. We believe the ANS price will be around the fair value normally so if hostile takeover happens, the acquiring firm will have to pay a lot more than what the system values. That will decrease the possibility of centralized control. Thanks! Thank you very much for your answers! You say "(...) but other activities such as asset registration requires ANC consumption and those consumed ANC is back to the system awaiting ANS holders to initiate a claim transaction."Does that mean not just new created ANC will be distributed to ANS-Holders but also fees? Because I thought that would also be bookkeeper-payments? And what I don't understand is how bookkeepers will be elected. Could potentially everybody be a bookkeeper and/or is there a limited number like the federated server design in Factom? In Factom it's about 32 federated server and additionally 32 audit server, also with an election mechanism. The voting will happen with Entry-Credits (I saw that dahongfei referred to Factom in the other thread) while it's about voting-power in relation to the shares in this project. There is one point that I think is a little bit concerning. It's not meant critical, but if I understand it correctly: Those who hold a lot of shares will most likely also have the power to vote themselves (or guys they know) as bookkeepers in, to be paid by fees. And additionally they will claim, like all shareholders, ANC in relation to their shares. In Factom there are costs to vote (FCT must be converted to EC to vote - both is consumed/"burned" after that process). The question of centralization vs decentralization is highly dependent on the eco-system and that's what I see as critical point at the moment. Because it seems like DPoS plus PoS. Big shareholders could vote themselves as bookkeepers in (DPoS) plus claim ANC in relation to their shares (PoS). And it's not meant personally, but the 50% of shares held by the team, at least for one year, also means voting power plus 50% of all new created ANC for one year, and 8% of the future total supply. I mean, you guys will do all the work and I have no problem regarding the money side. The ANC could be seen as another founding round and Factom for example also made an ICO plus VC-founding rounds. But how can you ensure that this will be a decentralized system, at least decentralize over time? Cool, so there are actually two types of fees. One is basic bookkeeping fees that are negotiated by bookkeepers and users. Basic fees are transferred directly between them. The other one is additional service fees, including asset registration, bookkeeper candidate registration, and asset write off. Additional service fees are consumed/burned and will be redistributed to ANS holders. As for centralization vs decentralization, we use dBFT consensus algorithm, which is a combination of delegate and BFT. The bookkeepers group needs to reach at least 66% consensus. Say there are 60 bookkeepers, if a single institution wants to take control of the system, at least 40 bookkeepers should come from the institution side. That is actually very hard. I'll provide math calculation later to show you the immunity of centralization. Thanks! Okay, thank you for the answers! It's really an interesting project with a very interesting eco-system. It all seems very thought-out even if I don't understand it totally yet. P.S.: Invested since yesterday and I disagree with some implications/accusations that came up because of me. |
|
|
|
Over 3k BTC first week, how do we know these are not the same Devs recycling the BTC to hype it up? Not trying to FUD.
Let them post their btc addresses used in the past. It may confirm whethere they have used to recycle or not. Most probably, they don't recycle to attract more people. I'm pretty sure that is the case, I mean not even Lisk or WAVES collected that much and specially not in their first week. Yes for transperancy and gaining trust from investors,antshares must share these addresses Once again. They did that in Post 3: honestly, tempus, your just another fucking shill. anyone who has followed your posts the last year can tell that. piss off, MATE Interesting. You're using an account that was registered in March 14, 2016, 03:50:50 PM...but you follow my posts since last year. Didn't know that I'm so interesting. But more important: No reason to give much on the words of a newbie, or somebody who was in need to drop his old account. And just by the way: Arguments? Zero. I tell you what I am: One of a very few who take this game serious. I was never paid by any project, but if that would be the case here, they would most likely fire me because they would dislike lines like this:
Thank you very much for your answers!
You say "(...) but other activities such as asset registration requires ANC consumption and those consumed ANC is back to the system awaiting ANS holders to initiate a claim transaction."
Does that mean not just new created ANC will be distributed to ANS-Holders but also fees? Because I thought that would also be bookkeeper-payments?
And what I don't understand is how bookkeepers will be elected. Could potentially everybody be a bookkeeper and/or is there a limited number like the federated server design in Factom?
In Factom it's about 32 federated server and additionally 32 audit server, also with an election mechanism. The voting will happen with Entry-Credits (I saw that dahongfei referred to Factom in the other thread) while it's about voting-power in relation to the shares in this project.
There is one point that I think is a little bit concerning. It's not meant critical, but if I understand it correctly: Those who hold a lot of shares will most likely also have the power to vote themselves (or guys they know) as bookkeepers in, to be paid by fees. And additionally they will claim, like all shareholders, ANC in relation to their shares. In Factom there are costs to vote (FCT must be converted to EC to vote - both is consumed/"burned" after that process).
The question of centralization vs decentralization is highly dependent on the eco-system and that's what I see as critical point at the moment. Because it seems like DPoS plus PoS. Big shareholders could vote themselves as bookkeepers in (DPoS) plus claim ANC in relation to their shares (PoS). And it's not meant personally, but the 50% of shares held by the team, at least for one year, also means voting power plus 50% of all new created ANC for one year, and 8% of the future total supply. I mean, you guys will do all the work and I have no problem regarding the money side. The ANC could be seen as another founding round and Factom for example also made an ICO plus VC-founding rounds. But how can you ensure that this will be a decentralized system, at least decentralize over time?
Please use some logic. I just try to get infos since yesterday because I wasn't even aware of this before. But obviously I've taken a deeper look into this in just 30 hours than some others who are around since day 1. |
|
|
|
Over 3k BTC first week, how do we know these are not the same Devs recycling the BTC to hype it up? Not trying to FUD.
Let them post their btc addresses used in the past. It may confirm whethere they have used to recycle or not. Most probably, they don't recycle to attract more people. I'm pretty sure that is the case, I mean not even Lisk or WAVES collected that much and specially not in their first week. Yes for transperancy and gaining trust from investors,antshares must share these addresses Once again. They did that in Post 3: |
|
|
|
Edit to add: I'm currently in San Francisco speaking with people about Tao in person. I am here because I want people to understand that when I stated I would hard fork Bitcoin that I was serious. I haven't had many people disagree once I've explained it to them. It's really only a matter of time, and the information we are releasing today should put that in perspective. Here's a slide deck that describes how the Tao system works. http://www.slideshare.net/BryceWeiner/tao-of-music Regarding Bitcoin: I'm pretty sure that it will be hard-forked. But maybe you should focus more on one big thing instead of TAO and Bitland and hardforking Bitcoin and all at the same time. ;-) |
|
|
|
I personally don't pay much attention to the drama. I also don't criticize that he played some experimental games. Everybody knows that this is an experimental space and a high risk-market. So it's kind of normal that many projects will die and a lot of Developers move on to other projects and start something new - and some do it again and again etc. But what I think is revealing: He doesn't answer on questions that are fundamental. This one for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1567647.msg15892953#msg15892953What I believe to see here is that he uses the drama. All of his friends and also he himself defend this more about personal-topics and how bad those are who scream "Scammer" and how toxic BCT is etc. But nobody talks about this ICO and how it's handled, the tech, the economical side, and so on. It's a total lack of professionalism in my opinion and my impression is: It's all rushed out. And every time something is rushed out the priority is "money soon". My personal conclusion is: This won't have any chance and there is a high risk that it will end like the other experiments of B. Weiner. And for now I don't believe it's really legit, because it's never a good sign if somebody avoids to reply on questions about fundamentals while he himself raised a lot of questions in the interview. These are great comments, and quite frankly I stopped reading the thread when it degenerated into nonsense. Can you really blame me? If BCT is going to be so openly hostile then I really am not going to spend a lot of time allowing it to occupy my brainspace. For instance, I have mentioned several times that if anyone would like escrow they are more than welcome to select a reputable escrow provider in the industry and we will accommodate them. Anyone who doesn't want to use escrow is welcome to participate through the website and people have. If that's a turn off to some people, okay. One might then conclude that there's something going on here that isn't what people are normally used to dealing with. But no, the assumption is simply I'm a crook or a scammer and I always have been it's just one more scam blah blah blah. I'm honestly too busy to really address concerns I've addressed elsewhere in other venues. I have a project I am getting off the ground. If BitcoinTalk falls behind the curve as it becomes a low priority due to the responses... well, there's only so much time in the day. If people feel so strongly then they are welcome to vote with their wallet. They are not anyone I should spend time trying to convince of anything. They have already made up their minds. If you haven't made up your mind then come and ask questions in a venue where your answer will be heard and have meaning. Our slack is open to everyone. I am active on Twitter. I am very approachable and willing to discuss the project with anyone. We are still moving forward and releasing information. We will continue to release it on BCT, however I cannot see how any actual discussion here is productive or at best repetitive. Perhaps once the crowd sale closes things will change and we can try again, until then anyone generally interested in the project is welcome to join our slack as I have mentioned. Absolutely your choice how you handle all this. But for me personally I can say that I'm very serious and as professional I can be when it comes to the question if I invest in a project or not. And like I've said, I don't pay much attention to drama and at least partially I also can understand a Dev who was and is active in more than just one project. But of course, it's part of your history and it would be unusual if you wouldn't have to face some questions and also accusations when it comes to that. Some may be unfair but it's something an Investor has to consider. But what I personally focus on is how professional somebody acts - also regarding communication, how transparent in general, how much info a team provides and so on. And even without the drama and the accusations against you as Bryce Weiner, I would step back here. In comparison to some other projects this seems to be not very interesting while I would have a lot of questions I shouldn't have if there would be enough informations. And I mean, you talk about Factom in your interview and you imply they wouldn't deliver, as if they just would raise money while being lazy and that it would be hard to keep track because they're active in China and so on. That's what got my attention because a guy on Twitter said he would've learned Factom would be about lies. And if you complain about scam-accusations against you, but "teach" others about other projects in that way - what could you expect else as a lot of critical comments? And if you take a look how this turned out until now you are most likely not very satisfied. I've made a screenshot of the raised amount one week ago and it was about $29k. Now it's at $33.5k and that is not just a result of Scam-accusations. I doubt that it would be much more if you would have done this with another guy in front without history that could be used for scam-accusations. Just one point for example: After all the claims about connections in the music-industry or at least to artists I also would expect those guys to support this project. How can anybody know that those claims are true if they don't show up? Or the other members of the team. If I would consider to invest I would have a lot of questions. And I would immediately decide not to invest if I see that somebody doesn't want to answer. It would be on you to anticipate all kinds of reactions and to know how to address it all. That's what I personally would consider as a sign of professionalism. |
|
|
|
3200 BTC is way too much. I'm sure the the team use some fund from the first ICO to buy in this 2nd ICO. The point is for what?
No, they are pretty transparent regarding the first ICO: |
|
|
|
I already have some more questions while thinking about ANS and ANC and fees and the nodes.
In the whitepaper is said:
"ANC are used for
Accounting Charge payment
Extra Service Charge payment
Bookkeeper Nominee Deposit as collateral"
....and:
"ANC will be written into the corresponding ANS addresses proportionally. ANS holders could claim these ANC to their ANS address anytime they wish to. For example, a shareholder who has 1% of all the ANS could acquire 8*0.01=0.08 ANC in every block of the 1st year, meaning 460.8 ANC everyday."
...and:
"To write a transaction onchain, a certain number of AntCoins will be charged as accounting fees, which goes to the bookkeepers to compensate their expenditures in storage, connection and computing resources. (...) As long as more than 2/3 of the bookkeepers are willing to, a transaction can be free of charge when writing into the Antshares Blockchain. Thus, organizations using Antshares in bulk could pay the bookkeeper offchain with fiat currency without further the hassle of paying AntCoins onchain."
Bookkeeper = nodes? There is said "could pay the bookkeeper offchain" - singular? Or is that just a typo/error?
There will be 8 ANC per Block and those new created ANC will be distributed to 100% to the shareholders, right?
And those who will run the nodes will be paid with fees whenever the system is used or if 2/3 of the bookkeepers agree in fiat.
I try to think about possible price-scenarios of ANC. Thing is: If those who will run the servers could agree to take no fee but Fiat off-chain, there would be not that much incentive to care about the price of ANC or am I wrong? It's a very theoretical scenario, because it can be expected that those who will run the nodes will also hold shares and get payouts in ANC and some fees in ANC but what I try to find out in short words: Will the price of ANS and the price of ANC be connected in a predictable way or will it be more kind of surprise? ;-)
And when it comes to the question of immutability and decentralization: What could prevent a centralized scenario if, for example, a big company would hold so many shares that they could vote that many own servers as bookkeepers to get the whole system under centralized control?
My questions are really not meant critical in any way because in my opinion it's the most interesting economical design since Factom - but more complex and really not easy to understand. ;-)
Ah yes, it should be bookkeepers! Yes, all new ANC will be distributed 100% to ANS holders. And yes for the bookkeeping fees. For the ANC consumption, bookkeeping fees could use fiat directly but other activities such as asset registration requires ANC consumption and those consumed ANC is back to the system awaiting ANS holders to initiate a claim transaction. Price of ANS is the present value of a serial of ANC payments. It's like a bond. As for this ICO we are mainly distributing ANS to individual investors. In the future there might be a big company trying to buy Antshares. But as you may see from historical merger & acquisition cases, hostile takeover will definitely cost a lot. We believe the ANS price will be around the fair value normally so if hostile takeover happens, the acquiring firm will have to pay a lot more than what the system values. That will decrease the possibility of centralized control. Thanks! Thank you very much for your answers! You say "(...) but other activities such as asset registration requires ANC consumption and those consumed ANC is back to the system awaiting ANS holders to initiate a claim transaction."Does that mean not just new created ANC will be distributed to ANS-Holders but also fees? Because I thought that would also be bookkeeper-payments? And what I don't understand is how bookkeepers will be elected. Could potentially everybody be a bookkeeper and/or is there a limited number like the federated server design in Factom? In Factom it's about 32 federated server and additionally 32 audit server, also with an election mechanism. The voting will happen with Entry-Credits (I saw that dahongfei referred to Factom in the other thread) while it's about voting-power in relation to the shares in this project. There is one point that I think is a little bit concerning. It's not meant critical, but if I understand it correctly: Those who hold a lot of shares will most likely also have the power to vote themselves (or guys they know) as bookkeepers in, to be paid by fees. And additionally they will claim, like all shareholders, ANC in relation to their shares. In Factom there are costs to vote (FCT must be converted to EC to vote - both is consumed/"burned" after that process). The question of centralization vs decentralization is highly dependent on the eco-system and that's what I see as critical point at the moment. Because it seems like DPoS plus PoS. Big shareholders could vote themselves as bookkeepers in (DPoS) plus claim ANC in relation to their shares (PoS). And it's not meant personally, but the 50% of shares held by the team, at least for one year, also means voting power plus 50% of all new created ANC for one year, and 8% of the future total supply. I mean, you guys will do all the work and I have no problem regarding the money side. The ANC could be seen as another founding round and Factom for example also made an ICO plus VC-founding rounds. But how can you ensure that this will be a decentralized system, at least decentralize over time? |
|
|
|
Hypothetically , now,if my investment 0.036/3500*20000000*120 ==24720 ANS?
Right?
In fact the early bird reward is 120%(1.2) not 120... Can you pls add full screen option to player with video from your site?) You can watch it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf9YQfWErOA |
|
|
|
|
I already have some more questions while thinking about ANS and ANC and fees and the nodes.
In the whitepaper is said:
"ANC are used for
Accounting Charge payment
Extra Service Charge payment
Bookkeeper Nominee Deposit as collateral"
....and:
"ANC will be written into the corresponding ANS addresses proportionally. ANS holders could claim these ANC to their ANS address anytime they wish to. For example, a shareholder who has 1% of all the ANS could acquire 8*0.01=0.08 ANC in every block of the 1st year, meaning 460.8 ANC everyday."
...and:
"To write a transaction onchain, a certain number of AntCoins will be charged as accounting fees, which goes to the bookkeepers to compensate their expenditures in storage, connection and computing resources. (...) As long as more than 2/3 of the bookkeepers are willing to, a transaction can be free of charge when writing into the Antshares Blockchain. Thus, organizations using Antshares in bulk could pay the bookkeeper offchain with fiat currency without further the hassle of paying AntCoins onchain."
Bookkeeper = nodes? There is said "could pay the bookkeeper offchain" - singular? Or is that just a typo/error?
There will be 8 ANC per Block and those new created ANC will be distributed to 100% to the shareholders, right?
And those who will run the nodes will be paid with fees whenever the system is used or if 2/3 of the bookkeepers agree in fiat.
I try to think about possible price-scenarios of ANC. Thing is: If those who will run the servers could agree to take no fee but Fiat off-chain, there would be not that much incentive to care about the price of ANC or am I wrong? It's a very theoretical scenario, because it can be expected that those who will run the nodes will also hold shares and get payouts in ANC and some fees in ANC but what I try to find out in short words: Will the price of ANS and the price of ANC be connected in a predictable way or will it be more kind of surprise? ;-)
And when it comes to the question of immutability and decentralization: What could prevent a centralized scenario if, for example, a big company would hold so many shares that they could vote that many own servers as bookkeepers to get the whole system under centralized control?
My questions are really not meant critical in any way because in my opinion it's the most interesting economical design since Factom - but more complex and really not easy to understand. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
This seems to be a very interesting project. I've spent the last couple of hours to read and learn more about it.
But I have a few questions. I'm not a technical-guy but what I would like to understand better is this:
What is delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance, or dBFT?
I believe that I understand the principle, that it's about elected nodes run by professionals, but:
...in the Pre-Ann it's said:
"The consensus model is a Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance, which is similar to Delegated Proof-of-Stake Model. In Antshares, ANS holders will vote on trusted nodes who will confirm transactions."
Will there be a limit of nodes?
And the economical-design is very(!) interesting, but also not easy to understand.
My first question may sound naive: Shareholders (ANS) get ANC-payouts, right? It's not selling ANS for ANC, ANS won't be "consumed" for ANC? Are there two different kind of addresses or how does that work practically?
And it's said that both "tokens" will be tradeable and I'm very eager to see how the exchanges will find prices in such a complex system. It needs some understanding to come to rational conclusions about value. ;-)
My next questions: Who and how will the price of using the system will be set? Or with other words: If the price of ANC would explode out of irrational-market-pumping - what will prevent the whole system to become too expensive to use it? In the whitepaper it's said "Antshares uses fiat currency internally."
Is that combined with a price-fixing regarding the fees to use the system?
And: Is that (Fiat) already safe regarding law and regulations etc. or could there be setbacks or even a ban/barrier?
A more practical question regarding the market: Will ANS also launch on western-exchanges, hopefully Poloniex, or is that something that shouldn't be expected right after launch?
Sorry if I missed the answers. I've read this thread and the whitepaper, but it's not easy to understand while it's really interesting.
|
|
|
|
Vitalik has been involved in earlier scams before the ethereum scam
He actually duped people into giving him bitcoin for "quantum mining"
Even Homero didn't lie that much
I didn't know anything about that. Tried to find some more infos and found this: http://www.bitcoinerrorlog.com/2016/08/16/vitaliks-quantum-quest/To be honest: I'm surprised! In my opinion it's about just two possibilities: 1. Intended scam? 2. "Just" naive? I don't know of any other rational possibility here. And both of the above would be negative. I go with "just naive". I do not think he intended to scam people in the beginning. Maybe he thinks it can really be done, which is naive or maybe it is just not doable to day and the idea is way ahead of its time. Recently I have been thinking the same of Ethereum whether the original or the fork. Vitalik himself might be starting to think that his platform is not viable for what he wants to happen. Yes, I also believe more in naivety. Nobody can deny that VB is very smart and I believe he is truly a visionary. But he is also young and unexperienced. Three years ago he just was 19. The problem I believe to see is: Maybe he is somebody who is so convinced about his abilities, so self-confident when he thinks about his visions as theoretical possibilities that he can't distinguish between "theoretically possible" and "doesn't match to reality now". I'm not sure how to explain it in english but it can be a problem. And of course it's pure speculation. But I personally always was very uncertain about Ethereum because for me it all seems like a laboratory, like a playground for nerds. And many are very skilled regarding the tech but there must be something like megalomania (in general) and they rush things out. Again and again, just to do it. That's not just a guess because theDAO made that obvious. And the problem in Crypto is: It's never just about the tech. It's a very psychological space because it's about the combination of tech and economy. In fact it's about solving collective social problems, human-psychological-problems, with technology. And that's a reason why it's overwhelming for a lot of very skilled coders, because they focus too much on the technology while they miss the psychological part. Or more precise: They believe to consider it, but it's not deep enough. And that's a reason why I personally believe more in people with a lot of experience who act with more patience and more cautiousness, like Maid or Factom or also Bitcoin-Core - even if I'm not convinced that Bitcoin-Core is right. And I believe VB will be a very big name in some years and also very successful. I also believe he is a good guy without bad intentions. But I don't believe that it will be about Ethereum. Maybe they've made too many steps into a direction that won't work in reality but can't be solved. |
|
|
|
Vitalik has been involved in earlier scams before the ethereum scam
He actually duped people into giving him bitcoin for "quantum mining"
Even Homero didn't lie that much
I didn't know anything about that. Tried to find some more infos and found this: http://www.bitcoinerrorlog.com/2016/08/16/vitaliks-quantum-quest/To be honest: I'm surprised! In my opinion it's about just two possibilities: 1. Intended scam? 2. "Just" naive? I don't know of any other rational possibility here. And both of the above would be negative. |
|
|
|
Does anybody know what Peter Todd means with this? Peter Todd @petertoddbtc
Allegedly @VitalikButerin was previously involved in a quantum computing scam. Anyone have more info on this?
https://m.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4xqwzt/comment/d6hxrprhttps://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/765598522229919744Edit: Didn't see this on first look. He refers to this: "Vitalik's project immediately before Ethereum is that he was collecting investments from people to fund building a computer program to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, supposedly by simulating a quantum computer. (Never mind that even real QC aren't conjectured to be able to do that, nor does 'simulation' make any sense; unless BPP == BQP thats not even possible, and virtually all experts agree the complexity classes are probably not equivalent). He built up a reputation for himself writing tech explainers of other people's ideas usually without any attribution (until someone complains), making him look like the author. Beyond ripping off other's ideas, Vitalik has had virtually no interaction with Bitcoin developers, having never contributed to Bitcoin development." |
|
|
|
Indeed, the FCT inflation is set at 73K per month or 876K per year.
Thanks for this! And great to see you joining the discussion. Interesting times ahead ...  In Brian's discussion, there's one part I don't understand. He says, "To pay for the server+engineering time, new factoids would be created at a rate of 20%/year of the token sale amount. 4379795.611338 factoids were sold, which corresponds to 875959.1222676 per year or 72996.5935223 per month." If 4.38M Factoids were sold (when?) then why are there 8.7M Factoids in circulation now? If the same production level of new coins (876K per year) is held, that implies an inflation rate of 10%. It's 20% of the token sale amount but 10% of initial supply (genesis block). The initial supply is x2 of what was sold in the ICO because 50% is held by the team and, if I recall correctly, private Investors. I wasn't around during the ICO-phase but read a lot back after launch, and I'm not sure where that info was but I believe somewhere Paul Snow said that those Investors paid even a little bit more than ICO-Investors. But, not sure where he said that. |
|
|
|
I have never heard of this web wallet before although I am using bitcoin for more than 1 year so far. it seems not famous at all. is it ?
I have also used bitcoin for two years and always try new web wallet to compare which one is better but for this one I never heard before. It's not perfect yet but I believe it's a very good online-wallet. What I like is: You can add an address as watch-only. If you want to move coins you can import the privatekey and transact. So, even if the account should be hacked it's safe. Why I use Omniwallet is because I wanted a solution for Maid and with Omni it's possible to organize it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
