[XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS

[abstraktalias]

Cryptsi team is still here, and our loyal gang of 8 bloggers, and 4 trolls.

Just curious, do you consider me a blogger or a troll?  

Seriously, this is a problem.  Once you've fallen off the radar it's hard to get the attention of potential users again.  At the very least there should be an effort to identify a (big) list of cryptocoin journalists and a plan to contact them via email with the Incredible Crypti Return From The Dead story.  Hopefully by Halloween.

Taking a part the red and yellow text I usually like what you write, it's different, although often too much tech for me to fully grasp it



Personally I am probably inbetween, having trying to quit smoking cigarettes the last few days I'm more edgy than usual! So apologize for that    

I have offered my opinion on going customchains/supernet > PoT as customchains don't have much work on it left, I have spoken good about supernet several times and I still hold that view that it will give much more exposure than contacting a few journalists.

If customchains were to be done in 2-3 weeks it would offer significant features

XCR gains > exposure, more users, more transactions, and the XCR user has chance to use more features
what XCR "gives" > customchains feature. As for features that XCR can use by joining, there are a few mostly its good for exposure to network/activity etc,
But I think most importantly what XCR can use by joining is to get a large userbase to use their technology. (CCs)

So in short the only thing XCR really "gives" supernet is the custom chains technology which needs a userbase and developers anyway...
First exposure it would get? The 20-30 developers within supernet or around it with their respective coins..

I've seen it being discussed, but I just don't see where the downside it, there used to be a majority as to joining in the foundation, but seems like this is no longer the case.

"We don't have anything to give" This can be changed by changing priorities as I understand there's someone else working PoT right now.

As for making my case,  the only "downside" that I can possibly see in this from what I gather from foundation, is the portraying that jl777 is some big bad wolf, some internet gangster with millions of dollars of blackmoney stuffed under in his bed, running from the feds hiding in Argentina because he's a mad bad criminal (rly?) when in reality, he's probably just some pale faced teenagergeek who's been coding 16 hours a day since early december for NXT.

I think the even most bizarre part is all these stories people throw around as truths are coming from a guy (BM) who's blackmailed people on this very forum, doxxed single mums trying to get them fired from their employees, stolen 100 BTC are are still here to professionally troll.
Read his first post about him, you'll find every word he says plausible, read 10-15 more and you'll realize he's batshit insane.


Not to go OT here but with all that being said, nothing will change as to joining supernet, it's not possible for jl to be able to do any damage to XCR anyway, even if he'd want. As for buying the 10%, I don't see how that's negative, if some whale would walk into here tomorrow and buy 10% nobody would care, if anything, snet 10% would get them motivated to push custom chains further, and add more value than any other private investor would for that matter

It just all seems to come down to making business decisions for this coins future over having disagreements over someones handle online.
Which to me, frankly, is kinda sad, I see no other reason to shut this decision out, since I've done research on jl and formed my opinion, it can't be a negative thing about his work, since like I have said he's running a lot of things simultaneously, and all of them hold value, working 16 hours a day for nearly a year now.

Why not invite talented developers, other coindevelopers to use customchains, when customchains is only worthwhile if someone is using it?
It just makes no sense to me.. I've been trying these last 2 days to figure it out, different angles and scenarios, but I can't for the life of me figure out why on earth this doesnt make sense to anyone else as the right path to go?


XCR doesn't become supernet, they can still do whatever they want you know?  All there is is some features across the platform a stronger network.. etc.
I am still scratching my head on this one.. just can't for the life of me figure out.
If it's turning down a good opportunity over personal bias... well it's too damn bad, because I fail to see who he is would matter at all for XCR.

And going snet/customchains > then PoT would be 110% best option.
There's just so much XCR stands go gain, and also supernet stands to gain. It's just such unrealistic how perfect the match is.

Also, if you think I am biased... I don't hold a single UNITY or any supernet asset, if someone gives me a way to prove it I will.
I just want what's best for XCR... really

Just doesn't make sense at all to me.. I just can't for the life of me figure out the reason as to why.
And if the underlying thought to all is that "NXT is a total scam!" the Coinbox is a brilliant idea, designed to you know... mostly work alongside NXT.. so theres that..

Makes no sense to oppose this, the more and more I think about it, the more it just messes with my mind.
Never in the history of alts have I seen such a partnership that makes so ridiculously much sense to me.

It's just like.. a business deal where the only thing needed from XCRs end to get all the benefits of the deal is like XCR is a newly started shoe store with no customers, and SuperNET is all the other shoe stores in town, and Supernet let you put all XCRs shoes in their stores and when customers tries it on and wants to buy it, they get the "No we dont sell it, you have to go to XCRs store to buy it. Sorry but it's right on 57th broadstreet.."

Some good points. In theory XCR has some great ideas and potential advanced technology at least with custom blockchains, but the problem is knows about it or cares.

Are you the only one pushing the superNET idea? Doesn't seem like anyone else even cares to discuss it.  I remember the devs were pretty against it about a month, but haven't done much since then to validate that stance.

We'll see what happens once the custom blockchain technology is released (if ever) and hopefully take it from there. 

[1714677951]

1714677951

[1714677951]

1714677951

[1714677951]

1714677951

[1714677951]

1714677951

[Litoshi]

It isn't that the devs are against SNet, its just that XCR is still in the potty training stage, far too soon to be picking out a college.

Also, we are still working on the PoT algo and the custom blockchains.  Without those up and running XCR is "just another alt coin" and will suffer the fate of all the others: slow price decent to the single satoshi trades, then delisting. 

We have all received DOZENS of PMs from 5000, as well as reading his essays in this blog.  We are considering a Skype meeting with him to let him better state his positions, concerns, and motivations.

We are responsive, it is just we have 9 people in 8 timezones, meaning that problems dont get resolved in an hour LIKE ON TV!

We are also looking at having a cubie-style hardware node manufactured and sold for less than cost.  How that would affect a XCR SNet client, we do not know. 

[rtrtcrypto]

I agree 100% - I would move towards SUPERNET at this time as well. I have lost confidence in the technical ability of the team here - I hold only because that was my strategy all along, hold no matter what.

I'm willing to go down with the ship and I'm curious to see how passive everything seems with this protocol - I'm sure people are trying very hard behind the scenes, but it appears that this team just DOESN'T have someone of CfB's ability to just will the technical issues into being resolved. The silence from the devs and missed deadlines just makes it seem like this project attempted to pull off a technical feat that the team is incapable of executing.

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

Anyway, we now get real trouble! This coin might have no choice but to switch to PoS for the near future and bring in someone from the outside that can (maybe) get a working algo into place.

Best of luck to both the team and the bagholders (like me). I will hold on through. 

Cryptsi team is still here, and our loyal gang of 8 bloggers, and 4 trolls.

Just curious, do you consider me a blogger or a troll?  

Seriously, this is a problem.  Once you've fallen off the radar it's hard to get the attention of potential users again.  At the very least there should be an effort to identify a (big) list of cryptocoin journalists and a plan to contact them via email with the Incredible Crypti Return From The Dead story.  Hopefully by Halloween.

Taking a part the red and yellow text I usually like what you write, it's different, although often too much tech for me to fully grasp it



Personally I am probably inbetween, having trying to quit smoking cigarettes the last few days I'm more edgy than usual! So apologize for that    

I have offered my opinion on going customchains/supernet > PoT as customchains don't have much work on it left, I have spoken good about supernet several times and I still hold that view that it will give much more exposure than contacting a few journalists.

If customchains were to be done in 2-3 weeks it would offer significant features

XCR gains > exposure, more users, more transactions, and the XCR user has chance to use more features
what XCR "gives" > customchains feature. As for features that XCR can use by joining, there are a few mostly its good for exposure to network/activity etc,
But I think most importantly what XCR can use by joining is to get a large userbase to use their technology. (CCs)

So in short the only thing XCR really "gives" supernet is the custom chains technology which needs a userbase and developers anyway...
First exposure it would get? The 20-30 developers within supernet or around it with their respective coins..

I've seen it being discussed, but I just don't see where the downside it, there used to be a majority as to joining in the foundation, but seems like this is no longer the case.

"We don't have anything to give" This can be changed by changing priorities as I understand there's someone else working PoT right now.

As for making my case,  the only "downside" that I can possibly see in this from what I gather from foundation, is the portraying that jl777 is some big bad wolf, some internet gangster with millions of dollars of blackmoney stuffed under in his bed, running from the feds hiding in Argentina because he's a mad bad criminal (rly?) when in reality, he's probably just some pale faced teenagergeek who's been coding 16 hours a day since early december for NXT.

I think the even most bizarre part is all these stories people throw around as truths are coming from a guy (BM) who's blackmailed people on this very forum, doxxed single mums trying to get them fired from their employees, stolen 100 BTC are are still here to professionally troll.
Read his first post about him, you'll find every word he says plausible, read 10-15 more and you'll realize he's batshit insane.


Not to go OT here but with all that being said, nothing will change as to joining supernet, it's not possible for jl to be able to do any damage to XCR anyway, even if he'd want. As for buying the 10%, I don't see how that's negative, if some whale would walk into here tomorrow and buy 10% nobody would care, if anything, snet 10% would get them motivated to push custom chains further, and add more value than any other private investor would for that matter

It just all seems to come down to making business decisions for this coins future over having disagreements over someones handle online.
Which to me, frankly, is kinda sad, I see no other reason to shut this decision out, since I've done research on jl and formed my opinion, it can't be a negative thing about his work, since like I have said he's running a lot of things simultaneously, and all of them hold value, working 16 hours a day for nearly a year now.

Why not invite talented developers, other coindevelopers to use customchains, when customchains is only worthwhile if someone is using it?
It just makes no sense to me.. I've been trying these last 2 days to figure it out, different angles and scenarios, but I can't for the life of me figure out why on earth this doesnt make sense to anyone else as the right path to go?


XCR doesn't become supernet, they can still do whatever they want you know?  All there is is some features across the platform a stronger network.. etc.
I am still scratching my head on this one.. just can't for the life of me figure out.
If it's turning down a good opportunity over personal bias... well it's too damn bad, because I fail to see who he is would matter at all for XCR.

And going snet/customchains > then PoT would be 110% best option.
There's just so much XCR stands go gain, and also supernet stands to gain. It's just such unrealistic how perfect the match is.

Also, if you think I am biased... I don't hold a single UNITY or any supernet asset, if someone gives me a way to prove it I will.
I just want what's best for XCR... really

Just doesn't make sense at all to me.. I just can't for the life of me figure out the reason as to why.
And if the underlying thought to all is that "NXT is a total scam!" the Coinbox is a brilliant idea, designed to you know... mostly work alongside NXT.. so theres that..

Makes no sense to oppose this, the more and more I think about it, the more it just messes with my mind.
Never in the history of alts have I seen such a partnership that makes so ridiculously much sense to me.

It's just like.. a business deal where the only thing needed from XCRs end to get all the benefits of the deal is like XCR is a newly started shoe store with no customers, and SuperNET is all the other shoe stores in town, and Supernet let you put all XCRs shoes in their stores and when customers tries it on and wants to buy it, they get the "No we dont sell it, you have to go to XCRs store to buy it. Sorry but it's right on 57th broadstreet.."

[Litoshi]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. 

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. 

[Wulfcastle]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo.  

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE.  

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

[Passion_ltc]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo.  

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE.  

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this.

[Passion_ltc]

At all:

I took over the CryptiTalk forum and will try to push the discussions to it in the future. This will help us to build a strong community. If there are any suggestions for this, please get in contact with me!

In regard of this I changed the forum structure a little bit, so it isn't that big but has the most important child boards. I also created a few new child boards such as "Releases", in which you will find all Crypti releases, to have a structured overview with changelogs and link to the blog post.

If you own a Crypti project (such as a game or you run your own blockchain explorer) than you can ask for a child board in "Projects". With this we want to give you a platform which helps you in building a user base and promote your Crypti service to our community.

Other changes are smaller, like the new language board. If you miss your country/language just send me a PM and I will create the child board.



Thank you very much.

[Litoshi]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. 

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. 

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this.

Come on Wulf, no one can do everything.  There are times that there is a need to call in outside experts who specialize in a certain area.  IT is no different than medicine or law  Your doctor and lawyer refers to experts all the time.

I am sure, that given enough time our team could come up with a satisfactory solution.  But, since we are always thinking of the community,  a business decision was made to use some of the IPO funds to hire a specialist.  The time saved will benefit all. 

Your previous posts were all about "hurry up".  Now we "hurry up", and you not happy?

[Wulfcastle]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo.  

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE.  

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this.

Had this been open-sourced you could have had a whole bunch of experts look at the code. I understand that the developers don't want clones popping up, but had Crypti been open-sourced in the first place critical issues such as the PoT algo bugs could have been picked up and addressed much earlier. Crypti is kept closed-sourced for the time being as a counter-measure for the spread of its clones, however in my opinion, not open-sourcing Crypti has put the whole project a couple months behind.

You could have countless experts, including Come-from-Beyond (which he requested to), analyse the code  had it been open-sourced. If you look at NXT's history, which is what Crypti is most often compared to, you'll see that NXT started to make major leaps in progress once it was open-sourced. Judging from the "Bug Bounty Thread" that was opened with the purpose of offering bounties for bugs that were found in the NXT code-base, there must've been over 30 bugs that were fixed within weeks.

I haven't posted much about this aspect of Crypti before, as there hasn't been the need to, but with these critical problems, I'd say open-sourcing the Crypti code-base (or only the affected parts of it) would go a long way to helping Crypti move forward.

[Passion_ltc]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo. 

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE. 

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this.

Had this been open-sourced you could have had a whole bunch of experts look at the code. I understand that the developers don't want clones popping up, but had Crypti been open-sourced in the first place critical issues such as the PoT algo bugs could have been picked up and addressed much earlier. Crypti is kept closed-sourced for the time being as a counter-measure for the spread of its clones, however in my opinion, not open-sourcing Crypti has put the whole project a couple months behind.

You could have countless experts, including Come-from-Beyond (which he requested to), analyse the code  had it been open-sourced. If you look at NXT's history, which is what Crypti is most often compared to, you'll see that NXT started to make major leaps in progress once it was open-sourced. Judging from the "Bug Bounty Thread" that was opened with the purpose of offering bounties for bugs that were found in the NXT code-base, there must've been over 30 bugs that were fixed within weeks.

I haven't posted much about this aspect of Crypti before, as there hasn't been the need to, but with these critical problems, I'd say open-sourcing the Crypti code-base (or only the affected parts of it) would go a long way to helping Crypti move forward.

Sorry, but that's not true. Most people don't work without getting paid. Only a handful of guys would take a look at the code, because Crypti is written in Javascript in a C/C++ dominated cryptocurrency space, even less than a handful of guys would have looked at the code.

In NXT's case the development didn't took major leaps in progress once it was open-sourced. Come-from-Beyond is working on the code from the beginning until a few months ago. Jean-Luc is working on it consistently since before it was open-source as well IMO. All other devs came in much later and are still urgently needed.

[Wulfcastle]

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

They did have a working algo for the PoT.  It worked just fine as long as there were not more than 50 nodes up.  Once there were more than that, a scaling issue surfaced.

That resulted in most of the nodes not getting any forged blocks, and the nodes with the least latency were getting lots and lots of generated blocks.  There were also forks and "forks of forks" as the longer latency nodes were not updated quickly enough.  Many transactions showed as confirmed, but were never received, including 1200XCR I sent to my windows wallet/node from Cryptsy (which still has not arrived and not shown in the balance on Cryptsy).

They then reworked the wallet/node to correct any forking at every block, but it did not fix the scaling issue.  Several fixes were tested, but were unsatisfactory.  Now we have hired a programmer who is very experienced in altcoin programing to write the algo, incorporating the PoT, PoI, PoP, and PoS in the algo.  

As a temporary fix, and to get the network up and running, we are now using a random method of picking forgers, just like NODE.  

Who have you hired? Secondly why do you need to hire a programmer to code the algorithm in the first place? Is it because the devs themselves can't code it? If so, how do we know that the devs even have the capability to code Custom Blockchain Support and other features planned down the line?

The hired person isn't coding. He is helping our devs with the algorithm design. This is a very critical part and needs to be done 100% correct, that's why several experts need to have their eyes on this.

Come on Wulf, no one can do everything.  There are times that there is a need to call in outside experts who specialize in a certain area.  IT is no different than medicine or law  Your doctor and lawyer refers to experts all the time.

I am sure, that given enough time our team could come up with a satisfactory solution.  But, since we are always thinking of the community,  a business decision was made to use some of the IPO funds to hire a specialist.  The time saved will benefit all.  

Your previous posts were all about "hurry up".  Now we "hurry up", and you not happy?

Yes, I realize my previous posts like many others here, were criticizing the slow progress being made, but my concern now is in the Crypti devs ability, or lack thereof, to deliver the rest of the features.

The part that confuses me is that you are hiring an outside expert to analyze an algorithm that has never been implemented anywhere else before, therefore the only real "experts" should be the developers who actually developed the algorithm. I don't know the specifics of the situation so I may be wrong, but you shouldn't be hiring an expert to write the whole algorithm for you (if that is the case).

The outside expert should only be hired to work on specific isolated issues, i.e. latency issues between nodes causing forks, not to re-write the whole algorithm.

[5000Bitcoins]

I agree 100% - I would move towards SUPERNET at this time as well. I have lost confidence in the technical ability of the team here - I hold only because that was my strategy all along, hold no matter what.

I'm willing to go down with the ship and I'm curious to see how passive everything seems with this protocol - I'm sure people are trying very hard behind the scenes, but it appears that this team just DOESN'T have someone of CfB's ability to just will the technical issues into being resolved. The silence from the devs and missed deadlines just makes it seem like this project attempted to pull off a technical feat that the team is incapable of executing.

Read my reply months ago, before IPO and you will find me asking for more info on the algo and white paper - reason was to see what sort of technical solutions devs had in mind for the problems they wanted to solve, it became clear devs were not going to release an exact or specific outline of their algo and I bought in anyway. It now appears that there WAS NO defined algo at the time, only an idea of what the algo should accomplish.

Anyway, we now get real trouble! This coin might have no choice but to switch to PoS for the near future and bring in someone from the outside that can (maybe) get a working algo into place.

Best of luck to both the team and the bagholders (like me). I will hold on through.  

Well, it's good you agree on the part with supernet, because in my book it's a nobrainer.

But I disagree about the tech ability of the team. Maybe it seems like I am bashing at times, but I am not. I like the developers, and I believe in them.
But it's just my philosophy, that you should always have full faith in what you do and who you do it with, but there's always room for improvement, and always room for making stuff better. So I dont do the whole "Thats so good, this is so good, Wow amazing" when they do something good. but they know I respect them and their work. I just wanna tell them where they can improve or what not in my opinion.


That being said I believe ur questions about the most tech stuff goes through Boris to answer, he's not gonna give you indepth in english an explanation, I spoke to him yesterday and I understand why some stuff get lost in translation, but I don't doubt his ability for tech just 1 sec for his language barrier. And extra developer on PoT right now can probably shed a in depth explanation to things so you get that answered, and later they hire other devs too so it'll become better that way

But, with PoT, it's a long story you know? But if I wanted something that 100% proved to work 100% safe I would buy a clone of some coin. Sometimes they can't test everything before release, they can only test to some extent, and with new code, well, shit happends. Now they know where they are wrong and can fix it.
I don't think it's signs of weakness you know? I also don't believe it's a sign of weakness to take in someone from the outside, I mean, people were jacking off eachother when Viacoin got Peter Todd to do 5 summits. It's not bad news at all.


For me, I don't care about PoT that much because frankly for me, I don't comprehend it fully, I only know 1 guy forges, then he goes to the back of the line, so I cannot comment on it. For me, custom chains is interesting. What I was most of all proposing was a switch in their schedul where they would bake in supernet into it and let Boris code on custom chains, and let the other guy do PoT, so we can see chains in 2-3 weeks.

Joining supernet is not a sign of weakness as you put it, more so for me it's about getting developers to use custom chains and get more activity on every aspect.
Joining supernet does not make xcr, "supernet XCR" the plan which developers have for XCR it just makes it stronger and more used.

Going PoT > CC > ??
CCs are great and bottomline thats why were all really here, but will they be widely used this way?

That's why I proposed CC/snet > PoT because I believe in this order it can be all done in 5 weeks and then they can focus on the more things they want without people inquiring about things every single day. Why I am PMing them is usually because I feel a lot of people don't know what's going on you know?

They won't do that when the "idea" we invested in, becomes reality, then we can build on that.

Supernet isn't a "cheap trick" or to "get out of this baghold" if I wanted that, I would be kicking and screaming for developer to put up "buy support" with their ICO BTC. I believe in this and want it to suceed there isn't more to it, and I believe supernet would be incredibly good for XCR.

I'm like many of others in here, not in this to make a "quick buck" then I would go to Bittrex, and spam F5 on announcement section on BCT to jump on the next PoS BC clone.

I actually wanna contribute the way I can, to make the value (not price but it comes naturally) of XCR increase substantially and to strengthen it all across, because I've long wanted to get behind something different and make it happend. THe only reason as to why I don't really fancy joining the foundation, or for that matter categorize myself into some team of sorts is that I'm just an entrepreneur outside crypto, and I have real problems working for someone else period.

But to say the tech team sucks or whatever, it's just new code n all that, even Satoshi wrote shitty code in start that had to be fixed, today theres 1 bilion stupid alts built on the same clone, ofcourse they are 100% bulletproof when code has been worked on since 2009, that's why XCR tries something different, fine PoT did not work as they planned but they're fixing it, not weakness since they know where it's wrong and it will be dealt with, but still, I have laid out my arguments for supernet as it can be done before PoT, and CCs can be done before PoT, and its not about "HELPING" XCR because XCR doesnt need "Help" it's just fucking good all around for XCR you know? It's not a hailmary pass, it just fits very good to both supernet and XCR.

Also what you're right on is that nobody can tell me why it would be bad = ) and if something does come up I can bet my left leg the good outweighs the bad 100 to 1. The only thing I can see is just personal grudges standing in the way for something that would substantially benefit= the XCR network, the forgers, the developers, exposure, new developers building with CCs, the supernet network, the investors on both sides, etc.

So you know, to me it's pure insanity, I can bet anyone who tells it's bad haven't read more than 3 paragraphs or they bring up something personal.

I have yet to see a single person tell me why it's bad for XCR (because it isn't, it's insanely good)
It's just the troll level of arguments "its jl, its bad" "its cheap" "its just pump" with no underlying reasoning at all, because these people don't really care about the project anyway. they've just decided "ok I dont like this guy, so I am not even gonna read this, I'm just gonna assume it sucks, oh and I am gonna tell people it does too."

It's just the general consensus of the crypto community as a whole to try to bring down promising projects because they can't stand watching "some" people they deem is not eligible to making money, make money. As most thing businessdeals would have it, often when you make a deal, it will benefit you, but also benefit the one you do it with, usually both ends feel they are making the best deal, else there would be no partnerships.


How I've come up to the conclusion that it's somehow personal is the reason why that's the only reason I can think of because there are nothing else that makes sense. Which is kind of ironic, because it really does not matter if it'd be jl, clint eastwood, justin bieber or britney spears behind supernet.. there's like probably 20-30 different developers involved in and outside of it and several other coincommunities.


And if that is the stance XCR wants to take, it's very unfortunate, since ethereum is coming out with something similar (?) the only real advantage XCR has is time to form a community and follow their timeline, and with SuperNET it is a great step forward to do so.
Since they also raised 30,000+ BTC, it's not going to be money or amount of developers at disposal.

I think it's time to recognize that, we don't have endless amounts of time to be first on the market what Crypti aims to do.
Even if it's closed source, someone is going to do it sooner or later and then the only thing that will stick is if it has a good community.

There's just no excuse not to expand the network so we are creating a headstart for ourselves if someone else comes by tomorrow.

It's not about: "well at that point we let competitors worry about us" I am just saying it's the right decision to make.

[5000Bitcoins]

Cryptsi team is still here, and our loyal gang of 8 bloggers, and 4 trolls.

Just curious, do you consider me a blogger or a troll?  

Seriously, this is a problem.  Once you've fallen off the radar it's hard to get the attention of potential users again.  At the very least there should be an effort to identify a (big) list of cryptocoin journalists and a plan to contact them via email with the Incredible Crypti Return From The Dead story.  Hopefully by Halloween.

Taking a part the red and yellow text I usually like what you write, it's different, although often too much tech for me to fully grasp it



Personally I am probably inbetween, having trying to quit smoking cigarettes the last few days I'm more edgy than usual! So apologize for that    

I have offered my opinion on going customchains/supernet > PoT as customchains don't have much work on it left, I have spoken good about supernet several times and I still hold that view that it will give much more exposure than contacting a few journalists.

If customchains were to be done in 2-3 weeks it would offer significant features

XCR gains > exposure, more users, more transactions, and the XCR user has chance to use more features
what XCR "gives" > customchains feature. As for features that XCR can use by joining, there are a few mostly its good for exposure to network/activity etc,
But I think most importantly what XCR can use by joining is to get a large userbase to use their technology. (CCs)

So in short the only thing XCR really "gives" supernet is the custom chains technology which needs a userbase and developers anyway...
First exposure it would get? The 20-30 developers within supernet or around it with their respective coins..

I've seen it being discussed, but I just don't see where the downside it, there used to be a majority as to joining in the foundation, but seems like this is no longer the case.

"We don't have anything to give" This can be changed by changing priorities as I understand there's someone else working PoT right now.

As for making my case,  the only "downside" that I can possibly see in this from what I gather from foundation, is the portraying that jl777 is some big bad wolf, some internet gangster with millions of dollars of blackmoney stuffed under in his bed, running from the feds hiding in Argentina because he's a mad bad criminal (rly?) when in reality, he's probably just some pale faced teenagergeek who's been coding 16 hours a day since early december for NXT.

I think the even most bizarre part is all these stories people throw around as truths are coming from a guy (BM) who's blackmailed people on this very forum, doxxed single mums trying to get them fired from their employees, stolen 100 BTC are are still here to professionally troll.
Read his first post about him, you'll find every word he says plausible, read 10-15 more and you'll realize he's batshit insane.


Not to go OT here but with all that being said, nothing will change as to joining supernet, it's not possible for jl to be able to do any damage to XCR anyway, even if he'd want. As for buying the 10%, I don't see how that's negative, if some whale would walk into here tomorrow and buy 10% nobody would care, if anything, snet 10% would get them motivated to push custom chains further, and add more value than any other private investor would for that matter

It just all seems to come down to making business decisions for this coins future over having disagreements over someones handle online.
Which to me, frankly, is kinda sad, I see no other reason to shut this decision out, since I've done research on jl and formed my opinion, it can't be a negative thing about his work, since like I have said he's running a lot of things simultaneously, and all of them hold value, working 16 hours a day for nearly a year now.

Why not invite talented developers, other coindevelopers to use customchains, when customchains is only worthwhile if someone is using it?
It just makes no sense to me.. I've been trying these last 2 days to figure it out, different angles and scenarios, but I can't for the life of me figure out why on earth this doesnt make sense to anyone else as the right path to go?


XCR doesn't become supernet, they can still do whatever they want you know?  All there is is some features across the platform a stronger network.. etc.
I am still scratching my head on this one.. just can't for the life of me figure out.
If it's turning down a good opportunity over personal bias... well it's too damn bad, because I fail to see who he is would matter at all for XCR.

And going snet/customchains > then PoT would be 110% best option.
There's just so much XCR stands go gain, and also supernet stands to gain. It's just such unrealistic how perfect the match is.

Also, if you think I am biased... I don't hold a single UNITY or any supernet asset, if someone gives me a way to prove it I will.
I just want what's best for XCR... really

Just doesn't make sense at all to me.. I just can't for the life of me figure out the reason as to why.
And if the underlying thought to all is that "NXT is a total scam!" the Coinbox is a brilliant idea, designed to you know... mostly work alongside NXT.. so theres that..

Makes no sense to oppose this, the more and more I think about it, the more it just messes with my mind.
Never in the history of alts have I seen such a partnership that makes so ridiculously much sense to me.

It's just like.. a business deal where the only thing needed from XCRs end to get all the benefits of the deal is like XCR is a newly started shoe store with no customers, and SuperNET is all the other shoe stores in town, and Supernet let you put all XCRs shoes in their stores and when customers tries it on and wants to buy it, they get the "No we dont sell it, you have to go to XCRs store to buy it. Sorry but it's right on 57th broadstreet.."

Some good points. In theory XCR has some great ideas and potential advanced technology at least with custom blockchains, but the problem is knows about it or cares.

Are you the only one pushing the superNET idea? Doesn't seem like anyone else even cares to discuss it.  I remember the devs were pretty against it about a month, but haven't done much since then to validate that stance.

We'll see what happens once the custom blockchain technology is released (if ever) and hopefully take it from there. 

I might be talking a lot about it, mostly because nobody can tell me why it would be bad. I am just thinking of ways it can be bad but come up with none.
Also I talk a lot about it because I believe it's the right way to go here.
When they were against it, it was because they didn't know how it would go (I respect that XCR was new back then) now they've seen it was a success and they seem to vote against it within the foundation and I can't figure out why. Still treading with caution? I'd say the time for that is way done for.
Bitcoin can be $10 tomorrow, Boris may get hit by a car when he walks to buy his daily bread, someone can hack BTER... you get my point.
It's like we don't want to take any "risks" until we already got a ten feet pole shoved up our asses so far up we don't have to worry about any risks anymore....
because there will be none to take. Jokingly and the dramatization aside you get my point.
I mean it's like, if we bet all horses on PoT and it *wouldnt* I think it will but lets say it wouldnt work out, the team has dug a grave too deep already.
To me, I can accept the technology part you know? It's new code! Ofcourse I can, else I'd buy a 100% safe Bitcoin clone #1932.
But if the hypothetical scenario would go as I have mentioned it wouldn't be because of just the tech it would be because of a string of bad decisions really.


And I think me and Bitseed like the idea very much, yeah.
Custom blockchain technology can be ready under the month, I know Boris has it nearly done for earlier versions but they want to wait after PoT to release it atm.

[IamNotSure]

I want to diversify, I bought in the past Ppc and nmc when they were really cheap, that's why I'm asking, I want to split some of my profits of the other coins.

[5000Bitcoins]

@ Wulf


To be honest, I agree with the part of being close source for a project of this magnitude it's required to be competitive if you're new to the market.


Also that being said I agree with the decision not to let CfB review it, as NXT guys are hungry, they would go far to increase the value of NXT, absolutely not saying that he would, but it's possible.
As they should, I don't blame them in this competitive unregulated space there would be no consequences to do so.
They even put traps in their code for potential cloners if I recall correctly? <- Although I am not sure, so let's not put weigh to it.
Also let's not forget they went OS after several months, so the comparison is a bit off.


Maybe the experts they brought in can do a review once done.

[rtrtcrypto]

I think you are deluding yourself - there is NOTHING for CfB to steal at this stage. He should be hired to attempt to FIX this thing! Guy can't steal his own solution (if theoretically possible in the first place).

Comparing this project to Satoshi (as you did in the previous reply to me) is insane IMHO - especially at this stage! Satoshi SOLVED complex theoretical problems. Crypti MIGHT have a working algo at some point in time - that it could not scale past 50 nodes means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not/did not work as a solution to the problems the devs were looking to solve AT ALL.

I'm not "bashing", this is a fact, period. They might pull this off (I hope they do) or they might hire someone that finds the solution (I hope they do); but, right now, it appears that nothing is guaranteed. Look, this stuff is HARD - I get that. There is nothing wrong with failing here, everyone should know that the goals are extremely lofty - but, I get the feeling that maybe people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are. They just assume this stuff is going to get solved because people are working hard - again, my original concern was that this was more of a "concept" than an actual algo that could function as intended.

Btw, I have no issue with bringing on outside help - I don't see that as a sign of weakness. I'm just hoping a solution is theoretically possible in the first place!

  

@ Wulf


To be honest, I agree with the part of being close source for a project of this magnitude it's required to be competitive if you're new to the market.


Also that being said I agree with the decision not to let CfB review it, as NXT guys are hungry, they would go far to increase the value of NXT, absolutely not saying that he would, but it's possible.
As they should, I don't blame them in this competitive unregulated space there would be no consequences to do so.
They even put traps in their code for potential cloners if I recall correctly? <- Although I am not sure, so let's not put weigh to it.
Also let's not forget they went OS after several months, so the comparison is a bit off.


Maybe the experts they brought in can do a review once done.

[5000Bitcoins]

I think you are deluding yourself - there is NOTHING for CfB to steal at this stage. He should be hired to attempt to FIX this thing! Guy can't steal his own solution (if theoretically possible in the first place).

Comparing this project to Satoshi (as you did in the previous reply to me) is insane IMHO - especially at this stage! Satoshi SOLVED complex theoretical problems. Crypti MIGHT have a working algo at some point in time - that it could not scale past 50 nodes means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not/did not work as a solution to the problems the devs were looking to solve AT ALL.

I'm not "bashing", this is a fact, period. They might pull this off (I hope they do) or they might hire someone that finds the solution (I hope they do); but, right now, it appears that nothing is guaranteed. Look, this stuff is HARD - I get that. There is nothing wrong with failing here, everyone should know that the goals are extremely lofty - but, I get the feeling that maybe people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are. They just assume this stuff is going to get solved because people are working hard - again, my original concern was that this was more of a "concept" than an actual algo that could function as intended.

Btw, I have no issue with bringing on outside help - I don't see that as a sign of weakness. I'm just hoping a solution is theoretically possible in the first place!

Not at this stage no, but that was not when he was suggested to look at the code for the first time which was what I was referring to, read what Wulf said "You could have countless experts, including Come-from-Beyond (which he requested to), analyse the code  had it been open-sourced..."


My analogy about Satoshi was mainly about new code not person. You see, PoT wasn't failing until different RAMs, internetspeeds, what have you came to play.
As it grew gradually, it experienced larger pains they could not have forseen everything of it in testing. You act as if they were wrong about everything off the bat.
They still have the idea, and know where they got it wrong as someone is working - not speculating on what's up - but working, on it now. You appear as if all is already lost, and "nothing is guaranteed" but the expert they got are currently working on it. If it were impossible, they would have no expert working on it.
He'd just say "ok this is impossible bye"
What I am saying is just that. Bitcoin was down, NXT has been down. It's not the end of the world.
All I personally want to talk about is that they reschedule their plan to get a userbase.
I don't think this is too far off an anology from what XCR experienced and are now strengthening? http://archive.today/Gvonb#msg26999

Also saying that "people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are." I think most people get cryptography is hard, writing code from the ground up is hard, yep. But you can't seriously state that in this particular case you happend to grasp how hard it infact is when it's closed source

[rtrtcrypto]

I imagine it obvious that, after seeing how long it took (decades) to solve certain problems in cryptography - that these sort of breakthroughs are not going to become dime a dozen. That's all I meant by that.

I don't think "all is lost", I'm just open to the possibility that this particular problem might not be easily solved. Like I said, I will happily hold and hope for the best - I'm not in a position (even if GIVEN the code) to contribute technically. I don't mean to imply that the team doesn't "stand a chance" or whatever... only, I want to be realistic. Things don't look particularly positive right now - I hope that changes for the best.

With that, I will withdraw from this tangent we opened - I don't want to clutter the thread with further speculation on my part. Best of luck to the specialist working on the code and to the dev team in solving the algo.
 

I think you are deluding yourself - there is NOTHING for CfB to steal at this stage. He should be hired to attempt to FIX this thing! Guy can't steal his own solution (if theoretically possible in the first place).

Comparing this project to Satoshi (as you did in the previous reply to me) is insane IMHO - especially at this stage! Satoshi SOLVED complex theoretical problems. Crypti MIGHT have a working algo at some point in time - that it could not scale past 50 nodes means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not/did not work as a solution to the problems the devs were looking to solve AT ALL.

I'm not "bashing", this is a fact, period. They might pull this off (I hope they do) or they might hire someone that finds the solution (I hope they do); but, right now, it appears that nothing is guaranteed. Look, this stuff is HARD - I get that. There is nothing wrong with failing here, everyone should know that the goals are extremely lofty - but, I get the feeling that maybe people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are. They just assume this stuff is going to get solved because people are working hard - again, my original concern was that this was more of a "concept" than an actual algo that could function as intended.

Btw, I have no issue with bringing on outside help - I don't see that as a sign of weakness. I'm just hoping a solution is theoretically possible in the first place!

Not at this stage no, but that was not when he was suggested to look at the code for the first time which was what I was referring to, read what Wulf said "You could have countless experts, including Come-from-Beyond (which he requested to), analyse the code  had it been open-sourced..."


My analogy about Satoshi was mainly about new code not person. You see, PoT wasn't failing until different RAMs, internetspeeds, what have you came to play.
As it grew gradually, it experienced larger pains they could not have forseen everything of it in testing. You act as if they were wrong about everything off the bat.
They still have the idea, and know where they got it wrong as someone is working - not speculating on what's up - but working, on it now. You appear as if all is already lost, and "nothing is guaranteed" but the expert they got are currently working on it. If it were impossible, they would have no expert working on it.
He'd just say "ok this is impossible bye"
What I am saying is just that. Bitcoin was down, NXT has been down. It's not the end of the world.
All I personally want to talk about is that they reschedule their plan to get a userbase.
I don't think this is too far off an anology from what XCR experienced and are now strengthening? http://archive.today/Gvonb#msg26999

Also saying that "people aren't getting how hard some of these problems really are." I think most people get cryptography is hard, writing code from the ground up is hard, yep. But you can't seriously state that in this particular case you happend to grasp how hard it infact is when it's closed source

[5000Bitcoins]

I imagine it obvious that, after seeing how long it took (decades) to solve certain problems in cryptography - that these sort of breakthroughs are not going to become dime a dozen. That's all I meant by that.

I don't think "all is lost", I'm just open to the possibility that this particular problem might not be easily solved. Like I said, I will happily hold and hope for the best - I'm not in a position (even if GIVEN the code) to contribute technically. I don't mean to imply that the team doesn't "stand a chance" or whatever... only, I want to be realistic. Things don't look particularly positive right now - I hope that changes for the best.

With that, I will withdraw from this tangent we opened - I don't want to clutter the thread with further speculation on my part. Best of luck to the specialist working on the code and to the dev team in solving the algo.

Ah I see. Well, our opinions differ on that aspect but where they align is on Supernet.


I, too, hope they solve the algo sooner rather than later!

[GreXX]

If you want to play this PoT game with large (apparently above 50 node) networks, then you have two choices.  Choice one, you can maintain one giant network where some nodes are "super-peers" in some kind of hierarchical tree structure that communicate directly with each other and only the normal peers that are under them, thus cutting down the number of peer-to-peer packet exchanges required.  Choice two, you can maintain numerous small networks (say 50 nodes each?) of equal peer nodes that are rotated in as appropriate to forge blocks when their turn comes - but somehow they've still got to get the blockchain results from the blocktimes the were not eligible to forge, an additional complexity.  

It's interesting to see that you had a very similar line of thinking to what I did. Both of these are possible solutions that I had written up and proposed as potential ways to build out a 2nd gen network. I was particularly fond of the second scenario and doing a rotating mini block for forging determined by a master node block that logged active peers and what subnet they were assigned to. It would be much easier to manage and could be organized similar to how something like DNS works in regards to having a consensus subnet peer list to prevent gaming. Unfortunately it was met by a lot of accusations of being too centralized.