[ANN] APTUM - EVERYBODY’S CRYPTO | White Paper released

[ClashProject]

I recently updated the whitepaper to further improve checkpoints, or states, and reduce the size of the chain (for newly synchronizing people) to a couple megabytes.
Read through the most recent update in here: https://github.com/aptumproject/papers/blob/master/aptum.pdf

This is what true scalability looks like!


A new poll has been added to the telegram group, a poll to determine whether DPoS or PoA (Proof of Activity; PoW+PoS) should be used as our consensus mechanism.
To vote, please comment your preferred choice (DPoS/PoA) or vote in the bullion telegram channel, which can be joined here: https://t.me/joinchat/Huox0UimXQuZyNaupwJp-Q
It's important to note that while you can add your personal reason why you chose a specific algorithm, you don't necessarily have to. It may help others decide in favour of your choice.

[elambert]

I am closing the poll question: Which economic design do you like best for an actual currency?

Result winner is:
Medium | Compromise between Large and Small (uses 3 decimals) ---- 55% of the vote

Second place:
Small | Like Bitcoin (uses 6 decimals) ---- 44% of the vote

Last place with zero votes:
Large | Millions as the casual unit (avoids decimals) ---- 0% of votes

I will mention that killiz had an interesting alternative solution of using 2 decimal places as most of the world is comfortable with this level of decimal usage (as in fiat). We will keep this option in mind, I personally favor it.

Thank you all for participating.


New poll has been added:

Feel free to vote only, however if you want to supply your reasoning with a comment, this is greatly encouraged and appreciated.

[ClashProject]

I am closing the poll question: Which economic design do you like best for an actual currency?

Result winner is:
Medium | Compromise between Large and Small (uses 3 decimals) ---- 55% of the vote

Second place:
Small | Like Bitcoin (uses 6 decimals) ---- 44% of the vote

Last place with zero votes:
Large | Millions as the casual unit (avoids decimals) ---- 0% of votes

I will mention that killiz had an interesting alternative solution of using 2 decimal places as most of the world is comfortable with this level of decimal usage (as in fiat). We will keep this option in mind, I personally favor it.

Thank you all for participating.

The poll in telegram had four votes for a large supply and three votes for a medium supply, resulting in 4 votes for a small supply, 4 votes for a large supply and 8 votes for a medium supply. The "medium supply"-option won with a strong lead.

[Killiz]

Could DPos and POA be briefly explained so I know what I'm voting for?

[ClashProject]

Could DPos and POA be briefly explained so I know what I'm voting for?

DPoS would basically be PoS with preselected validators which have to be online.
If a validator is not online, the block will be skipped.
DPoS is chosen instead of PoS to have a minimum weight for every participant, which ensures that the block creator will be online.
In the beginning, I would like to set the minimum to 0.1%, which of course would be lowered later on.

PoA is PoW combined with PoS, to ensure that there are no 51% attacks and no orphans. First one will randomly find a proof of work block and submit it. Then 100 previously selected (dependent on the previous block) validators will sign the block, and if one of them did not sign the block, the block will be invalid and you will be forced to wait for the next one.

PoA would be much more difficult to implement, add more garbage that has to be sent from one node to another. It would drastically increase the time needed for each block to be confirmed, implying that the block time has to be increased from 15s to 2 minutes or more, increasing the average confirmation time to approximately six minutes, assuming just 1% of the nodes are offline; with 10% of the nodes being offline, it would be one block every 26 days.

On the other hand PoA would be the only way of having not just a decentralised, but also a distributed consensus.

As you might see, I, as the developer and visionary, definitely vote for DPoS, because this is much better for the future of the network.
Unless someone has a better solution, I will vote for DPoS, but I can also see why other people would vote for the only way of having a distributed consensus that's resistant against orphans.

[sockpuppet1911]

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

[ClashProject]

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

I'm afraid aptum currently has no community channels, as its still in its initial steps.
If you want to, you could however join the communities of both predecessors.
Bullion Telegram Channel: https://t.me/joinchat/FkBLVEimXQscVn1cetdd4g
Mono Discord Server: https://discord.gg/mbgWXgJ

[Killiz]

Could DPos and POA be briefly explained so I know what I'm voting for?

DPoS would basically be PoS with preselected validators which have to be online.
If a validator is not online, the block will be skipped.
DPoS is chosen instead of PoS to have a minimum weight for every participant, which ensures that the block creator will be online.
In the beginning, I would like to set the minimum to 0.1%, which of course would be lowered later on.

PoA is PoW combined with PoS, to ensure that there are no 51% attacks and no orphans. First one will randomly find a proof of work block and submit it. Then 100 previously selected (dependent on the previous block) validators will sign the block, and if one of them did not sign the block, the block will be invalid and you will be forced to wait for the next one.

PoA would be much more difficult to implement, add more garbage that has to be sent from one node to another. It would drastically increase the time needed for each block to be confirmed, implying that the block time has to be increased from 15s to 2 minutes or more, increasing the average confirmation time to approximately six minutes, assuming just 1% of the nodes are offline; with 10% of the nodes being offline, it would be one block every 26 days.

On the other hand PoA would be the only way of having not just a decentralised, but also a distributed consensus.

As you might see, I, as the developer and visionary, definitely vote for DPoS, because this is much better for the future of the network.
Unless someone has a better solution, I will vote for DPoS, but I can also see why other people would vote for the only way of having a distributed consensus that's resistant against orphans.

Thanks


DPos sounds a little too centralized, but I do understand the selected validators are needed to ensure the network is secure when using super fast block times.
Would it be possible to for the network to randomly select which nodes are validators periodically, for a determined number of blocks, then repeat?
Such nodes would need to qualify in some way to validate, ( time online, balance, connectivity etc).


Is the proof of work in your version of POA really needed?
In pure POS currencies you would need 51% of the coins to attack the network, why would you want to attack something you have a 51% stake in?
This version of POA sounds a little too complicated.

Can bullions POS algorithm not be used and tweaked to how you need it? I like what was done with it, and it works really well.

[ClashProject]

Could DPos and POA be briefly explained so I know what I'm voting for?

DPoS would basically be PoS with preselected validators which have to be online.
If a validator is not online, the block will be skipped.
DPoS is chosen instead of PoS to have a minimum weight for every participant, which ensures that the block creator will be online.
In the beginning, I would like to set the minimum to 0.1%, which of course would be lowered later on.

PoA is PoW combined with PoS, to ensure that there are no 51% attacks and no orphans. First one will randomly find a proof of work block and submit it. Then 100 previously selected (dependent on the previous block) validators will sign the block, and if one of them did not sign the block, the block will be invalid and you will be forced to wait for the next one.

PoA would be much more difficult to implement, add more garbage that has to be sent from one node to another. It would drastically increase the time needed for each block to be confirmed, implying that the block time has to be increased from 15s to 2 minutes or more, increasing the average confirmation time to approximately six minutes, assuming just 1% of the nodes are offline; with 10% of the nodes being offline, it would be one block every 26 days.

On the other hand PoA would be the only way of having not just a decentralised, but also a distributed consensus.

As you might see, I, as the developer and visionary, definitely vote for DPoS, because this is much better for the future of the network.
Unless someone has a better solution, I will vote for DPoS, but I can also see why other people would vote for the only way of having a distributed consensus that's resistant against orphans.

Thanks


DPos sounds a little too centralized, but I do understand the selected validators are needed to ensure the network is secure when using super fast block times.
Would it be possible to for the network to randomly select which nodes are validators periodically, for a determined number of blocks, then repeat?
Such nodes would need to qualify in some way to validate, ( time online, balance, connectivity etc).


Is the proof of work in your version of POA really needed?
In pure POS currencies you would need 51% of the coins to attack the network, why would you want to attack something you have a 51% stake in?
This version of POA sounds a little too complicated.

Can bullions POS algorithm not be used and tweaked to how you need it? I like what was done with it, and it works really well.

DPoS is just like normal PoS, with the tiny change that there is a minimum requirement for hosting a node. Just like how hosting a masternode requires some minimum, but in DPoS you dont have to burn your coins to form a collateral.

PoA needs PoW and PoS to have security against 51% attacks from both sides, the complexity of forcing 100 people to sign the block is a requirement to be secure against orphans and chain splits.
Those would kill the coin and have to be avoided at any cost.

Therefore, no, it is not possible to use or adapt a casual PoS, because you either have to skip a large portion of the blocks or predefine the one and only validator to make sure that there are no chain splits.

Since predefining a validator is much better on a pure efficiency basis, but might be slightly worse if you are trying to achieve an unweighted distributed consensus, I would go for DPoS all day. Just think about how PoW is. You can theoretically participate, but you seriously have no chance of getting a block whatsoever. Additionally, there are mining farms which will always be more efficient than you are, which basically kick you out, unless the coin doubles its price; and to even have a chance of getting any rewards, you join a pool. Why not join a pool in here? All you need to do is form a trusted group (or trustless group using smart contracts) and let one participant set up a validator. Other than defining the maximum number of pools (which can be changed in forks), there is no real change compared to a PoW network. I mean, other than that it is PoS not PoW, but PoW is just PoS with more layers.

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

I just noticed your offer about graphics, thank you very much, that would be amazing if you could help.
I'll ask our web developer to send you a private message, if that's okay with you.

[Killiz]

Thanks for the explanation.

So in DPoS will there be no coin age requirement?

If coins are not burned, then the same input that staked the current block, would be eligible to stake the block after?

Will the preselected validators nodes, be nodes ran by yourself and others on your team?
If so, as the network grows and matures, would you be looking at a way to address this and allow the network to be more decentralised?

[ClashProject]

Thanks for the explanation.

So in DPoS will there be no coin age requirement?

If coins are not burned, then the same input that staked the current block, would be eligible to stake the block after?

Will the preselected validators nodes, be nodes ran by yourself and others on your team?
If so, as the network grows and matures, would you be looking at a way to address this and allow the network to be more decentralised?

In the current implementation, DPoS has no requirement of coin age, correct.

You can use your funds to stake every block, correct; but it's not entirely the same as PoS, as you don't ralley towards being the first to get the block, but instead define someone who creates the next block right after the previous block was published.

The validator nodes have no requirement other than someone staking more than a certain percentage. I personally favour the usage of 0.1% in the initial stage, but it can be reduced later on. Therefore it is entirely dependent on the size of the developer fund which is currently being discussed.

[Killiz]

Voted DPoS. Energy efficiency will be a large factor in the success of crypto's in the not too distant future.
Will be interesting to see how the development of this version of PoS goes.

[ClashProject]

Voted DPoS. Energy efficiency will be a large factor in the success of crypto's in the not too distant future.
Will be interesting to see how the development of this version of PoS goes.

Thank you for your trust!


After a week, there are nine votes for DPoS and three votes for PoA.
Congratulations everyone who voted for DPoS!


Aptum logo was created and has been added to the thread, community feedback would be very much appreciated.

[Killiz]

Aptum logo was created and has been added to the thread, community feedback would be very much appreciated.

Looks good. Nice simple design

[sockpuppet1911]

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

I just noticed your offer about graphics, thank you very much, that would be amazing if you could help.
I'll ask our web developer to send you a private message, if that's okay with you.

He did, i answered in few days because i didn't pay attention to pm. But i haven't heard a reply yet . I'll wait though.

[elambert]

Interested, do you have a telegram channel, discord or a twitter i can follow as well? If you need graphics i might be able to help.

I just noticed your offer about graphics, thank you very much, that would be amazing if you could help.
I'll ask our web developer to send you a private message, if that's okay with you.

He did, i answered in few days because i didn't pay attention to pm. But i haven't heard a reply yet . I'll wait though.

Thank you so much for the offer! However we have added an Art Director to the team so we are all set at the moment. We will certainly reach out to you should we need additional assistance.

[ClashProject]

I voted. But whatever majority vote for, is a good indication what people want.

Could you explain a little bit more what these mean? Or be specific as to what the large, medium, and small mean in terms of actual numbers and digits. Like, is it 1B, 1M, and 10M or 100M ...

Currently the base reward per block is being debated. It may be 1'000'000 coins (large), 1'000 coins (medium) or 1 coin (small) as a block reward.
With a target for the block time of about 15 seconds, we will have the following three emissions as possibilities:
When using the large supply, 2.19 trillion coins would be emitted every year.
When using the medium supply, 2.19 billion coins would be emitted every year.
When using the small supply, 2.19 million coins would be emitted every year.
Since the number of atomic units will stay the same, the question only is how many decimals to use. None for a large supply, 3 for a medium supply and 6 for a low supply.

Who needs emission anyway, am I rite?

Are there any thoughts in here on having no emission of new coins but still have a transaction fee? This way you cant say that new coins are created unfairly and that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
With 1000 DPoS nodes, a 2ct transaction fee and a maximum utilization of the resources the network has, a node would still make 76M USD/Year.

[elambert]

I voted. But whatever majority vote for, is a good indication what people want.

Could you explain a little bit more what these mean? Or be specific as to what the large, medium, and small mean in terms of actual numbers and digits. Like, is it 1B, 1M, and 10M or 100M ...

Currently the base reward per block is being debated. It may be 1'000'000 coins (large), 1'000 coins (medium) or 1 coin (small) as a block reward.
With a target for the block time of about 15 seconds, we will have the following three emissions as possibilities:
When using the large supply, 2.19 trillion coins would be emitted every year.
When using the medium supply, 2.19 billion coins would be emitted every year.
When using the small supply, 2.19 million coins would be emitted every year.
Since the number of atomic units will stay the same, the question only is how many decimals to use. None for a large supply, 3 for a medium supply and 6 for a low supply.

Who needs emission anyway, am I rite?

Are there any thoughts in here on having no emission of new coins but still have a transaction fee? This way you cant say that new coins are created unfairly and that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
With 1000 DPoS nodes, a 2ct transaction fee and a maximum utilization of the resources the network has, a node would still make 76M USD/Year.

What we are talking about here is a zero inflation (emission) coin. All coins (outside of the pre-selected percentage that are swapped to MONO and Bullion holders) would be distributed via faucet (for free) for a pre-determined amount of time (3-6 months). Then as Lucas mentioned, the network would run via DPoS processors whose earnings for their network contributions (transaction processing) would come from ultra-low transaction fees paid by coin senders.

[ClashProject]

The official Aptum discord server is now available in here: https://discord.gg/DEYNzDA

The official Aptum discord server is now available in here: https://discord.gg/DEYNzDA

An official telegram channel for Aptum has been created in here: https://t.me/aptumproject
As of right now, there is only one bot to prevent spam. Further testing is required.


The Aptum Token [APT] has been launched on the ethereum mainnet and can be found in here
https://etherscan.io/token/0x83f77849243678979b52c85e25b939588b256f77

ICO price and faucet rewards are TBD, we expect them to launch next month.

[elambert]

The Aptum Token [APT] has been launched on the ethereum mainnet and can be found in here
https://etherscan.io/token/0x83f77849243678979b52c85e25b939588b256f77

ICO price and faucet rewards are TBD, we expect them to launch next month.

Very exciting, project is moving along nicely