[ANN] SuperNET NXT asset 12071612744977229797, SUPERNET KMD assetchain in summer

[IMZ]

Learning the ropes on SAE. Reading patiently. Will hold Token as mid-term investment.

Mark (IndiaMikeZulu), Australia

[jl777]

just pushed github.com/jl777/libjl777

basically all files changed, almost having SuperNET fully coded, still some few things left that I hope to finish coding today
i decided to remove libwebsockets as being inside BTCD and the RPC path already working, no sense to have a redundant path
this also allows other coins to invoke SuperNET or even integrate to SuperNET via RPC, which is a much less of a change to existing coins. Adding a coin's unique functions to the SuperNET API is something that needs to be supported inside the libjl777

James

[apenzl]

just pushed github.com/jl777/libjl777

basically all files changed, almost having SuperNET fully coded, still some few things left that I hope to finish coding today
i decided to remove libwebsockets as being inside BTCD and the RPC path already working, no sense to have a redundant path
this also allows other coins to invoke SuperNET or even integrate to SuperNET via RPC, which is a much less of a change to existing coins. Adding a coin's unique functions to the SuperNET API is something that needs to be supported inside the libjl777

James

Nice. 

[apenzl]

Learn about some of the features going into the SuperNET core + their revenue streams from James' assets:
I just re-read a lot of threads and wrote in some additional info (still a few behind): http://nxter.org/asset-issuer-jl777/

There's some NxtInside / SuperNET background info in the ON TOP OF NXT series pt 2: http://nxter.org/meet-james-jl777-nxtinside-supernet/

We'll look at ICO summaries tomorrow. 

[jl777]

Thanks to a question by  swartzfeger, I realized I still havent added the "area code" for the SuperNET API calls. Its a bit confusing at the low level as there is the global pubaddr that each node publishes to indicate how people are supposed contact them. Think of this is a post office box, but it is one giant post office with everyone's public address.

The privacyServers are protecting your actual IP address, so this allows then entire SuperNET to contact each other without knowing any IP addresses of anyone. Of course, you will need to know the IP address of the privacyServer that people are using, but this is explained in the OP, so I wont repeat.

By using the privkey of the public address, it is possible to map uniquely from a coin address to a NXT address, so at the GUI level, users are just specifying what their public address in terms of their public coin address. The corresponding global address is generated without use of the NXT blockchain, it is just using the localhost API, so this is all possible without maintaining a NXT blockchain.

I now see why I didnt add the "area code" the API calls!

The reason is that this is something that can (and should) be transparent to the GUI and even the API. Since we have a global address, this lets us create a "direct" route (we ignore random onion layers) between any two peers and using the peerinfo gateway previously described, we can find the privacyServer to contact given a global address.

So, this is part of the explanation why I am writing so many posts. It is part of my coding process as writing things down clarifies things for me. I apologize if this is confusion, please ignore if it is not making sense

James

tl:dr I am close to code complete for SuperNET transport layer

[sussex]

Ok, thanks to all who gave further explanations.

I transferred 5 BTC to Bter yesterday in order to buy a stake, it still sits there as I ummm and ahhh over the decision.

These are my thoughts:

There does seem to be an awful lot of trust necessary for supernet to work. I know many of the names involved and have no reason to suspect any mal-intent by those names, but personnel will change and the temptation may well be too much to resist for someone one day. I appreciate that we put trust in coin devs everytime we invest, but the extension of trust required is several magnitudes larger and constantly needs updating with supernet.

There would also seem to be ample opportunity for insider trading, back room deals, supertraders going crazy and the like. Is there any way to police this behaviour or do we have to rely on people's honesty?

The assets such as MGW being part of supernet are probably the most complex part of this project. Do they have any direct relevance to supernet or are they bundled in purely as a profit generator? Could supernet exist without them?

The advertising sort of feels "tacked-on", it doesn't seem relevant to the project. I understand that it could produce an income, but would it be a worthwhile income? To me this seems rather incongruous and I struggle to see how it could produce anything significant.

As for multi-coin transfers, how much does this matter? To my mind, crypto users are looking for speed, reliability, security and, sometimes, anonymity from their currencies. How many coins already offer this? Will a more complicated wallet really increase the uptake of crypto? Wouldn't a new, well rounded coin make supernet unnecessary?

As for the transfers themselves, is there a supernet exchange or will multi-coin transactions require an outside exchange? If there is a "private" supernet exchange, then are we not a centralised currency? If it's a third party exchange, how can we be sure of covering price changes with a tiny transaction fee?

I have a load more questions, but that seems more than enough for now.

Please don't take this as fud, my 5 BTC still sits there waiting for me to pull the trigger. I do like the ethos of the project, but it's such an alien concept in the crypto world that I find it hard to imagine.

I'm a miserable sod...... always  looking for a downside.

Edit:

Writing this has settled my mind a little and I have put 1 BTC into it so far - just to make sure I have a foothold in it.

My feeling is that this is a 50/50 investment, but if it takes off it could be huge.

I'm on board 

[jl777]

barabbas from VRC asked me a good question and makes me think that we might not need to be authorizing any extra UNITY for working capital needs, at least in the scenarios where SuperNET is growing in value.

The NAV buywall is already authorized and assuming we will get weakhands to sell back at NAV, then this will be the extra UNITY that can be used. I am not sure what percentage this will be, but over time, I would not be surprised if it becomes ten percent. Like a stock buyback plan, the NAV buywall will be boosting earnings per asset while creating future working capital.

However, I think that creating a Keiretsu between the coins that SuperNET invests in would be a good thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu
If the coin purchases are a mix of BTC and UNITY, then this creates financial incentives for each community to enhance the value of UNITY similar to how SuperNET owning the coin incentivizes maximizing the coin's value.

cryptorestu

Just an idea. To be able to do this, it would make sense to issue some extra UNITY

Please think about this so when the time for voting comes the important questions have been asked and answered

James

[jl777]

There does seem to be an awful lot of trust necessary for supernet to work. I know many of the names involved and have no reason to suspect any mal-intent by those names, but personnel will change and the temptation may well be too much to resist for someone one day. I appreciate that we put trust in coin devs everytime we invest, but the extension of trust required is several magnitudes larger and constantly needs updating with supernet.

M of N multisig would require M of these trusted peoples to collude. If that happens, then crypto is doomed anyway and we might as well go back to the fiat slave states.

There would also seem to be ample opportunity for insider trading, back room deals, supertraders going crazy and the like. Is there any way to police this behaviour or do we have to rely on people's honesty?

From the investors point of view, maybe they like the fact that the supertraders have some advance knowledge. This is a concern though, if SuperNET is creating a signifiant amount of the news, then this gives the supertraders an "unfair" advantage. In the past I have posted the "inside knowledge" and waited some time before acting on it. In crypto, there are no defined set of ethics to cover this. If you want to form an ethics committee to make some guidelines, then you are welcome to do so and the assetholders can vote on it. We certainly dont want it to get to where the supertraders are just making all the profits to be made in crypto and leaving nothing else for the rest of the people. Do we?

The assets such as MGW being part of supernet are probably the most complex part of this project. Do they have any direct relevance to supernet or are they bundled in purely as a profit generator? Could supernet exist without them?

MGW is one of the few of my assets that are not part of SuperNET. SuperNET can certainly exist purely as a financial fund, like sharkfund0 was and most likely do quite well. I thought bundling some revenues would make it have both capital gains and dividends and potentially create valuations that would be impossible via just financial fund. If you calculate a penny a day per user and apply standard PE, remembering the overhead is really low. Why to remove this?

The advertising sort of feels "tacked-on", it doesn't seem relevant to the project. I understand that it could produce an income, but would it be a worthwhile income? To me this seems rather incongruous and I struggle to see how it could produce anything significant.

google tacked on context specific advertising, it seemed to do ok for them. Do you realize the value of the SuperNET demographic? Have you priced google clicks? If you are wanting to minimize the earning power of SuperNET, then we should eliminate the advertising. In my projections, the advertising is actually the most likely to be the largest contributor to dividends.

As for multi-coin transfers, how much does this matter? To my mind, crypto users are looking for speed, reliability, security and, sometimes, anonymity from their currencies. How many coins already offer this? Will a more complicated wallet really increase the uptake of crypto? Wouldn't a new, well rounded coin make supernet unnecessary?

This is like saying country X has all the things any body would ever want, so lets abolish all other countries. Clearly no. SuperNET is not a new coin. It is connecting the existing coins and their communities. I dont do GUI, so if the wallet is too complicated we must complain to the GUI peoples

As for the transfers themselves, is there a supernet exchange or will multi-coin transactions require an outside exchange? If there is a "private" supernet exchange, then are we not a centralised currency? If it's a third party exchange, how can we be sure of covering price changes with a tiny transaction fee?

SuperNET is not centralized and it is not a currency, so I find it hard to understand how you can think it is a centralized currency. The InstantDEX is the primary form of exchange that I am expecting. This is decentralized like the NXT AE and users will directly trade with each other. There is no third party. Just you and the other person. Think of the SuperNET as the telephone. You call the other person on their phone number and you make a deal, then a fax comes through on the phone to complete the deal. The telephone network is not centralizing you any more than SuperNET is centralizing any coin.

I have a load more questions, but that seems more than enough for now.

Please don't take this as fud, my 5 BTC still sits there waiting for me to pull the trigger. I do like the ethos of the project, but it's such an alien concept in the crypto world that I find it hard to imagine.

I'm a miserable sod...... always  looking for a downside.

I think these are great questions! Something like "All the questions I have about SuperNET but I was afraid to ask"
I am sure many are thanking you for asking them
If you imagine each crypto like a website before the internet, then I think it will make it easier to understand the SuperNET. It is connecting all the websites together, so now you can navigate from one website to another seamlessly. This ability then allows for advertising (tastefully done!) and aggregation of traffic like a search engine. The search engine page is not competing with the website, not at all, they both need each other and they both help each other.

James

[effectsToCause]

barabbas from VRC asked me a good question and makes me think that we might not need to be authorizing any extra UNITY for working capital needs, at least in the scenarios where SuperNET is growing in value.

The NAV buywall is already authorized and assuming we will get weakhands to sell back at NAV, then this will be the extra UNITY that can be used. I am not sure what percentage this will be, but over time, I would not be surprised if it becomes ten percent. Like a stock buyback plan, the NAV buywall will be boosting earnings per asset while creating future working capital.

However, I think that creating a Keiretsu between the coins that SuperNET invests in would be a good thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu
If the coin purchases are a mix of BTC and UNITY, then this creates financial incentives for each community to enhance the value of UNITY similar to how SuperNET owning the coin incentivizes maximizing the coin's value.

cryptorestu

Just an idea. To be able to do this, it would make sense to issue some extra UNITY

Please think about this so when the time for voting comes the important questions have been asked and answered

James

I think regarding incentives, accomodating human nature and balance of the system, this makes a lot of sense.

[jl777]

If anybody has any other ideas for voting, just post. The specifics will all depend on how much is raised, so I cannot know the exact things to propose, but the questions of the amount of core assets and whether to have some extra assets that can be used to raise working capital are ones that I feel are important to address before trading begins.

Suggestions for voting. Assuming c. 5,000 BTC collected and a goal of 10,000 total:
Temporary upweighting of SuperTraders' fund to 20%. Fund would keep some % of profits and return some to core reserves, especially BTC.
Upweight core asset fund to 15-20%, again temporarily. When 10,000 target was reached these could be reduced accordingly.
I would be prepared to forgo dividends for a while to ensure the strength of the project. Could additional shares be created at launch, which could only be bought using reinvested dividends? The preferential price paid for these would reflect early participation and deferred gains. My guess is that some HODLers would go for this. Others who want instant returns would not. Hence it probably needs to be optional.
Thus the early period would be riskier to some extent, in various ways, but would place SuperNET on a stronger long-term footing.

I can see how the supertraders can repay the 10% of the capital as this is an internal accounting matter and there is no urgency to changing the funding for the supertraders as it is just a matter of changing the allocation of the funds.

the urgency I see about the core assets are that once the total assets are finalized, it would require changing the capitalization. But once you issue an asset there is no changing the number of assets and any open market operation is not practical.

I personally dont mind if only 500 BTC of the core assets are in the SuperNET, but as a SuperNET assetholder, I am wanting a higher revenue level. Whatever revenue level is achieved with 500 BTC, 1000 BTC doubles this revenue level and so any valuation derived from revenues will also be doubled. Since we dont know what these revenue levels are we cant go crazy about this and maybe 20% is too risky. But if it turns out that the revenues are big and we didnt dilute 10% more to double the revenue based valuation and the market price, then I dont want any complaints from people saying that the SuperNET revenues are not double what they could have been.

This is why I am presenting this as an issue now, before the actual SuperNET asset is issued.
I hope that there can be some discussion of this between people that are not me so we can be sure to have enough points of view for proper deciding

James

[benthach]

how supernet going to rape other joining coins;

You're still not want to understand my point;
Say 1 coin have market cap of $1mill and a second coin is $4mil then soon both coins will be $2.5mil each. There is no purpose to join a Supernet if you want your coin to be strong and alive, only dying coin would join. This was mentioned as all coins would have all the futures that other coins have so no coin is different. Who is benefits the most? Probably NXT and BitcoinDark but other coins are just little pawns.

join supernet and get your coin and reputation rape. it's true only dying coin would join this scam.

[jl777]

[Proposed Change in Terms]

I would like to propose change the terms of the fund raising. I made an error in limiting the core assets to 10%, but it is impossible to know how significant this factor was in people's investment decision. In my mind, the SuperNET is optimal when it has the financing, revenues and advertising in balance and there is no way to achieve that based on the current funding levels.

I aim to solve this by guaranteeing to put into SuperNET a minimum of 241485 assets (24.15%) for all three core assets:

InstantDEX   241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   49   44.5   (has 30% of NXTventure) = 7.245%
Tradebots     241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   27   20    (has 18.5% JLH) = 4.46%
NXTprivacy   241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   40   39    (has 30% cryptocard + 60% Privatebet) = 7.245% + 14.49%

With 24.15% of each of the above three core assets, there is the following percentage that will be directly or indirectly owned:

InstantDEX 24.15%
Tradebots (NXTcoinsco) 24.15%
NXTprivacy 24.15%
Privatebet 14.49%
cryptocard 7.245%
NXTventure 7.245%
jl777hodl 4.46%

InstantDEX 10746082 NXT + Tradebots 4829700 NXT  + NXTprivacy  9417915 NXT  = 24993697 NXT @ .00008 = 1999.49 BTC
Current market value is right around 2000 BTC or around $1 million USD.

Now at current funding rate, this is about 30% of SuperNET, but I ask only for the following to be voted on. If this vote is rejected by majority, then my 2000 BTC of assets still stays and my percentage is the same at 10%.

If not rejected, 70% of SuperNET assets to match TOKEN and 30% of SuperNET assets are to be allocated as follows:

10% for the SuperNET account to be used for working capital, incentives/bounties, cryptoretsu, etc. These assets do not dilute the investors as the asset is owned by SuperNET itself and it will be used for maximizing the value of SuperNET

10% to jl777

performance bonus for jl777:
5% if Top 10* coinmarketcap is achieved before end of 2014
5% if Top 5* coinmarketcap is achieved before end of 2015
(*) must be at or above this position for a full 24hrs
In the event a marketcap milestone is not achieved, then the conditional bonus percentage would go to the SuperNET account to be used as above.

The maximum dilution with the above is 20% and that is only if SuperNET is achieving a Top 5 marketcap and a likely 10x. So, I am putting my money where my mouth is. It is possible to miss the Top 10 by year end 2014 and still achieve Top 5 by year end 2015.

My goal is to make sure SuperNET is as powerful as it can be and this requires balance. I believe that the above plan benefits the SuperNET assetholders due to the creation of a source of working capital and incentives and I hope that upon achieving the 3x and 10x that the marketcap triggers require will make everyone think of happy generous bonus, though its not really a bonus as I will have already put more than 20%.

If you are asking why I would do such a thing, the answer is that I do my best to ensure good results for people who trust me with their money. Even if this means personally putting in $1 million USD.

Now I do not feel that the SuperNET will end up imbalanced and this alone is worth it. Of course I hope that my proposal wont be rejected. If anybody sees some improvements to be made, please post them before it is too late! Unless there is an outcry against this proposed change I will enact it. Since this is a change totally in the favor of the people with TOKEN and they will decide whether to accept the change from 10% to 30%, I feel it is acceptable to do, even though fund raising has started. To prevent any sort of arbitrage against the NAV buywall, the NAV will be calculated excluding the value of the core assets and the number of TOKEN instead of UNITY. I believe that is the correct method.

James

[wittech]

Hi,

Have looked through a lot of talk to verify if VRC is going to be added to the supernet but I'm still not sure, so is it going to be on the supernet? Also is BTCD the only coin in the core?

Thanks in advance.

[torshammer]

Great questions in the post above Sussex. And great answers James. The "questions you were afraid to ask about supernet" observation is spot on.

[torshammer]

Hi,

Have looked through a lot of talk to verify if VRC is going to be added to the supernet but I'm still not sure, so is it going to be on the supernet? Also is BTCD the only coin in the core?

Thanks in advance.

VRC will be playing an important role in the supernet. Much more info in the VRC thread if you want to learn more.

[wittech]

Hi,

I have gone through the VRC thread and there is a lot of talk but nothing specifically saying it is part of the supernet, as per the supernet website "The only time you can rely on this is if I am posting an announcement" -JL777

I may have missed it in the VRC thread and there is obviously a lot of talk about negotiations and requirements but I just would like a clear answer if it is or isn't? 

Please/Thanks

[jl777]

Hi,

I have gone through the VRC thread and there is a lot of talk but nothing specifically saying it is part of the supernet, as per the supernet website "The only time you can rely on this is if I am posting an announcement" -JL777

I may have missed it in the VRC thread and there is obviously a lot of talk about negotiations and requirements but I just would like a clear answer if it is or isn't? 

Please/Thanks

There are many levels of being involved with SuperNET. four standard ones and a couple of non-standard ones. VRC is having a unique thing due to my preexisting personal commitments. If you have read the VRC thread, then it is not a mystery.

I am not here to be giving advices for making the quick money.
Anyway I posted a pretty lengthy post in this thread some pages back. It is like a treasure hunt, though the searching box is saving time.

So please do not ask me advices on specific coins, just subscribe to thesupernet.org newsletter for announcements

James

[jl777]

I can announce that I have made 5 deals in principle with non-coins. Some of these will require NXTventure funding request to be approved, others are revenue share deals and the last one is a really cool new tech joint venture. It is so nice when the smart guys are coming to me and we can work together to make the nice new tech. Especially when I am just for the advices

This I believe is my ideal role as I am able to see the connections across big "distances" and while I can code too, there are many who are more skilled at that. So, as I said in my Beyond Bitcoin interview that I had this feeling that many people will be helping me, this is already becoming very true. I am now losing count of the number of projects and people that are being involved with SuperNET.

Now I must get back to the debuggings. Not the most fun thing, but it is what must be done.

James

[benthach]

I would like to propose change the terms of the fund raising. I made an error in limiting the core assets to 10%, but it is impossible to know how significant this factor was in people's investment decision. In my mind, the SuperNET is optimal when it has the financing, revenues and advertising in balance and there is no way to achieve that based on the current funding levels.

I aim to solve this by guaranteeing to put into SuperNET a minimum of 241485 assets (24.15%) for all three core assets:

InstantDEX   241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   49   44.5   (has 30% of NXTventure) = 7.245%
Tradebots     241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   27   20    (has 18.5% JLH) = 4.46%
NXTprivacy   241'485   1'000'000   24.15%   40   39    (has 30% cryptocard + 60% Privatebet) = 7.245% + 14.49%

With 24.15% of each of the above three core assets, there is the following percentage that will be directly or indirectly owned:

InstantDEX 24.15%
Tradebots (NXTcoinsco) 24.15%
NXTprivacy 24.15%
Privatebet 14.49%
cryptocard 7.245%
NXTventure 7.245%
jl777hodl 4.46%

InstantDEX 10746082 NXT + Tradebots 4829700 NXT  + NXTprivacy  9417915 NXT  = 24993697 NXT @ .00008 = 1999.49 BTC
Current market value is right around 2000 BTC or around $1 million USD.

Now at current funding rate, this is about 30% of SuperNET, but I ask only for the following to be voted on. If this vote is rejected by majority, then my 2000 BTC of assets still stays and my percentage is the same at 10%.

If not rejected, 70% of SuperNET assets to match TOKEN and 30% of SuperNET assets are to be allocated as follows:

10% for the SuperNET account to be used for working capital, incentives/bounties, cryptoretsu, etc. These assets do not dilute the investors as the asset is owned by SuperNET itself and it will be used for maximizing the value of SuperNET

10% to jl777

performance bonus for jl777:
5% if Top 10* coinmarketcap is achieved before end of 2014
5% if Top 5* coinmarketcap is achieved before end of 2015
(*) must be at or above this position for a full 24hrs
In the event a marketcap milestone is not achieved, then the conditional bonus percentage would go to the SuperNET account to be used as above.

The maximum dilution with the above is 20% and that is only if SuperNET is achieving a Top 5 marketcap and a likely 10x. So, I am putting my money where my mouth is. It is possible to miss the Top 10 by year end 2014 and still achieve Top 5 by year end 2015.

My goal is to make sure SuperNET is as powerful as it can be and this requires balance. I believe that the above plan benefits the SuperNET assetholders due to the creation of a source of working capital and incentives and I hope that upon achieving the 3x and 10x that the marketcap triggers require will make everyone think of happy generous bonus, though its not really a bonus as I will have already put more than 20%.

If you are asking why I would do such a thing, the answer is that I do my best to ensure good results for people who trust me with their money. Even if this means personally putting in $1 million USD.

Now I do not feel that the SuperNET will end up imbalanced and this alone is worth it. Of course I hope that my proposal wont be rejected. If anybody sees some improvements to be made, please post them before it is too late! Unless there is an outcry against this proposed change I will enact it. Since this is a change totally in the favor of the people with TOKEN and they will decide whether to accept the change from 10% to 30%, I feel it is acceptable to do, even though fund raising has started. To prevent any sort of arbitrage against the NAV buywall, the NAV will be calculated excluding the value of the core assets and the number of TOKEN instead of UNITY. I believe that is the correct method.

James

all talking about the money and pump but the reality is no coin would join supernet scam, maybe a few no name dying coins which are useless.
i see this 5% or 10% going to jl777 pocket already   easy money. lol

[jl777]

[Dividend Announcement]

NXTventure will offer a 1:10 Privatebet dividend after the close of SuperNET funding. The ex-dividend block will be as of the close of the funding. Assetholders of record that block will receive the dividend.

For every 10 NXTventure assets you own, 1 Privatebet asset will be sent as a dividended. I believe this will set the record for the value of a dividend by a cryptoasset, as it is ~6 million NXT market value as I write this, or ~$240,000 USD

James