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

[GreXX]

Crypti is a long term project and from this point of view I think that the best thing that the team can do - is to keep the blockchain, not playing with supply, rollbacks, blacklisting wallets and so on. Like in the first BTER hack, when NXT community voted not to touch the blockchain.

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

From the teams perspective, we actually had a pretty strong stand off on initially going with 100 million or 1 billion supply and eventually chose 100 million after much debate. I am still personally trying to determine the actual long term or short term benefit technology wise that we would gain (outside of any monetary or valuation consideration, which shouldn't be the basis for any decisions).

[Sharky444]

Crypti is a long term project and from this point of view I think that the best thing that the team can do - is to keep the blockchain, not playing with supply, rollbacks, blacklisting wallets and so on. Like in the first BTER hack, when NXT community voted not to touch the blockchain.

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

They cannot keep the blockchain. It will be replaced by a new, incompatible one in 0.2 within the next 2-3 weeks. This is the only time where the duplication can be done without any difficulties, as you are changing the blockchain anyway.

[50cent_rapper]

Crypti is a long term project and from this point of view I think that the best thing that the team can do - is to keep the blockchain, not playing with supply, rollbacks, blacklisting wallets and so on. Like in the first BTER hack, when NXT community voted not to touch the blockchain.

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

They cannot keep the blockchain. It will be replaced by a new, incompatible one in 0.2 within the next 2-3 weeks. This is the only time where the duplication can be done without any difficulties, as you are changing the blockchain anyway.

They modify a consensus system, which essentially answers the question "Who confirms the blocks with transactions" That's all. But changing the coins supply shows that the XCR is not a digital gold (which is very hard to get) and like USD/fiat can be "printed from air" easily  .

I'm tottaly against this point of view  

Concerning the fees - I have no thoughts on it.

[Tobo]

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

There are many long term benefits for having a larger market cap. It is a better status on the market. Sure, some people will cash out just for the price sake. But When there is a seller there is a buyer. Because the price is relatively lower, there will be more buyers who can afford to buy. Therefore, the users pool of xcr will be bigger. We need to think the bigger picture.

[Sharky444]

Crypti is a long term project and from this point of view I think that the best thing that the team can do - is to keep the blockchain, not playing with supply, rollbacks, blacklisting wallets and so on. Like in the first BTER hack, when NXT community voted not to touch the blockchain.

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

They cannot keep the blockchain. It will be replaced by a new, incompatible one in 0.2 within the next 2-3 weeks. This is the only time where the duplication can be done without any difficulties, as you are changing the blockchain anyway.

They modify a consensus system, which essentially answers the question "Who confirms the blocks with transactions" That's all. But changing the coins supply shows that the XCR is not a digital gold (which is very hard to get) and like USD/fiat can be "printed from air" easily  .

I'm tottaly against this point of view  

Concerning the fees - I have no thoughts on it.

The data format of the new blockchain will be different too as I understand. It will not be a fork. In will be a new blockchain.

[GreXX]

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

There are many long term benefits for having a larger market cap. It is a better status on the market. Sure, some people will cash out just for the price sake. But When there is a seller there is a buyer. Because the price is relatively lower, there will be more buyers who can afford to buy. Therefore, the users pool of xcr will be bigger. We need to think the bigger picture.

Right, so you say there are MANY long term benefits, but then again revert back to the market cap argument, which is strictly a valuation based argument. Arguing that lower pricing brings in more buyers isn't necessarily accurate in a market where the currency breaks down to the 8th decimal place and they can still afford to buy in. It hasn't stopped anyone from buying 0.002 BTC just because that's what they can afford and it hasn't stopped any of you from buying in and supporting us up to this point. I am having trouble finding reasons to justify increasing the supply that aren't greed / monetary based.

On the flip side, you don't have the opportunity to do something like a stock split down the road and if at some point we feel like the supply IS too low, we are stuck with it after this point.

[GreXX]

Crypti is a long term project and from this point of view I think that the best thing that the team can do - is to keep the blockchain, not playing with supply, rollbacks, blacklisting wallets and so on. Like in the first BTER hack, when NXT community voted not to touch the blockchain.

I understand that you want to make money quickly (chaning one variable - get 50% RoI  ). That's totally unrealistic.

They cannot keep the blockchain. It will be replaced by a new, incompatible one in 0.2 within the next 2-3 weeks. This is the only time where the duplication can be done without any difficulties, as you are changing the blockchain anyway.

They modify a consensus system, which essentially answers the question "Who confirms the blocks with transactions" That's all. But changing the coins supply shows that the XCR is not a digital gold (which is very hard to get) and like USD/fiat can be "printed from air" easily  .

I'm tottaly against this point of view  

Concerning the fees - I have no thoughts on it.

The data format of the new blockchain will be different too as I understand. It will not be a fork. In will be a new blockchain.

Sharky444,

The only reason it is even possible to do right now is because we have to re-create the genesis block when we launch 0.2.0 as the whole network is essentially being re-booted. It wouldn't be possible again at a later date with our support, you would have to be launching your own network with our source code. We wouldn't ever be doing this again unless somehow DPOS ended up having some form of catastrophic flaw that no one has seen in the last year of testing that required another complete re-write.

All of that being said, I completely understand the opposition and also the negative response to the idea of some members. It was brought up as a suggestion however so we agree to discuss and vote on it internally which we are doing now. No decision has been made and the decision may very well be to keep everything exactly how it is. We will probably know after our meeting this weekend one way or another.

[Malibusparky]

Loving all this discussion and passion. And loving how into it the Crypti team is and responds.

I am also for "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
I believe only negative perception can occur from a change in supply.
Even though we are rebooting Crypti, a change in supply is a weak sign
and psychologically unstable in the overall perception of Crypti.

I'm still for much lower fees until someone can explain why .5% make sense.

[Tobo]

I am having trouble finding reasons to justify increasing the supply that aren't greed / monetary based.

On the flip side, you don't have the opportunity to do something like a stock split down the road and if at some point we feel like the supply IS too low, we are stuck with it after this point.

Congrats! You just found a reason that are not greed/monetary based.

Btw, How about we use Bitshares as the coin supply benchmark, since we borrow their DPOS?

[Malibusparky]

I am having trouble finding reasons to justify increasing the supply that aren't greed / monetary based.

On the flip side, you don't have the opportunity to do something like a stock split down the road and if at some point we feel like the supply IS too low, we are stuck with it after this point.

Congrats! You just found a reason that are not greed/monetary based.

Bitcoin will only ever have 21M and its doing fine.

Although I stand behind my statement that changing the total supply will have a bad perception,
I wonder if it still isn't a decent idea.

It all depends on Crypti's goals. Is it dreamed one day that every man, woman and child
will want to earn and spend Crypti? Then a huge supply is
better as average joe will not like decimal points.

Or is Crypti's goals less about micro payments and more about high finance and store of value
where as 100M is a perfect number.

[Vagnavs]

100 million coins should be enough for everyone. No need to increase the size. ..

[GreXX]

I am having trouble finding reasons to justify increasing the supply that aren't greed / monetary based.

On the flip side, you don't have the opportunity to do something like a stock split down the road and if at some point we feel like the supply IS too low, we are stuck with it after this point.

Congrats! You just found a reason that are not greed/monetary based.

Bitcoin will only ever have 21M and its doing fine.

Although I stand behind my statement that changing the total supply will have a bad perception,
I wonder if it still isn't a decent idea.

It all depends on Crypti's goals. Is it dreamed one day that every man, woman and child
will want to earn and spend Crypti? Then a huge supply is
better as average joe will not like decimal points.

Or is Crypti's goals less about micro payments and more about high finance and store of value
where as 100M is a perfect number.

This is almost exactly reflective of one of the discussions we have been having internally.

[Litoshi]

Loving all this discussion and passion. And loving how into it the Crypti team is and responds.

I am also for "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
I believe only negative perception can occur from a change in supply.
Even though we are rebooting Crypti, a change in supply is a weak sign
and psychologically unstable in the overall perception of Crypti.

I'm still for much lower fees until someone can explain why .5% make sense.

We can ALWAYS lower the fees, and have a happy community, BUT we can never raise the fees without a very unhappy community.

You guys have forgotten that we got Bter to lower their 1% fee to .5% and now .05%.  That alone has saved a lot of XCR for you all, including a major investor that had 5 million XCR on Bter.  That would have cost 50,000XCR just in the Bter fee to withdraw, but now it is only 2,500..... a savings of 47,500XCR.  

[Avrora]

Yeah, added supply makes sense (probably x10 or x 20), but 0.5% transfer fee is ridiculous.

Totally agree, I'd go for x100 though. As to .5%, this song is old as life. As I understand heavily loaded accounts will vote for their own delegate(s), thus scooping up transaction fees from entire network => getting richer. What if fees are lowered to 0.01%, do you guys seriously think there will be not enough wallets to fill 101 place? I would sign my AWS for even 0.001%

[Malibusparky]

We can ALWAYS lower the fees, and have a happy community, BUT we can never raise the fees without a very unhappy community.

You guys have forgotten that we got Bter to lower their 1% fee to .5% and now .05%.  That alone has saved a lot of XCR for you all, including a major investor that had 5 million XCR on Bter.  That would have cost 50,000XCR just in the Bter fee to withdraw, but now it is only 2,500..... a savings of 47,500XCR.  

I get what you're saying. Once a fee is established even if very low, if you ever raise it people will cry.
So better to start on the high side cause you can always lower it
Problem is I don't see how .5 or even .1% can ever be the fee for any crypto currency.

The Bter fee lowering was a great job. Even though I withdrew the majority at 1% and the rest at .5%.
But that has nothing to do with a hard coded .5% charged for all transactions involving spending Cryptis through the network.

Maybe with custom blockchains developers will build some really great stuff on Crypti and have a network effect advantage?
Therefore, just like we all have no choice but to go through bitcoin first, everyone will have to go through Crypti to access it?
So then a .5% fee would be accepted because there are things people need to access that are exclusive to Crypti.

If something like that were the reason for the .5% then at least I could understand the thought process.
Whether the community agrees would be another story.

I'm putting my thoughts whenever I have one out there so that like Grexx said, the team sees it all while making decisions.
I feel pretty confident whatever you guys end up deciding because you heard all the different sides.

I'm pretty much done on this subject. All I ask is for you guys to put yourself in the shoes of the typical
crypto user/speculator, the average Joe who loves his fiat, as well as delegates who will make the network rock solid dependable.

[Vagnavs]

Maybe want to lower the fee a bit. Somewhere in the middle, to make everyone happy

[Wulfcastle]

My views on the Fees

Fees

The current hardcoded fee of 0.5% is a bit to high, in my honest opinion. While I understand that PayPal and credit cards charge in excess of 2.9%, our main competitors in the crypto-space charge nowhere near as much as Crypti does percentage wise to make a transaction. Again I understand that the actual difference may be a small, trivial amount, however Crypti's fees are still higher than most other crypto-currencies, and it will likely be one of the first points of criticism from other people in the crypto-community.

The solution :

I propose the Crypti removes the hardcoded fee of 0.5%, to a variable based fee (based on user-input). For example when a user wants to send a transaction, all the user will have to do is enter their own fee percentage, much like in Bitcoin, although in Bitcoin the higher the fees, the faster the confirmation times (I'm not sure if this is applicable in Crypti). What this would bring about is that if there are people out there using the network they can also choose to add extra fees to support the 101 Delegates. Also if users arem't happy with their current fees, they can input their own amount.

As for blockchain spam, a very small minimum amount could be enforced eg. 0.001%, however if a minimum fee amount is to be enforced, do not go the NXT route where 1 NXT (in this case 1 XCR) is used as minimum fee to pay for everything. The reason being if Crypti does become successful and it's price soars (which I'm sure we're all hoping will happen), then that 1 XCR could be worth something. If Crypti's market cap reaches $100 Million (which is a possibility), then 1 XCR is equivalent to 1 USD. That's actually a pretty big amount if 1 XCR is going to be used to perform many actions on the App Store/Custom Blockchains/Virtual Machine.

For example on NXT's Asset Exchange, it costs 1 NXT to place a buy/sell order, if XCR hypothetically had an asset exchange and it enforced the same fee structure, then users could potentially be paying 1 USD to make a simple buy/sell order placement.

[Sharky444]

I am having trouble finding reasons to justify increasing the supply that aren't greed / monetary based.

On the flip side, you don't have the opportunity to do something like a stock split down the road and if at some point we feel like the supply IS too low, we are stuck with it after this point.

Congrats! You just found a reason that are not greed/monetary based.

Bitcoin will only ever have 21M and its doing fine.

Bitcoin is not doing fine. Initial sync can take two days, a single confirmation one hour, and it uses gigabytes of space. It'll be completely useless 10 years from now, and this is one of the reasons why it's at $250 instead of $1100 by now. It will be replaced by a lean system that loads within 20 seconds, syncs within a minute, and confirms a TX within 30 seconds.

[Tobo]

Or, set up a cap for the transaction fees, for instance 25XCR. So if a person make a large transaction he will not be charged a too large fee.

[MalReynolds]

Specific questions I would like discussed at today's dev meeting and hopefully answered here on the forum:

1. What is the proposed dev target level in US dollars of monthly minimum compensation a Founder will hopefully receive from user fees?  

2. What is the proposed dev target level in US dollars of monthly maximum compensation a Founder can receive that would trigger a dev reduction in user fees?

(Anybody risking 10K Crypti in an "election" to claim the reward between these min and max target values - and who must pay for a node out of his own pocket month after month if the target range isn't hit due to low Crypti value / traffic - deserves to know these numbers.)

3. What is the minimum user fee value that the devs believe would hold blockchain spam to an acceptable level?

4. Can the DPoS system theoretically allow Delegates to avoid adding a zero block to the blockchain if there is no transaction activity for a given time, this reducing blockchain bloat?  Will this feature be in 0.2.0?  If not, can it be added as soon as possible to 0.2.X?  

5. Can the DPoS system theoretically allow Delegates to temporarily halt forging when the blockchain hits a certain length and forge a new Genesis block that is cryptographically signed as valid by a large majority of Delegates, with the previous "bloated" blockchain frozen and archived on a public website for audit purposes?  Would this system adequately deal with "blockchain bloat / spam" and eliminate the need for a minimum spam reduction user fee?  Will this feature be in 0.2.0?  If not, can it be added as soon as possible to 0.2.X?