SuperNET Weekly No. 15

CORE and CORE Media were birthed out of the community which formed around the SuperNET project launched by jl777 in 2014. Now that many aspects of the project are finally coming together in fantastic form and usable products are just around the bend, we couldn’t be more pleased to help spread the word and keep our audience up to date on the latest happenings with this revolutionary project and its technology. Welcome to SuperNET Weekly!

SuperNET Related Assets on the Move

SuperNET, BTCD and other JL777 afflicted assets are currently on an upward trend. As Iguana draws nearer, there is a great deal of anticipation in the air. There has been talk of possible incoming BTCD news. Stay tuned!

JL777 – “There is definitely some news about a rumor of news.”

Mirrax – “Any Hint?”

JL777 – “https://github.com/jl777/SuperNET

WAVES Market Predictions

“My market price expectations are that WAVES price wont go below LISK price on any long term basis, but even using it as a floor, that is 2x ICO price. Using round number of $100 mil market cap is about 4x from ICO price (used to be 5x but is less now due to BTC rise and with BTC in hand, WAVES directly benefits from BTC rise). So a likely range of .0007 to .0015 to start with. However, if .0015 ($1) is breached then the next “comparable” is XRP. Not that you should even consider them the same category, but using the “what is this like on coinmarketcap” the obvious comparison is ripple, especially with the fiat aspects.

This is crypto so hard to say how long before the question of “is WAVES worth more than ripple” is answered. Could be a year, could be an hour. probably somewhere in between. Assuming the $2+ price is sustained then, well, the next comparable is way up at $20 level of ETH and that is a longer term ceiling and way too far in the future for any meaningful anything to be said. To even come close to that level WAVES would need to make a brilliant GUI, deploy all the envisioned services and have an ambitious long term roadmap.

Price will bounce around $1 to $2 for a while, with occasional panic driven spikes above and below this range. Trading advice, accumulate below LSK price, divest some above $2.5. Trying to day trade the short term swings, well good luck with that, there wont be any rhyme or reason for the very short term prices and you could well end up with losses.

One risk elimination strategy is to sell half at double the price, which in this case means to swap WAVES for LSK… So maybe sell one third at 3x or one quarter at 4x the price and then just wait for the higher end scenarios. After all if you recouped all your capital you can afford to be patient and the big wins are not achieved by day trading or quick profits, but long term hodl of good projects.

I have invested signifiant amounts in Siafunds, SYS, VPN, IOTA, WAVES, all the first 4 are 10x to 20x gainers” – JL777

Grewalsatinder pokes JL777’s Brain

Grewalsatinder

“Okay. If a basilisk node needs to check balance of an account, that query to network is obviously free. If any transaction needs to signed and done, only then Iguana full nodes get some fee. Is that correct? or is there any other time too when Iguana full nodes get fee from basilisk nodes? How much is the fee? Is it in percent or something specific?”

JL777

“For now I have it set to 0, but will default it to .0001 to match normal txfee. It would only be charged if the tx is actually signed and confirmed by network. It is possible other requests will also get fees, but whenever possible I will make it as transparent and painless as possible, yet enough to compensate the costs for running a server. Ultimately each server operator will determine as they will be able to set the fee they charge. of course if they charge too much, then other server operators will have a better price the basilisks will use. I think it is called market forces.”

Grewalsatinder

“When iguana starts it auto creates one default login, I think without password, not sure… and if I create a new login there in full iguana node, or may be more of these accounts, which account the generated fee goes which is generated by service basilisk nodes? Can it be set with some API call to collect this fee in particular account? Or collecting fee is not activated by default at startup and needs to setup through API and then it gets activated?”

JL777

“The address that is active when the iguana stakes the block will determine”

Grewalsatinder

“You mean btcd staking in iguana? So the fees feature will be active when btcd staking is available in iguana?”

JL777

“Still working out all the details. There is an active account for having need for privkeys, and so whatever that is will likely be what is used.”

Grewalsatinder

“I read time sequence server post again. If I understand correctly every time a timestamp to add a hash of something as a proof, a new address is generated by spending a mili bitcoin. And that mili bitcoin is never retrievable. It’s burnt. And as more of these are burnt the total supply of 21 million bitcoin doesn’t remain actually 21 million but lesser. As the price to put these timestamps is very tiny, it doesn’t feel any less if hundreds or millions of timestamps are done. I read this source to learn a bit of bitcoin timestamping: https://www.btproof.com.

But, with iguana childchains a merkle root blockhash is submitted to BTCD and BTC. Does that mean the fee which is collected by full iguana nodes to manage these childchains is to timestamp of blockhashes? Is that only one time the first time event or repeating event? Does that also mean using Bitcoin and BitcoinDark as time sequence servers we are burning very tiny part of BTC and BTCD to make and keep activating child chains?”

JL777

“It will cost BTCD to secure against BTCD chain, it will cost BTC to secure against BTC chain. By doing high frequency to BTCD chain and slower to BTC, you can minimize the effective cost. It will increase the number of BTCD txfees and its blocksizes, but what is a blockchain for if you dont use it. The fees are not burned, it goes to the miners/iguana full nodes. For private chains that have market value, it is possible to use DEX to autoconvert to the required BTCD or BTC, like I did with MGW initial deposits.”

Grewalsatinder

“Is that the case which is different because of the childchain feature is coded that way or is it a general behaviour of timestamping? Another confusion is with time sequence server there are 6 BTC blocks (1 hour interval) and BTCD blocks to get deterministically calculated “now” time. How are these childchains faster then?” Means as fast as in seconds? Or these are not?

JL777

“I don’t know how other versions did this as I dont think anybody else did exactly what I am doing. Child chain goes however fast it goes. Has confirms like any altcoin. When it appears on BTCD chain, it now has its own confirms plus BTCD confirm. When it appears on BTC chain, now it has its own confirms, BTCD confirms and BTC confirms. So it is like waiting 10 confirms vs immediately after 1 confirm”

Grewalsatinder

“In blockchain block generation time and number of transactions which are included per block determine it’s transaction speed. So, it’s BTCD confirm is first does that mean it’s speed is relative to BTCD block generation? If BTCD block generation takes 1 minute, the childchain is also 1 minute? Ahh…own confirms + BTCD confirms + BTC confirms. So own confirms is the initial time interval.

JL777

“The child chain does what the child chain does. Can’t control the children. They do whatever they want. Then when they feel like it, they post a timestamp.”

Grewalsatinder

“So, when childchain is created with API call we also mention what’s the block generation time ? like I create a childchain and set it’s block gen time to may be 5 seconds…is that the case? Or it’s variable?”

JL777

“Yes “blocktime” is a parameter. No guarantees it will always achieve it, but it affects the different targeting. But I am improving things in this area as so much will depend on its security.”

Grewalsatinder

“You also mentioned in previous chats that we can set childchains to set to NO Fees to generate blocks. In case I set childchain to work with 0 fee, and in it’s own iguana peers it is running independently, it’s own confirms are not secure? if not secure does that mean it’s transaction security falls on to BTCD confirms + BTC confirms?”

JL777

“Well if it isn’t charging fees and nobody is paying the BTCD nodes, then unless it is very occasional blocks, likely that the iguana nodes will just ignore it. However, the payment for these things can be done independently of the child tx. The fees would be market rate pricing. However, if a chain has enough peers of its own, then it can self-secure just fine, i.e it becomes like any of the hundreds of altcoins. I will support both PoW and PoS methods to secure private chains. But the default is delayedPoW.”

Grewalsatinder

“You said, “The payment for these things can be done independently of the child tx”. These independent payments are automatic too or manual?”

JL777

“For now, these are open issues. I think the easiest is to have a specific address for each privatechain. Then anybody could make donations to keep the chain secured”

Grewalsatinder

“Can I read about delayedPoW somewhere? Any discussions may be on some forum post?”

JL777

https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/. It is the time sequence server idea enhanced. Solving N@S makes PoS viable for mass market use and is a key part of the overall solution”

Grewalsatinder

“Yes, but I wanted to learn about delayed PoW, thought it must have been discussed or debated somewhere in forums etc.”

JL777

“Oh, maybe it was via private chat I had with anonymint is the only place with all the juicy details. You will see the C code for it soon enough.”

For more information on SuperNET and the work of jl777 and his team, please refer to previous SuperNET Weekly articles and our monthly CORE Magazine and be sure to follow the progress via SuperNET Slack or the SuperNET website.