[ANN] UNIVERSA | Blockchain Protocol for Business

[timpum]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

[ampirebus]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

Of course, besides our words, there would be contracts, which are signed before getting into partnerships. They can also reassure that we don't plan something malicious. But again, there's really no point for us to even try to do something because that will inevitably lead to us being out of business. No one will want to have any connections with us if we try to trick someone.

Another thing to think about is social media and forums. If we indeed will refrain everyone from running a node except us, people will talk about it and express their concerns as to why they haven't received a license. We will not be able to conceal the truth. That's the Internet and the news will spread out before you notice.

[timpum]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

Of course, besides our words, there would be contracts, which are signed before getting into partnerships. They can also reassure that we don't plan something malicious. But again, there's really no point for us to even try to do something because that will inevitably lead to us being out of business. No one will want to have any connections with us if we try to trick someone.

Another thing to think about is social media and forums. If we indeed will refrain everyone from running a node except us, people will talk about it and express their concerns as to why they haven't received a license. We will not be able to conceal the truth. That's the Internet and the news will spread out before you notice.

The argument: "If we turn out to be villains, then we will not be able to continue our work further," is not an argument for banks. This is not safety evidence. For them, safety is paramount.

[ampirebus]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

Of course, besides our words, there would be contracts, which are signed before getting into partnerships. They can also reassure that we don't plan something malicious. But again, there's really no point for us to even try to do something because that will inevitably lead to us being out of business. No one will want to have any connections with us if we try to trick someone.

Another thing to think about is social media and forums. If we indeed will refrain everyone from running a node except us, people will talk about it and express their concerns as to why they haven't received a license. We will not be able to conceal the truth. That's the Internet and the news will spread out before you notice.

The argument: "If we turn out to be villains, then we will not be able to continue our work further," is not an argument for banks. This is not safety evidence. For them, safety is paramount.

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

[hihelen]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

Of course, besides our words, there would be contracts, which are signed before getting into partnerships. They can also reassure that we don't plan something malicious. But again, there's really no point for us to even try to do something because that will inevitably lead to us being out of business. No one will want to have any connections with us if we try to trick someone.

Another thing to think about is social media and forums. If we indeed will refrain everyone from running a node except us, people will talk about it and express their concerns as to why they haven't received a license. We will not be able to conceal the truth. That's the Internet and the news will spread out before you notice.

The argument: "If we turn out to be villains, then we will not be able to continue our work further," is not an argument for banks. This is not safety evidence. For them, safety is paramount.

There are agreements "for them". It is the best argument, I think. BTW, how do banks will trust the other blockchains? Is there a single guarantee that those networks are running by users' nodes?

[hihelen]

I didn't understand why people are spamming with aiodex link I saw so many people or bots posting the similar message in all discussion thread. Please we stop this spamming we don't need this exchange for this token.

Cause people want money:) so easy:)

[2012]

If people want to make money than they have to make the approach this is long term project. The team is implementing new features on this blockchain so when it will become more useful than big party for this project will get started.

[rumax]

Not has no more than 10% of nodes but will have less than 10%. Read carefully please.

I read carefully. You did not understand me a little. I mean, Universa can have 90+% nodes, and no one will know about it. How can I check the fact of no more than 10%? Or just believe the words of the team?

I don't think that this is interesting for Universa first. What for? To control blockchain? What is the purpose of having this majority of nodes? To do what?

Most nodes are control of information stored in a blockchain. And if we are talking about banks or governments, then this is a violation of their security.

There's no reason for us to control all nodes. If we do that and start to control the blockchain that would indeed violate their security. That's why we would never do that. Just think about it. If we do, we would lose all our partners forever. So there's no point for us to do such a thing.

Why do banks have to believe this? They will have to pass into the hands of Borodich information, which is worth millions of dollars. Even if the risk is less than 0.0001%, they will not agree to it.

Of course, besides our words, there would be contracts, which are signed before getting into partnerships. They can also reassure that we don't plan something malicious. But again, there's really no point for us to even try to do something because that will inevitably lead to us being out of business. No one will want to have any connections with us if we try to trick someone.

Another thing to think about is social media and forums. If we indeed will refrain everyone from running a node except us, people will talk about it and express their concerns as to why they haven't received a license. We will not be able to conceal the truth. That's the Internet and the news will spread out before you notice.

The argument: "If we turn out to be villains, then we will not be able to continue our work further," is not an argument for banks. This is not safety evidence. For them, safety is paramount.

Everything will depend on the agreements, it may be enough for someone to conclude a test deal, and if everything goes well, they can expand the agreement and more trust will appear. I think the main thing is to start collaborating, the rest of the nuances will pop up by themselves in the process!

[timpum]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

[ampirebus]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

[amoredore]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

My friend, I don't think that this discussion needs to be continued. It is not about believing or not believing something. You were told by admin and other users here that they will have an agreement. An agreement has several conditions including the responsibility of parties and penalties in case of infringements. Universa is a legal body first of all (like Ripple Labs, e.g.). It means that if the company breaks the conditions of the agreements, it will be penalized. When you install Win 10, for example, you sign an agreement as well (electronically). If your personal data becomes property of the third party and you can prove that this because of Microsoft software bugs, you can go to court and get a solid compensation. This is how it works in real world. Ripple Labs develops the technology for several companies currently. I donotthink that those companies require something more than just an agreement. 

[amoredore]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

Totally agree with you. No fundamental point there. Just some hypotetic thoughts. No connection to reality.

[timpum]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

[ampirebus]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

Why do banks trust each other? They are strangers to each other. Why do banks and governments trust visa, mastercard, paypal and other systems. They are the same strangers as Universa.  And they are totally under one control.  Universa will need time to be fully recognised, to be fully trusted because it is new project. The work is being held and the results will be.

[rumax]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

What are your suggestions to address this issue? I think the team needs to make several partnerships in order to show its reliability and quality! Then everything will happen by itself and newcomers to the market can get a significant share of this segment!

[timpum]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

What are your suggestions to address this issue? I think the team needs to make several partnerships in order to show its reliability and quality! Then everything will happen by itself and newcomers to the market can get a significant share of this segment!

I do not know the solution of this problem. I am interested in the reason for introducing licensing for obtaining the right to open a node. In other blockchains, this is decided by the market.

[ampirebus]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

What are your suggestions to address this issue? I think the team needs to make several partnerships in order to show its reliability and quality! Then everything will happen by itself and newcomers to the market can get a significant share of this segment!

I do not know the solution of this problem. I am interested in the reason for introducing licensing for obtaining the right to open a node. In other blockchains, this is decided by the market.

I am not to discuss other projects. But in many blockchains nobody knows who decides about the node. And market is not what makes any decision about the node/ block or pool. It is more about technical support, smart contract and so on.

[cryptocreap]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

What are your suggestions to address this issue? I think the team needs to make several partnerships in order to show its reliability and quality! Then everything will happen by itself and newcomers to the market can get a significant share of this segment!

I do not know the solution of this problem. I am interested in the reason for introducing licensing for obtaining the right to open a node. In other blockchains, this is decided by the market.

How do you know about this? By market? Are you 100% sure that all nodes are going to different hands especially when we are talking about new projects?

[cryptocreap]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

What are your suggestions to address this issue? I think the team needs to make several partnerships in order to show its reliability and quality! Then everything will happen by itself and newcomers to the market can get a significant share of this segment!

there is no suggestion here. Universa have chosen PoA. I think it is a good way to fight 51% attack  offering 91% nodes consensus in addition.

[a fool and his money ...]

Check my previous message carefully once again, please. We will work with our clients-banks (in our case), only according to the terms of mutual business agreement. The main responsibility for us as for a company is to fulfill the terms of such an agreement and of course, not to violate them. It is obviously, that it is in our own interests. Why do we have to compromise the security of the banks? Basically, I see no point and reasonable arguments for that.

Unfortunately you did not convince me. I do not see the point for banks to take risks and depend on one stranger. By the way, today's reality so far confirms my assumptions. There is still no real implementation of the agreements.

Okay, your point of view is still your point of view. You have the right to have your own opinion on something and I can't force you to believe/trust in something. Nevertheless, your point of view seems to be very biased and based on nothing real (there are only your hypotheses) . Unfortunately, I don't see even one real or fundamental point.

You accuse me of bias, but you yourself can not explain what the reasons for banks and governments must to trust one stranger who personally controls the system. Especially if he is new on the market.

That is why all blockchain classifiers attribute Universa to private blockchains. Although the project team does not agree with this and believes that Universa is a public blockchain.