We aren't bringing in outside help to write an algorithm from scratch or to code anything. They may provide pseudo-code at some point, but Boris is an exceptionally skilled programmer. Coding the solution isn't the issue, it's determining how to solve the forking and scalability problems. This may require us to develop a new solution, which is why we are bringing in an expert who has done code and security audits in the industry since MasterCoin, because they have a great understanding of how other coins have solved complex problems and also insight that we might not have. You asked us for action so we are taking it. It can never help to have extra eyes on.
Thanks for clearing that up GreXX!
Just a few more questions, hypothetically, in the event that both the team and the outside expert can't resolve the forking and scalability problems, what does it mean for the Crypti network as a whole?
- In that event is there a Plan B or does the temporary solution (random forging), become permanent?
- How would it affect features down the line? Would Custom Blockchains support still be a possibility?
- Are there any features that would have to be removed, or wouldn't work, with the temporary solution or if the forking and scalibility problems aren't resolved?
- Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
- How does the temporary PoT solution affect the other two algorithms (PoI & PoP)
Please don't take this as an insult or anything like that, I just want to take all possibilities into consideration.
Good questions Wulf and ones I would like to answer.
1. Is there a plan B if PoT isn't going to be solvable in the near future?
A. Yes, we have 4 additional possibilities for how to build the network out. Some involve the same PoT mechanic but incorporate master nodes and subnetworks for forging and consensus. I have proposed 2 possible plan B's, the current random algorithm is another, and Mike has also proposed 1 solution. So we have 4 solvable solutions ready that we have been discussing.
2. How would this change Custom Blockchains or future features?
A. It wouldn't. Custom Block Chains is actually something that we can build around which ever system we use. This is a feature that other coins could actually rip-off and implement down the road, which is why we have been sort of tight lipped about our code and how it works for now. As I mentioned, we were over half done coding custom chains prior to the forking issues.
3. Would there be any features that would not work with the temporary solution or an altered fix?
A. Well, this is a hard question to answer. All of the secondary market features, custom chains, etc will all still work. The synergy however might be a bit different. Let's call the initial perfect world PoT solution as the "Synergy System" because that was it's strength. You have a self replication and motivated network being build that rewards people for using and you build system around it that encourage use and increase transaction fees which in turn makes the network builders stronger and have higher earnings.
With the temporary solution and random rewards, or some of the additional solutions, the PoT algorithm and reward system will obviously be different. The key problem here is finding a way to make the algorithm and system equitably reward forgers so they can create calculators and understand the affordability of building out the network, and so we can predict how big the network will be at certain transaction volumes based on RoI. We should be able to predict at what point it becomes less profitable and how many nodes will likely exist at a given level. The only downside is that if the network is limited in size due to reward and we have say 200 nodes, does it become affordable for someone to build out 200 nodes of their own, provide the 1000 XCR, and fork the network. While we have precautions that we have built into place to avoid forks (which on a side note, the fork protection was causing some of the issues with people not forging because it didn't trust their requests due to timing issues), we still need to make sure that we take into account all possible attack vectors as we build out.
Also keep in mind, that in 1 of my solutions, much like BTT user MalReynolds discussed, if we switch to focusing more on the commerce side and to limit the ability to have rewards for individual users to just PoP rewards (similar to cash back), and focus on merchant point-of-sale terminals running the network, it would be a radical change and would still reach our goals, as initially described, but would change our system. The features in that type of situation would change because we would not be rewarding "forgers" and would instead be focusing completely on limiting any form of tx fee to merchants to truly create the first completely commerce oriented coin (with potentially 0% Tx fees).
So TL;DR, all features can still be implemented, but some of the intended Synergy could be altered.
4. Is it still possible to achieve all of Crypti's goals with the temporary solution?
A. See the 2 previous answers. I think that all of the goals are possible, but there is the possibility for a small hit to the synergy of the network as originally intended if we have to use say, a random algorithm as opposed to a predictable one. However, being random and unpredictable also has it's benefits and intrigues.
5. How does the temporary PoT solution (random) alter the PoP and PoI algorithms?
A. It doesn't change their functionality. We can still build them exactly as planned and the algorithms and capabilities don't change. They can interface in the same way with any of the possible PoT implementations we are discussing. While our primary goal is to have the network work as originally intended, we have spent considerable time designing, arguing, and diagramming possible solutions (which is part of why we have been so busy and a little bit more absent from the boards). The PoP and PoI algorithms and system are tied into one another, but the PoT is kind of a separate calculation with the result of PoP/PoI added in. We could probably combine PoP and PoI into a label like "Proof-of-Commerce" to make it a little easier to describe. So you take the calculation and weight from PoT and then add in the calculated weight added by PoC (which is like our cash back equivalent) and then you determine who will forge.
I hope that helps clear up your concerns and provide some valuable answers.
On a side note, we are assigning Eric the task of re-doing and improving our FAQ as well as getting it up to date (it still talks about the pre-sale!). These questions and previously answered questions will be great additions and if anyone comes up with other, relevant and answerable questions, I will try to take the time to sit down and give the best answers I possibly can.
