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

[wpalczynski]

More frivolous demands made of devs by people who didn't follow very clear instructions.

[1714047455]

1714047455

[1714047455]

1714047455

[1714047455]

1714047455

[1714047455]

1714047455

[CryptoSporidium]

Damn, I've been asking the devs to help me out with my XEL. I sent my donation via Coinbase. Is there anyway to get my XEL even though I don't have the private key? I have proof of the transaction. It's not a lot, but however much it is, I think I should still get my share.

Really sorry for you, but I don't think the devs could help you, even if they believed you, it's not the way cryptography works. Every blockchain has heaps of unaccessible 'dark' coins that have been lost forever because of lost private keys. Once the genesis block is created it's done, the devs can't change it, it's the same vibe as a rollback,  it undermines the whole foundations of crypto. Sorry man! You might have better luck asking coinbase to claim your elastic and send it to you.

[HmmMAA]

Damn, I've been asking the devs to help me out with my XEL. I sent my donation via Coinbase. Is there anyway to get my XEL even though I don't have the private key? I have proof of the transaction. It's not a lot, but however much it is, I think I should still get my share.

Maybe ask Coinbase to make the claim for you and send you the coins ? I'm not sure if this can be done , but maybe you should try to ask . 

[Evil-Knievel]

Also, cryptodv, you should check your PM for more explanation

[drays]

How things are going with supernodes implementation? I got an impression it was actually decided to go that route, is that correct?

Also, is 300K collateral is decided, or its under question still? I wrote a small suggestion on this few pages back, but it got immediately buried under other posts, I just woke nder if something like that could be considered, or it is not doable, or not going to work?

[Evil-Knievel]

How things are going with supernodes implementation? I got an impression it was actually decided to go that route, is that correct?

Also, is 300K collateral is decided, or its under question still? I wrote a small suggestion on this few pages back, but it got immediately buried under other posts, I just woke nder if something like that could be considered, or it is not doable, or not going to work?

The supernode infrastructure (so basically the core client) is basically done, I try to keep up with the inofficial deadline of tomorrow.
However, like we said earlier, new TODOs may arise and so far, the one TODO that is still open is getting the "supernode verifier" done. Don't worry, it's not a big deal because it will be just integrated into the miner.

Let me quickly check the message you're referring to!

[drays]

How things are going with supernodes implementation? I got an impression it was actually decided to go that route, is that correct?

Also, is 300K collateral is decided, or its under question still? I wrote a small suggestion on this few pages back, but it got immediately buried under other posts, I just woke nder if something like that could be considered, or it is not doable, or not going to work?

The supernode infrastructure (so basically the core client) is basically done, I try to keep up with the inofficial deadline of tomorrow.
However, like we said earlier, new TODOs may arise and so far, the one TODO that is still open is getting the "supernode verifier" done. Don't worry, it's not a big deal because it will be just integrated into the miner.

Let me quickly check the message you're referring to!

Thanks for info!
I was referring to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132

This one also seems relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132 

[lda1000]

How things are going with supernodes implementation? I got an impression it was actually decided to go that route, is that correct?

Also, is 300K collateral is decided, or its under question still? I wrote a small suggestion on this few pages back, but it got immediately buried under other posts, I just woke nder if something like that could be considered, or it is not doable, or not going to work?

The supernode infrastructure (so basically the core client) is basically done, I try to keep up with the inofficial deadline of tomorrow.
However, like we said earlier, new TODOs may arise and so far, the one TODO that is still open is getting the "supernode verifier" done. Don't worry, it's not a big deal because it will be just integrated into the miner.

Let me quickly check the message you're referring to!

Thanks for info!
I was referring to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132

This one also seems relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132 

EK, how is this going to work/be enforced?

" If a supernode behaves maliciously (when it can be proven that a result was accepted while it's bad) the 300,000 XEL are gone"

[hagie]

How things are going with supernodes implementation? I got an impression it was actually decided to go that route, is that correct?

Also, is 300K collateral is decided, or its under question still? I wrote a small suggestion on this few pages back, but it got immediately buried under other posts, I just woke nder if something like that could be considered, or it is not doable, or not going to work?

The supernode infrastructure (so basically the core client) is basically done, I try to keep up with the inofficial deadline of tomorrow.
However, like we said earlier, new TODOs may arise and so far, the one TODO that is still open is getting the "supernode verifier" done. Don't worry, it's not a big deal because it will be just integrated into the miner.

Let me quickly check the message you're referring to!

Thanks for info!
I was referring to this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132

This one also seems relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg17647132#msg17647132 

EK, how is this going to work/be enforced?

" If a supernode behaves maliciously (when it can be proven that a result was accepted while it's bad) the 300,000 XEL are gone"

From a complete technical-noobish point of view:

How about having some kind of "recall period" based on time or blocks. Time for the client which creates the job and payed for it to ask for validation of one or some other instances and if the work is proven wrong the xel payment may be reversed.

Like the recall period when you buy goods and see it's defective .

regards

[ttookk]

(…)

From a complete technical-noobish point of view:

How about having some kind of "recall period" based on time or blocks. Time for the client which creates the job and payed for it to ask for validation of one or some other instances and if the work is proven wrong the xel payment may be reversed.

Like the recall period when you buy goods and see it's defective .

regards




[/quote]

Elastic Network is designed for "hard to solve, easy to verify" problems, so validation would be happening anyway, wouldn`t it?

Reversing payment on a blockchain without the owners input is dangerous, if not an absolute no-go. If anything, you'd have to create some kind of built-in escrow, or put the XEL in limbo for a given time.

Apart from that, if you have big and complicated jobs, you have the problem, that a malicious job author may claim a solution is not valid, although it is. This is pretty much the No. 1 problem of Golem.

[Evil-Knievel]

From a complete technical-noobish point of view:

How about having some kind of "recall period" based on time or blocks. Time for the client which creates the job and payed for it to ask for validation of one or some other instances and if the work is proven wrong the xel payment may be reversed.

Like the recall period when you buy goods and see it's defective .

regards

Indeed, that's a very nice idea! We should use it in combination with a large deposit though, otherwise super nodes could just "give it a shot" and hope that their manipulation stays undetected.
Again, I guess each author should be limited in the amount of such "verification requests" ... maybe at most one per job might be a good parameter?

[jeffthebaker]

Voting started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg15984121#msg15984121

However you may want to back few pages to see backlog of discussion that took place that time.

Thanks for linking this.

I recognize my vote probably wouldn't have made a difference (I only have a little over 9k coins AFTER the vote to increase supply), just wanted to see the process so I could better understand how the community is going about things. Going to spend some more time reading, but after a quick scan, it looks like this was done pretty well. If there is another vote at some point I'll try to get my voice heard lol

[ghoom2]

Voting started here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396233.msg15984121#msg15984121

However you may want to back few pages to see backlog of discussion that took place that time.

Thanks for linking this.

I recognize my vote probably wouldn't have made a difference (I only have a little over 9k coins AFTER the vote to increase supply), just wanted to see the process so I could better understand how the community is going about things. Going to spend some more time reading, but after a quick scan, it looks like this was done pretty well. If there is another vote at some point I'll try to get my voice heard lol

You can vote for Evil-Knievel to become president. 

[cybterpunk]

is it possible to release a XEL token based on Ethereum platform？
also why golem choose ethereum platform? what's the benefit?
why XEL is better than golem platform?
thank you.

[Thefrolly]

is it possible to release a XEL token based on Ethereum platform？
also why golem choose ethereum platform? what's the benefit?
why XEL is better than golem platform?
thank you.

i dont know how updated this is, but could maybe help you : http://elastic-project.com/comparison_with_other_solutions

[mr.coinzy]

Once mainnet is live I think it will be a good idea to initiate as many requests from the community to ask Polo to add xel on their platform (if they do not decide to add it on their own accord anyway). Same goes to any major exchange (Bittrex and major Chinese outlets).
I have no doubt Elastic will make a lot of noise, these are the last moments of under the radar before the flood   

[titan20]

I don't think exchanges are important at the moment.

More important is to find a way how customers, who want to buy computing power from the elastic network, can do this 'in-wallet'.

It would be a hassle to go through an exchange to buy XEL and then buy the computing power.

I am also interested in the economics of the Elastic model.

Demand for XEL would consist of:
- People who want to buy computing power need XEL
- The miners (they are called miners not?) who want to receive XEL for solving problems
- People who want to speculate on the price of XEL

Supply for XEL:
- The miners who earn XEL and want to sell
- The (ico) holders who want to sell

I think there is a risk that could destroy XEL.
If the coin becomes too popular with speculators (with rising prices) the computing power price of the XEL network becomes too expensive. No new customers (who need computing power) will enter the XEL ecosystem. Which shall have a negative effect on the development of the computing power capacity of the XEL network.

This would be a negative spiral. With no network computing capacity. No new customers would be willing to invest time to broadcast a problem to be solved by ....?

Just a few thoughts. Don't know if there is a solution for this or supply and demand dynamics will solve this in a magical way.

[HomoHenning]

I don't think exchanges are important at the moment.

More important is to find a way how customers, who want to buy computing power from the elastic network, can do this 'in-wallet'.

It would be a hassle to go through an exchange to buy XEL and then buy the computing power.

I am also interested in the economics of the Elastic model.

Demand for XEL would consist of:
- People who want to buy computing power need XEL
- The miners (they are called miners not?) who want to receive XEL for solving problems
- People who want to speculate on the price of XEL

Supply for XEL:
- The miners who earn XEL and want to sell
- The (ico) holders who want to sell

I think there is a risk that could destroy XEL.
If the coin becomes too popular with speculators (with rising prices) the computing power price of the XEL network becomes too expensive. No new customers (who need computing power) will enter the XEL ecosystem. Which shall have a negative effect on the development of the computing power capacity of the XEL network.

This would be a negative spiral. With no network computing capacity. No new customers would be willing to invest time to broadcast a problem to be solved by ....?

Just a few thoughts. Don't know if there is a solution for this or supply and demand dynamics will solve this in a magical way.

to solve the problem of too expensive xel it could implement a variable cost factor

[ImI]

Price per computational unit is not fixed. Its a bidding process, as price per XEL rises price for computational work declines.

All these topics have been discussed long time ago and were one of the reasons to choose a higher XEL supply as obv there is a lower limit to any bid which is 1 XEL.

[jaroag]

Hello guys!

Need help with the miner setup on mac

Code:

:build $ make
[ 42%] Built target jansson
[ 46%] Linking C executable ../xel_miner
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
  "_dlmopen", referenced from:
      _create_instance in xel_compiler.c.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
make[2]: *** [../xel_miner] Error 1
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/xel_miner.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

It seems a problem with dlmopen, any idea?

Thanks!!