Next-generation currencies tried to fix this problem with transparent forging and Proof-of-Stake based systems. While these next-gen Crypto Currencies were a noble attempt at solving the 1st generation problems, we believe they introduced several factors that will limit their long term growth and adoption. In an attempt to minimize the impact of these factors, we have decided to take a different route with Crypti.
-from your "WHITEPAPER"
Could you please elaborate on this? This looks rather vague to me, how exactly are these (other 2nd generation) systems "limited" in ways that you are bettering. Transparent forging is not even functional within the NXT protocol - I doubt you are privy to how it will work and what "limitations" it has or doesn't have at this stage.
Also, this "whitepaper" is not really a white paper at all - the term is being thrown around alot in these forums these days. I see almost no way to evaluate the strength of this protocol on what is provided here.
*edit - fixed text*
Thanks for taking the time to comment. The whitepaper sets aside a couple ways in which typical 2nd generation coins were limited. The main way, as I see it, and this is just me, is in the distribution of transaction fees. You mention NXT so let's use them as an example. In a typical PoS system, the main issue that exists is in the centralization of all of the wealth and earning power. A typical user will rarely ever forge a block, even with leasing their weight to a pool. The majority of the power resides in the hands of the original investors. Proof of Stake at it's core rewards hoarding. In the case of NXT in particular, several of the initial parties control the majority of the currency (as far as I know). When you are rewarding users based on how much of the currency they hold, it doesn't encourage spending, diversification, or innovation, at that point you have simply created a means for a few people to amass and hold small fortunes, making themselves more rich as time goes by.
That is why with Crypti, a new form of "staking" was sought out from the beginning. The PoT / PoC / PoI system was designed to try to eliminate hoarding and even encourage the opposite. In Crypti, users will be rewarded for helping to build out and secure the network by running nodes, but also for spending the currency to validated merchants. So for instance, if down the road DISH network accepts Crypti (like they currently do with Bitcoin), by spending Crypti to pay for your cable bill and get a real service, you are also increasing your weight and chances of forging a block. This is putting money back in your pocket for using the currency the way it was designed to work. The merchant is happy because they pay less fees than with typical transaction costs, and in the end, both parties win.
I see this thinking as a critical step into commerce based thinking and a step away from the amass and hoard fundamentals of a typical PoS system.
Again, this isn't the thoughts of everyone involved with the project, but my thoughts in particular on the matter. I look forward to hearing back from you on your thoughts and I would like to continue to discuss it. The best ideas and developments come from discourse and that is why we are all here!
Edit to add: Also, part of the reason the whitepaper is somewhat less technical was to protect the calculations and algorithms developed for Crypti. The second the information is public it can be ripped off. A proposal was brought up to allow trusted members of the community to audit the code prior to launch and I believe this is a great suggestion and I will push to make that happen. I know the whitepaper isn't very technical in it's current state but that is the reason why. We tried our best to describe as much as possible without giving out details that could be used to duplicate what Crypti is bringing to the table.
