[PRE-ANN][ZEN][Pre-sale] Zennet: Decentralized Supercomputer - Official Thread

[HunterMinerCrafter]

Hi HunterMinerCrafter!
Your connection to this coin makes me have more confidence on it,

That means a lot to me, particularly coming from someone like yourself!

however I see lots of aspects that are not yet clear and still undefined. I still wouldn't put my money on it.

I was extremely skeptical as well, at first, particularly considering the early design iterations were so rough around the edges.

However, having now spent many cumulative hours discussing (both zennet and a few other subjects) with Ohad both here and on IRC, pointing him toward materials on both the failed historical projects along these lines ("don't become another CPUShare" has become something of a mantra) as well as more contemporary research on how to overcome the problems they faced, reviewing videos and the slide decks from his various presentations on the project, and personally "half redesigning" his model myself along the way, I currently have very little skepticism left.

As his implementation work solidifies, my few remaining reservations should inevitably be addressed in due time, as well.

I pointed out earlier that even if he just runs off with initial investments we know well who and where he is.  People could just track him down and bring charges or beat him up or something.  So, if that is his intent, he has already made his work of a potential absconding very difficult for himself! 

See this:

8. The micropayments algorithm assures a frictionless (no fee, off-chain) transfer of coins every few seconds or even less.

Yes, my last response was probably a little too vague.  The payment model is a somewhat unique combination of on and off chain transactions.  What I should have said, to avoid ambiguity, is that there is no "off-chain accounting" involved, no centralized database of transaction, and all of the micropayments eventually (and intermittently) will end up on-chain.  In order to keep this convenient, the chain needs to be designed with a few particular considerations in mind (relatively fast block times, some specialized transactions, etc) which might potentially end up being at odds with the normal goals of an alt. (Wide adoption as a general payment vehicle, etc.)  Maybe these concerns can all be handled in a way that doesn't interfere with general purpose use, but this is not an explicit goal and if the model ends up not being suitable for broader use we shouldn't consider that any sort of failure or deficit of the implementation.

Another concern is how would the reputation system work.

There is not really any explicit reputation system, only an implicit disincentive to not maintaining a good reputation.  There is no recorded WoT or direct positive/negative feedback rating or anything of that sort.  The system only provides a means for something that you might call "proof of cheats" which can serve to devalue a particular identity.  Ohad has already described one part of this, providers can intermittently be given deterministic challenge work.  As providers have to attest (by signed communication channels) that their identity performed the service, simply disclosing a signing of such an invalid deterministic work session (wrong results or resource applications for the given problem) can prove to third parties that the provider has behaved maliciously by interfering with processes.

Secondarily, publishers will receive from providers something of a "signed and authenticated receipt" corresponding to each resource and correlated billing.  These receipts can trace each individual resource billing to the specific resource access "expected" in the work algorithms provided by the publisher.  If these receipts show unreasonable charges from a provider, that do not follow the constraints of the work, the particular work unit and receipt can be disclosed together which can similarly prove to third parties that the provider has behaved maliciously by attempting unreasonable billing that cannot be justified by the work published.  I'd probably say that the planning of the mechanisms for these authenticated receipts has been my primary contribution to the design, so far.  These mechanisms, themselves, are all prior art published by others, I just pointed Ohad toward approximately the right combination of technologies to make it happen.  (I originally called for the processes themselves to be authenticated in such a way that the providers never even *could* perform incorrect billing at all.  We decided that the overhead involved in doing so would be far too prohibitive so the design that is going to be employed is something of a compromise albeit a very good one.)

Similarly if a publisher succeeds to avoid payment on a service agreement this becomes visible as a traditional double spend.

(There might be cases where both events occur, too!  A provider might cheat and get flagged, and a publisher might divert their payment in response, and the provider might announce this act as a non-payment. In fact, this might even be the common scenario of disputes.  It would be up to the third party to decide how to interpret this.  Likely they would look at additional context to "pick a side" or if there is no such additional context they would simply proceed with both parties considered to be suspect until some more context is formed around one or both identities.)

Although it took quite awhile for me to see it, this sort of implicit reputation model actually seems to mirror "real world" service billing transactions much more closely than any explicit reputation metric ever could.

My concerns there are much less to do with the reputation model itself (which seems to be minimalist but sufficient, which I consider to be a great thing though some might consider to be a weakness) and more to do with the initial identity generation process.  If identity generation cost is too low then there is little disincentive to just "cheating anyway" despite knowing full well that your identity will get burned.  If identity generation cost is too high it impacts usability and adoption rate.

[CoinHoarder]

HI GATRA!

dpos has the drawbacks of pos while adding centralization.

I agree, and am/will-be trying to deter Ohad from going dpos over the course of our irc discussions.  I'm personally not as concerned with the "drawbacks of POS" (particularly in this case) as I am with the "adding centralization" but I understand that both concerns are quite valid.

@gatra - Can you describe what you consider to be "the drawbacks of PoS", because all PoS systems are different and have a different set of pros or cons. One drawback in one PoS algorithm may not be applicable to others.

@both of you - DPoS works under the realization that all forms of PoW tend towards centralization anyways, and it gives a way for stakeholders to manage that centralization. I see it as being better than PoW in terms of centralization.

PoW centralizes around centralized mining pools where users aggregate their hash power. For instance, with Bitcoin about 50% of the hash power is centralized to 3 Bitcoin pools. I would venture to say DPoS is less centralized than this, seeing as though there are 101 delegates that thus control less than 1% of the network's processing power. Furthermore, centralization is mitigated by being able to vote in and out delegates... stake holders choose who secures the block chain and if they are doing a poor job of it then they can be removed. This also provides another benefit as with PoW you cannot decide who profits off of securing the blockchain, but with DPoS you can vote in delegates that are developing code for the project, marketing, or building 3rd party services. It is a form of funding development for the cryptocurrency that uses DPoS.

If the PoW algorithm you choose, or you make a new one an Zennet is wildly successful, is a popular one then ASICs are sure to be made eventually as soon as it is economically feasible. This centralizes mining power to big mines which are setup in places where power is cheap and cold environments where the equipment can be cooled cheaply. Furthermore, people with deep pockets get advantages by developing their own hardware for a fraction of the cost consumers can purchase it and via bulk discounts. With DPoS this type of centralization will not occur.

If you had PoW, I see many cool forms of arbitrage happening: being a provider and "outsourcing" to cheaper providers, using coins to pay a provider to mine coins for you, etc.

Possibly, but it is likely that the system will be self-balancing such that the arbitrage smiles are very rare and short lived.  If a publisher could profitably mine with some providers' resource then rationally that provider would pull that resource from the network and instead apply it to the same mining process themselves for even greater profit - as they will not need to be paying some provider's fee on top.  In fact, this briefly came up in discussion just yesterday, after someone out there (and "out there", heh) mistakenly inferred that people might rent resource to mine bitcoins - in something of a decentralized cloud mining style - which is ofc highly irrational.

You guys bring up a good point here and this (although you don't seem to realize it) is another reason against PoW. Zennet will be renting out people's processing power, and it is foolish to think that the people renting out this processing power will not act in their best interests. The Zennet supercomputer could become unusable during times when mining is more profitable than renting out the processing power, rendering the service useless for a matter of time. With DPoS this would not be cause for concern.

The coin is degined for micropayments. I'm not sure (yet don't know) if it'll be economic or convenient or safe for other uses.

what does this mean? I can't think of any design decision that would be influenced by that, because... aren't micropayments handled off-chain?
You may want a fast block generation rate, but, what else?

No, the micropayments will be on-chain!  Precisely the reason that this system uses zencoin instead of bitcoin or othercoin is because it will require a chain specifically oriented toward facilitating continual micro-payments for accounted resource.

This was one of the most difficult points for Ohad to get across to me, but since he has I now agree with him... the particular nature of this coin/network likely makes it of lesser utility for general purpose use.  I'm sure it will still see general purpose use, especially for things like services/add-ons related to zennet itself but the architecture is being assembled explicitly without this being a design goal, unlike most coins.

It is ironic that all of these topics can be tied into DPoS... DPoS is more suited for micro payments than Bitcoin... as I said it is a fast and efficient consensus algorithm. Block times can be reduced to as fast as 10 seconds with an average confirmation time of 5 seconds, and each confirmation is more secure than one Bitcoin confirmation (or any other coin that is based off of Bitcoin's PoW). In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates.

I don't think DPoS should be written off as a valid option until all of the details are discussed. There is a lot of misinformation that exists about it and some are "set in their ways" so to speak around these forums as to PoW being the only answer for consensus. I know there are a lot of other people that disagree with this sentiment, although they might not be here posting in this needle in the haystack.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

@both of you - DPoS works under the realization that all forms of PoW tend towards centralization anyways, and it gives a way for stakeholders to manage that centralization. I see it as being better than PoW in terms of centralization.

Well, there is Spreadcoin but I consider the "jury still out" on it.  Possibly some "hardened spreadcoin" might work some day.  I might even try implementing such a thing before long.

PoW centralizes around centralized mining pools where users aggregate their hash power. For instance, with Bitcoin about 50% of the hash power is centralized to 3 Bitcoin pools. I would venture to say DPoS is less centralized than this, seeing as though there are 101 delegates that thus control less than 1% of the network's processing power.

My main concerns with DPoS (as distinct from PoS) are primarily that any centralization becomes a point of weakness so intentionally re-introducing it seems misguided to me, and that people tend to be lazy and often don't delegate in a way that will serve their own best interests.  Otherwise my concerns about general PoS are pretty well eumerated elsewhere (nothing at stake attacks, retroactive 51% attacks, etc) so I won't speak much to those.

Furthermore, centralization is mitigated by being able to vote in and out delegates... stake holders choose who secures the block chain and if they are doing a poor job of it then they can be removed. This also provides another benefit as with PoW you cannot decide who profits off of securing the blockchain, but with DPoS you can vote in delegates that are developing code for the project, marketing, or building 3rd party services. It is a form of funding development for the cryptocurrency that uses DPoS.

I consider these to be separate concerns, and conflating them may be downright dangerous.  In recent history of alt-coins the ones doing the developments are also usually the ones with the least interest in the well-being of the network!  In most cases it is the developers, themselves, who attack and destroy.  Why should we promote a model that just affords them even more facility to do so?

If the PoW algorithm you choose, or you make a new one an Zennet is wildly successful, is a popular one then ASICs are sure to be made eventually as soon as it is economically feasible. This centralizes mining power to big mines which are setup in places where power is cheap and cold environments where the equipment can be cooled cheaply. Furthermore, people with deep pockets get advantages by developing their own hardware for a fraction of the cost consumers can purchase it and via bulk discounts. With DPoS this type of centralization will not occur.

This is just a trade off, with PoS instead providing incentive to hoard.  I'm not sure we can reasonably call one or the other the "lesser or two evils" and should strive to avoid both problems.

Furthermore, there is some theory that PoS is actually not different from PoW, and one could imagine a "stake grinding" ASIC.  I don't know of any such hardware, but it wouldn't surprise me much to see.  From what I understand of DPoS it does solve the problem of stake grinding in general, but does so in a way that re-introduces both incentive for collusion and potential for Sybil.  (I have my own theories that this may end up putting DPoS back at the "wrong security threshold" of 30% (like any traditional consensus mechanism) as well!)

You guys bring up a good point here and this (although you don't seem to realize it) is another reason against PoW. Zennet will be renting out people's processing power, and it is foolish to think that the people renting out this processing power will not act in their best interests. The Zennet supercomputer could become unusable during times when mining is more profitable than renting out the processing power, rendering the service useless for a matter of time. With DPoS this would not be cause for concern.

Understand that the only monetary reward for providing the work would be tx fees, no new coin-base subsidies, so it is unlikely that there would ever be a time where mining work would be more profitable than providing service.  I think we can assume that providers (rational providers, acting in their best interests as you say) would apply only excess resource, that they are not renting out, toward mining.  As such, I think all that we can infer is that a PoW hash-rate might be of higher natural variance because of this, and little more can be said.

It is ironic that all of these topics can be tied into DPoS... DPoS is more suited for micro payments than Bitcoin... as I said it is a fast and efficient consensus algorithm. Block times can be reduced to as fast as 10 seconds with an average confirmation time of 5 seconds,

There is no real reason that block times in PoW couldn't be similarly reduced.  (Misconceptions about this abound, though, so perhaps I will need to say more?)

and each confirmation is more secure than one Bitcoin confirmation (or any other coin that is based off of Bitcoin's PoW).

How do you figure?  This sounds a lot like rhetoric to me, can you please expand upon your reasoning?

In the time it takes Bitcoin to produce a single block a DPOS system can have your transaction verified by 20% of the shareholders and by the time Bitcoin claims the transaction is almost irreversible (6 blocks, 1 hour) your transaction under DPOS has been verified by 100% of the shareholders through their delegates.

I'm not sure if this is a meaningful comparison.  These relative numbers seem rather arbitrary to me.... shouldn't any meaningful comparison account for relative network size?  Isn't any measure of security derived from a metric of participation?  (Can it be otherwise?)

I don't think DPoS should be written off as a valid option until all of the details are discussed. There is a lot of misinformation that exists about it and some are "set in their ways" so to speak around these forums as to PoW being the only answer for consensus. I know there are a lot of other people that disagree with this sentiment, although they might not be here posting in this needle in the haystack.

I think this sentiment arises mostly out of comparison of the "self evident" security of PoW versus the "implied" security of PoS.  We have now solid formal models around the relationship between PoW incentives and the relative security it provides.  We lack comparable formal treatment of PoS, though I understand there are those attempting to rectify this.  In other words, I think this is largely born out of "fear of the unknown" which may actually be a legitimate fear for Zennet to carry.

Finally, a simple argument can be made that PoS models are relatively new and not well "battle tested" where PoW has been attacked from pretty much every possible angle and has held strong.

Anyway, while this is all intellectually interesting I think it is possibly largely out of context.  Much of what we are discussing here has nothing at all to do with Zennet itself, and is just general discussion about PoS versus PoW.  I think this is a holy war that should perhaps be fought elsewhere.

[ohad]

do you have a github with some code?

It's still private. We don't publish it because of competition considerations and willing to protect buyers. Yet, we have published a lot of technological data, namely the whole design up to small details, which is quite rare. Hence we have to keep of some reasonable amount of protection against early competition.
Of course, all code will be GNU GPL or something like that, eventually.

[ohad]

HunterMinerCrafter and myself are at #zennet on freenode
all welcome to discuss Zennet

[NILIcoin]

If I may, I just dont get why do you think that the coin will not have a general use

Of course I do think it will!  I was just pointing out that where most coins treat this as a primary design goal, zennet treats this more as just a secondary concern and doesn't sacrifice other goals for it, which *might* end up making it less suitable for such purposes, for the reasons Ohad pointed out.

Note the following fact: assume we're using regular POW based blockchain. since we use rapid payments for small amounts, we can use short block time (say 1min), which will of course increase the probability of the risk of double spending, but the expectation of the risk is low since we talk about small amounts. hence, buying a car with zencoins might not be as safe as people regular to.

it's one point where taking care of the certain use might make the coin inadequate for other uses.

say the coin is working just like Bitcoin, just with short block time, and an attacker could tamper the network for one hour.  the loss for home pc will be no more than a few dollars worth, if not less than one dollar. This is an extreme case, of course, and might be even too extremely simplified to be possible.

Using micro payment actually increase security in means of payment. Yha each payment can be tempered more easily but if I use that  technology you develop  with the internet of things in the future' or just my car's computer in the present, my car manufacturer release  the car computer capability in increments as the payment process progress. Once the entire sum has been transferred the key in you hand get the activation code and you may drive away.  To secure the process of payments it can be spread on a longer period of time and in smaller increments which is not a problem for large purchases. You can even let the person take the car and deactivate the key if he never ended up paying...... Hey I may just crafted my idea for the future  TOYOTA Coin 

[ohad]

If I may, I just dont get why do you think that the coin will not have a general use

Of course I do think it will!  I was just pointing out that where most coins treat this as a primary design goal, zennet treats this more as just a secondary concern and doesn't sacrifice other goals for it, which *might* end up making it less suitable for such purposes, for the reasons Ohad pointed out.

Note the following fact: assume we're using regular POW based blockchain. since we use rapid payments for small amounts, we can use short block time (say 1min), which will of course increase the probability of the risk of double spending, but the expectation of the risk is low since we talk about small amounts. hence, buying a car with zencoins might not be as safe as people regular to.

it's one point where taking care of the certain use might make the coin inadequate for other uses.

say the coin is working just like Bitcoin, just with short block time, and an attacker could tamper the network for one hour.  the loss for home pc will be no more than a few dollars worth, if not less than one dollar. This is an extreme case, of course, and might be even too extremely simplified to be possible.

Using micro payment actually increase security in means of payment. Yha each payment can be tempered more easily but if I use that  technology you develop  with the internet of things in the future' or just my car's computer in the present, my car manufacturer release  the car computer capability in increments as the payment process progress. Once the entire sum has been transferred the key in you hand get the activation code and you may drive away.  To secure the process of payments it can be spread on a longer period of time and in smaller increments which is not a problem for large purchases. You can even let the person take the car and deactivate the key if he never ended up paying...... Hey I may just crafted my idea for the future  TOYOTA Coin 

The Micropayments protocol is of course not Zennet's invention, but taken from here.

[ohad]

The presentation from InsideBTC conference.
This one is from Crowd Computing conference a while before.

[HunterMinerCrafter]

The presentation from InsideBTC conference.
This one is from Crowd Computing conference a while before.

Did you get a cleaned up copy of the talk video uploaded somewhere, too?  I'm sure people here would love to see it!

[ohad]

The presentation from InsideBTC conference.
This one is from Crowd Computing conference a while before.

Did you get a cleaned up copy of the talk video uploaded somewhere, too?  I'm sure people here would love to see it!

well if one could sync the vid (which is currently way async) and cut from the screen irrelavant parts (it show some of my skype friends etc.) i'll be glad. will try to find one.
nevertheless, i can put audio only.
we also plan a public google hangout with me on video for people to come and ask questions.

EDIT: here's the video http://vimeo.com/111871002

[ohad]

Public Google Hangouts, with me answering Q&A, will take place at 11/11 21:00 GMT.
Soon a link will be published here so people will be able to submit questions before we go on air.

[gjhiggins]

Some economical aspects on Zennet (will slowly make this list longer):

As your project proceeds, you will likely need more support with your English: economic == the discipline, economical == thrifty. Fortunately, mangled syntax English robust against is. Except for 2. (below) where the tense makes a crucial difference in this particular context ...

1. If you hire 10 or 100 computers for the same task, the latter option will indeed run ~10 times faster

That statement makes an implicit assumption that the task is always amenable to parallel processing. Have you examined the range and depth of that assumption in terms of how much of the anticipated business depends upon it? Is it intended that the solution space be limited to such tasks --- or at least those tasks which are amenable to a parallel solution and can be identified as such, characterised and quantified in some reliable and accurate fashion?

FWIW, you don't mean "~10". The most favourable statement that you can truthfully make is "up to 10 times" and I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to provide solid support that ~10 is the general case and not, in fact, some difficult-to-quantify smaller subset.

2. Entities who buy a lot of Zencoins, usually do it in order to calculate something, hence spread them back to the people right away.

Can I just check (in case it's not merely a trivial issue of EFL) --- this is actually a forward-looking statement, a prediction of a future state rather than a description of an existing state? Because if it is a forward-looking statement, I'd really like to know how you got to “usually”.


Cheers

Graham

[ohad]

Some economical aspects on Zennet (will slowly make this list longer):

As your project proceeds, you will likely need more support with your English: economic == the discipline, economical == thrifty. Fortunately, mangled syntax English robust against is. Except for 2. (below) where the tense makes a crucial difference in this particular context ...

Definitely right. I apologized for my English several times here, and also pointed that some misunderstandings are because of my English. Yet, it's not that a disaster, since it's a discussion, and I guess the situation isn't that bad. One even answered that I have a good English. I disagree
At any case, the formal documents (like the About Zennet article) went through talented native English speakers.

1. If you hire 10 or 100 computers for the same task, the latter option will indeed run ~10 times faster

That statement makes an implicit assumption that the task is always amenable to parallel processing. Have you examined the range and depth of that assumption in terms of how much of the anticipated business depends upon it? Is it intended that the solution space be limited to such tasks --- or at least those tasks which are amenable to a parallel solution and can be identified as such, characterised and quantified in some reliable and accurate fashion?

FWIW, you don't mean "~10". The most favourable statement that you can truthfully make is "up to 10 times" and I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to provide solid support that ~10 is the general case and not, in fact, some difficult-to-quantify smaller subset.

That's of course correct. Sure there are limits for how a job can scale and with which efficiency. Zennet is indeed designed for distributed tasks only (both types you mentioned, if I got you correctly), as on my assumptions comment above. I might needed to put a few more ~~ and <<. It is indeed a rough estimation, just to draw the meaning for people not necessarily know much about distributed computing.

2. Entities who buy a lot of Zencoins, usually do it in order to calculate something, hence spread them back to the people right away.

Can I just check (in case it's not merely a trivial issue of EFL) --- this is actually a forward-looking statement, a prediction of a future state rather than a description of an existing state? Because if it is a forward-looking statement, I'd really like to know how you got to “usually”.

Yes, forward-looking, but less a prediction, more like a tendencies compared to currencies, stock etc.
English corrections accepted

[NILIcoin]

- Zencoin will NOT be usable or transferable until the launch of the genesis block with the official Zennet platform release.

- Ongoing Zencoin generation, similar to mining, is not planned for Zennet. Upon the launch of the genesis block, all coins will be distributed to their owners, except for 8 percent of the Zencoins that will be retained for the Zennet Team, and another 8 percent of the Zencoins that will be retained for community applications and bounties.

- An additional 4 percent of the Zencoins will be retained for supporting initial network growth. These coins will be spent on the network to create resource demand and incentivize the joining of new nodes during the early stages of the network. These coins will be fairly distributed to the network participants as they will be used to continuously rent computing resources until the coins are exhausted, in order to bootstrap fast network growth and early adoption.

- All other unsold coins will be destroyed when the official Zennet network launches.

I do like to spent a bit more time on that though the real importance of Zenet is in it being the first token-coin attached to  a service platform which operates soley on the token. Again, Ethereum present that same prospect but as a less advanced mechanism. The triumph of Zennet is that it actually managed to facilitate an almost direct connection between payment and service received. In other word it is like swapping service for a comedy without a third party involvement.Thus it cut the need to a contract carried out and enforced  by that third party. This type of direct contract, is the thing that has been achieved by the bitcoin  protocol. But so far had been applied only to direct transaction of the coin itself, not any attached service or commodity. Micropayment is in did not Zennet's invention' but linking it to a service that allow the exchange of a  commodity per time unit with a coin micro units and both being controlled by an algorithm secured and powered by the user community. that is the breakthrough to my understanding. (This which i came across and understand very little of, is some what similar in nature I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_transaction )

As I have said before, This evolution of the crypto-currency ecosystem will allow very soon to transfer information of all kind in quanta upon payment without involving a third centralized patry and that is a big step to humanity This allow for a true free market mechanism to set the price and facilitate  risk mitigation like in future commodity trade.

Now, since most people can not comprehend this in terms of the breakthrough that it is, or just dont understand enough like myself , you guys in Zennet have to device a better reward system which will encourage early investors.
The way you have constructed that is not offering early investors great enough returns on their investment. and thus might not be the best way to determine  the value of the coin. So I will suggest two option which are probably too complex to actually be perceived and execute. but I would ask you again to reconsider keeping more coin for yourselves after the sell ends. The community investors should not fear a Mastercoin event recurrence. Since your platform need the token for its operation, unlike Mastercoin for example.  Thus coins will regain value if the product is sound.

Option one:
Set the minimum price value of a coin ( say one coin is 8 cent) and have investor determine the number of coins rather the value of it. So if we had only $1000 invested then the number of coins will be only 80,000. It may sound dumb but this way you can assure that early investor in did have 10% of all coins, if having 10% of the coins is attractive to investors, which I think it's not.
(The "gambling" prospect you offer in you present model by not setting up the price is a turnoff point to serious investors, though would work for your benefit assuming you can create a good buzz, since most investors are gamblers.)

Option two
Since I dont think that letting the community set up the value the of coins is sustainable for you and definitely can leave you streaped out of good profit for your hard work, I would think that a coin reward system that  grant investors with more benefit the earlier they come in is the best strategy. Regardless of market price these investors should benefit in zennet coin on early investment  Thus for each coin sold on pre-sell, the investor is practically given a one time "present" of  one other coin once the genesis block is launched . All these pre-sell tokens can be issued on counterparty wallet and be transferable and traded before the genesis block issue. On counterparty you can issue these pre sell units in instalments such that the first Issued instalment is  grand the buyers with 2 real zennt per one tokent and the second instalment grant the buyer with 1.5 real zennet per token unit (each instalment will have to be  issued as a different token but this have no bearing on the real Zennt, For easy use you can name it something like pre-zennte-1, pre-zennte-2 and so forth )


 
   

[ohad]

- Zencoin will NOT be usable or transferable until the launch of the genesis block with the official Zennet platform release.

- Ongoing Zencoin generation, similar to mining, is not planned for Zennet. Upon the launch of the genesis block, all coins will be distributed to their owners, except for 8 percent of the Zencoins that will be retained for the Zennet Team, and another 8 percent of the Zencoins that will be retained for community applications and bounties.

- An additional 4 percent of the Zencoins will be retained for supporting initial network growth. These coins will be spent on the network to create resource demand and incentivize the joining of new nodes during the early stages of the network. These coins will be fairly distributed to the network participants as they will be used to continuously rent computing resources until the coins are exhausted, in order to bootstrap fast network growth and early adoption.

- All other unsold coins will be destroyed when the official Zennet network launches.

I do like to spent a bit more time on that though the real importance of Zenet is in it being the first token-coin attached to  a service platform which operates soley on the token. Again, Ethereum present that same prospect but as a less advanced mechanism. The triumph of Zennet is that it actually managed to facilitate an almost direct connection between payment and service received. In other word it is like swapping service for a comedy without a third party involvement.Thus it cut the need to a contract carried out and enforced  by that third party. This type of direct contract, is the thing that has been achieved by the bitcoin  protocol. But so far had been applied only to direct transaction of the coin itself, not any attached service or commodity. Micropayment is in did not Zennet's invention' but linking it to a service that allow the exchange of a  commodity per time unit with a coin micro units and both being controlled by an algorithm secured and powered by the user community. that is the breakthrough to my understanding. (This which i came across and understand very little of, is some what similar in nature I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_transaction )

As I have said before, This evolution of the crypto-currency ecosystem will allow very soon to transfer information of all kind in quanta upon payment without involving a third centralized patry and that is a big step to humanity This allow for a true free market mechanism to set the price and facilitate  risk mitigation like in future commodity trade.

Now, since most people can not comprehend this in terms of the breakthrough that it is, or just dont understand enough like myself , you guys in Zennet have to device a better reward system which will encourage early investors.
The way you have constructed that is not offering early investors great enough returns on their investment. and thus might not be the best way to determine  the value of the coin. So I will suggest two option which are probably too complex to actually be perceived and execute. but I would ask you again to reconsider keeping more coin for yourselves after the sell ends. The community investors should not fear a Mastercoin event recurrence. Since your platform need the token for its operation, unlike Mastercoin for example.  Thus coins will regain value if the product is sound.

Option one:
Set the minimum price value of a coin ( say one coin is 8 cent) and have investor determine the number of coins rather the value of it. So if we had only $1000 invested then the number of coins will be only 80,000. It may sound dumb but this way you can assure that early investor in did have 10% of all coins, if having 10% of the coins is attractive to investors, which I think it's not.
(The "gambling" prospect you offer in you present model by not setting up the price is a turnoff point to serious investors, though would work for your benefit assuming you can create a good buzz, since most investors are gamblers.)

Option two
Since I dont think that letting the community set up the value the of coins is sustainable for you and definitely can leave you streaped out of good profit for your hard work, I would think that a coin reward system that  grant investors with more benefit the earlier they come in is the best strategy. Regardless of market price these investors should benefit in zennet coin on early investment  Thus for each coin sold on pre-sell, the investor is practically given a one time "present" of  one other coin once the genesis block is launched . All these pre-sell tokens can be issued on counterparty wallet and be transferable and traded before the genesis block issue. On counterparty you can issue these pre sell units in instalments such that the first Issued instalment is  grand the buyers with 2 real zennt per one tokent and the second instalment grant the buyer with 1.5 real zennet per token unit (each instalment will have to be  issued as a different token but this have no bearing on the real Zennt, For easy use you can name it something like pre-zennte-1, pre-zennte-2 and so forth )

Please recall that this is only the first sale of only 10% of all coins. The sales after will be at a (much) higher price. So early buyers do have an opportunity for a significant discount now.
I think that the amount of coins kept for the team is enough, even after taking some margins.

BTW: http://thecoinfront.com/the-worlds-largest-decentralized-supercomputer-is-coming-soon/

[ohad]

Join the Presentation today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8mTCtv8d8

Please ask your questions during or before the event at our IRC channel: #Zennet at Freenode. Quick link

[unsoindovo]

Join the Presentation today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8mTCtv8d8

Please ask your questions during or before the event at our IRC channel: #Zennet at Freenode. Quick link

I lost the video. Mai ve we Have a date for the IPO?
Thanks

[ohad]

Join the Presentation today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G8mTCtv8d8

Please ask your questions during or before the event at our IRC channel: #Zennet at Freenode. Quick link

I lost the video. Mai ve we Have a date for the IPO?
Thanks

There will be no IPO but pre-sale. Pre-sale of a commodity, not a currency
Our lawyers are finishing the last steps. Give it a few days more. We will announce here the exact date.

[kjn311]

Please let me know when I can give you money. Take it just take it. This is amazing.

[mr.coinzy]

Looking forward for the presale!! FINALLY a chance to join the ship before it leaves the harbor! 
A year or so from now many people are gonna eat their hat for not participating earlier, I'M IN guys!