[ANN] Syscoin - Business on the Blockchain - LAUNCHED!

[cjp007]

After watching all the videos and reading the WP, I just invested more  solid stuff here!

[1714723683]

1714723683

[1714723683]

1714723683

[1714723683]

1714723683

[moviejump]

I am willing to make you a killer launch video in return for syscoin i work on feature films in northamerica. let me know what you think

[CryptoClub]

I really like that the devs are not hiding their identities, and the integration with Moolah is a very strong selling point. Anyway, first presale/IPO for me, and I pretty much just did it because of the Moolah option. They have been around awhile so it feels safe. 

[mwheeleruk]

I really like that the devs are not hiding their identities, and the integration with Moolah is a very strong selling point. Anyway, first presale/IPO for me, and I pretty much just did it because of the Moolah option. They have been around awhile so it feels safe. 

Head screwed on! Thankyou.

[qtgwith]

Too too too expensive!

[BIgBloxSTR]

Too too too expensive!

not when your gonna 10X your investment 

[coderboo]

Will the fees accrue over time? IE I add a file today and then next year, the storage fee next year will be based on the one I added today? If thats the case then how much data are you able to store before fees stack up to say $10 per megabyte where it becomes unviable.. and in that case where one becomes dependent on the technology what would that person or entity do since they cost of doing business is not sustainable? Move to another private key, losing your initial data?

If fees don't accrue over time then my point of data storage usage outpacing technology is still valid.. what I meant by that was that the use of the data storage will outweigh the decrease in cost of storage space and the blockchain will fast hit a point where many people will not be able to or want to use it because of the bloat. This is because people will store things on the block chain and over time the blockchain will grow exponentially with the user base while the size of hard drives and speed of internet connections do not keep up to justify the increases in the blockchain.

The white paper says:

"Decentralized Data Storage and Retrieval
Syscoin provides services which enable users to store, and later retrieve, any data
which they wish to directly on the Syscoin blockchain. Up to 256KB of data may be stored per Syscoin setdata transaction. However, an arbitrary number of setdata transactions may be performed in order to store the desired amount of content on the Syscoin blockchain; the user is only limited by the amount of fees they can afford to pay. The data may subsequently be retrieved by the storer or anyone else using Syscoin's 'getdata' command along with the transaction ID of the correspondent 'setdata' transaction."

So I guess that means that the fees will be based on the number of tx you use... and the fee increases for you. I hope the fee doesn't increase for everyone else if they add their 256k in that same block?

So you have a block size where N users can add up to 256k per transaction and the number of transactions X can increase up to where fee Y increases for block Z. If user A can see user B's set data, then we have a possible huge block size. If not then you have fee Y increasing as a variable of X and Z. Still need to confirm that fees dont accrue once block Z is over, and if thats the case then bloat is possibly a show stopper?

Fees do not accrue over time. Fees to store data using 'setdata' are one-time fees.

Yes, this does create a situation where a large blockchain will be created because of the nature of its usage. However, this fact is offset by a few things:

1. the fact that those who are most likely to expend the capital to host the blockchain (mining pools) are also those who stand to profit from its additional revenue, and
2. that we are planning on implementing features which will allow for the deployment of thin, albeit more feature-limited wallets which will not require syncing the entire Syscoin blockchain for the most common currency transfer transactions.
3. we are actively working on some new designs which will help mitigate and discourage service abuse. I can't give you any info on that yet, but I can promise that such features will be exposed to through community review before I write a line of code to implement them.

What that means for those that use these wallets, however, is that they'll need to transfer their Syscoin to a service which does host the entire blockchain while providing value-added interfaces on top of Syscoin.  And that's a really good thing, because it creates business opportunities.

I imagine an ecosystem where companies may provide such services in return for a small fee - or in the case of mining pools, perhaps take the bonus syscoin service fees for themselves; after all, its only fair, since they have to spend more money to host the full chain and should - are in fact expected to - get rewarded for that.

In essence, those who provide value-added services on top of syscoin don't consider the potentially-large blockchain 'bloat', but their means for conducting business and its size as a necessary business expense.

I'll concede that this is not the commonplace perspective relative to blockchain size. But if you think about it the blockchain is used for far more that mere currency accounting here, and its additional value, in my humble opinion, justifies its additional size.

Hi, by the way - I'm coderboo, the primary programmer (and feature designer) of Syscoin.  Thank you for your question, as it is a good one - it addresses succinctly the issue of 'blockchain bloat' and it gave me the chance to say why I think that 'blockchain bloat' is a bit of a misnomer for Syscoin, at least in theory - let's see how it goes in the real world!

[GTO911]

Too too too expensive!

not when your gonna 10X your investment 

A 15000 BTC market cap? are you dreaming?

[sidhujag]

Will the fees accrue over time? IE I add a file today and then next year, the storage fee next year will be based on the one I added today? If thats the case then how much data are you able to store before fees stack up to say $10 per megabyte where it becomes unviable.. and in that case where one becomes dependent on the technology what would that person or entity do since they cost of doing business is not sustainable? Move to another private key, losing your initial data?

If fees don't accrue over time then my point of data storage usage outpacing technology is still valid.. what I meant by that was that the use of the data storage will outweigh the decrease in cost of storage space and the blockchain will fast hit a point where many people will not be able to or want to use it because of the bloat. This is because people will store things on the block chain and over time the blockchain will grow exponentially with the user base while the size of hard drives and speed of internet connections do not keep up to justify the increases in the blockchain.

The white paper says:u

"Decentralized Data Storage and Retrieval
Syscoin provides services which enable users to store, and later retrieve, any data
which they wish to directly on the Syscoin blockchain. Up to 256KB of data may be stored per Syscoin setdata transaction. However, an arbitrary number of setdata transactions may be performed in order to store the desired amount of content on the Syscoin blockchain; the user is only limited by the amount of fees they can afford to pay. The data may subsequently be retrieved by the storer or anyone else using Syscoin's 'getdata' command along with the transaction ID of the correspondent 'setdata' transaction."

So I guess that means that the fees will be based on the number of tx you use... and the fee increases for you. I hope the fee doesn't increase for everyone else if they add their 256k in that same block?

So you have a block size where N users can add up to 256k per transaction and the number of transactions X can increase up to where fee Y increases for block Z. If user A can see user B's set data, then we have a possible huge block size. If not then you have fee Y increasing as a variable of X and Z. Still need to confirm that fees dont accrue once block Z is over, and if thats the case then bloat is possibly a show stopper?

Fees do not accrue over time. Fees to store data using 'setdata' are one-time fees.

Yes, this does create a situation where a large blockchain will be created because of the nature of its usage. However, this fact is offset by a few things:

1. the fact that those who are most likely to expend the capital to host the blockchain (mining pools) are also those who stand to profit from its additional revenue, and
2. that we are planning on implementing features which will allow for the deployment of thin, albeit more feature-limited wallets which will not require syncing the entire Syscoin blockchain for the most common currency transfer transactions.
3. we are actively working on some new designs which will help mitigate and discourage service abuse. I can't give you any info on that yet, but I can promise that such features will be exposed to through community review before I write a line of code to implement them.

What that means for those that use these wallets, however, is that they'll need to transfer their Syscoin to a service which does host the entire blockchain while providing value-added interfaces on top of Syscoin.  And that's a really good thing, because it creates business opportunities.

I imagine an ecosystem where companies may provide such services in return for a small fee - or in the case of mining pools, perhaps take the bonus syscoin service fees for themselves; after all, its only fair, since they have to spend more money to host the full chain and should - are in fact expected to - get rewarded for that.

In essence, those who provide value-added services on top of syscoin don't consider the potentially-large blockchain 'bloat', but their means for conducting business and its size as a necessary business expense.

I'll concede that this is not the commonplace perspective relative to blockchain size. But if you think about it the blockchain is used for far more that mere currency accounting here, and its additional value, in my humble opinion, justifies its additional size.

Hi, by the way - I'm coderboo, the primary programmer (and feature designer) of Syscoin.  Thank you for your question, as it is a good one - it addresses succinctly the issue of 'blockchain bloat' and it gave me the chance to say why I think that 'blockchain bloat' is a bit of a misnomer for Syscoin, at least in theory - let's see how it goes in the real world!

thanks for the response.

I think the ability to attach data or other objects is great in theory and by not attaching to private key its at first thought nice to be able to store all of it
in the main chain however read below it may not
be needed.

I do see a point of centralization however when you have to rely on certain nodes because they are supernodes or full clients to service your request.. not sure how this will play out in regards to preventing attacks but being merge mined helps with that so it may mitigate that risk.

I guess what we really  need to do is layout what the main use case for the setdata feature:

Encypted secure transfer of data or messages, right?

does it make sense to store all this in a public repository? Maybe it makes sense to store this locally according to your private key because really you only care about data that you send and that is intended for you to recieve.. and then an ability to transfer data thru a tx or dumpkey importkey is essential...if you change keys tough loss your data is gone too just like your coins if you dont move them. What this means is that there is no public ledger of setdata (is this possible) to avoid the bloat.

Otherwise If everyone uses up to 256k set data per tx the blockchain would blowup pretty fast wouldnt it? I think the interesting thing will be to see if the thin clients will help prevent the risk of the
blockchain bloat becoming an issue considering the continual increase of storage efficiency. It would also make it harder for everyday users to store stuff securely but have a high overhead to do it.. so its main use would be if you were to use it exclusively in a service you provide or if the data security mitigates the cumbersomeness of downloading a huge blockchain. Its hard to see it until the ball is fully rolling.

[coderboo]

thanks for the response.

I think the ability to attach data or other objects is great in theory and by not attaching to private key its even better because it allows me to transfer my value added services anywhere without sacrificing my private key.

I do see a point of centralization however when you have to rely on certain nodes because they are supernodes or full clients to service your request.. not sure how this will play out in regards to preventing attacks but being merge mined helps with that so it may mitigate that risk.

If everyone uses up to 256k set data per tx the blockchain would blowup pretty fast wouldnt it? I think the interesting thing will be to see if the thin clients will help prevent the risk of the
blockchain bloat becoming an issue considering the continual increase of storage efficiency. It would also make it harder for everyday users to store stuff securely but have a high overhead to do it.. so its main use would be if you were to use it exclusively in a service you provide or if the data security mitigates the cumbersomeness of downloading a huge blockchain. Its hard to see it until the ball is fully rolling.

Clearly you're done your share of thinking on this subject, as I concur on all points, and came to the same conclusion myself - the nature of the 'setdata' service makes it a bit of a two-edged sword, both relative to its implications as to its possible effects on the blockchain, as well as its relative user-unfriendliness.  It's best suited, in my opinion, as a tool for service builders to use to help support syscoin services - as a file host for a distributed web-based marketplace or service center, for example.

Frankly only time will tell what will happen. I do know that we will respond very fast if we see indications of trouble ahead for 'setdata' and I personally won't abide by any long-term design which introduces an unnecessary amount of data onto the syscoin blockchain, because if doesn't help to secure the coin, carry the ledger, or implement a syscoin services, then it most definitely *is* bloat.

Thanks again for your q, stop by anytime.

[coderboo]

Encypted secure transfer of data or messages, right?

No. That's a use-case where I would apply more structure - something like a 'sendmessage' command with the ability to encrypt the message with the receivers public syscoin key - e.g. address - so that only the recipient can read it, via decrypting through their private key. (ps I know you know how this works, just expanding out for everyone else's sake)

Oh, I think I just revealed one of my planned 1.1 features

Seriously though, your arguments are the same ones i've been playing out for a while now. Frankly, this exchange may be the thing that gets me to take it out, as I am not convinced of its inherent utility and concerned about its possible vectors for abuse.

I'll PM you once we make up our mind and then publicly announce afterwards.  Thanks a ton for your thoughts on this, some super valuable feedback here!

[coderboo]

Any plans to implement any privacy options or features?  I know there is a segment that would really like those types of features, for what ever reasons..

Thanks for your question. Not at this point, the reason being that the services that syscoin provide are by nature services which help authenticate and audit business transactions occurring between two or more parties in a such a way as to be provable to anyone that wants to verify this.

In other words, we want to create a distributed crypto-finance infrastructure that anyone can use to do business.  Syscoin replaces centralized certificate authorities, brokers, notaries, court clerks, marketplace owners and - all of whom are currently human, and thus corruptible - with an incorruptible, highly secure, peer-to-peer distributed network.

This doesn't mean those who do use coins with privacy features can't use syscoin to their advantage, however. I imagine those doing business exclusively using privacy-enabled coins will likely want to conduct such business in private as well - and by private I mean in a method which is not traceable.  Syscoin provides this by default through our offers feature, which can readily be used to implement fully-distributed marketplaces.

[zhangdu]

the TTL BTC got from presale are almost steady, so I guess the final amount may not touch 250 BTC, but it's good enough for the DEVS work.

[snipsnoop]

I invested in 3btc, but now regret
Invest sys is high risk

I am interested in why you now think its not a good idea.
Did you listen to the FUD too much or?

[snipsnoop]

snip
Personally I am probably looking for a late second phase entry. Depends on how the first round goes. I don't mind paying another 10% if it means I get to keep my coins trading for a while longer.

It is a good point, will take it to the team and we will have a chat about it.

[snipsnoop]

No coin presale is worth 1500 BTC! 207 btc gone waste

1500BTC for only 10% of all syscoin!!!  Syscoin pre-sale price is very very very expensive compared with Crypti.

.... Would maybe help you actually had your facts right.. I mean you could try and actually read the OP. Just a suggestion.

[qtgwith]

No coin presale is worth 1500 BTC! 207 btc gone waste

1500BTC for only 10% of all syscoin!!!  Syscoin pre-sale price is very very very expensive compared with Crypti.

.... Would maybe help you actually had your facts right.. I mean you could try and actually read the OP. Just a suggestion.

15%

[snipsnoop]

No coin presale is worth 1500 BTC! 207 btc gone waste

1500BTC for only 10% of all syscoin!!!  Syscoin pre-sale price is very very very expensive compared with Crypti.

.... Would maybe help you actually had your facts right.. I mean you could try and actually read the OP. Just a suggestion.

15%

UP to 15%. Again please read the OP..

[realestmofo]

1500BTC for only 15% of all syscoin!!!  Syscoin pre-sale price is very very very expensive compared with Crypti.

Why compare this coin to another coin. Not all coins are created equal.

[snipsnoop]

Oh dont worry, his posts wont stay up for long..

Look we don't mind constructive criticism at all, but strait up FUD for the sake of FUD we cant allow.
Its really as simple as that