☷[ANN]☷BITTREX ICO☷ CLSTR ☷ ClusterCoin ☷ the Future of Money ☷ SOLD OUT!

[Essex343]

Can we please get someone that knows what the hell they are talking about to review this idea?  

Recap: Intentionally creating parallel block chains for speed
          Then the blockchain will check with the multiple parallel blockchains before the next block to eliminate double spends.


In the case of a double spend, how does the blockchain know which parallel spend is the correct spend.
How does this create efficiency if the block chain has to check with the parallel chains before it can post?  It seems even more inefficient than bitcoin.



QUOTE:

/QUOTE

This is my favorite part.  How in the hell do you know your balance in each ledger vs the other persons ledger who cares scam.

It is easy to imagine like this - separate forks are totally independent (like different altcoins). Nothing can travel between them. Once in a while you can send transaction between forks, but it must be confirmed by both forks. In theory there is no possibility of double spending.

[1715239898]

1715239898

[1715239898]

1715239898

[1715239898]

1715239898

[smackii]

Wow, such coin, so expensive

[Mainbrain]

ICO end ,left coin destroy?

[MystPhysX]

Hey the OP has images missing, Essex343 you need to fix that.

[ZacharyComstock]

Hey the OP has images missing, Essex343 you need to fix that.

seem to be bitcointalk problem. I'm seeing missing images in many threads

[BigNewsCrews]

Give me three sound reasons why this coin should be selling higher than Xcloudcoin which had an ICO last week for the same price but with only 1.15 Million coins in total? Why would I pay more for one CLSTR (when comparing satoshi value to coin total) when I can get one Xcloud for 31,000 Satoshi?

What do you actually offer here that works right now?

the fact they will buy all the coins back if they do not deliver

[mlord1010]

Can we please get someone that knows what the hell they are talking about to review this idea?  

Recap: Intentionally creating parallel block chains for speed
          Then the blockchain will check with the multiple parallel blockchains before the next block to eliminate double spends.


In the case of a double spend, how does the blockchain know which parallel spend is the correct spend.
How does this create efficiency if the block chain has to check with the parallel chains before it can post?  It seems even more inefficient than bitcoin.



QUOTE:

/QUOTE

This is my favorite part.  How in the hell do you know your balance in each ledger vs the other persons ledger who cares scam.

It is easy to imagine like this - separate forks are totally independent (like different altcoins). Nothing can travel between them. Once in a while you can send transaction between forks, but it must be confirmed by both forks. In theory there is no possibility of double spending.

Ok.. nice so separate forks buying and selling to each other will take even longer than bitcoin?  How would I choose which fork I want to mine on to make my transactions flow.  How do I know my coins will be on the same fork as my exchange.  THIS IS A HORRIBLE IDEA IF I EVEN REMOTELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

[c6m0h3]

Invested 3 btc so far and will do 7 more if everything works out

your out of your face, if you do the math this is a fail... unless the total coin cap is reduced by 50-60%...in doing that you securing the value of the coin and you look a little more honest than looking like a greedy person...besides if it did hit 7 million its a recipe for disaster so just doesn't make sense

I sincerely doubt it will hit 7 million

+1

My bad. Just saw you dropped it to 3.5M. Thank you for listening to your target audience

[wagter182]

Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but is the total coin supply 36m? Does this include the ipo? And if so isn't the IPO a tad overpriced?

[dandruff1138]

Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but is the total coin supply 36m? Does this include the ipo? And if so isn't the IPO a tad overpriced?

Shit I thought 3,500,000 was the total coins.  Yeah 36,000,000 changes everything. I'll wait this one out.

[Flam]

Back in the days ICO were an opportunity to get cheap coins, not a way for the devs to insta Lambos.

[mpalenciac]

Back in the days ICO were an opportunity to get cheap coins, not a way for the devs to insta Lambos.

hehehe insta lambos, but it's true, ICO's should be cheaper than what the market price is expected, just take VIA for example, the ICO was so cheap, I made over 6x on my investment. And I'm still holding a bunch of VIA after selling most of them.

[mlord1010]

Back in the days ICO were an opportunity to get cheap coins, not a way for the devs to insta Lambos.

hehehe insta lambos, but it's true, ICO's should be cheaper than what the market price is expected, just take VIA for example, the ICO was so cheap, I made over 6x on my investment. And I'm still holding a bunch of VIA after selling most of them.

seriously sys coin sold 750,000usd worth of ICO then launched a wallet that still said litecoin in it and had a broken block chain.  750,000usd for 15% of a broken coin!

[wagter182]

Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but is the total coin supply 36m? Does this include the ipo? And if so isn't the IPO a tad overpriced?

Shit I thought 3,500,000 was the total coins.  Yeah 36,000,000 changes everything. I'll wait this one out.

Remember Viacoin has a total supply of 92m so the ipo price is not totally absurd, however I feel the dev team and coin has to deliver big so that early investors see a healthy return (also some big name investors and some hype wont hurt either). So far from what I have read the dev team seems solid and very open to community feedback which is quite a breath of fresh air. I will be following this closely although I'm still not totally convinced of buying into the ipo.

I'm very open to anyone willing to try and change my mind. (Dev included)

[Essex343]

I am trying to understand the innovation this coin brings but having some trouble. You are essentially creating centralized points (clusters) from which to source the blockchain according to geographic location in order to speed up block confirmation times. The question then becomes how often do these clusters sync with each other. At one end of the spectrum if your clusters sync at the same rate as bitcoin there will be no appreciable difference in confirmation times except you will have potential centralized points of failure. Syncing less often will decrease block confirmation times but pushes the problem of forking on the blockchain from a single transaction level to a higher level where an entire cluster full of hundreds of thousands of transactions could be on the fork. Then when one cluster doesn't match all the other clusters during a sync those hundreds of thousands of transactions on the fork cluster will be invalidated.

Block confirmation time across clusters shouldn’t be compared with bitcoin block confirmation time, as within a cluster transactions will flow quickly regardless of this time. Transferring funds across clusters might take longer, but we don’t see this as a problem.  Current financial system works in a similar vein and we used it as a model for ClusterCoin.  Analog of a cluster would be a network of local banks (local payments are processed by local banks with a prompt transaction); across cluster transactions (served by sync blocks) correspond to SWIFT transactions.
Regarding fork risk of sync blocks – it is not clear that these blocks (which contain more transactions than an average block) pose more risk than any other block. What are you basing your claims on?

Also your statement from the ANN about sync blocks

"Synchronization blocks will be generated by pools located all over the world. In order to maintain high speed of block generation, those polls will maintain a direct connection to each other and coordinate each synchronization block generation. There will be no reward for this kind of blocks."

Not only is this extremely centralized but with no reward no one is going to mine sync blocks which are the most important block in your system.

I am sorry for this confusion; this was the part of old FAQ which was corrected in the White Paper but not in the thread. Sync blocks will be reward with a higher reward rather than zero reward. Sync block reward is still an open question in terms of how much rewarding it should be relative to a regular block.
 

EDIT: Also wanted to add the almost cavalier nature in which you treat the geolocation data that will be collected from all clustercoin users is troubling. In fact there will be very little difference between wireless carriers that use GPS to send your cell phone signal to the nearest base station and Clustercoin's geo-clusters. So the same tools of surveillance will be built within this coin from its inception and surveillance agencies can make easy use of it.

Clusters will not be managed by a central authority but rather by wallets themselves. Whether or not a cluster should be generated will be based on a voting by miners/pools. Comparison with wireless carriers seems farfetched.

[loges]

Please correct me if I'm not understanding this correctly, but is the total coin supply 36m? Does this include the ipo? And if so isn't the IPO a tad overpriced?

You guys need to spend more than 2 seconds reading and maybe you will not need to be corrected like children. Look at the block reward. 3. It will take a thousands of years to reach 36 million.

[sandpaper]

an·o·nym·i·ty

please fix the spelling on the OP towards the bottom. THe heading is spelled incorrectly thanks

[dijclarwin]

Block confirmation time across clusters shouldn’t be compared with bitcoin block confirmation time, as within a cluster transactions will flow quickly regardless of this time. Transferring funds across clusters might take longer, but we don’t see this as a problem.  Current financial system works in a similar vein and we used it as a model for ClusterCoin.  Analog of a cluster would be a network of local banks (local payments are processed by local banks with a prompt transaction); across cluster transactions (served by sync blocks) correspond to SWIFT transactions.
Regarding fork risk of sync blocks – it is not clear that these blocks (which contain more transactions than an average block) pose more risk than any other block. What are you basing your claims on?

From your ANN I assumed the syncing was needed to make sure the clusters all have the same blockchain data:

"each cluster will process transactions independently and then periodically synchronize transactions between geographic clusters."

That sounds like each cluster will do transactions in their specific geo-location and then sync that data with other clusters to make sure all data is available and correct at all clusters.

However now you seem to be saying that each geographical location will have its own blockchain and  sync blocks are only needed if one person travels from one geographical location to another, sort of how cell phone signal gets passed from base station to base station if you have a cell phone call while in a moving car. I am not seeing where the decrease in block confirmation time will occur then. If I introduce a different altcoin into each geo-location, they will have separate block chains and their confirmation times will be small only because I have limited who can be on that blockchain by geography. If I want the transaction data from another geo-location I would then have to search numerous blockchains, not just one. Also if one cluster is taken down for some reason the transaction data stored in that cluster will be lost. In fact you have similar points of failure and loss of data all over your network of blockchains.

Clusters will not be managed by a central authority but rather by wallets themselves. Whether or not a cluster should be generated will be based on a voting by miners/pools. Comparison with wireless carriers seems farfetched.

I happened to note you compared your coin to the modern banking system, one of the most centralized institutions we have. My ccomparison to wireless carriers is apt because somewhere in your coin's code you will need to have a list of clusters mapped to their associated geographical locations in order to be able to sync someone's transaction correctly to the correct cluster as they move from one geo-location to another. This is currently how cell phone towers work. That mapping is the holy grail for every surveillance agency out in the world today. With it they can track the geographical location where a certain transaction took place. You may argue that each cluster covers a large geographical area. This may be true at first but the more clusters that are set up, the less people will be covered by each individual cluster making it easy for data mining algorithms to find what they need.

[john1975p]

Just saw, Cluster coin already listed on Bittrex , just we don't trade.
Will keep an eye on this coin.

[Essex343]

Block confirmation time across clusters shouldn’t be compared with bitcoin block confirmation time, as within a cluster transactions will flow quickly regardless of this time. Transferring funds across clusters might take longer, but we don’t see this as a problem.  Current financial system works in a similar vein and we used it as a model for ClusterCoin.  Analog of a cluster would be a network of local banks (local payments are processed by local banks with a prompt transaction); across cluster transactions (served by sync blocks) correspond to SWIFT transactions.
Regarding fork risk of sync blocks – it is not clear that these blocks (which contain more transactions than an average block) pose more risk than any other block. What are you basing your claims on?

From your ANN I assumed the syncing was needed to make sure the clusters all have the same blockchain data:

"each cluster will process transactions independently and then periodically synchronize transactions between geographic clusters."

That sounds like each cluster will do transactions in their specific geo-location and then sync that data with other clusters to make sure all data is available and correct at all clusters.

However now you seem to be saying that each geographical location will have its own blockchain and  sync blocks are only needed if one person travels from one geographical location to another, sort of how cell phone signal gets passed from base station to base station if you have a cell phone call while in a moving car. I am not seeing where the decrease in block confirmation time will occur then. If I introduce a different altcoin into each geo-location, they will have separate block chains and their confirmation times will be small only because I have limited who can be on that blockchain by geography. If I want the transaction data from another geo-location I would then have to search numerous blockchains, not just one. Also if one cluster is taken down for some reason the transaction data stored in that cluster will be lost. In fact you have similar points of failure and loss of data all over your network of blockchains.

Each geo-specific cluster will have its own blockchain and sync blocks will be a single block with only cross-cluster transactions, i.e. there will be no info in sync blocks regarding within-cluster transactions. Therefore, there will be multiple blockchains that are separate and at the same time somewhat intertwined. This is not the same as having multiple alts as clusters are geo-IP targeted, i.e. with a specific IP you will be connected to the geo-IP targeted cluster and there will be no possibility to choose a cluster to which you want to be connected. It is similar to some extant how wireless carriers are operating. Cross-cluster transactions (from cluster A to cluster B) will not flow quickly as they will be served by sync blocks. However, there is no need to be connected to cluster B to send transaction to cluster B. 

Clusters will not be managed by a central authority but rather by wallets themselves. Whether or not a cluster should be generated will be based on a voting by miners/pools. Comparison with wireless carriers seems farfetched.

I happened to note you compared your coin to the modern banking system, one of the most centralized institutions we have. My ccomparison to wireless carriers is apt because somewhere in your coin's code you will need to have a list of clusters mapped to their associated geographical locations in order to be able to sync someone's transaction correctly to the correct cluster as they move from one geo-location to another. This is currently how cell phone towers work. That mapping is the holy grail for every surveillance agency out in the world today. With it they can track the geographical location where a certain transaction took place. You may argue that each cluster covers a large geographical area. This may be true at first but the more clusters that are set up, the less people will be covered by each individual cluster making it easy for data mining algorithms to find what they need.

Banking system is a complex system and some parts are working pretty well, others are bloated with regulation (capital adequacy, M2, collateral etc.). We think that payments systems are executed pretty well in banking and this is the part of banking that we are looking at.
The closest cluster will be the one with the lowest latency to cluster nodes and that will be the serving cluster. If one controls cluster nodes in various clusters one would be able to track down every person when clusters become sufficiently small, this is why it is crucial to have distributed node ownership network.