Relaunched Completely

[ElasticCoin]

Relaunched Completely

[notsofast]

Looks interesting. Reading

Setting aside the risks involved in a non-escrowed crowdsale...

150,000 transactions per second is a BIG checkmark.

More interesting to me is the notion that you can submit any kind of processing work you want to the Elastic Coin blockchain, for its "miners" to computationally solve. So rather than ONLY grinding the same make-work algo for bitcoinlike proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, miners can work on unique submitted tasks whose solved output has value beyond a blockchain reward.

The interesting part of this is its potential interplay with Ethereum for large projects.

Gonna Google you, Lionel. What other stuff have you coded and worked on?

[TradeHardOrGoHome]

Lol, so people will get 800ELC for 1 BTC? So 1ELC costs 0.00125BTC? And the supply could be around 5M? Even Decred is cheaper right now, considering supply and price Your coin looks interesting, but seems a little bit expensive

[TradeHardOrGoHome]

Lol, so people will get 800ELC for 1 BTC? So 1ELC costs 0.00125BTC? And the supply could be around 5M? Even Decred is cheaper right now, considering supply and price Your coin looks interesting, but seems a little bit expensive

Thank you very much for your comment.

Well, the maximum supply is *capped* at 5M but most likely will not get that high. It may well happen that the supply will be the range of 100k-500k. The 5M denote the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it) case.

Also after the fair distribution has been performed (our goal here is to make the process as fair as possible, and not a gamble like in the Augur pre-sale where nobody knew how many coins he would get until the very end) we can still think about dividing 1 ELC into 100 (sub-)ELC so everyone has more coins that are worth less each. The most important part is to make the distribution entirely fair and that nobody has neither an advantage nor an disadvantage from it. For now, however, it does not look like there is a requirement to change anything.

We are fully democratic here ;-)

OK, thanks for your answer and good luck with your project Maybe i will buy some ELC later

[notsofast]

Good to see over 6BTC of investment already.

So will the ELC PoW be set to a default, like Bitcoin mining, if nobody has currently submitted custom work for it to do?

Will the custom work be made public, or hidden, or optionally either? I foresee problems regarding co-opting a big computational network to do secret password brute-forcing. There's lots of potential for bad actors to use the network for evil, if the ELC network's computational power goes to the highest bidder.

[kbhutto]

Will it be ok if we send BTC from online wallets?

[gioma]

From the website:

Phone: (000) 555 1212
Mobile: (000) 555 0100
Fax: (000) 555 0101

123 Some Street
Some City
AA 12345

At least use a free escrow available on this forum

[gioma]

There is no reason for not using escrow, good luck with your project

[Nudies Fluffer]

Very interesting project.. But honestly I would suggest getting an escrow involved.

[Maicol792]

I think is a good project...  More info? AirDrop? Time to Start mining? Official ANN?  More and more SPEC? algo? Thanks to all and good Luck Dev 

[poornamelessme]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have been out of the crypto game for a while, but with a non-escrowed ICO, couldn't a dev:

Take whatever money sent in, buy his own coins in the ICO using that money, and end up with both the coins + money in the end? It was one of the reasons why everyone cried 'scam' ages ago when ICOs starting rolling around.

[alberthendriks]

I have been thinking about a similar idea, but I failed to solve a certain mathematical issue. Now I'm wondering how you tackle that. Your paper doesn't seem to be so much technical and in github there doesn't seem to be a ledger. In bitcoin mining, a miner wants to find certain data such that sha(data) has a certain number of leading zeros. Now, suppose a miner finds such and tries to get that into the blockchain. Another miner may steal that and say "Hey, I found data and sha(data) has leading zeros". That doesn't work for bitcoin however, because the address that the mined coins are sent to is part of data. If the stealing miner now creates a data2 which is equal to data but with a different address, then sha(data2) generally does not have the leading zeros, so this won't work and the second miner can't steal.

This does not work for user-defined proof-of-work. My question is: How can a miner generate proof of work for a custom question, without another miner stealing that proof of work?

I have another concern. If I understand correctly, the miners execute Python code to solve computational questions. However especially for high-performance computing, this coin may be beat by a coin that does the same with C (which is quicker). What do you think about that?

[poornamelessme]

a) If you have a capped number of coins to be sold, buying coins with the IPO money decreases the amount of coins you can actually sell. Means, the amount of BTC funding you can get decreases.
Imagine you plan to only give out 1000 coins and you buy 800 of them by re-using IPO money over and over again ... then you technically can only sell 200 coins right?

Yep, except if the dev doesn't think all coins will be sold, or thinks at some point after the ICO the coin valuation will go much higher, then buying his own coins could make sense. I don't mean a dev would use all of his ICO to buy all of his or her own coin. But I expect many devs have taken a decent chunk for themselves... which then equates to the same situation as a large premine.

In that type of case, it's not necessarily better to sell ALL coins during the ICO. They just need to sell enough to bring in a nice chunk of BTC, while at the same time set aside a little nestegg of their own coin for selling at a later date.

There is another benefit for the dev buying his own coins too ... fake volume. "Hey, 50 BTC has already been invested, Yay, I want to invest too" ... now if an ICO is failing, a dev can buy his own coin to make it look like others are buying it, luring in new investors.

And this does apply to all ICOs, but the issue with non-escrow is that the dev doesn't even have to use his own money to manipulate things.

[poornamelessme]

well can't this be done by any dev even in an escrowed IPO? In this case the dev would just need to get some money involved but this would be no risk to him would it?
So I don't see a point in using an escrow at all as an escrow cannot prevent such thing, it just makes it harder to pull off.
So, technically speaking, an escrow is no additional security here.


I don't think that people are so foolish.
Take me for example: I know there will be 5 million coins (no matter who buys them in the end) and for 1 BTC i can get 800 (that means 0.016%) of them. So for 10 BTC (which is the maximum amount I would invest) i get 0.16% of all coins in circulation. If less than 5000000 coins are sold, its gonna be even better.
What happens to the other coins is not relevant to me. I don't care whether the dev, some supporters, a hedge fund or whoever else owns them.

As for the first point, yep. I even said it can occur with regular ICOs. The only difference is that it's a lot easier to do with non-escrowed, as then it doesn't even require upfront money.

As for people being so foolish... greed trumps logic sometimes.  And regarding who owns the other coins, it can matter. You don't want one person or a small group owning a disproportionate amount of coins (at least ideally). Dev dumps, coin dies, money is lost. It's just riskier.

I'm not saying this ICO is a scam -- those who go around yelling scam everywhere is silly in my opinion. By their own definition of a scam, every single crypto in existence would qualify. I'm just saying that non-escrow is a red flag, and really, I see no reason not to use escrow. Yes, the dev says he needs money immediately to hire other devs and so on, but is anyone in that big a rush? So development gets delayed until the ICO is over? It just seems odd to me.

[poornamelessme]

Yes, the dev says he needs money immediately to hire other devs and so on, but is anyone in that big a rush? So development gets delayed until the ICO is over? It just seems odd to me.

As far as I understand this is a "feature" here, at least the dev wrote a few postings ago that IPO and Development take place simultaneously so that those who "see red flags" can wait until the product is finished and then STILL enter the IPO.
This would not be possible when the IPO is first done with an escrow, and then afterwards the development starts right?

Yep, but again, it just strikes me a bit odd. There are some devs working on it currently (unpaid), I believe, right? Or maybe I misread something.

With so many shady things that happen here, it just feels risky to see an ICO without escrow nowadays.

I'd think they'd take in a lot more money if using escrow, even if he's perfectly on the level, just to assuage some fears people may have. I realize people can wait and get their coins after seeing the finished product ... but it also means the dev could have done the 'Re-use invested money to buy up coins for himself' game if he wanted to. If he holds, no problem down the line... just so many devs dump and run here, so it adds a bit of risk.

So my question is, if a dev could take in more btc by using escrow, even if it delays development somewhat over a couple of months, why wouldn't he do so?

[Ronald1]

Interesting project, i'll try my luck at this coin.

[poornamelessme]

Well, if he has enough own BTC he can do that anyways.
So the correct way would be to only invest in escrowed IPOs with poor devs involved? I mean the rich ones could still pull off the self-buy-in thing right?


What if the investors dump? What makes this dump different? 


Well for a 50 BTC IPO i personally would trust an escrow, for 100 BTC maybe too. For 1000 BTC i think not.
I think its just as you said


By the way, I find this discussion really interesting  Maybe we come up with THE perfect way to do an IPO. 

Yeah, if a dev has enough BTC onhand, he can do the same thing. But of course it's easier if the dev doesn't have to use his own money. The risk is with shady, poor devs who want a quick buck. Not saying that is the case here, just speaking in generalities.

As for dumping, well, any dumping isn't so good obviously. The risk is with devs who cut and run (and as we all know, that has happened here many, many times). The main difference is if a lot of investors dump, the dev may still be around to develop and promote the coin, usually keeping the price semi-stable and over time the coin may recover. If a dev dumps, all is lost.

And as for the perfect way to do an ICO... beats me. I don't think there is a perfect way. I have no problem when devs profit (as why not, they are doing work)... it's just when the risks add up, I become wary.

The way to run a decent scam -- goes into evil dev mode -- would be to use non-escrow, take in some btc, use some of that btc to buy your own coin, bring ICO volume up, hype coin, bring in more btc, collect generous portion of that... keep using free help (or code yourself), say you are hiring devs ... promise wonderful things .... once price/volume is up, sell your freebie coins and cut and run. It cost nothing at all to even do this, a dev could have zero btc to start and manage it.

It's a lot easier to come up with ways to scam than foolproof ways to run an ICO.

[poornamelessme]

Yeah, if a dev has enough BTC onhand, he can do the same thing. But of course it's easier if the dev doesn't have to use his own money. The risk is with shady, poor devs who want a quick buck. Not saying that is the case here, just speaking in generalities.

So first of all its better to buy from the poor devs than from the shady rich ones because the first group cannot buy-in themselves into their own IPO.
But the same poor devs are shady as well so you really need an escrow to protect yourself from them?

That it one very bad world view    Not everyone is bad, there are people who are really enthusiastic about crypto and dedicate a huge amount of time to creating new things.

My point was, if not using escrow, the shady poor devs are the ones to worry about. If using escrow, then you can worry about the shady rich ones. It's just easier if a dev wanted to scam to not use escrow.

And yes, using an escrow doesn't necessarily mean all is well. Dev can still run away (although at least they have restricted funds until dev delivers coin + wallet). And then they run away...

I find it a lot safer in the crypto scene if you look at things from a somewhat jaded perspective. A dev nowadays runs an ICO without escrow and it's a red flag to me. It could be unwarranted, just my 'risk meter' going off.

[anhpt192]

My question is, if you can sell all of 5,000,000 you can get 6,250BTC or more but at the end if you just get 10BTC (assumed), do you still run or cancel your project?

[sussex]

Why is 150,000 tps necessary?

Visa tops out at 56,000 and never uses it, Paypal is in the hundreds per second.

What's with the weird domain name registration for elastic.pro ?