Archived Content

[Dazza]

togesix

How is this person relevant?

[1714677375]

1714677375

[1714677375]

1714677375

[1714677375]

1714677375

[nihilnegativum]

Why bother not staking, given that the activity is essentially cost-free to the user?

Ah, you overestimate human nature, even one click is not cost-free. To have the wallet open is too much of a hassle for people. Lets look at blackcoin, as I think it has the lowest staking %, right now only 17% of the network is staking, (of course this is only a problem when there is more money on a certain exchange than in wallets, because exchanges have a free attack). But I get it, if its pledged to be fixed thats that, I think its unwise to set in stone economic parts of the system before the the whole is known, but I guess secondary solutions can always be found, like the ones you proposed and more.

  Similarly high staking fees would be an incentive to hoard, hence a disincentive to trade.

Why am I so keen to incentivise trade?  Let me ask another (rhetorical) question:  What is the intrinsic value in a coin?  If the answer is "nothing", then we have a problem, because a commodity with a high and increasing price but no little to no intrinsic value is tulip mania.

I don't know how to value a coin, or a real-world currency for that matter, but I do believe that it does have an intrinsic value, which will be a function of the size of the trade economy it supports.  One of the things that attracts me to this coin is that, if we are successful, then it will come with a trade economy built in.  Bitcoin doesn't have that.  Few altcoins do.  But I'm not content with just the built-in economy.  I want our coin to be used to trade other things, and I want to make it as attractive and useful for that purpose as I possibly can, hence low transaction fees.  (I also want escrow built into the blockchain, for exactly the same reason.)

Saying that a coin has a value that is a function of the size of the economy it supports (+its velocity) is the opposite of saying it has inherent value. Nothing has inherent exchange value, it depends on the exchange and so on the economy, thats exactly why trade is important. By block rewards I meant the rewards for winning segments fed by transaction fees, because I agree those disincentivize trade.

Elastic has its own economy, and I think thats where the focus should be, as a specialized currency for computing not a general currency ( I mean of course that could happen accidentially). I imagine Elastic and hashpower as envisioned now are economically separate, right?  I mean that its value is not a direct function of the hashpower being traded, but only a market price of its exchange for other currencies, like normal coins. I doesn't matter if you pay 1ELC or 0.000001ELC for the ammount of hashpower that mines 1Bitcoin, not to the market and not to the network, but perhaps this aspect could be exploited, what if the network considered that x amount of hash = y amount of ELC.

[MaGNeT]

I like the idea of Elastic.
How's the ICO doing?

[Dazza]

Under the "different approach" I have alluded to, there will be no such rewards because there will be no such blocks.

Now we're really going down the rabbit hole...

I apologise for not being clear in my explanations

No blocks? So something other than a blockchain then. Interesting.

I said "no such blocks", not "no blocks".  There will be a blockchain secured by PoS.

nihilnegativum wrote

I get that block rewards should be negligable, but why make PoS rewards close to zero?

If "block reward" is synonymous with "PoS reward" then the two clauses do not cohere.  I tried to construe his question in such a way that the two phrases were not synonymous.  Since "PoS rewards" refers unambiguously to the generation of the blockchain, "block reward" had to refer to something else.  I could think of nothing other than the PoW rewards earned by executing a 10ms segment of the program, which might reasonably be referred to as a "block" of instructions.

I think my question to you before got buried - you mentioned the FAA earlier saying there was a devastating version you'd thought of, but I don't understand why its an issue at all if the work being done isn't for securing the blockchain?

Do you mean the worker pretending to do useful work but actually faking it entirely?

That's exactly what I mean.

If so I think that needs a new name because its not entirely the same as the faster algorithm attack discussed earlier.

One might reasonably call it a "run once, hash many times" attack applied to a 10ms segment.

But these (and other) superficially different attacks are really just variations on a theme.  The attacker finds a faster way of doing something - the precise "something" varies from attack to attack - which profits him at the expense of subverting the system at the expense other participants.  Since the phrase "way of doing something" more or less defines the word "algorithm", "faster algorithm attack" seems appropriate.

Note than not every use of a faster algorithm will be an FAA.  The key phrase is "subverting the system".  A person who find a way of genuinely running the customers program faster, even at the expense of other workers, is not subverting the system, and I think most people would regard his actions as legitimate.

[xxxgoodgirls]

I like the idea of Elastic.
How's the ICO doing?

63 BTC raised so far, 10% of the coins been distributed.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Cryptorials]

My understanding of intrinsic value is that it is the value of a "token" in this case, which is determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value. So, I think the intrinsic value will be defined by the total amount of hashing power the network provides at a certain point in time and the comparison to other, commercially available computation clusters offering the same amount of computation power.

In comparison to commercially available computation clusters this will be much more expensive won't it? Because decentralization has efficiency costs. As a result the hashing power will be close to zero -  at most a few volunteers who don't mind making a big loss.

As soon as you gave up on user-supplied PoW this whole thing ceased to make any sense to me at all. Am I missing something here? Is there some magic bullet which is going to make miners work for less than cost or make customers pay substantially more than they need to?

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[allwelder]

Will there be a wallet to hold ELC ? When is the launch date?

It says on your website: 9.10 % of all coins distributed. If no more people buy ELC, what will happen to the other 90.9 % of coins? Burned?

What is the maximum number of ELC that will exist?

Hi, well the community has already discussed that thoroughly in a different thread.

Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Cryptorials]

In comparison to commercially available computation clusters this will be much more expensive won't it? Because decentralization has efficiency costs. As a result the hashing power will be close to zero -  at most a few volunteers who don't mind making a big loss.

We aim for a decentralization (or better parallelization) that does not require communication between the individual instances. When you for example take an infiniband cluster, the communication between the nodes is fast but still a bottleneck. We try to avoid that.
Just a simple example: imagine you want to crack your forgotten 6 digit MD5 hashed password. You submit your "program" to the Elastic network, and everyone starts working on your function independently. Due to the randomness of the inputs to this function it can be assumed that every miner works on a different part of the search space. The overhead is not that much, the instances do not need to exchange a "shared memory" or something, the only overhead comes from the "verifiably computing" thing. At most, I hope at least, we can keep this overhead in O(1), like factor 2 or so.

I'm not a mathematician so mathematical notation means nothing to me. Does factor two mean double? If so that's quite a lot. Even if its less, miners are unlikely to be able to compete with giant data centres and actual supercomputers even with 0 overhead.

[Mrboot]

Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.

Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.

Just rephrasing the original terms.

Hey just bought some coins, just one more thing is it possible to send more then 1 payment from 1 wallet?

Also about the rest of the coins i think best is to devide them under the crowdfunding particepant,

some reasons a coins needs spreading so a bigger amount (1 mil already aint a lot) will be eventually more distribution, while the market cap stays the same. Also its prob a more fair way to award the people that supported the coin in the ico compared to the block reward.

[Cryptorials]

Imagine the purchase of 1000 calculation nodes cost around 1000 US$ per hour.
Now imagine, the Elastic network has 2000 active miners with similar machines as the calculation nodes in the case above.
Assuming we each node does perform 50% work and 50% overhead which is coin related: In this case the Elastic network is exactly as fast as the commercial cluster.

Exactly as fast, but also exactly twice as expensive - and that's assuming the average miner gets his hardware and electricity at the same price as giant data centres run by the likes of Google. So in actual fact, its almost certainly a lot more than twice as expensive.

Now comes the tricky part. The let's call him "scientist" will only change to Elastic if it's cheaper for him. The miners will only continue to mine if either the return is higher than the power cost or if they think that the value of Elastic coins will rise in the future. This is a feedback loop that will regulate itself I think.

 Saying this is a feedback loop that will regulate itself is totally irrelevant to whether it will regulate itself into a situation in which nobody 'mines' and nobody buys computation or whether it will regulate itself to something that people will actually want to use.

The above example is not yet impressive for 2000 active miners. Imagine Elastic has 200000 active miners.
The "scientist" would be interested to switch to the Elastic network as long as it's cheaper than 1000 US$ per 6 seconds. Not even Bitcoin emits this much money per time unit, and it still
 has plenty of miners burning the midnight oil.

I think this can work pretty good.

I' don't understand what the amount of money bitcoin emits per time unit has to do with it and I don't know where the figures you are using come from, but none of this explains why either the miners will take work for half the price it costs them to do, or customers will pay twice the price they could get something done elsewhere.

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Evil-Knievel]

This message was too old and has been purged

[Cryptorials]

I' don't understand what the amount of money bitcoin emits per time unit has to do with it and I don't know where the figures you are using come from, but none of this explains why either the miners will take work for half the price it costs them to do, or customers will pay twice the price they could get something done elsewhere.

Well, Bitcoin emits 25 BTC which is roughly 10000 USD every 10 minutes.
But the network has a hashing power of 1.400.000.000 Gigahashes / second or 1.400.000 Terahashes / second. Assuming 1 Terrahash / second consumes 1000 Watt per hour (this is realistic) the Bitcoin network burns 1.400.000 Kilowatt of power. Assume a kilowatt hour of power costs around 0.30$, the miners effectively pay 420.000 US$ for their power per hour, and as a consequence 70000 US$ every 10 minutes while only 10.000 US$ is emitted every 10 minutes by the bitcoin network.

This shows me that mining is not only utility based but also influenced by other (maybe psychological?) factors. I think miners sort of gamble.

You're not taking transaction fees into account, nor merged mining, nor perhaps the differences in electricity cost around the world, and in any case these other factors (such as influencing the future direction of bitcoin) may not be present here. Counting on miners working for a substantial loss and then on the amount of mining to be a fundamental basis for the value of the coin seems to me to be very naive.

I also don't really understand why all the details of the crowdsale can't be changed apart from one - you are now building an entirely different coin to the one at the start of the crowdsale. The single most significant feature of the original coin was user-supplied PoW, that was the entire purpose and nature of this coin, and for some reason it is ok change that one most important thing but nothing else can be changed because that would be unfair. I'm really starting to think that if you want to go ahead and build this new coin you shouldn't be doing it here with the ICO funds from a different coin that you've taken over - you should just start again from scratch.

Edit: I take that last bit back,  but i really think the consequences of this profound change need to be taken more seriously.

[allwelder]

Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.

Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.

Just rephrasing the original terms.

Hi, well the community has already discussed that thoroughly in a different thread.

I just want to know where you discussed these problems.

[allwelder]

Relation between Elastic  and Zennet?
Seems the idea is same.

[scam confirmed]

Can post the thread link here?
Thanks.

Well the original statement was to emit at most 5 million coins. Precisely, if less than 5 million coins are given away during the donation based crowdfunding, the rest will be either burned, or divided among all contributors proportionally to their donations.
No coins will be emitted beyond that: the coins generated in the donation based crowdfunding will be the only coins in existence ever.

Just rephrasing the original terms.

Hi, well the community has already discussed that thoroughly in a different thread.

I just want to know where you discussed these problems.

Thread 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362006.0

Thread 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1374480.0

[szenekonzept]

Sounds interesting,

has there been any development jet?
Git appears to me, to be just the Novacoin clone, or do i have missed something?
Building a decentralized usecase agnostic cloudcomputing would be great, many tried before, but none delivered jet

watching this with excitement
Matthjias