[ANN][XEL] Elastic Project - The Decentralized Supercomputer

[Evil-Knievel]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

[cyberhacker]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

i already saw my balance in genesis.

so i don't want any vote now.......

so the upcoming release will be the mainnet? we can redeem soon?

[ImI]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Have to eat something, feeling like Homer at the moment. 

[Evil-Knievel]

so the upcoming release will be the mainnet? we can redeem soon?

I think one more testnet, and if all goes smooth we're good to go!
In the last testnet we can test things like redeeming, new retargeting, etc.

Finally    I need to get a job, right now I am doing nothing else than Elastic living off my savings.

so i don't want any vote now.......

In the proposed scheme you could just ignore it, do not vote at all and simply redeem!  
But i would be interested in what all the community members here think of that idea!

[bitcoinpaul]

Just hodl ur elastics  

Finally    I need to get a job, right now I am doing nothing else than Elastic living off my savings.

[wizzardTim]

If the "any input" approach is helpful for some people who otherwise are going to have difficulty in redeeming, then it would be good if it is added imo.

[bitcoinpaul]

If the "any input" approach is helpful for some people who otherwise are going to have difficulty in redeeming, then it would be good if it is added imo.

indeed.

[Evil-Knievel]

Just hodl ur elastics  

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any    I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!

[cryptoboy.architect]

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any    I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!

Well, I think we are all in agreement that a good chunk of the BTC donated should come your way, right? Who controls that? And why aren't they paying you?

[ImI]

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

[Ghoom]

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command

[ImI]

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command

ok, as i understand it we would have a problem if someone had not made a backup of his WHOLE wallet but instead just made a backup of ONE of his private keys, right?

[Ghoom]

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command

ok, as i understand it we would have a problem if someone had not made a backup of his WHOLE wallet but instead just made a backup of ONE of his private keys, right?

yep

[Redawn]

I want to update the XEL reddit thread.
Can some please tell me when we go live?
Also please reply some importants points regarding this project.

Thanks!

[drays]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Why to vote?

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

[ttookk]

Just hodl ur elastics  

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any    I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!

Less than 4 BTC… Hardly any… I don't even own 4 BTC. My donation is just a tad above the minimum required, actually.

[Evil-Knievel]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Why to vote?

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

[ImI]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Why to vote?

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

Hmm....proposal: Stick to the terms, give out the XEL that were redeemed correctly and then (after a period of time) reconsider again. Eventually (after there is no conflict with another person) release the XEL.

From a legal perspective its obv safe to just stay to the terms conditions and not pay out those funds, which maybe less then 0.1% eventually anyways.

[ttookk]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Why to vote?

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

Well, that sounds unlikely, but if it would happen, it could lead to a lot of trouble, not only for the person affected, but also for the person he_she is suing, which would be who exactly? The person who published the code, the one who wrote it? I'm not sure, whether that person could point towards an online vote and say "I just followed orders".

With that in mind, I think deciding on this in a democratic way holds the risk, that there wouldn't be a risk for those voting, but there could be a risk for a person or a small group of persons who execute the vote.

I'm no legal expert, so what I described has to be taken with a grain of salt, but if we assume, that in the end, the responsibility lies by only some people, as opposed to lying by the XEL community as a whole, those people should be the ones deciding.

I'd say, don't change it, and create some kind of repeal form. People can check their donation BEFORE distribution, if something is wrong, they can contact  you, Lannister or someone else to fix it.

[drays]

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it

Why to vote?

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

Taking all this into account, I would join previous posters and suggest to stick to the terms and do not do a poll at all.

There are two dangerous points here:
1. The owner of the priv key of first wallet, could not be checking here or the official channels, and be absent for long time. So we could miss the vote easily. Thus he will not tell "no" and his coins can be redeemed by the users of the published python script
2. Someone ( a tricky one) could intentionally "miss" the vote, then redeem the coins using his address 2, then come here and claim his coins were stolen due to this vote, which he was not even aware of (as he was at Bahamas), and claim this was illegal, and he has to get his coins now. A dirty scenario, but we have all kinds of people in crypto, so it is possible.

To avoid all those complications, I suppose its better to stick to the terms, launch without that feature, and see if there is a problem at all. If there is, resolve manually case by case, for example the way ImI suggested.