Bitcoin Forum

Alternate cryptocurrencies => Announcements (Altcoins) => Topic started by: 82ndabnmedic on March 21, 2018, 12:43:17 AM



Title: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 21, 2018, 12:43:17 AM
"Send & Receive Web-Based Micro-transactions (Payments)"



https://raw.githubusercontent.com/project-bitmark/art-of-bitmark/master/branding/128/bitmark-purple.png
Project Bitmark


MARKS - Incentivizing Content Creators & Building a Reputation Value Framework


    EXAMPLE:

    • Send and receive payment from a URI (uniform resource identifiers) verified as being ‘owned’ or ‘produced’ by someone
    • Bitmark uses ‘Linked Data’ technologies to significantly improve the number of transactions the system is capable of in any given time-period. This in-turn aids with scalability, usability and Applications possible for this technology, which is currently not be as easily addressed using traditional cryptocurrency technologies.
    • Marking provides a means to remunerate content creators, by adapting the intention of a ‘like’ or a ‘+1’, or other social-confirmation, into something that is valuable, transferable, and reputable.



    Incentivizing the Content Creator

    Bitmark enables the use of social-gestures and digital investments to create, establish and build monetary value in means that were simply impossible prior to the advent of Marking. Whether it be applied for providing recognition for a video you produced, shared or ‘liked’, through to new ways to pay street vendors, those authoring free software on the web, those seeking a low-friction way to license and distribute protectable intellectual property, organizations looking for a new way to establish a voting mechanism for administrative purposes or non-profit organizations seeking new, incremental ways to build or maintain their non-profit activities through social-engagement.

    The New Social Reputation Standard - Marking via "MARKS"
    Bitmark provides new funding mechanisms for funding products and services valued by communities.
    These systems can easily be applied to web-resources such as Wikipedia, via simple integration that supports simply ‘marking’ an article you’ve read or ‘marking’ Wikipedia itself as a resource you value. In-turn, these activities can be applied to modern Digital Reputation systems, which act in-turn to change network economics substantively.


    https://i.imgur.com/yliyTha.png
    https://github.com/solid/solid (https://github.com/solid/solid)
    Solid


    Solid (derived from "social linked data") is a proposed set of conventions and tools for building decentralized Web applications based on Linked Data principles. Solid is modular and extensible. It relies as much as possible on existing W3C standards and protocols....This is the framework Marking is built on.



    Marking and Digital Reputation


    Marking delivers a reputable benefit through the use of a public, digital ledger that presents transactions between entities with a secured area that enables notation in relation to the transnational event. These systems can then be further developed and applied, with an array of complementary technologies as to improve support for reputation marketplaces and complex reputational based value matrices surrounding a person's activity and presentation of their achievements, via the world wide web.

    Project Bitmark

    Created in 2014 as an every day use alternative currency, with No premine, No IPO, Nothing unfair, No clone, No old code bases, No untested code


    Bitmark - a stable and balanced cryptographic currency. Its primary objectives are to be safe, secure, fast, actively developed, and easy to integrate for services and adopters. (read more...)
    Marking - our massive adoption program which fuses reputation+currency, the primary focus of Project Bitmark. Marking enables people to apply crypto currency simply to every aspect of their lives. (read more...)

    Bitmark v0.9.x has been released, please update your clients to keep our network secure.


    Links
    Wallet for all platforms, and actively developed source.
    Summary of Project Bitmark
    Full Specification of Marking
    Wiki and Extensive Information
    Branding and Logos
    Bitmark Block Explorer alternative blocktree.io


    Pools
    Bitmark is balanced so you receive a fair reward wherever you mine.
    Active Pools: https://mp3.markmine.io (https://mp3.markmine.io)

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex (https://www.poloniex.com/exchange/btc_btm) :(Early 2018)Cryptopia (https://cryptopia.co.nz)

    Stats
    CoinMarketCap :
    Network API : Network Health Charts : Steady Price API for services which use BTM pricing

    Coin Specs
    Algorithm: Scrypt
    Block Reward: 20 BTM (visual)
    Block Time: 120 Seconds
    Block Maturity: 720 Blocks (~1 day) to discourage multipools
    Block Halving: Reward halves every 3 years, with intermediate decrease every 18 months (20 coins initially, 15 after 1.5 years, 10 after 3 years, etc...)
    Difficulty Retargeting: 720 Blocks (~1 day)
    Total Coin Supply: ~27.58 million (27,579,894.73108000 exactly)
    [/list]


    JOIN US ON:
              DISCORD (https://discord.gg/6zXPEQY)            SLACK (https://join.slack.com/t/projectbitmark/shared_invite/enQtMzM2MDQxODkyMDcwLTk0NWQ0OTMwY2IwZmU1YTlkZjNkN2NkNzUxYTE5YjdmMTBjYjZmNTZhY2RlMTRjNjlhNjg0YWQxNTViZDdlNmM)


    Title: Re: MARKS - Incentivizing Content Creators & Building a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 21, 2018, 01:29:45 AM
    Reserved for update


    Title: Re: MARKS - Incentivizing Content Creators & Building a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 21, 2018, 01:35:51 AM
     TO - DO:
    • -  And SOLID framework documentation...laymens understanding

      - Update information on multi-algo Fork

      - Establish MARKS as new Ticker

      - Provide updates on Poloniex wallet

      - Provide update on Cryptopia listing

      - Binance Listing

      - YoBit Listing


    Title: Re: MARKS - Incentivizing Content Creators & Building a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: phenixcoin955 on March 21, 2018, 04:00:45 AM
    Following this awaiting update! Thanks to the dev team!


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 21, 2018, 04:39:47 AM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on March 21, 2018, 11:56:56 AM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?

    It is good idea to have bitmark SLACK channel.

    Why do we need another thread?



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: lamongan12345 on March 21, 2018, 12:37:09 PM
    hy dev, happy to find your project. from the explanation about bitmark looks very convincing, if your project has been running from 2014. then how about your plan this one? will there be ico?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 22, 2018, 06:09:47 PM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?

    It is good idea to have bitmark SLACK channel.

    Why do we need another thread?




    Yeah....I think we can just delete users and open it up to new community members

    let me see if I can filter out users that have not checked-in to SLACK in over 3-6mon


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on March 22, 2018, 06:41:48 PM
    Bitmark is adopting an additional 7 Proof-of-Work algorithms, for a total of 8:

    ( SCrypt, SHA256d, Argon2d, Lyra2REv2, X17, EquiHash, CryptoNite v7, Yescrypt )  
    All algos governed independently by Dark Gravity Wave v3 in order to keep mining difficulty matched to hashrate.

    A block reward modulation protocol, Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM v0.1), will also be implemented which proportionately reduces the block reward if hashrate is low compared to recent hash rate peaks.

    Also adopting the ticker symbol MARKS (in lieu of BTM),  to emphasize the goal and nature of the Bitmark project.

    We are aiming to make some of the new Proof-of-Work algorithms being adopted merge-mineable with the leading coins that use them.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: closeyou on March 23, 2018, 02:47:05 AM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?

    It is good idea to have bitmark SLACK channel.

    Why do we need another thread?




    Yeah....I think we can just delete users and open it up to new community members

    let me see if I can filter out users that have not checked-in to SLACK in over 3-6mon

    Could you open a discord channel then all the people are interesting can join.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: TP911 on March 23, 2018, 02:53:21 AM
    Stay concerned. :)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: closeyou on March 23, 2018, 03:32:37 AM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on March 23, 2018, 12:38:46 PM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?

    It is good idea to have bitmark SLACK channel.

    Why do we need another thread?




    Yeah....I think we can just delete users and open it up to new community members

    let me see if I can filter out users that have not checked-in to SLACK in over 3-6mon

    Could you open a discord channel then all the people are interesting can join.

    +1 for discord.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Ruckenmark on March 23, 2018, 12:46:58 PM
    Hi! Where is the wallet?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: cryptomaster91 on March 23, 2018, 12:48:45 PM
    good job guys


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on March 23, 2018, 02:42:56 PM
    Hi! Where is the wallet?

    http://www.bitmark.io/, Downloads section

    or

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 23, 2018, 03:41:33 PM
    How does the community feel about a new SLACK Channel dedicated to bitmark & MARKS from this day forward?

    It is good idea to have bitmark SLACK channel.

    Why do we need another thread?




    Yeah....I think we can just delete users and open it up to new community members

    let me see if I can filter out users that have not checked-in to SLACK in over 3-6mon

    Could you open a discord channel then all the people are interesting can join.

    Awesome.... I'll create a Discord Channel... I should have it up by this afternoon./b]

    Thanks for the input guys keep it coming let's build this community up strong


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 23, 2018, 03:56:00 PM
    Additionally, I'll finish touching up the main ANN post....there is more info that we will be adding over the weekend


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 23, 2018, 04:52:56 PM



    JOIN US ON:
               DISCORD (https://discord.gg/6zXPEQY)            SLACK (https://join.slack.com/t/projectbitmark/shared_invite/enQtMzM2MDQxODkyMDcwLTk0NWQ0OTMwY2IwZmU1YTlkZjNkN2NkNzUxYTE5YjdmMTBjYjZmNTZhY2RlMTRjNjlhNjg0YWQxNTViZDdlNmM)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on March 27, 2018, 03:47:23 AM
    Deliverables Update: Future Fork


    In an effort to adapt and evolve with the ever changing crypto sceen, the Bitmark Team has taked the neccassary steps to secure the blockchain by adopting a multiple-proof of work system (augmenting the single Scrypt proof-of-work algorithm with Sha256d, Lyra2REv2, Argon2d, X17, Equihash, Cryptonite and Yescrypt, for a total of 8 PoW algos working concurrently to secure the chain) and replacing the every-720 blocks difficulty adjustment algo with Dark Gravity Wave v3.Several of the PoW algos will be merge-mine enabled, with VertCoin, Verge, ZCash and Monero, among others.  Since Monero is changing their
    PoW algo, we are waiting to adopt these latest changes before setting the proposed fork height.   The current official version is v0.9.5 and the fork which implements these improvements is v0.9.7 which will activate on or around May 3.

    Stay tuned for additional news & updates...Thanks


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: atila8 on April 03, 2018, 09:31:37 PM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: keobonggon.xigon45 on April 04, 2018, 09:52:03 AM
    I am very happy to see this project finally come to fruition, this gotta be one of the best thing that could have happened. I am very happy about this. Good job everyone! :)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: holylacross on April 06, 2018, 03:11:13 PM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on April 06, 2018, 05:53:14 PM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now

    We don't need YoBit now, when Poloniex has enabled BTM wallet.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: holylacross on April 07, 2018, 03:18:45 PM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now

    We don't need YoBit now, when Poloniex has enabled BTM wallet.


    damn thats the best news i've read today. not too sure how i missed that. meh to YoBit then


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: psycodad on April 08, 2018, 08:47:16 AM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now

    We don't need YoBit now, when Poloniex has enabled BTM wallet.


    damn thats the best news i've read today. not too sure how i missed that. meh to YoBit then


    As posted in the older BTM thread, deposits seem not to work yet. At least a few people complain (inlcuding me) that their deposits do not show up (mine was ~2days ago and has hundreds of confirmations).

    Make sure you test with a small amount before sending all your BTM into Polo-Limbo..


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on April 08, 2018, 06:45:42 PM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now

    We don't need YoBit now, when Poloniex has enabled BTM wallet.


    damn thats the best news i've read today. not too sure how i missed that. meh to YoBit then


    As posted in the older BTM thread, deposits seem not to work yet. At least a few people complain (inlcuding me) that their deposits do not show up (mine was ~2days ago and has hundreds of confirmations).

    Make sure you test with a small amount before sending all your BTM into Polo-Limbo..

    It works, but you have to open support ticket on Polo, and then Polo staff will increase you balance manually.
    I don't know why they are doing it manually, but that is procedure for now.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: H45H_t4g on April 09, 2018, 07:41:24 PM
    Bitmark now available on Cryptopia as well.
    https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: delarey on April 21, 2018, 06:31:05 AM
    Polo disabled the deposits again and stopped my deposit at 8/12 confirmations. Devs, what do you have to say about this one. I so want to believe in this project, there is just too much monkey business going on. Trading in a sandbox at both Polo and Trade by trade for a very long time now.

    c'mon devs, the idea is a great one. Please get this crap sorted out.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on April 30, 2018, 06:47:55 PM
    Polo disabled the deposits again and stopped my deposit at 8/12 confirmations. Devs, what do you have to say about this one. I so want to believe in this project, there is just too much monkey business going on. Trading in a sandbox at both Polo and Trade by trade for a very long time now.

    c'mon devs, the idea is a great one. Please get this crap sorted out.

    I believe the fork will sort these issues out.

    The Bitmark Project is aiming to release the fork code tommorrow, May 1 2018. (Could be a few days more, there are some details to be worked out yet.)

    Bitmark is adopting an additional 7 Proof-of-Work algorithms, for a total of 8 ( SCrypt, SHA256d, Argon2d, Lyra2REv2, X17, EquiHash, CryptoNite v7, Yescrypt )  each independently governed by Dark Gravity Wave v3 in order to keep mining difficulty matched to hashrate.

    A block reward modulation protocol, Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM v0.1), will also be implemented which proportionately reduces the block reward if hashrate is low compared to recent hash rate peaks.

    Also adopting the ticker symbol MARKS (in lieu of BTM),  to emphasize the goal and nature of the Bitmark project.


    Wallets will have to be updated.  New binaries have not yet been released, but everyone should update to the new Bitmark 0.9.7, (nodes & wallets) once the fork is published.  

    Stay Tuned ! ....


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Brooku on May 01, 2018, 08:23:33 AM
    Project looks interesting. I will be looking out for more information, let's see another opinion giving to this project & how this project will turn out.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: usercryptomany on May 01, 2018, 08:54:06 AM
    Quote
    Project Bitmark

    Created in 2014 as an every day use alternative currency, with No premine, No IPO, Nothing unfair, No clone, No old code bases, No untested code

    Bitmark - a stable and balanced cryptographic currency. Its primary objectives are to be safe, secure, fast, actively developed, and easy to integrate for services and adopters. (read more...)
    Marking - our massive adoption program which fuses reputation+currency, the primary focus of Project Bitmark. Marking enables people to apply crypto currency simply to every aspect of their lives. (read more...)

    Bitmark v0.9.x has been released, please update your clients to keep our network secure
    such projects , which have been working for several years, are credible . Looks pretty good . D closely follow your project, need more advertising project . My best regards


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: marufnang on May 01, 2018, 09:20:43 AM
    Any update for Cryptopia list?
    I join To a question.
    What with listing on cryptopia?

    Never

    Look at this line from topic starter post and do not say what you did not know about.

    Exchanges
    (PayPal -> BTM) : Poloniex :(Early 2018) Cryptopia


    lol the man isn't wrong. Bitmark was suppose to be listed on YoBit last month, but thats a joke now

    We don't need YoBit now, when Poloniex has enabled BTM wallet.

    As I said, bitmark was added to the cryptopia. Poloniex will enabled BTM wallet. Good news for project. I hope there will be no confusion with BTM and MARKS.

    This is a good news that this project already listed in those exchange.
    Hopefully the price will be increasing in the future.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 01, 2018, 03:23:39 PM
     Bitmark v0.9.7 will use the Cryptonight v7  algo as one of the 8 Proof-of-Work algorithms on the Bitmark Blockchain. Monero has made substantial changes to Cryptonight v7 (see "Scheduled Software Updates' section on Monero's github page).    
    These changes are requiring a bit more time to implement merge-mining with Monero. We anticipate it will be ready within the next 5 days.  
    Updates to the Bitmark fork (v0.9.7) are getting posted daily on github (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark), and once the fork is ready for mass adoption, the 0.9.7 branch will be merged with the master branch and ready-to-run binaries posted on the www.bitmark.io website.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: HashingRevolution on May 03, 2018, 09:11:46 PM
    Hi !
    I was wondering what's happening with the blockchain there is no block since 9 hours and of course my wallet can't sync.  ???



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 04, 2018, 02:57:43 PM
    Hi !
    I was wondering what's happening with the blockchain there is no block since 9 hours and of course my wallet can't sync.  ???

    What's going on is that the mining difficulty was driven up to 21212.01017410 Hashes/Nonce, which would match a network hash rate of
     about 760 GigaHashes/Second, but the network's hashrate is now averaging only about 11 GigaHashes/Second, so there are only  about 10  blocks being found per day; in short, it's because the difficulty is too high for the network's actual hashrate.

    This is a result of a difficulty adjusting algorithm which recalculates difficulty only every 720 blocks. Bitmark will replace this diff algo with the much more responsive and agile Dark Gravity Wave v3 in the upcoming hard fork, Bitmark version 0.9.7

    We are working on some final details of the fork code for Bitmark v0.9.7, which will fix these types of situations. It will be published and binaries posted in the next few days.

    -----
    Hashrate Equation
    for well-matched network hashrate and mining difficulty factor

    HashRate [hashes/second] = Difficulty [hashes/nonce] (Blocks_found/Blocks_expected) * (2^32 [Nonces] / Beta [Seconds] )

    Bitmark's Beta (It's interblock target time) is 2 minutes = 120 Seconds
    To find the network hash rate that matches 21212.01017410, we set Blocks_found = Blocks_expected, so that term equals 1.

    Network hashrate that would be required to match the present difficulty of 21212.01017410 Hashes/Nonce:

    HashRate [hashes/second] = 21212.01017410 hashes/nonce * ( 1 * ((2^32 Nonces) / 120 Seconds) ) = 759 207 416 501.4897186   Hashes/Second =  ~760 GH/s


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 04, 2018, 04:05:52 PM
    Bitmark v0.9.7

    Bitmark is adopting an additional 7 Proof-of-Work algorithms, for a total of 8 ( SCrypt, SHA256d, Argon2d, Lyra2REv2, X17, EquiHash, CryptoNight v7, Yescrypt )  all governed independently by Dark Gravity Wave v3 in order to keep mining difficulty matched to hashrate.

    A block reward modulation protocol, Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM v0.1), will also be implemented which proportionately reduces the block reward if hashrate is low compared to recent hash rate peaks.

    Also adopting the ticker symbol MARKS (in lieu of BTM),  to emphasize the goal and nature of the Bitmark project.

    We are aiming to make some of the new Proof-of-Work algorithms being adopted merge-mineable with the leading coins that use them.

    Timing of Bitmark v0.9.7 Fork Release

    At present we are working on enabling merge-mining Cryptonight with Monero. This has proven to be a bit more challenging than expected, because Monero is an original coin which was written from scratch, and only borrowed ideas, ( but no code), from coins before it.   Nevertheless, we expect this to be completed by early next week.

    Considerting a few more days for testing, final code review and to generate ready-to-run binaries for the major platforms (Windows, MacOS and leading Linux distros) it will realistically be a week or two before the fork is published.

    The fork's new operative rules will be set to take effect the sooner of either:

                                   a)  75% of the latest 100 blocks signal support for the v4 blocks of Bitmark v0.9.7
                                   b)  A arbitrarily chosen (yet to be determined) fixed fork-height is reached

    Thanks for your interest, and continued support. ¡ Stay tuned  !


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on May 04, 2018, 04:34:19 PM
    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    :)

    Hello Miners,
    You can try our pool for Bitmark (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    Server location in Germany
    Fee is 1%

    CONNECTION

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS

    FOR NICEHASH

    Code:
    STRATUM HOSTNAME OR IP:smilingmining.com
    PORT:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS,d=524288

    You can add as node too
    Code:
    addnode=smilingmining.com

    :)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 05, 2018, 12:36:30 PM
    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    :)

    Hello Miners,
    You can try our pool for Bitmark (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)
    ......
    :)

    Nice pool, thanks for posting.  

    Good that you support X17 mining, which is one of the PoW algos Bitmark is adopting in the upcoming fork, Bitmark v0.9.7

    As well as SCrypt, we are also adding Argon2, CryptoNight, Equihash, Lyra2REv2, Yescrypt  and good old SHA256d


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on May 05, 2018, 01:58:03 PM
    We like Bitmark and we are prepared to support most algorithms.
    Our team is waiting for v0.9.7.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: alexandermr091 on May 06, 2018, 04:11:19 AM
    This one seems actually quite interesting. Will be mining this on release.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nonux31 on May 06, 2018, 08:16:13 PM
    When will you rename the coin on poloniex ?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 07, 2018, 04:36:01 PM
    When will you rename the coin on poloniex ?

    Bitmark will still be called "Bitmark", but we are changing the ticker symbol to MARKS (from the old BTM).   Cryptopia.co.nz already has us actively trading and listed as MARKS.  Poloniex has been advised that we wish to use the MARKS ticker symbol and they will be changing from BTM to MARKS, but they replied that the change is not trivial and may take a while. Fortunately, at Poloniex there is no confusion as there is no other coin there which uses BTM.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: calvinwch on May 07, 2018, 05:20:26 PM
    can this pool mine to exchange?




    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    :)

    Hello Miners,
    You can try our pool for Bitmark (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    Server location in Germany
    Fee is 1%

    CONNECTION

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS

    FOR NICEHASH

    Code:
    STRATUM HOSTNAME OR IP:smilingmining.com
    PORT:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS,d=524288

    You can add as node too
    Code:
    addnode=smilingmining.com

    :)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on May 07, 2018, 05:30:16 PM
    can this pool mine to exchange?




    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    :)

    Hello Miners,
    You can try our pool for Bitmark (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    Server location in Germany
    Fee is 1%

    CONNECTION

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS

    FOR NICEHASH

    Code:
    STRATUM HOSTNAME OR IP:smilingmining.com
    PORT:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS,d=524288

    You can add as node too
    Code:
    addnode=smilingmining.com

    :)

    Currently we mine and payout only the coin you choose. Autoexchange is disabled.

    If your question is can you use market exchange wallet - yes, but only if your wallet address does not expire in time.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 07, 2018, 08:05:15 PM
    We like Bitmark and we are prepared to support most algorithms.
    Our team is waiting for v0.9.7.

    Thank for your support !  We appreciate it.

    We will be putting together a brief guide on mining all the algos for Bitmark, but if you help, let us know.

    db.keys


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Henry VII on May 08, 2018, 04:52:39 AM
    If i donate to BTM team 50,000 USD what u gonna do with it?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Nicholasa on May 09, 2018, 04:25:36 AM
    projects with ideas or ideas that will be needed in the future because it will facilitate the activities of someone later, for the sale of coins I think there is no problem and quite interesting because the price of coins offered is not too expensive, what is the target price of coins when listing on the exchange?
    egretia


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 09, 2018, 09:20:26 PM
    If i donate to BTM team 50,000 USD what u gonna do with it?

    My opinion would be to accelerate development of marking applications, improve online presence and social media outreach, as well as continue to modernize and improve the core software. 

    Naturally, someone with such a generous donation would have a big voice in how these funds were spent.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: pedrocoin on May 15, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
    Any news with the fork and new bitmark core 0.9.7?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on May 17, 2018, 09:32:00 AM
    We like Bitmark and we are prepared to support most algorithms.
    Our team is waiting for v0.9.7.

    Awesome...thanks for the support


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on May 17, 2018, 09:46:11 AM
    If i donate to BTM team 50,000 USD what u gonna do with it?

    My opinion would be to accelerate development of marking applications, improve online presence and social media outreach, as well as continue to modernize and improve the core software. 

    Naturally, someone with such a generous donation would have a big voice in how these funds were spent.

    Additionally,

    • we would seek to standardize our processes
    • Establish documentation &  wiki's, find talent to develop marketing content, secure marketing for the year
    • Find talent to develop marketing content
    • Design deliverables / time-lines, and content surrounding the management of the project
    • Broaden our reach, expand on our implementations
    • Secure at minimum 1 new platform to implement Marking
    • Secure marketing for the year


    transparency would be key...and as DBKeys stated stakeholder input would be taken into consideration


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on May 17, 2018, 09:52:29 AM
    projects with ideas or ideas that will be needed in the future because it will facilitate the activities of someone later, for the sale of coins I think there is no problem and quite interesting because the price of coins offered is not too expensive, what is the target price of coins when listing on the exchange?
    egretia

    looking at our history highs...I think 50K SAT is well within reason, and will be reached.

    price there after would likely need to be re-established as higher prices become the norm.

    Personally think we are way undervalued, but for obvious reasons...once development is stable and Marking is implemented, previous ATH above .001 are will within reach

    (this is not advice....just my take on the projects )


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: yapool on May 18, 2018, 06:28:29 PM
    projects with ideas or ideas that will be needed in the future because it will facilitate the activities of someone later, for the sale of coins I think there is no problem and quite interesting because the price of coins offered is not too expensive, what is the target price of coins when listing on the exchange?
    egretia

    looking at our history highs...I think 50K SAT is well within reason, and will be reached.

    price there after would likely need to be re-established as higher prices become the norm.

    Personally think we are way undervalued, but for obvious reasons...once development is stable and Marking is implemented, previous ATH above .001 are will within reach

    (this is not advice....just my take on the projects )

    I believe that in a long term, if the maximum coin supply remains the same as 27.58 million coins after the fork, Bitmark can reach well over 50K satoshis.

    As a mining pool operator I always build the wallet nodes from the source and, looking into the Bitmark source code, I can tell Bitmark development is following good practices, is well documented and is alive. The developers are working every week on new source code commits on the new fork.

    After the new fork resolves the issue with the high difficulty, the exchanges will be able to enable the wallets again and MARKS will be at the same level as much other coins available to trade. After that, when the first marking apps are implemented, Bitmark will become an useful tool and go far over 50K SAT.

    I do not read tea cups or see the future :) but I do know people accept to pay well for something well done and useful. Bitmark is well done and will be useful.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 20, 2018, 07:00:08 PM
    Any news with the fork and new bitmark core 0.9.7?

    We are working on implementation details of the Coin Emission Modulation algo. (We need to be sure that the new block subsidy policies are consistent across machine architectures.)

    Once the fork code is finalized, we will post here and on the forums.  We will have pre-compiled binaries for Windows, MacOS and Linux (Ubuntu 16.04 and 14.04).

    The fork will address the major issue which has been hindering the blockchain with Dark Gravity Wave v3 governing the mining difficulty factor.  

    Once  v0.9.7's new operative rules are activated, (ie, the fork happens) then :

        1) Mining Difficulty will be regulated by Dark Gravity Wave v3

        2) Additional proof-of-work algorithms will be able to contribute blocks to the Bitmark blockchain (SHA256d, Argon2d, Lyra2REv2, Cryptonight, Equihash, X17 and Yescrypt). This means that miners will be able to mine Bitmark not only with Scrypt but with these additonal algos too, several of which are ASIC-resistant, thus democratizing the mining and putting a definitve end to  the selfish-mining situations we have had in the past.

       3) Bitmark v0.9.7 also introduces Coin Emission Modulation,  (CEM v0.1) which modulates up to 1/2 the mining subsidy (block reward) by reducing that half proportionately by the ratio of current hashrate to peak hashrate ( as experienced within the last year).  This is to reduce coin emission when demand is relatively low (as sensed by reduced hashrate) and only emit the epoch's full reward when hashrate is at its peak.
        Regardless of hashrate, 50% of the epoch's full block subsidy (1/2 of 15 MARKS or 7.5 MARKS currently) is always given, to reward loyal miners supporting the Bitmark blockchain through low and high demand periods.

    The fork will happen when at least 75 of the last 100 blocks signal support for the fork.

    We don't want to release any code before it is well tested. We hope this will be very soon, ( a matter of days or weeks at most) and you can see the coding progress with the regular contributions to our github's 0.9.7 branch.   When the code is vetted as ready, we will merge 0.9.7 into the the 'master' branch, compile binaries and announce the availability of Bitmark v0.9.7, and solicit the support of the mining community to adopt v0.9.7 and make the fork effective.

    ¡  Thanks for your patience and support  !


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Noolz39 on May 20, 2018, 07:52:31 PM
    Any news with the fork and new bitmark core 0.9.7?

    We are working on implementation details of the Coin Emission Modulation algo. (We need to be sure that the new block subsidy policies are consistent across machine architectures.)

    Once the fork code is finalized, we will post here and on the forums.  We will have pre-compiled binaries for Windows, MacOS and Linux (Ubuntu 16.04 and 14.04).

    The fork will address the major issue which has been hindering the blockchain with Dark Gravity Wave v3 governing the mining difficulty factor.  

    Once  v0.9.7's new operative rules are activated, (ie, the fork happens) then :

        1) Mining Difficulty will be regulated by Dark Gravity Wave v3

        2) Additional proof-of-work algorithms will be able to contribute blocks to the Bitmark blockchain (SHA256d, Argon2d, Lyra2REv2, Cryptonight, Equihash, X17 and Yescrypt). This means that miners will be able to mine Bitmark not only with Scrypt but with these additonal algos too, several of which are ASIC-resistant, thus democratizing the mininig and putting a definitve end to  the selfish-mining situations we have had in the past.

       3) Bitmark v0.9.7 also introduces Coin Emission Modulation,  (CEM v0.1) which modulates up to 1/2 the mining subsidy (block reward) by reducing that half proportionately by the ratio of current hashrate to peak hashrate ( as experienced within the last year).  This is to reduce coin emission when demand is relatively low (as sensed by reduced hashrate) and only emit the epoch's full reward when hashrate is at its peak.
        Regardless of hashrate, 50% of the epoch's full block subsidy (1/2 of 15 MARKS or 7.5 MARKS currently) is always given, to reward loyal miners supporting the Bitmark blockchain through low and high demand periods.

    The fork will happen when at least 75 of the last 100 blocks signal support for the fork.

    We don't want to release any code before it is well tested. We hope this will be very soon, ( a matter of days or weeks at most) and you can see the coding progress with the regular contributions to our github's 0.9.7 branch.   When the code is vetted as ready, we will merge 0.9.7 into the the 'master' branch, compile binaries and announce the availability of Bitmark v0.9.7, and solicit the support of the mining community to adopt v0.9.7 and make the fork effective.

    ¡  Thanks for your patience and support  !

    Great work! We're waiting next update.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 22, 2018, 10:30:07 AM
    Would naming it MARKS be a little confusing? Because currently BTM wallet on about to send some coins states that 1000 MARK is 1 BTM.

    The original documentation of the project calls 0.001 of a bitmark 'marks', true.

    Since we are adopting as our  new ticker symbols MARKS,   it makes sense to refer to whole coins as *marks* or *bitmarks*.  

    We will update the documentation to reflect this, and deprecate the use of 'marks' for any subunits.  

    For 1/1000 subunits, we can use  ' markbits ';  or we could get creative and call them ' markoshis ' or ' bitoshis ',    but,  in any case,   officialy "marks" should be reserved to mean only whole coins.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Matiel on May 30, 2018, 02:16:01 AM
    will it be necessary to replace my old BTM with a new MARKS?
    or will it not be necessary?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jhonlee on May 30, 2018, 05:01:17 PM
    When will you rename the coin on poloniex ?

    Bitmark will still be called "Bitmark", but we are changing the ticker symbol to MARKS (from the old BTM).   Cryptopia.co.nz already has us actively trading and listed as MARKS.  Poloniex has been advised that we wish to use the MARKS ticker symbol and they will be changing from BTM to MARKS, but they replied that the change is not trivial and may take a while. Fortunately, at Poloniex there is no confusion as there is no other coin there which uses BTM.


    Poloniex is always under maintenance (it will have worked 1 week in the last 12 months). It is very strange that CRYPTOPIA has VERY lower exchange rates than Poloniex, the current value of BITMARK is not truthful. In the real life is said to be an insider trading, in cryptocurrencies there are no laws or rules and this currency is proof of this.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 31, 2018, 04:56:03 PM
    will it be necessary to replace my old BTM with a new MARKS?
    or will it not be necessary?

    No, the blockchain is the same. It's just that on exchanges we will be using the ticker symbol MARKS instead of BTM.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on May 31, 2018, 04:57:41 PM
    When will you rename the coin on poloniex ?

    Bitmark will still be called "Bitmark", but we are changing the ticker symbol to MARKS (from the old BTM).   Cryptopia.co.nz already has us actively trading and listed as MARKS.  Poloniex has been advised that we wish to use the MARKS ticker symbol and they will be changing from BTM to MARKS, but they replied that the change is not trivial and may take a while. Fortunately, at Poloniex there is no confusion as there is no other coin there which uses BTM.


    Poloniex is always under maintenance (it will have worked 1 week in the last 12 months). It is very strange that CRYPTOPIA has VERY lower exchange rates than Poloniex, the current value of BITMARK is not truthful. In the real life is said to be an insider trading, in cryptocurrencies there are no laws or rules and this currency is proof of this.


    If I understand correctly, Poloniex has said that as soon as the new fork code is ready they will re-enable deposits and withdrawals. Once this happens, I imagine that the price will harmonize between the various exchanges; if not, that would present excellent arbitrage opportunities.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 06, 2018, 08:49:30 PM
    Bitmark v0.9.7.0  is now available.  


    Source code is available on github:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git)  

    Binaries for Ubuntu 16.04 "Xenial Xerus" CLI nodes are also available on the Release page:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.0 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.0)

    Wallets
    Release Candidate 1 (RC1) wallets for Windows are available and soon to follow for MacOS & leading Linux versions.

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe)
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe)


    Fork is Active !

    Please upgrade your nodes / wallets to v0.9.7 as soon as possible.

    Fork Activation will occur when 75 out of the last 100 blocks signal support
    Support is signaled with v4 blocks, used by Bitmark v0.9.7  




    New Features:


        1) Difficulty Adujstment: custom DGWv3
    Mining Difficulty will be regulated by a custom Dark Gravity Wave v3, aided by a hashrate Surge Protector and Resurrector functions. The Surge Protector comes into play if there is a string of 9 blocks in-a-row by the same algorithm.  The Resurrector activates whenever an algorith has not contributed blocks for over 160 minutes, something that is extremely unlikely to happen if the difficulty is well matched to hashrate.

        2) Multiple Proof-of-Work Algorithms: 8 mPoW
    Additional proof-of-work algorithms will be able to contribute blocks to the Bitmark blockchain. The complete list of algorithms is (SCrypt, SHA256d, Yescrypt, Argon2d, X17, Lyra2REv2, Equihash and Cryptonight). This means that miners will be able to mine Bitmark not only with Scrypt but with these additonal algos too, several of which are ASIC-resistant, thus democratizing the mininig and putting an end to the selfish-mining situations we have faced in the past.

       3) Coin Emission Modulation: CEM v0.1
    Bitmark v0.9.7.0 also introduces Coin Emission Modulation,  (CEM v0.1) which modulates up to 1/2 the mining subsidy (block reward) by reducing that half proportionately by the ratio of current hashrate to peak hashrate ( as experienced within the last year).  The rationale behind this is to reduce coin emission when demand is relatively low (as sensed by reduced hashrate) and only emit the epoch's full reward when hashrate is at its peak.
        Regardless of hashrate, 50% of the epoch's full block subsidy (1/2 of 15 MARKS or 7.5 MARKS currently) is always given, to reward loyal miners supporting the Bitmark blockchain through low and high demand periods.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 07, 2018, 05:32:50 AM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 07, 2018, 02:02:08 PM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win64-setup.exe

    Win32:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win32-setup.exe

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    4bdb6cd4035ae3b8f9cadbd4d36bd98f8d690cc422e30ae86f66db32bb74350e  bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe
    4e5abccbe39793d9187ac551b59acd5c1cda1ddefa7c39e7780b572ee3e8b95a  bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 07, 2018, 02:33:59 PM
     
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win64-setup.exe

    Win32:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win32-setup.exe

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    49a10a1240f2953a5519c83f944a0169a07986314e97e2e4e151ff607ae19ea3 bitmark-0.9.5-win32-rc1.setup.exe
    76c0abb680ab867d6253c284cfcb0618d9c4e1e0039dd70da859d51006f137c7 bitmark-0.9.5-win64-rc1.setup.

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.

    It seems my wallet has a problem "out of sync" 7 day (s) behind. ???


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 07, 2018, 03:51:39 PM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win64-setup.exe

    Win32:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win32-setup.exe

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    49a10a1240f2953a5519c83f944a0169a07986314e97e2e4e151ff607ae19ea3 bitmark-0.9.5-win32-rc1.setup.exe
    76c0abb680ab867d6253c284cfcb0618d9c4e1e0039dd70da859d51006f137c7 bitmark-0.9.5-win64-rc1.setup.

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.

    It seems my wallet has a problem "out of sync" 7 day (s) behind. ???


    It might be necessary to open the wallet with more rights. Have this report from Candy Erdmann on Slack:
    " I have opened the program with full access rights and now its synchronizes"

    Also, make sure to connect to v0.9.7 nodes. Here is a list for your bitmark.conf file:

    Code:
    addnode=108.170.1.134
    addnode=139.162.122.138
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=204.68.122.12
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=216.240.168.227
    addnode=216.240.168.228
    addnode=42.118.134.98
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=85.10.51.66
    addnode=94.189.240.43
    addnode=94.23.33.83
    addnode=95.90.243.191


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: bitChipper on June 07, 2018, 04:47:22 PM
    Good to see this project is still alive and rolling, holding a market on polo will be crucial...too bad they disabled the chatbox though. To me that was one of the best ways for bitmark to be seen and utilized.

    You guys know if they will ever bring it back?



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 07, 2018, 05:02:30 PM
    Good to see this project is still alive and rolling, holding a market on polo will be crucial...too bad they disabled the chatbox though. To me that was one of the best ways for bitmark to be seen and utilized.

    You guys know if they will ever bring it back?



    Good question.  It was definitely a very attractive part of the Polo experience.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: psycodad on June 07, 2018, 05:15:26 PM
    Bitmark v0.9.7.0  is now available.  


    Source code is available on github:
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git)  

    ..

    I am unable to compile the source under any Debian amd64 version (tried 8 and 9).

    On Debian 9 it seems impossible due to too new openssl version with errors like:

    Code:
    ...
    bignum.h: In function 'bool operator>(const CBigNum&, const CBigNum&)':
    bignum.h:594:83: error: cannot convert 'const CBigNum*' to 'const BIGNUM* {aka const bignum_st*}' for argument ' ' to 'int BN_cmp(const BIGNUM*, const BIGNUM*)'
     inline bool operator>(const CBigNum& a, const CBigNum& b)  { return (BN_cmp(&a, &b) > 0); }
    ...

    On Debian 8 I can overcome some c11 related errors with:
    Code:
    ./autogen.sh && ./configure --with-incompatible-bdb --without-miniupnpc && CXXFLAGS="-std=c++11" make

    But then I am stuck with the following compile errors:
    Code:
    In file included from cryptonight/crypto/hash.c:35:0:
    cryptonight/crypto/hash-ops.h:65:15: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'sizeof'
     static_assert(sizeof(union hash_state) == 200, "Invalid structure size");
                   ^
    cryptonight/crypto/hash-ops.h:65:48: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant
     static_assert(sizeof(union hash_state) == 200, "Invalid structure size");
                                                    ^
    Makefile:1047: recipe for target 'cryptonight/crypto/hash.o' failed
    make[3]: *** [cryptonight/crypto/hash.o] Error 1

    Any pointers and hints would be much appreciated. TIA.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 07, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https[Suspicious link removed]

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    49a10a1240f2953a5519c83f944a0169a07986314e97e2e4e151ff607ae19ea3 bitmark-0.9.5-win32-rc1.setup.exe
    76c0abb680ab867d6253c284cfcb0618d9c4e1e0039dd70da859d51006f137c7 bitmark-0.9.5-win64-rc1.setup.

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.

    It seems my wallet has a problem "out of sync" 7 day (s) behind. ???


    It might be necessary to open the wallet with more rights. Have this report from Candy Erdmann on Slack:
    " I have opened the program with full access rights and now its synchronizes"

    Also, make sure to connect to v0.9.7 nodes. Here is a list for your bitmark.conf file:

    Code:
    addnode=108.170.1.134
    addnode=139.162.122.138
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=204.68.122.12
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=216.240.168.227
    addnode=216.240.168.228
    addnode=42.118.134.98
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=85.10.51.66
    addnode=94.189.240.43
    addnode=94.23.33.83
    addnode=95.90.243.191

    not work.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on June 07, 2018, 06:20:57 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 07, 2018, 06:28:00 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.

    THX,is working :)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 07, 2018, 06:35:49 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: pedrocoin on June 07, 2018, 08:06:46 PM
    if i update my windows wallet from 95 to 97 will i automaticly keep  the coins i had?

    still no deposit on poloniex and the fork seem to be done...


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Matiel on June 07, 2018, 08:36:39 PM
    some forecast to release the wallet at the Polo


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 07, 2018, 09:04:34 PM
    if i update my windows wallet from 95 to 97 will i automaticly keep  the coins i had?

    still no deposit on poloniex and the fork seem to be done...

    It's always a good idea to make a backup of your wallet.dat file.

    I would make backups regularly.

    But to answer your question, the upgrade from v0.9.5 to v0.9.7 will keep the coins you have.

    It should not affect your wallet.dat file.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: pedrocoin on June 07, 2018, 09:15:05 PM
    Yeah i regularly backups  my wallets...


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: pedrocoin on June 07, 2018, 09:48:18 PM
    I've installed it but it stop working and close by itself every few minutes... windows 64 bit version.. The last version was fine


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: HeldExpert on June 07, 2018, 10:31:28 PM
    I've installed it but it stop working and close by itself every few minutes... windows 64 bit version.. The last version was fine

    also does not work


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 08, 2018, 10:06:30 AM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win64-setup.exe

    Win32:

    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7-win32-setup.exe

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    49a10a1240f2953a5519c83f944a0169a07986314e97e2e4e151ff607ae19ea3 bitmark-0.9.5-win32-rc1.setup.exe
    76c0abb680ab867d6253c284cfcb0618d9c4e1e0039dd70da859d51006f137c7 bitmark-0.9.5-win64-rc1.setup.

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.

    It seems my wallet has a problem "out of sync" 7 day (s) behind. ???


    It might be necessary to open the wallet with more rights. Have this report from Candy Erdmann on Slack:
    " I have opened the program with full access rights and now its synchronizes"

    Also, make sure to connect to v0.9.7 nodes. Here is a list for your bitmark.conf file:

    Code:
    addnode=108.170.1.134
    addnode=139.162.122.138
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=204.68.122.12
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=216.240.168.227
    addnode=216.240.168.228
    addnode=42.118.134.98
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=85.10.51.66
    addnode=94.189.240.43
    addnode=94.23.33.83
    addnode=95.90.243.191

    The wallet of t still can not be synchronized. It runs for a while, then automatically exits on my Window computer(Window 64 bit).


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: H45H_t4g on June 08, 2018, 07:59:21 PM
    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)


    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    Server location in Germany
    Fee is 1%

    SCRYPT

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS

    FOR NICEHASH USE
    Code:
    PORT:9433

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    X17

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3737
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-X

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LYRA2V2

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:4533
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-L

    FOR NICEHASH USE
    Code:
    PORT:8533

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    YESCRYPT

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:6233
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-Y

    :)

    Any plans to add Cryptonight, Equihash, and Argon2 to your pool?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on June 08, 2018, 10:08:43 PM
    --- SMILING MINING POOL --- (http://www.smilingmining.com/)


    http://www.smilingmining.com/ (http://www.smilingmining.com/)

    Server location in Germany
    Fee is 1%

    SCRYPT

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3433
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS

    FOR NICEHASH USE
    Code:
    PORT:9433

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    X17

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:3737
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-X

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LYRA2V2

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:4533
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-L

    FOR NICEHASH USE
    Code:
    PORT:8533

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    YESCRYPT

    Code:
    URL/HOST:stratum+tcp://smilingmining.com:6233
    USERNAME:<BITMARK_WALLET_ADDRESS>
    PASSWORD:c=MARKS-Y

    :)

    Any plans to add Cryptonight, Equihash, and Argon2 to your pool?

    Next week.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nam__r1 on June 08, 2018, 11:45:59 PM
    I've installed it but it stop working and close by itself every few minutes... windows 64 bit version.. The last version was fine

    same


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nam__r1 on June 08, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
    Hi dbkeys!

    When is the v0.9.7 version for Windows released?

    Windows Wallets:

    Win64:

    https[Suspicious link removed]

    CheckSums (shasum -a 256)
    49a10a1240f2953a5519c83f944a0169a07986314e97e2e4e151ff607ae19ea3 bitmark-0.9.5-win32-rc1.setup.exe
    76c0abb680ab867d6253c284cfcb0618d9c4e1e0039dd70da859d51006f137c7 bitmark-0.9.5-win64-rc1.setup.

    --


    Wallets for MacOS and binaries for Raspberry Pi are next.

    It seems my wallet has a problem "out of sync" 7 day (s) behind. ???


    It might be necessary to open the wallet with more rights. Have this report from Candy Erdmann on Slack:
    " I have opened the program with full access rights and now its synchronizes"

    Also, make sure to connect to v0.9.7 nodes. Here is a list for your bitmark.conf file:

    Code:
    addnode=108.170.1.134
    addnode=139.162.122.138
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=204.68.122.12
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=216.240.168.227
    addnode=216.240.168.228
    addnode=42.118.134.98
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=85.10.51.66
    addnode=94.189.240.43
    addnode=94.23.33.83
    addnode=95.90.243.191

    The wallet of t still can not be synchronized. It runs for a while, then automatically exits on my Window computer(Window 64 bit).


    same problem.
    put all nodes in.
    It runs for a while, then automatically exits

    more details:
    only outgoing no incoming connections.
    "out of sync" 8 day (s) behind
    last block 446519
    last block time: Do Mai 31 02:51:48 2018

    we need help, please... :'(


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: psycodad on June 10, 2018, 11:57:39 AM
    After I bit the bullet and deployed an Ubuntu 16.04 vps, resynched (and constantly restarting the daemon as it hangs regularily) I am now on block # 453174.

    At the same time, Cryptopia shows a blockheight of # 450962 (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=MARKS) and Tradesatoshi shows # 450909 (but says the wallet is in maintenance).

    BE1 (http://explorer.bitmark.io/) shows # 450890 and BE2 (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/) # 453175.

    I guess I'll use the node list from Cryptopia and make sure I am on the same chain as they are so I can at least transfer the coins to them.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on June 10, 2018, 06:36:16 PM
    After I bit the bullet and deployed an Ubuntu 16.04 vps, resynched (and constantly restarting the daemon as it hangs regularily) I am now on block # 453174.

    At the same time, Cryptopia shows a blockheight of # 450962 (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=MARKS) and Tradesatoshi shows # 450909 (but says the wallet is in maintenance).

    BE1 (http://explorer.bitmark.io/) shows # 450890 and BE2 (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/) # 453175.

    I guess I'll use the node list from Cryptopia and make sure I am on the same chain as they are so I can at least transfer the coins to them.

    This is the only block explorer, I can find right now, which is working: http://explorer.bitmark.co/


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on June 10, 2018, 09:55:04 PM
    After I bit the bullet and deployed an Ubuntu 16.04 vps, resynched (and constantly restarting the daemon as it hangs regularily) I am now on block # 453174.

    At the same time, Cryptopia shows a blockheight of # 450962 (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=MARKS) and Tradesatoshi shows # 450909 (but says the wallet is in maintenance).

    BE1 (http://explorer.bitmark.io/) shows # 450890 and BE2 (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/) # 453175.

    I guess I'll use the node list from Cryptopia and make sure I am on the same chain as they are so I can at least transfer the coins to them.

    This is the only block explorer, I can find right now, which is working: http://explorer.bitmark.co/


    https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 10, 2018, 11:08:55 PM
    Bitmark v0.9.7.0  is now available.  


    Source code is available on github:
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark.git)  

    ..

    I am unable to compile the source under any Debian amd64 version (tried 8 and 9).

    On Debian 9 it seems impossible due to too new openssl version with errors like:

    Code:
    ...
    bignum.h: In function 'bool operator>(const CBigNum&, const CBigNum&)':
    bignum.h:594:83: error: cannot convert 'const CBigNum*' to 'const BIGNUM* {aka const bignum_st*}' for argument ' ' to 'int BN_cmp(const BIGNUM*, const BIGNUM*)'
     inline bool operator>(const CBigNum& a, const CBigNum& b)  { return (BN_cmp(&a, &b) > 0); }
    ...

    On Debian 8 I can overcome some c11 related errors with:
    Code:
    ./autogen.sh && ./configure --with-incompatible-bdb --without-miniupnpc && CXXFLAGS="-std=c++11" make

    But then I am stuck with the following compile errors:
    Code:
    In file included from cryptonight/crypto/hash.c:35:0:
    cryptonight/crypto/hash-ops.h:65:15: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'sizeof'
     static_assert(sizeof(union hash_state) == 200, "Invalid structure size");
                   ^
    cryptonight/crypto/hash-ops.h:65:48: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant
     static_assert(sizeof(union hash_state) == 200, "Invalid structure size");
                                                    ^
    Makefile:1047: recipe for target 'cryptonight/crypto/hash.o' failed
    make[3]: *** [cryptonight/crypto/hash.o] Error 1

    Any pointers and hints would be much appreciated. TIA.

    Ubuntu 14 - compiled  successfully by upgrading gcc and boost:

    gcc

    Code:
    sudo -i

    add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-toolchain-r/test
    apt-get update
    apt-get install gcc-5 g++-5

    update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/gcc gcc /usr/bin/gcc-5 60 --slave /usr/bin/g++ g++ /usr/bin/g++-5

    exit

    boost

    Code:
    wget https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.58.0/boost_1_58_0.tar.gz
    tar -xzf boost_1_58_0.tar.gz
    cd boost_1_58_0/
    ./bootstrap.sh
    ./b2
    sudo ./bjam install

    By default this will install boost to <libdir> = /usr/local/lib

    compile bitmark with configure option:

    Code:
    ./configure --with-boost-libdir=<libdir>

    make sure you have <libdir> in your $LD_LIBRARY_PATH before starting bitmarkd


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nyo_x on June 11, 2018, 06:55:30 AM
    is there any problem with network?
    Code:
    error -2: safe mode: warning: the network does not appear to fully agree! some miners appear to be experiencing issues.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on June 11, 2018, 07:48:04 AM
    is there any problem with network?
    Code:
    error -2: safe mode: warning: the network does not appear to fully agree! some miners appear to be experiencing issues.

    I had similar issues, and then I've added force connections to 0.9.7 nodes inside bitmark.conf, and now it is working fine.

    Code:
    connect=144.217.73.112
    connect=216.240.168.227
    connect=173.255.212.141
    connect=204.68.122.12
    connect=204.68.122.18
    connect=204.68.122.22
    connect=204.68.122.40
    connect=139.162.122.138
    connect=216.240.168.226
    connect=173.255.252.140
    connect=185.185.68.71

    addnode=94.23.33.83
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=94.137.177.227
    addnode=108.170.1.134
    addnode=157.161.128.56
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=188.124.94.249


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on June 11, 2018, 07:53:02 AM
    After I bit the bullet and deployed an Ubuntu 16.04 vps, resynched (and constantly restarting the daemon as it hangs regularily) I am now on block # 453174.

    At the same time, Cryptopia shows a blockheight of # 450962 (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=MARKS) and Tradesatoshi shows # 450909 (but says the wallet is in maintenance).

    BE1 (http://explorer.bitmark.io/) shows # 450890 and BE2 (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/) # 453175.

    I guess I'll use the node list from Cryptopia and make sure I am on the same chain as they are so I can at least transfer the coins to them.

    This is the only block explorer, I can find right now, which is working: http://explorer.bitmark.co/


    https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/




    That one stopped on first merged mine sha256d block.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nyo_x on June 11, 2018, 08:15:22 AM
    thx for reply, seems like it's fixed now


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 11, 2018, 08:12:24 PM
    Bitmark (MARKS)

    New Wallets for the Windows OS:



    Windows 64-bit
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win64-setup.exe)


    Windows 32-bit
    https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/bitmark-0.9.7.1-RC1-win32-setup.exe)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 12, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 12, 2018, 12:57:46 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )

    thanks, working now  :D


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 12, 2018, 04:31:42 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    My wallet is still not working. Jammed at 12day (s) behind :-[


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on June 12, 2018, 06:50:35 PM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    My wallet is still not working. Jammed at 12day (s) behind :-[

    Try specifying 0.9.7 nodes in bitmark.conf. You have a list couple posts above.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 12, 2018, 07:11:23 PM
    cryptopia can't deposit?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: everything_zen on June 12, 2018, 09:46:00 PM
    https://i.imgur.com/SXifnRm.png (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 13, 2018, 02:07:08 AM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    My wallet is still not working. Jammed at 12day (s) behind :-[

    Is this with the RC1 wallet version ? Did you check your clock ?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 13, 2018, 02:09:21 AM
    Bitmark (MARKS)

    is now listed at

    qTrade.io


    Congratulations,  qTrade.io Team   on a promising new Exchange !


    https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC (https://qTrade.io)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 13, 2018, 06:17:46 AM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    My wallet is still not working. Jammed at 12day (s) behind :-[

    Is this with the RC1 wallet version ? Did you check your clock ?

    This is my wallet version and I certainly have reviewed my date and time.https://imgur.com/a/kMayQxp


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 13, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
    Get some actual working nodes from the pool (https://www.smilingmining.com/explorer). Click on connections count.
    but now 7 day ago~and stop syn

    It could be an issue with out-of-sync clocks.

    Please check that your machine has the right time, and that Windows is configured for your time zone.

    To maintain the right time automatically:

     Click on the clock in the Task Bar, to open the "Date and Time" preferences window. Go to the 'Internet Time' tab, then 'Change Settings' button. Make sure that there is a good choice for "Synchronize with Internet Time Server", then click the "Update Now" button.

    - - - % - - -

    Also, there please use the new Windows wallets: ( 0.9.7.1-RC1 version )


    My wallet is still not working. Jammed at 12day (s) behind :-[

    Is this with the RC1 wallet version ? Did you check your clock ?

    This is my wallet version and I certainly have reviewed my date and time.https://imgur.com/a/kMayQxp

    Finally, my wallet was working ::)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: phenixcoin955 on June 13, 2018, 03:38:28 PM
    Hi,

    just updated to 0.9.7.1 but wallet won't sync, jammed 20 hours back. I did the date&time trick but didnt work. At this point, should I delete the blockchain and resync from the beginning?

    thanks


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Namduc on June 13, 2018, 04:00:46 PM
    Hi,

    just updated to 0.9.7.1 but wallet won't sync, jammed 20 hours back. I did the date&time trick but didnt work. At this point, should I delete the blockchain and resync from the beginning?

    thanks

    Do not do that, because it will take you time to wait for a synchronized wallet from scratch. I fixed it by opening another wallet to sync and naturally my Bitmark wallet was working again.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: phenixcoin955 on June 13, 2018, 07:23:03 PM
    I didnt have a bitmark.conf in my appdata folder so i created one and paste node from /Pfennig:0.9.7.1/ on the blockchain explorer. Still dont work. Do i need to paste node from older Pfennif too?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: onelineproof on June 13, 2018, 11:07:20 PM
    I'm working on a mining pool for cryptonight here: https://drkmrk.xyz. Soon I will add merge mining support with Monero.
    For now I will do the payouts manually everyday until I have it fully automated. No fees for now.

    I recommend this cpuminer: https://github.com/piratelinux/cpuminer-multi. I recently added AES-NI optimizations for it.

    Update: It won't work with Xmrig, but when I implement merge mining, this mining software will work


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 15, 2018, 05:58:36 PM
    I didnt have a bitmark.conf in my appdata folder so i created one and pasted nodes from /Pfennig:0.9.7.1/ on the blockchain explorer. Still doesn't work. Do i need to paste node from older Pfennig too?

    You may have nodes subver 0.9.7.0 and 0.9.7.1 Pfennig nodes; that should be OK.

    Did you name the file 'bitmark.conf' and place it in the

    Code:
    C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Bitmark
     folder ?

    Here a list of v0.9.7.1 nodes

    Code:
    addnode=104.198.28.255
    addnode=117.84.205.142
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=144.217.73.112
    addnode=157.161.128.56
    addnode=158.69.246.121
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.239.232.174
    addnode=173.255.212.141
    addnode=204.68.122.23
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=35.193.225.94
    addnode=35.226.164.30
    addnode=45.33.65.161
    addnode=63.209.33.6
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=8.9.3.23
    addnode=86.27.149.93
    addnode=94.137.177.227
    addnode=94.23.33.83


    If you care to share your whole 'bitmark.conf' file, I can comment on it.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Matiel on June 15, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
    when will synchronize the wallets with the Polo


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 16, 2018, 06:09:23 AM
    Bitmark

    MacOS HighSierra - v0.9.7.1 Wallet

    Available

                                                          Download Link:

    Bitmark-Qt-HighSierra_0.9.7.1-RC1.dmg (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.0/Bitmark-Qt-HighSierra_0.9.7.1-RC1.dmg)

                                                          Note:
    Only installs on High Sierra, MacOS 10.13 or later !
    (Versions for OS/X "El Capitán"  ---> MacOS Sierra to follow)


    ------------------  C h e c k S u m ------------------------------------------------
    shasum -a 256 Bitmark-Qt-HighSierra_0.9.7.1-RC1.dmg
    94359b96b2987a752f4e8a34e3bcb0f268b1c49085d8406e9b535bdd4c1790df


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: iso2000 on June 17, 2018, 04:01:39 PM
    dbkeys Please update wallet download link at: http://www.bitmark.io/


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: nam__r1 on June 17, 2018, 06:48:52 PM
    I didnt have a bitmark.conf in my appdata folder so i created one and pasted nodes from /Pfennig:0.9.7.1/ on the blockchain explorer. Still doesn't work. Do i need to paste node from older Pfennig too?

    You may have nodes subver 0.9.7.0 and 0.9.7.1 Pfennig nodes; that should be OK.

    Did you name the file 'bitmark.conf' and place it in the

    Code:
    C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Bitmark
      folder ?

    Here a list of v0.9.7.1 nodes

    Code:
    addnode=104.198.28.255
    addnode=117.84.205.142
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.232.242
    addnode=144.217.73.112
    addnode=157.161.128.56
    addnode=158.69.246.121
    addnode=169.0.84.73
    addnode=172.104.157.27
    addnode=173.239.232.174
    addnode=173.255.212.141
    addnode=204.68.122.23
    addnode=204.68.122.40
    addnode=216.240.168.226
    addnode=35.193.225.94
    addnode=35.226.164.30
    addnode=45.33.65.161
    addnode=63.209.33.6
    addnode=79.143.180.57
    addnode=8.9.3.23
    addnode=86.27.149.93
    addnode=94.137.177.227
    addnode=94.23.33.83


    If you care to share your whole 'bitmark.conf' file, I can comment on it.

    Hi dbkeys,

    i did the steps but it doesn't work. My wallet is not syncronizing.

    the version 0.9.5 before worked well.

    Nam

    EDIT:

    my wallet v0.9.7.1 works now!

    i cut a file (rev00002.dat) out an put it on the desk.

    Code:
    C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Roaming\Bitmark\blocks

    after that i run bitmark.

    bitmark gives an error and try to reindex the blocks.

    i close bitmark again and put the file (rev00002.dat) back.

    and start bitmark again.

    after reindex the blocks my wallet got synced!

    Im so happy!!

    :)



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 18, 2018, 10:35:17 AM
    dbkeys Please update wallet download link at: http://www.bitmark.io/

    Done, links updated on bitmark.io (http://www.bitmark.io) ... Thanks for the heads up  :)

    Also, releases are on Github:  Bitmark v0.9.7 - Release (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases)



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Samnangsek on June 20, 2018, 04:43:45 AM
    How to mine coin with Equihash and Crytonight?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jeronimo99 on June 20, 2018, 07:02:10 AM
    Publish here and update please all algo mining pool list . cryptonight pool BTM


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 20, 2018, 04:52:09 PM
    How to mine coin with Equihash and Crytonight?

    It's possible to solo CPU-mine with the node / wallet directly.

    Choose mining algo with the 'setminingalgo' command

       ID   Proof-of-Work (PoW) Algo
       ---   ----------------------------
       0.       SCrypt
       1.       SHA256d
       2.       Yescrypt
       3.       Argon2d
       4.       X17
       5.       Lyra2REv2
       6.       EquiHash
       7.       CryptoNight

    Start the built-in miner with the number of CPU cores you wish and on the algo you wish, with the 'setgenerate' command
    (Note: it does not makes sense to cpu-mine ASIC-centric algos like SHA256d and Scrypt)

    Code:
    setgenerate true <number of CPU cores>  <pow_algo_id>

    example for EquiHash:

    Code:
    bitmark-cli setminingalgo 6
    bitmark-cli setgenerate true 4 6

    example for CryptoNight:

    Code:
    bitmark-cli setminingalgo 7
    bitmark-cli setgenerate true 4 7

    Run the 'getmininginfo' command to confirm that your machine is mining
    (note that 'genproclimit' is 1 [or more if you have more CPU cores], 'generate' is true  and  'hashespersec' is some positive number) :

    Code:
    :~/.bitmark-dev$ bitmark-cli getmininginfo
    {
        "blocks" : 460602,
        "currentblocksize" : 1000,
        "currentblocktx" : 0,
        "pow_algo_id" : 7,
        "pow_algo" : "CRYPTONIGHT",
        "reward_next" : 12.31830110,
        "reward_max" : 14.80839550,
        "hashrate_4max_reward" : 35000000000,
        "pow_algo_id" : 7,
        "pow_algo" : "CRYPTONIGHT",
        "difficulty" : 732.02472980,
        "sdifficulty" : 0.00009150,
        "difficulty SCRYPT" : 29022057.67379002,
        "difficulty SHA256D" : 132664872.35902712,
        "difficulty YESCRYPT" : 50160.35085839,
        "difficulty ARGON2" : 2380.03062244,
        "difficulty X17" : 767227.32885169,
        "difficulty LYRA2REv2" : 2533088.23251864,
        "difficulty EQUIHASH" : 73.89027062,
        "difficulty CRYPTONIGHT" : 732.02472980,
        "errors" : "",
        "genproclimit" : 1,
        "networkhashps" : 144512540497318.71875000,
        "pooledtx" : 0,
        "testnet" : false,
        "generate" : true,
        "hashespersec" : 23
    }


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 20, 2018, 05:26:17 PM
    Publish here and update please all algo mining pool list . cryptonight pool BTM

    ¡ Good idea !   Let's collect all the info on Bitmark Mining Pools.

    These are the ones I'm aware of at the moment.  (Please post or PM additional info and I will add it to the list.)


    Bitmark (MARKS) Pooled Mining
                   
                                 SCrypt   SHA256d   Yescrypt   Argon2d   X17    Lyra2REv2  EquiHash   CryptoNight
    http://www.smilingmining.com     √        √         √                  √         √

    https://mp3.markmine.io          √        √                     √      √         √

    http://yapool.net                




    Notes:



    All this makes Equihash and CryptoNight the best algos for CPU solo mining (at the moment: 2018.06.20)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Samnangsek on June 21, 2018, 01:13:29 AM
    cannot connect to the pool
    connection timeout :(


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 21, 2018, 02:25:07 PM
    cannot connect to the pool
    connection timeout :(

    Which pool ?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Samnangsek on June 21, 2018, 02:29:50 PM
    https://drkmrk.xyz     

    plz help


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 21, 2018, 03:31:56 PM
    https://drkmrk.xyz      

    plz help

    The pool says it's in testing mode, and the link for payouts indicates no income since June 16.  

    I tested it via nicehash.com:
    Code:
    Notice: Pool verificator may not be 100% accurate and may report pool being compatible while in fact it is not compatible or vice versa. Always discuss with pool operator if you encounter any issues with the pool verificator.

    Pool host: drkmrk.xyz
    Pool port: 3333
    Pool user: bPXWF6Sa7b6xFhfZLC69W7yrTJKxMTx5mp
    Pool pass: x
    Algorithm: CryptoNightV7

    Resolving pool host drkmrk.xyz... OK
    Establishing connection with proxy... OK
    Establishing connection with pool 94.23.33.83:3333... OK
    Sending login... OK
    Receiving login response... Error: Read timed out
    Your pool is shown as incompatible therefore we encourage you to contact pool operator to make sure that the pool is using minimal/starting pool share difficulty which is compatible with our service (and thus compatible with today's miners), please send them following link: https://www.nicehash.com/help/which-mining-pools-are-supported. Thank you!

    Close

    I think the pool is temporarily off-line.  I sent a message to @onelineproof (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=45934) (pool op) to see if he can help.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: holylacross on June 21, 2018, 04:47:52 PM
    Installed the new wallet today and had no issue. Thank you for the update


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 21, 2018, 04:50:13 PM
    Installed the new wallet today and had no issue. Thank you for the update

    Thanks for the feedback !  Are you on Linux, Windows or MacOS ??


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: crackfoo on June 21, 2018, 06:56:00 PM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: psycodad on June 21, 2018, 07:13:30 PM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...

    From a quick grep through src I would say miningalgo=, see https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/blob/master/src/miner.cpp#L120

    HTH


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: crackfoo on June 21, 2018, 07:30:55 PM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...

    From a quick grep through src I would say miningalgo=, see https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/blob/master/src/miner.cpp#L120

    HTH

    ahh thanks! guess I shouldn't have been so lazy ;)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: crackfoo on June 21, 2018, 07:32:47 PM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...

    From a quick grep through src I would say miningalgo=, see https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/blob/master/src/miner.cpp#L120

    HTH

    ahh thanks! guess I shouldn't have been so lazy ;)

    hrmm seems not working in .conf nor command line....


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 22, 2018, 12:13:32 AM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...

    You can switch it "manually" from the command-line too, if needed. For example:

    Code:
    coins@dubuntu:/blockchains/BTM$ marks setminingalgo 4
    coins@dubuntu:/blockchains/BTM$ marks gmi
    {
        "blocks" : 461596,
        "currentblocksize" : 1000,
        "currentblocktx" : 0,
        "reward_next" : 15.00000000,
        "reward_max" : 13.73529376,
        "hashrate_4max_reward" : 35000000000,
        "difficulty" : 2674.24478854,
        "errors" : "",
        "genproclimit" : 12,
        "networkhashps" : 234706330857046.28125000,
        "pooledtx" : 0,
        "testnet" : false,
        "generate" : true,
        "algo" : 4,
        "algoname" : "X17",
        "hashespersec" : 140982
    }
    coins@dubuntu:/blockchains/BTM$ marks setminingalgo 3; marks gmi
    {
        "blocks" : 461596,
        "currentblocksize" : 1000,
        "currentblocktx" : 0,
        "reward_next" : 15.00000000,
        "reward_max" : 13.73529376,
        "hashrate_4max_reward" : 35000000000,
        "difficulty" : 2674.24478854,
        "errors" : "",
        "genproclimit" : 12,
        "networkhashps" : 234706330857046.28125000,
        "pooledtx" : 0,
        "testnet" : false,
        "generate" : true,
        "algo" : 3,
        "algoname" : "ARGON2",
        "hashespersec" : 205696
    }
    coins@dubuntu:/blockchains/BTM$

    Note: bitmark-cli is aliased to 'marks' here, and I'm using the abbreviation 'gmi' for getmininginfo  ...

    This is an example bitmark.conf file for an Argon2d mining setup:


    Code:
    server=1
    daemon=1
    listen=1
    maxconnections=1024
    disablewallet=1
    miningalgo=3
    blocknotify=/home/coins/bitmark_push.sh

    rpcuser=bitmark.rpc
    rpcpassword=<Mak834CatnhJ2882s33l12lal4>
    rpcport=15629
    port=9265
    rpcthreads=20
    keypool=4096


    addnode=108.163.197.58
    addnode=139.162.128.92
    addnode=139.162.35.170
    addnode=173.255.252.140
    addnode=178.238.224.213
    addnode=35.177.220.199
    addnode=45.33.65.161
    addnode=72.220.130.97
    addnode=78.70.227.72
    addnode=98.115.147.74
    Note the wallet is disabled above (to service miners more speedily) and that the mining algorithm is being set:

    Code:
    miningalgo=3

    Sorry for the little discrepancies and standards differences, and many thanks for pointing them out.
    I'll have the next release in the 0.9.7 series have better parsing and respond to 'algo' as well.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 22, 2018, 12:31:46 AM
    how do we set the default algo instead of scrypt?

    I tried, like the other multi-algo coins, using algo= in the conf but no joy...

    From a quick grep through src I would say miningalgo=, see https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/blob/master/src/miner.cpp#L120

    HTH

    ahh thanks! guess I shouldn't have been so lazy ;)

    hrmm seems not working in .conf nor command line....

    Sure you're on the lastest code from master branch ?

    Code:
    git checkout master

          Also, some of the suggested improvements are implemented in the dev branch, which will become release 0.9.7.1,  if you want to be on the "cutting edge"  
    Code:
    git checkout dev
         For example, position of pow_algo_id & pow_algo (formerly algonumber & algo) and difficulties are presented more explicitly, in the 'getmininginfo' (or 'gmi') and the 'chaindynamics' (or 'cd') commands.

    (Branch 0.9.7 has been merged into master @ the fork, and I retained it just for historical records, perhaps it will be best to delete it ?)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jeronimo99 on June 22, 2018, 12:14:18 PM
    Perhaps you are better off dealing with issues of normal listing? How much can you drive people by the nose like donkeys? You create an agiotage near an empty bucket! Does this play into your hands? you are afraid of real work on the stock exchange because you will pour this coin on your head down to 1 sat? you're just a bunch of pathetic clowns.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 22, 2018, 03:14:52 PM
    Perhaps you are better off dealing with issues of normal listing? How much can you drive people by the nose like donkeys? You create an agiotage near an empty bucket! Does this play into your hands? you are afraid of real work on the stock exchange because you will pour this coin on your head down to 1 sat? you're just a bunch of pathetic clowns.

    If you have abilities in this area, (Exchanges) specific, constructive criticism (what can be done, in your view) would be better, or even actual help (Do it ! )   ... we're mostly an all-volunteer group, most of us interested in the potential of blockchain marking technology, and we each do what we can.  

    We have added two Exchanges recently, (Cryptopia.co.nz (https://cryptopia.co.nz) and qTrade.io (https://qTrade.io)) and we're in contact with them.

    qTrade is a new exchange, and is in beta, but MARKS trading is already fully functional on it.

    Cryptopia is having issues syncing our blockchain, but we have yet AFAIK to get confirmation they are in fact on  v0.9.7.0 or later.





    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jeronimo99 on June 22, 2018, 03:29:37 PM

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopy produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 22, 2018, 03:55:21 PM

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopia produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    Poloniex has been advised AFAIK that we have forked and that the forked blockchain is functioning correctly. @82ndabnmedic is in contact with them and we hope to have the deposit/withdrawal situation finally resolved soon.

    Cryptopia, as I mentioned, is experiencing blockchain sync issue, and we're working with them to solve it.

    qTrade is being developed by one of the contributors and member of the Bitmark team (@bitbumper on Slack), so I trust qTrade.io. Curious what you think qTrade can do to increase their perceived trustability.

    Yobit: Indeed, we paid Yobit and they have not done anything (so far, anyway).  I'll submit the listing again !

    Support Ticket at Yobit.io:

    Quote
    2018-04-27 12:02:00 dbkeys
    If you are not going to add Bitmark (MARKS) then will you please return the funds payed towards this.

    2018-04-25 11:23:19 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you please tell us if you will be adding Bitmark (MARKS)
    We payed via Yobicode.   We have been recently added by Cryptopia
    ( https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC) and are already listed at Poloniex.

    2018-03-27 03:21:23 dbkeys
    OK, thank you.  I have activated the yobicode.
    2018-03-22 11:29:48 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you give us an update about the Bitmark listing ?
    It's about the 7-14 day timeframe you mentioned. If there is any issue, we would like the opportunity to address. it

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys
    2018-03-13 12:47:25 dominikherzog
    If coin is not listed/after 7-14 business days/>request is declined
    You can activate yobicode for yourself on https://yobit.net/en/yobicodes/
     0.001 btc
    BTC

    2018-03-13 12:37:02 dbkeys
    Hello,

    We paid 0.1 to list Bitmark ( https://www.bitmark.io ) with the ticker symbol MARKS. (We have been using the ticker symbol BTM, but we have decided to change to MARKS)

    If you need any additional information, or an initial deposit of Bitmarks (MARKS) please let me know.

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys

    Deposit towards YoBit Bitmark Listing:
    Quote
           ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 3GuWcTZFD6avnosbMXdq7dZgTUxkCPkErN 0.02
            0f59e2718cf2bc22afda407964721c98138d58d67e7c49304edb08b9418ecf88
            1520260616 - Mon 5 Mar 14:36:56 UTC 2018

            ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 1AhqJ7AGFMZmcCgD9wr3TqPgwPL5YWPrAY 0.075
            508a2ce4290f45c191dd604476e66935b33d3c56b2caa5bed649f8d390681def
            1520434228 - Wed 7 Mar 14:50:28 UTC 2018


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 22, 2018, 04:03:06 PM
    If you take a look at CoinMarketCap's Market tab for Bitmark (MARKS) (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitmark/#markets) you can see that they list TradebyTrade.com (https://tradebytrade.com) as the top volume exchange for Bitmark.

    Quote
    Bitmark Markets

    #   Source   Pair   Volume (24h)   Price   Volume (%)   Updated
    1   Trade By TradeTrade By Trade   BTM/BTC   $51,388   * $0.312863   61.42%   Recently
    2   Trade By TradeTrade By Trade   BTM/USDT   $22,047   * $0.146719   26.35%   Recently
    3   CryptopiaCryptopia   MARKS/BTC   $5,220   $0.269226   6.24%   Recently
    4   PoloniexPoloniex   BTM/BTC   $4,924   * $0.309068   5.88%   Recently
    5   Trade SatoshiTrade Satoshi   BTM/BTC   $90   $0.183605   0.11%   Recently
    6   CryptopiaCryptopia   MARKS/LTC   $3   $0.211024   0.00%   Recently
    7   Trade SatoshiTrade Satoshi   BTM/LTC   $0   $0.347605   0.00%   Recently


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: holylacross on June 24, 2018, 11:33:14 PM
    Installed the new wallet today and had no issue. Thank you for the update

    Thanks for the feedback !  Are you on Linux, Windows or MacOS ??


    Windows 10 64x


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 26, 2018, 03:33:25 PM
    Bitmark (MARKS) - Pooled Mining UPDATE:

      
     SmilingMining.com (http://www.smilingmining.com)  now offers EquiHash, Yescrypt and X17 pooled mining, as well as SCrypt, SHA256d & Lyra2REv2

    Bitmark (MARKS) Pooled Mining
                   
                                  SCrypt   SHA256d   Yescrypt   Argon2d   X17    Lyra2REv2  EquiHash   CryptoNight
    http://www.smilingmining.com     √        √         √                  √         √         √

    https://mp3.markmine.io          √        √                     √      √         √

    https://drkmrk.xyz                                                                                     X

    http://yapool.net                

    http://zpool.ca                  √        √                            √

    Notes:

         (X) CryptoNight is on the drkmrk.xyz pool on an experimental basis.
     
         EH: There was a recent sharp rise in EquiHash performance, if you know which pool / source this is coming from, please PM or post.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on June 26, 2018, 07:43:07 PM

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopy produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    As @dbkeys stated we are a volunteer group, fully decentralized and organically grown.

    I've been in contact with both Cryptopia & Poloniex at least twice a week. Poloniex is currently doing their standard testing prior to re-enabling the wallet. Additionally we are collaborating with Cryptopia and assisting them in getting their wallets synced... they are policy bound and unable to use the bootstrap file to Aid Syncing.

    We successfully forked and provided our community the 1st multi-algo merge mineable currency, this was a massive undertaking and we have been largely sucessfull... let's try to keep the conversation productive, constructive and insightful


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: kendie on June 27, 2018, 01:41:59 AM
    how too solo on my wallet for GPU?
    how too set something?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on June 27, 2018, 11:15:16 AM
        EH: There was a recent sharp rise in EquiHash performance, if you know which pool / source this is coming from, please PM or post.

    It is coming from http://www.smilingmining.com. They said on discord they are testing it now, and it should be available for miners soon.
    It is been a couple of days since, maybe they just decided to mine equihash only for themselves.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 27, 2018, 02:10:33 PM
        EH: There was a recent sharp rise in EquiHash performance, if you know which pool / source this is coming from, please PM or post.

    It is coming from http://www.SmilingMining.com. They said on discord they are testing it now, and it should be available for miners soon.
    It is been a couple of days since, maybe they just decided to mine equihash only for themselves.

    ¡ Good job SmilingMining.com  !   .... & thanks for the info @coinzy4   :D

    EquiHash went up an order of magnitude...
    https://i.imgur.com/ohfyRJB.png

                                    Bitmark 8mPoW - Blockchain Performance Graphs (http://explorer.bitmark.co/plots/)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: mccanderd on June 27, 2018, 07:53:30 PM
    http://

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopia produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    Poloniex has been advised AFAIK that we have forked and that the forked blockchain is functioning correctly. @82ndabnmedic is in contact with them and we hope to have the deposit/withdrawal situation finally resolved soon.

    Cryptopia, as I mentioned, is experiencing blockchain sync issue, and we're working with them to solve it.

    qTrade is being developed by one of the contributors and member of the Bitmark team (@bitbumper on Slack), so I trust qTrade.io. Curious what you think qTrade can do to increase their perceived trustability.

    Yobit: Indeed, we paid Yobit and they have not done anything (so far, anyway).  I'll submit the listing again !

    Support Ticket at Yobit.io:

    Quote
    2018-04-27 12:02:00 dbkeys
    If you are not going to add Bitmark (MARKS) then will you please return the funds payed towards this.

    2018-04-25 11:23:19 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you please tell us if you will be adding Bitmark (MARKS)
    We payed via Yobicode.   We have been recently added by Cryptopia
    ( https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC) and are already listed at Poloniex.

    2018-03-27 03:21:23 dbkeys
    OK, thank you.  I have activated the yobicode.
    2018-03-22 11:29:48 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you give us an update about the Bitmark listing ?
    It's about the 7-14 day timeframe you mentioned. If there is any issue, we would like the opportunity to address. it

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys
    2018-03-13 12:47:25 dominikherzog
    If coin is not listed/after 7-14 business days/>request is declined
    You can activate yobicode for yourself on https://yobit.net/en/yobicodes/
     0.001 btc
    BTC

    2018-03-13 12:37:02 dbkeys
    Hello,

    We paid 0.1 to list Bitmark ( https://www.bitmark.io ) with the ticker symbol MARKS. (We have been using the ticker symbol BTM, but we have decided to change to MARKS)

    If you need any additional information, or an initial deposit of Bitmarks (MARKS) please let me know.

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys

    Deposit towards YoBit Bitmark Listing:
    Quote
           ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 3GuWcTZFD6avnosbMXdq7dZgTUxkCPkErN 0.02
            0f59e2718cf2bc22afda407964721c98138d58d67e7c49304edb08b9418ecf88
            1520260616 - Mon 5 Mar 14:36:56 UTC 2018

            ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 1AhqJ7AGFMZmcCgD9wr3TqPgwPL5YWPrAY 0.075
            508a2ce4290f45c191dd604476e66935b33d3c56b2caa5bed649f8d390681def
            1520434228 - Wed 7 Mar 14:50:28 UTC 2018


    Answer from Yobit...

    Please contact Yobit admin Robert via Telegram (telegram user name RobertSupport). He may help you with locked accounts, listing a new coin (for developers), stuck transactions, Invest Boxes etc.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 28, 2018, 06:13:24 PM
    http://

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopia produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    Poloniex has been advised AFAIK that we have forked and that the forked blockchain is functioning correctly. @82ndabnmedic is in contact with them and we hope to have the deposit/withdrawal situation finally resolved soon.

    Cryptopia, as I mentioned, is experiencing blockchain sync issue, and we're working with them to solve it.

    qTrade is being developed by one of the contributors and member of the Bitmark team (@bitbumper on Slack), so I trust qTrade.io. Curious what you think qTrade can do to increase their perceived trustability.

    Yobit: Indeed, we paid Yobit and they have not done anything (so far, anyway).  I'll submit the listing again !

    Support Ticket at Yobit.io:

    Quote
    2018-04-27 12:02:00 dbkeys
    If you are not going to add Bitmark (MARKS) then will you please return the funds payed towards this.

    2018-04-25 11:23:19 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you please tell us if you will be adding Bitmark (MARKS)
    We payed via Yobicode.   We have been recently added by Cryptopia
    ( https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC) and are already listed at Poloniex.

    2018-03-27 03:21:23 dbkeys
    OK, thank you.  I have activated the yobicode.
    2018-03-22 11:29:48 dbkeys
    Hello, Can you give us an update about the Bitmark listing ?
    It's about the 7-14 day timeframe you mentioned. If there is any issue, we would like the opportunity to address. it

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys
    2018-03-13 12:47:25 dominikherzog
    If coin is not listed/after 7-14 business days/>request is declined
    You can activate yobicode for yourself on https://yobit.net/en/yobicodes/
     0.001 btc
    BTC

    2018-03-13 12:37:02 dbkeys
    Hello,

    We paid 0.1 to list Bitmark ( https://www.bitmark.io ) with the ticker symbol MARKS. (We have been using the ticker symbol BTM, but we have decided to change to MARKS)

    If you need any additional information, or an initial deposit of Bitmarks (MARKS) please let me know.

    Best Regards,
    DBKeys

    Deposit towards YoBit Bitmark Listing:
    Quote
           ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 3GuWcTZFD6avnosbMXdq7dZgTUxkCPkErN 0.02
            0f59e2718cf2bc22afda407964721c98138d58d67e7c49304edb08b9418ecf88
            1520260616 - Mon 5 Mar 14:36:56 UTC 2018

            ~/.bitcoin$ btc sendtoaddress 1AhqJ7AGFMZmcCgD9wr3TqPgwPL5YWPrAY 0.075
            508a2ce4290f45c191dd604476e66935b33d3c56b2caa5bed649f8d390681def
            1520434228 - Wed 7 Mar 14:50:28 UTC 2018


    Answer from Yobit...

    Please contact Yobit admin Robert via Telegram (telegram user name RobertSupport). He may help you with locked accounts, listing a new coin (for developers), stuck transactions, Invest Boxes etc.

    Thanks !  We are working on v0.9.7.1 which will have improved DNS Seeder support and some additional optimizations to support initial syncing of blockchain. Should be ready in about a week or so.    With that release published, I will contact Yobit to see if they will finally activate our listing.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jeronimo99 on June 29, 2018, 10:51:48 AM

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopy produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    As @dbkeys stated we are a volunteer group, fully decentralized and organically grown.

    I've been in contact with both Cryptopia & Poloniex at least twice a week. Poloniex is currently doing their standard testing prior to re-enabling the wallet. Additionally we are collaborating with Cryptopia and assisting them in getting their wallets synced... they are policy bound and unable to use the bootstrap file to Aid Syncing.

    We successfully forked and provided our community the 1st multi-algo merge mineable currency, this was a massive undertaking and we have been largely sucessfull... let's try to keep the conversation productive, constructive and insightful

    =================================================================================

         I did not want to continue this conversation now, in any case, to tangible, real progress towards solving the problems that worry all problems with an adequate exchange. I also see how you are aggressively responding to my questions and being an adequate person will try to explain the essence of the issue and my recent post more deeply.

         I, and I think that many others, are grateful to you for the huge, complex, great work that you have done with this coin. I sincerely and honestly thank you for this. Although my gratitude and respect for you, in general terms, does not apply specifically to the BTM, but to the direction you have chosen - crypto-currencies, blockchain programming and multi-algo mining problem. I am sure, I know from my own experience that in this work, faced with difficulties, you have received substantive knowledge of experience and practical experience.

         Now let's return to the acute issues.
    I soberly and pragmatically look and see at everything that happens in the world of crypto-currencies and you, you can certainly fix me, but then I will lay out real events that all adequate people know and see.

         From the very beginning, the entire history of the development of the BTM was a big adventure in which both big uncles and those who just wanted to earn money tried to play, thinking that the rules were for everyone and hoped that the horses in the ferry did not change. Never ever, and for the third time I will say that never on poloniex not  normal, honest work, NEVER !!!  95% of the time the purse for replenishment was unavailable, ordinary mortals, money went to poloniex through the back, by agreement and only for the elite. There they simply bought and sold themselves creating a visibility of the movement, brought up the value of the artificially lowered price, knowing that no one else could make a deposit.
         Thus using all the other small trading platforms for speculative selling at inflated prices - poloniex writes - "buying $ 2" People like crazy, they bought where they saw, at 1-1,5-1,7 $ and only then they saw a non-working purse and lost on this immediately 40-70% - And tell me what has changed? I'll say - so far nothing, absolutely nothing.
        Now you point your finger at TradebyTrade.com - these are scammers! How many people lost their money there? They need to write a separate article on it - they have forgotten so far. You were interested in what to promote close to you personally qTrade? - I will answer - normal work! I waited 2,5 hours for my withdrw. for LTC and received it only after I applied to the Sapport. Well, the list available for currency exchange, except for BTC and LTC, is a caricature! Add at least DOGE, XVG, so that the miners do not lose 20-50% on the purchase for the withdrawal of this garbage or pay 2-3-5 $ for withdrawal to the BTC LTC.

         As for the cryptopia of yobit and poloniex - I am very happy, in my soul indescribable rapture and reverence, from regular reading of your sketches and revelations, to the long-broken and sick topic of your warm and, most important, productive talks, communication and understanding with these exchanges.
         How can!? what a f # c k i n #  reluctance to them and you along with them (sorry for the literary expression) prevents you from starting a purse there - now 2018 year! we live in an age of cosmic speeds and technologies! What the hell is politics? !! It's a circus and a mockery. If there is a main thing - a desire on both sides, then everything else is done in 48 hours
         Well, the last. I thank you again for the work done, but let's face it - you raised from the low floor a coin with a history, with a working time, with a crooked price tag of $ 2 million and I'll tell you very fortunate, I did not pay attention and did not have time to do it myself . Personally, you will earn much more of this on it.

         Understand, we, most of ordinary people, do not need it, like any other, and now even the BTC has not become  
    interesting - We all just want to make money on it. Now, as long as you continue to waste time, every day, every minute we invest our own money in mining, we support you, but all this is just for the sake of the promised profit.

         I and many others are ready to help you in everything, but everything has a reasonable limit. Now there is a real profit mining on cryptonight and equihash, you can earn and all who have such a pool are silent and rowing all to themselves. I'm ready to create a good pool with anyone who wants to - let's the server, write, there will be a pool. And do not be angry, you raised it, took a big target on your back.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 29, 2018, 11:33:27 PM

    What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopy produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

    As @dbkeys stated we are a volunteer group, fully decentralized and organically grown.

    I've been in contact with both Cryptopia & Poloniex at least twice a week. Poloniex is currently doing their standard testing prior to re-enabling the wallet. Additionally we are collaborating with Cryptopia and assisting them in getting their wallets synced... they are policy bound and unable to use the bootstrap file to Aid Syncing.

    We successfully forked and provided our community the 1st multi-algo merge mineable currency, this was a massive undertaking and we have been largely sucessfull... let's try to keep the conversation productive, constructive and insightful

    =================================================================================

         I did not want to continue this conversation now, in any case, to tangible, real progress towards solving the problems that worry all problems with an adequate exchange. I also see how you are aggressively responding to my questions and being an adequate person will try to explain the essence of the issue and my recent post more deeply.

         I, and I think that many others, are grateful to you for the huge, complex, great work that you have done with this coin. I sincerely and honestly thank you for this. Although my gratitude and respect for you, in general terms, does not apply specifically to the BTM, but to the direction you have chosen - crypto-currencies, blockchain programming and multi-algo mining problem. I am sure, I know from my own experience that in this work, faced with difficulties, you have received substantive knowledge of experience and practical experience.

         Now let's return to the acute issues.
    I soberly and pragmatically look and see at everything that happens in the world of crypto-currencies and you, you can certainly fix me, but then I will lay out real events that all adequate people know and see.

         From the very beginning, the entire history of the development of the BTM was a big adventure in which both big uncles and those who just wanted to earn money tried to play, thinking that the rules were for everyone and hoped that the horses in the ferry did not change. Never ever, and for the third time I will say that never on poloniex not  normal, honest work, NEVER !!!  95% of the time the purse for replenishment was unavailable, ordinary mortals, money went to poloniex through the back, by agreement and only for the elite. There they simply bought and sold themselves creating a visibility of the movement, brought up the value of the artificially lowered price, knowing that no one else could make a deposit.
         Thus using all the other small trading platforms for speculative selling at inflated prices - poloniex writes - "buying $ 2" People like crazy, they bought where they saw, at 1-1,5-1,7 $ and only then they saw a non-working purse and lost on this immediately 40-70% - And tell me what has changed? I'll say - so far nothing, absolutely nothing.
        Now you point your finger at TradebyTrade.com - these are scammers! How many people lost their money there? They need to write a separate article on it - they have forgotten so far. You were interested in what to promote close to you personally qTrade? - I will answer - normal work! I waited 2,5 hours for my withdrw. for LTC and received it only after I applied to the Sapport. Well, the list available for currency exchange, except for BTC and LTC, is a caricature! Add at least DOGE, XVG, so that the miners do not lose 20-50% on the purchase for the withdrawal of this garbage or pay 2-3-5 $ for withdrawal to the BTC LTC.

         As for the cryptopia of yobit and poloniex - I am very happy, in my soul indescribable rapture and reverence, from regular reading of your sketches and revelations, to the long-broken and sick topic of your warm and, most important, productive talks, communication and understanding with these exchanges.
         How can!? what a f # c k i n #  reluctance to them and you along with them (sorry for the literary expression) prevents you from starting a purse there - now 2018 year! we live in an age of cosmic speeds and technologies! What the hell is politics? !! It's a circus and a mockery. If there is a main thing - a desire on both sides, then everything else is done in 48 hours
         Well, the last. I thank you again for the work done, but let's face it - you raised from the low floor a coin with a history, with a working time, with a crooked price tag of $ 2 million and I'll tell you very fortunate, I did not pay attention and did not have time to do it myself . Personally, you will earn much more of this on it.

         Understand, we, most of ordinary people, do not need it, like any other, and now even the BTC has not become  
    interesting - We all just want to make money on it. Now, as long as you continue to waste time, every day, every minute we invest our own money in mining, we support you, but all this is just for the sake of the promised profit.

         I and many others are ready to help you in everything, but everything has a reasonable limit. Now there is a real profit mining on cryptonight and equihash, you can earn and all who have such a pool are silent and rowing all to themselves. I'm ready to create a good pool with anyone who wants to - let's the server, write, there will be a pool. And do not be angry, you raised it, took a big target on your back.

    Jeronimo99, interesting viewpoints, and thanks for the recognition. It has been alot of work to get the Bitmark chain flowing smoothly, with the help and advice of many good people.  
     In fact, I don't know of any other coin that has as many PoW algos powering their chain, and all are merge-minable.

      I think Bitmark is the first 8mPoW blockchain.

    And now, it is a very solid platiform to build the Marking infrastructure and systems which have always been its main reason for being, or "raison d'être"    Even better than Bitcoin, in my opinion, because the balance between hashrate and difficulty is kept under control much better (DGWv3 : thanks Evan Duffield & DASH !) than with Bitcoin's primitive diffalgo.  Our mining is much more democratic than it is on coins with a single ASIC PoW algo:   Look at how the mining is distributed, and notice that "All Others" category is on top, and rising (taken from cryptoid.info (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/#!extraction)):
    https://i.imgur.com/WGjKJXY.png

    I have no doubt that there are whales, and such things as market manipulations. But there are now several exchanges where you can trade Bitmark, and we are working to get them all fully enabled.  For example, I urge people to try out qTrade.io (https://qTrade.io). It's a new exchange, and I believe it's fairly run.
     Also, we've implemented the features necessary for Bitmark to participate in de-centralized exchanges, which are a very promising technology.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Jeronimo99 on June 30, 2018, 06:30:12 AM

    I have no doubt that there are whales, and such things as market manipulations. But there are now several exchanges where you can trade Bitmark, and we are working to get them all fully enabled.  For example, I urge people to try out qTrade.io (https://qTrade.io). It's a new exchange, and I believe it's fairly run.
     Also, we've implemented the features necessary for Bitmark to participate in de-centralized exchanges, which are a very promising technology.
    [/quote]

    ====================================================================================

    Again bla bla bla...

       It's a simple wallet, not a sacred kosher cow! We will not feed her for free, and then she will pray for her!

         Simple direct questions require direct simple answers!
    Cryptopia - Polonix - Yobit  Here are these three nails in the coffin of confidence. What do you not understand?
         
         If the yobot took money from you for listing and did not do it, and continues to fuck everyone's brain - so tell me what the scammer is doing.

         If cryptology studies the map of another galaxy on June 13, and if four letters are used, U F C K  tries to collect the word "ETERNITY" - and say that idiots work in Cryptopia!

         If Polonix continues to play dark games under the blanket - call these things real names!
                                            Stop praising yourself! Just give me money!)))


    p.s Add DOGE to qTrade.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 30, 2018, 12:46:58 PM
    Quote

    I have no doubt that there are whales, and such things as market manipulations. But there are now several exchanges where you can trade Bitmark, and we are working to get them all fully enabled.  For example, I urge people to try out qTrade.io (https://qTrade.io). It's a new exchange, and I believe it's fairly run.
     Also, we've implemented the features necessary for Bitmark to participate in de-centralized exchanges, which are a very promising technology.

    ====================================================================================

    Again bla bla bla...

       It's a simple wallet, not a sacred kosher cow! We will not feed her for free, and then she will pray for her!

         Simple direct questions require direct simple answers!
    Cryptopia - Polonix - Yobit  Here are these three nails in the coffin of confidence. What do you not understand?
        
         If the yobot took money from you for listing and did not do it, and continues to fuck everyone's brain - so tell me what the scammer is doing.

         If cryptology studies the map of another galaxy on June 13, and if four letters are used, U F C K  tries to collect the word "ETERNITY" - and say that idiots work in Cryptopia!

         If Polonix continues to play dark games under the blanket - call these things real names!
                                            Stop praising yourself! Just give me money!)))


    p.s Add DOGE to qTrade.

    Your posts are a bit... cryptic. It's hard for me to decipher what you are saying sometimes.

    Quote
    It's a simple wallet, not a sacred kosher cow! We will not feed her for free, and then she will pray for her!
    What is a simple wallet ?
          Bitmark is a blockchain and a cryptocurrency. And a powerful concept with tremendous potential, Marking, which has already spawned one commercial company.   We have wallets (GUI nodes) which run on Mac & Windows.
          Are you trying to say that Bitmark is just another cryptocoin ? That's a matter of opinion.
          Will not feed her for free ?  Do you mean that you will not invest or buy Bitmarks until you see a return on your investment ?   That is entirely up to you.   But I can add that decisions like this shold depend on your particular time horizon.
          We are materializing a vision, and for me the first step was to make sure that the underlying blockchain platform was sound and reliable. Done. √    

      Who is going to pray for who ?    A sacred cow praying for herself ?  Can't make heads or tails out of this one.
        



          You do come across loud and clear on the point about Exchanges. I get that.

              qTrade: Let's focus on the positive: we are listed on qTrade.io (https://qTrade.io) now !
    I have an account there. Deposits and Withdrawals work great. (There are still not too many coins listed, and the volume is low, but this will change as more people use it.)

          but ... it is frustrating when Poloniex & Cryptopia do not process withdrawals or deposits.
              As far as I understand, Cryptopia was having problems sync'ing the blockchain past a certain height without the help of 'bootstrap.dat' file, which their policy forbids use of. Other exchanges have been able to sync the blockchain. I'm sure they will too.

               Poloniex currently has a notice that reads:
    Quote
       BTM is currently under maintenance or experiencing wallet issues. Deposits and withdrawals will remain disabled as we work to find, test, and audit a solution. Thank you for your patience in the meantime.
     
    They have had a variation of this for quite a while.   I don't know Poloniex's policy or why exactly they are saying this.   Since June 6, when v0.9.7.0 was released, the Bitmark blockchain has operated, and is operating, regularly and reliably.  Blocks of transactions are being added to the chain, as expected, approximately every 2 minutes. There are still a few nodes which report older versions which are incompatible with post-fork v0.9.7.0, but this should be of no consequence.   Do you have an account there ? Have you tried contacting them ?  

               Yobit. We did pay for a listing there, and at the time, (v0.9.7.0 had not been released yet) they chose not to list.  We will have v0.9.7.1 ready soon, with wallets (full node GUI binaries) for Windows 64/32 bit,  MacOS (El Capitan and newer) and Raspbian.  When v0.9.7.1 is released,  it will be time to renew the request to be listed on Yobit.  





    Quote
        If cryptology studies the map of another galaxy on June 13, and if four letters are used, U F C K  tries to collect the word "ETERNITY" - and say that idiots work in Cryptopia!
     
    This is really, truly cryptic (to me).   ???  I looked at posts on June 13, nothing specific to Cryptopia, Galaxies or Eternity.    LOL .   Personally I think the folks from Cryptopia are good people.  Matter of opinion I guess.

    Quote
        If Polonix continues to play dark games under the blanket - call these things real names!
                                            Stop praising yourself! Just give me money!)))

    If you have any proof of Poloniex doing anything untoward or more precisely, illegal, please present it. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

    and as to giving you money, well, you know Pink Floyd (https://genius.com/Pink-floyd-money-lyrics) said: "It's no surprise that they're giving none away ....." ::)




    I'll pass along your suggestion to add DOGE to qTrade. Any particular reason why you like DOGE and/or any more coin suggestions?

    Appreciate your interest in the Bitmark project !


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on June 30, 2018, 06:16:08 PM
    Quote
    p.s Add DOGE to qTrade.

    From qTrade:
    "DOGE  is on the short list of established coins to add in the near future. "


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: smartsky on July 01, 2018, 01:17:43 PM
    Dbkeys, can you help me, my wallet 9.0.5 is not syncronized, i added the node but don't syncronized.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on July 02, 2018, 05:13:16 AM
    Dbkeys, can you help me, my wallet 9.0.5 is not syncronized, i added the node but don't syncronized.


    we recommend that you backup your current wallet.dat file to a safe location (multiple actually)...then downlooad the latest release for your OS. Install the new wallet & make sure to add the bootstrap file in the  /Users/AppData/Roaming/Bitmark directory (this will aid in syncing the new wallet quickly). Once synced, Close the wallet. Now place the saved wallet.dat file (from old version) in the same directory "/Users/AppData/Roaming/Bitmark"....Now restart

    - You should be fully Synced with you imported wallet


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on July 03, 2018, 05:54:06 PM
    Bitmarks "MARKS" be taken out of Maintenance mode @Cryptopia_NZ on Friday "July 6th"
    Thanks @Cryptopia_NZ


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: onelineproof on July 03, 2018, 07:09:37 PM
    My mining pool (https://drmrk.xyz) just mined the first block merge mined with Monero (block 470141). It still didn't solve a Monero block, but did at the Bitmark difficulty. I will run some tests with Monero test net to make sure we can mine Monero blocks, but in the meantime you can use the pool, and I will keep track of the shares. The pool address is not fixed yet, it changes from block to block, but you can track all the blocks with the "*" symbol next to cryptonight in the explorer explorer.bitmark.co. I want to see if we can merge a Monero block soon so please try it out, no fees for now!


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: block41 on July 03, 2018, 07:31:58 PM
    maybe I'm not careful, but I did not see a link to your site. do you have it? as well as technical documentation. but as I understand it, your token is already traded on the exchange, right?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Lopez Lamar on July 03, 2018, 07:41:27 PM
    I support this plan and hope  it can be successful.
    A very promising idea, sensible vision.  Good luck all.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on July 03, 2018, 09:01:10 PM

    Bitmarks "MARKS" be taken out of Maintenance mode & ENABLED FOR TRADING @Cryptopia_NZ on Friday "July 6th"
    Thanks @Cryptopia_NZ

    MARKS is already being traded on Cryptopia. You probably meant deposits and withdrawals will be enabled again?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on July 04, 2018, 03:12:54 PM
    Dbkeys, can you help me, my wallet 9.0.5 is not syncronized, i added the node but don't syncronized.


    If you are on v0.9.5  you should upgrade to a post-fork wallet, at least v0.9.7.0


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on July 04, 2018, 04:27:20 PM

    MARKS is already being traded on Cryptopia. You probably meant deposits and withdrawals will be enabled again?

    Thanks for catching that....yes I meant to say re-enabled deposits & withdrawals


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: crackfoo on July 06, 2018, 04:32:55 PM
    Hi,

    We've added MARKS to the miners multipool: www.zpool.ca

    We have it enabled on SHA256, SCRYPT and X17

    Cheers


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: 82ndabnmedic on July 06, 2018, 05:44:53 PM
    Hi,

    We've added MARKS to the miners multipool: www.zpool.ca

    We have it enabled on SHA256, SCRYPT and X17

    Cheers

    Perfect....Great work guys!


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on July 07, 2018, 03:30:08 PM
    Bitmark (MARKS) Pooled Mining UPDATE

    ZPool.CA (http://www.zpool.ca)  &  ZergPool.com (http://zergpool.com)
    have both added SHA256, SCRYPT, EquiHash X17 & Yescrypt  PoW algo support

    SmilingMining.com (http://equihash.SmilingMining.com)
    has added added EquiHash  PoW algo support

    BlockMasters.co (http://blockmasters.co)
    has added added Scrypt, SHA, x17, & Lyra2REv2  PoW algo support

    TopMining.club (http://topmining.club)
    has added added EquiHash   support



    Bitmark (MARKS) Pooled Mining
                   
                                 SCrypt   SHA256d   Yescrypt   Argon2d   X17    Lyra2REv2  EquiHash  CryptoNight
    http://www.smilingmining.com     √        √         √                  √         √         √

    https://mp3.markmine.io          √        √                     √      √         √

    http://yapool.net                

    http://zpool.ca                  √        √         √                  √                   √

    http://zergpool.com              √        √                            √

    http://www.blockmasters.co       √        √                            √         √

    http://topmining.club                                                                      √


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Matiel on July 07, 2018, 06:33:36 PM
    one day the Polo wallets will be released?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: coinzy4 on July 08, 2018, 01:18:15 PM
    Top Mining Club is proud to announce first equihash mining pool for Bitmark - topmining.club (http://topmining.club).

    Pool fee for the first month is 0%, after first month pool fee would be 1%.

    Happy mining.

    PS. We'll soon start adding support for other Bitmark mining algorithms. Next in line is Cryptonight.

    Example command line options for some of the miners:

    EBVF:
    Code:
    miner --server 172.104.215.38 --port 4032 --user <YOUR BITMARK ADDRESS>  --pass x

    Bminer:
    Code:
    ADDRESS=<YOUR BITMARK ADDRESS>

    USERNAME=$ADDRESS.w
    POOL=172.104.215.38:4032
    SCHEME=stratum

    ./bminer -uri $SCHEME://$USERNAME@$POOL -api 127.0.0.1:1880

    For single GPU please use port 3032, for multiple gpu port 4032, and for nicehash 5032.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: zhouyc on July 08, 2018, 01:23:01 PM
    The area chain project of content incentive has abundant timing requirements, and MARKS is expected to achieve breakthrough application in this field.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: paklungipin on July 08, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
    This platform has been successful forking and becoming a product
    which uses the first multi-algo on a coin that can mined. Also has
    become a digital asset that can used as a micro payment tool for
    the public, companies and governments. This is a big market opportunity
    that can be developed.
    Overall, this application of blockchain technology in this platform
    proven internally and externally needed.
    With hard work and dedication, hopefully can survive
    in today's competitive market.


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Blockmunch on July 09, 2018, 03:02:10 AM


    Over 100 coins on the pool, with more added regularly!
    BlockMasters.co (http://BlockMasters.co) (Formally BlockMunch) has added Bitmark to it's Multi-Pool!  Scrypt, SHA, x17, & Lyra2REv2 is added for merge mining!  Only 0.25% Fee's!
    We are now a Multi-Pool!  We mine the most profitable coin always, and maximize your return!
    Choose your payout style.  We pay out in this coin, BTC, LTC, and any coin we currently have listed on the pool!

    You can also use your ASIC's in our SHA256, X11, & Scrypt ports and get paid in this coin or BTC!  Just change the algo and the port number in the example belows!

    Example Config is Below for Bitmark Pay:
    Code:
    -a scrypt -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:3433 -u bKdhCQAQ4fdJzFP2Sg8skseypzmNvjS2f2 -p c=MARKS
    Code:
    -a lyra2v2 -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:4533 -u bWeCQXtFENU8RJanatVCB5jx4WateEEUXw -p c=MARKSlyra2v2
    Code:
    -a sha256 -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:3333 -u bXKXudsKLuqk3SNkgerAfaYEKh9yvFcBDj -p c=MARKSsha
    Code:
    -a x17 -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:3737 -u baAL7P2QvSBJtdHd6vNZWS1dkLR2LcNRTY -p c=MARKSx17

    Example Config Below for BTC Pay
    Code:
    -a scrypt -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:3433 -u 1JFx3fE462vMsTeYkNK5yvdWeg2wpmxvBD -p c=BTC

    Example Config Below for LTC Pay
    Code:
    -a scrypt -o stratum+tcp://blockmasters.co:3433 -u LRgQk63NRnJQ8PBTU8yyHAm5aGfNjzhMZu -p c=LTC
    Block Explorer Link:
    Code:
    blockmasters.co/explorer/MARKS

    Peer List:
    Code:
    blockmasters.co/explorer/peers?id=2851

    BlockMasters.Co Discord Link: https://discord.gg/RNnVAB4 (https://discord.gg/RNnVAB4)

    BlockMasters.Co BitcoinTalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2362982.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2362982.0)



    Welcome to BlockMasters!



    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: crackfoo on July 09, 2018, 02:32:26 PM
    Hi,

    We've added MARKS to the miners multipool: www.zpool.ca

    We have it enabled on SHA256, SCRYPT and X17

    Cheers

    Perfect....Great work guys!

    Enabled now on yescrypt and equihash as standard POW.

    Cheers


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: Matiel on July 11, 2018, 12:06:33 AM
    What's the play here?
    influence buyers to sell their MARKS in the Polo in 4k and buy in Cryptopia in 1k?
    what is the problem that prices do not match?


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: alarmod on July 11, 2018, 03:51:37 AM
    Polo have disabled deposits...


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on July 14, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
    Proposed  Bitmark (MARKS) v0.9.7.3   -   Development Report


         Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 has proved succesful, and we believe it can benefit from more dynamic range authority.  We propose that CEM v0.2 have authority somewhere between 75% and 80% of the epoch full reward, (instead of just 50%).  The look-back period on which peak hashrate is based will be reduced from 1 year to 3 months. We believe this time frame is sufficient and better suited.


         A discussion about the merits of merge-mining arose on the Bitmark GitHub wiki (  merge-mining discussion (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68) ), and an interesting white paper was highlighted: Merged Mining: ¿ Curse or Cure ? (https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/791.pdf)

         Based on this, we want to make a distinction between blocks mined natively or (n-blocks), and blocks merge-mined via the AuxPoW mechanism as children of another parent chain or (mm-blocks). The motivation is to reduce mining centralization, while securing the benefits of the large hashpower of powerful parent chains. Another goal is to produce the right number of coins for the available market demand and stabilize the coin's price. Merge-mined coins tend to be freebies which are sold off on exchanges quickly, while natively mined coins are usually more prized by the miners.

         Merge-mined blocks (mm-blocks) will receive a lighter reward than natively-mined blocks (n-blocks).   Naturally, both the native and merged variants must each therefore have their own blocktime targets and difficulty. Each variant's hashrate will also be individually tracked and this data used by Coin Emission Modulation individually as well. This will create, effectively, a total of 16 "viritual" algos from the present 8 mPoW algos. Each mPoW algo will have a native and a merge-mined variant. As per the original Bitmark (MARKS) spec, a block will continue to be produced in an average inter-block time of 2 minutes (β=120s) and the original coin emission caps are observed.

         The reasoning for the lower subsidy for mm-blocks is that the low marginal cost to obtain an mm-block should be likewise equitably rewarded. If a mining operation did not want to be subject to the lower mm-block reward, they can always choose to mine Bitmark as the parent chain, and get the full CEM-modulated reward of the native variant by generating n-blocks.

          Work on this proposed hard fork is  happening on @piratelinux's GitHub repo, dev branch:Bitmark v0.9.7.3 development (https://github.com/piratelinux/bitmark/tree/dev)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: dbkeys on July 14, 2018, 08:41:41 PM
    Announcing:    

    Bitmark (MARKS)

    Bug Bounty Program

         We invite all developers to review our code, provide feedback, and report any issues. In return, our bug bounty program will compensate you for discovering issues that could potentially impact the security and performance of the Bitmark blockchain

    Compensation
        Our team will assess each submission individually and assign a severity level according to its likelihood and security and performance impacts. Compensation will depend on the severity of the issue found.


    Rewards:

    * Critical: 10000 MARKS - A critical bug is a bug that will enable stealing or loss of funds
    * High: 5000 MARKS - A high bug significantly affects the ability of the system to operate.
    * Medium: 2500 MARKS - Medium bugs entail an issue regarding operation not exactly as designed or intended, but not causing the loss of funds nor impeding operation completely.
    * Low: 1000 MARKS - Low bugs are less significant errors
    * Informational: 1 MARKS - Informational errors have no impact on the operation of a the system but should be brought to attention, such as a comment not matching the updated code, etc.

    Note:
    These MARKS denominated bounties are good thru October 1, 2018
    (will revise after that date to adjust for possible value changes)


    Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
    Post by: ludmila79 on July 14, 2018, 08:51:41 PM
    This platform has been successful forking and becoming a product
    which uses the first multi-algo on a coin that can mined. Also has
    become a digital asset that can used as a micro payment tool for
    the public, companies and governments. This is a big market opportunity
    that can be developed.
    Overall, this application of blockchain technology in this platform
    proven internally and externally needed.
    With hard work and dedication, hopefully can survive
    in today's competitive market.
    I totally agree with you. This project deserves to be! But, yes, it will hard to stay strong with such a big competitive market.


    Title: ANN
    Post by: TeamBitmark on July 16, 2018, 07:16:02 PM
    "Send & Receive Web-Based Micro-transactions (Payments)"



    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/project-bitmark/art-of-bitmark/master/branding/128/bitmark-purple.png
    Project Bitmark


    MARKS - Incentivizing Content Creators & Building a Reputation Value Framework


      EXAMPLE:

      • Send and receive payment from a URI (uniform resource identifiers) verified as being 'owned' or 'produced' by someone
      • Bitmark uses 'Linked Data' technologies to significantly improve the number of transactions the system is capable of in any given time-period. This in-turn aids with scalability, usability and Applications possible for this technology, which is currently not be as easily addressed using traditional cryptocurrency technologies.
      • Marking provides a means to remunerate content creators, by adapting the intention of a 'like' or a '+1', or other social-confirmation, into something that is valuable, transferable, and reputable.



      Incentivizing the Content Creator

      Bitmark enables the use of social-gestures and digital investments to create, establish and build monetary value in means that were simply impossible prior to the advent of Marking. Whether it be applied for providing recognition for a video you produced, shared or 'liked', through to new ways to pay street vendors, those authoring free software on the web, those seeking a low-friction way to license and distribute protectable intellectual property, organizations looking for a new way to establish a voting mechanism for administrative purposes or non-profit organizations seeking new, incremental ways to build or maintain their non-profit activities through social-engagement.

      The New Social Reputation Standard - Marking via "MARKS"
      Bitmark provides new funding mechanisms for funding products and services valued by communities.
      These systems can easily be applied to web-resources such as Wikipedia, via simple integration that supports simply 'marking' an article you've read or 'marking' Wikipedia itself as a resource you value. In-turn, these activities can be applied to modern Digital Reputation systems, which act in-turn to change network economics substantively.


      https://i.imgur.com/yliyTha.png
      https://github.com/solid/solid (https://github.com/solid/solid)
      Solid


      Solid (derived from "social linked data") is a proposed set of conventions and tools for building decentralized Web applications based on Linked Data principles. Solid is modular and extensible. It relies as much as possible on existing W3C standards and protocols....This is the framework Marking is built on.



      Marking and Digital Reputation


      Marking delivers a reputable benefit through the use of a public, digital ledger that presents transactions between entities with a secured area that enables notation in relation to the transnational event. These systems can then be further developed and applied, with an array of complementary technologies as to improve support for reputation marketplaces and complex reputational based value matrices surrounding a person's activity and presentation of their achievements, via the world wide web.

      Project Bitmark

      Created in 2014 as an every day use alternative currency, with No premine, No IPO, Nothing unfair, No clone, No old code bases, No untested code


      Bitmark - a stable and balanced cryptographic currency. Its primary objectives are to be safe, secure, fast, actively developed, and easy to integrate for services and adopters. (read more...)
      Marking - our massive adoption program which fuses reputation+currency, the primary focus of Project Bitmark. Marking enables people to apply crypto currency simply to every aspect of their lives. (read more...)

      Bitmark v0.9.7.2 has been released, please update your clients to keep our network secure.


      Links
      Wallet for all platforms, and actively developed source.
      Summary of Project Bitmark
      Full Specification of Marking
      Wiki and Extensive Information
      Branding and Logos
      Bitmark Block Explorer alternative blocktree.io


      Pools
      Bitmark is balanced so you receive a fair reward wherever you mine.
      Bitmark (MARKS) Pooled Mining

                                   SCrypt   SHA256d   Yescrypt   Argon2d   X17    Lyra2REv2  EquiHash  CryptoNight
      http://www.smilingmining.com     √        √         √                  √         √         √

      https://mp3.markmine.io          √        √                     √      √         √

      https://drkmrk.xyz                                                                                    

      http://yapool.net                

      http://zpool.ca                  √        √         √                   √                   √

      http://zergpool.com              √        √                             √

      http://www.blockmasters.co       √        √                             √         √

      http://topmining.club                                                                       √

      Notes:

           (X) CryptoNight is on the drkmrk.xyz pool, merge-mined with Monero.

      Exchanges

      Poloniex (https://www.poloniex.com/exchange/btc_btm)  
      (Poloniex will re-enable withdrawals & deposits the week of July 15)
      Cryptopia (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC)
      qTrade (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)

      Stats
      CoinMarketCap :
      Network API : Network Health Charts : Steady Price API for services which use BTM pricing

      Coin Specs

      8mPoW

      Eight distinct Proof-of-Work  algorithms contribute blocks to the Bitmark blockchain:

      SCrypt, SHA256d, Yescrypt, Argon2d, X17, Lyra2REv2, Equihash & Cryptonight

      This means that miners are able to mine Bitmark not only with our original SCrypt but, with these other algos too, several of which are ASIC-resistant, thus democratizing Bitmark mining and making it accessible even for the CPU miner.


      Block Reward: 15 BTM max current epoch reward, modulated by Coin Emission Modulation v0.1

      Coin Emission Modulation: CEM v0.1
         Bitmark v0.9.7.0 introduces Coin Emission Modulation, (CEM v0.1) scales up to 50% of block reward by reducing that half proportionately by the ratio of current hashrate to peak hashrate ( as experienced within the last year).
      The rationale behind this is to reduce coin emission when demand is relatively low (as sensed by reduced hashrate) and only emit the epoch’s full reward when hashrate is at its peak.
      Regardless of hashrate, 50% of the epoch’s full block subsidy (1/2 of 15 MARKS or 7.5 MARKS currently) is always given, to reward loyal miners supporting the Bitmark blockchain through low and high demand periods.
      The Block reward for each algorithm is set once a day ( exactly every 90 blocks of that algorithm's block production) for the next 90 blocks of production.
      Please check explorer.bitmark.co (http://explorer.bitmark.co) for any algo's current reward and to see when the reward will be recalculated.


      Block Time: 120 Seconds
      Block Maturity: 720 Blocks (~1 day) to discourage multipools
      Block Halving: Reward halves every 3 years, with intermediate decrease every 18 months (20 coins initially, 15 after 1.5 years, 10 after 3 years, etc...)
      Difficulty Retargeting:  Dark Gravity Wave v3  with SurgeSupressor & Resurrector Functions
      All eight PoW algorithms are governed for mining difficulty by custom Dark Gravity Wave v3. “Surge Supressor” triples difficulty if 9 in-a-row occurs from the same algo;
      “Resurrector” slices difficulty by 1/3 if an algo has not contributed in over 160 min.

      Total Coin Supply: ~27.58 million (27,579,894.73108000 exactly)



      JOIN US ON:
                DISCORD (https://discord.gg/6zXPEQY)            SLACK (https://join.slack.com/t/projectbitmark/shared_invite/enQtMzM2MDQxODkyMDcwLTk0NWQ0OTMwY2IwZmU1YTlkZjNkN2NkNzUxYTE5YjdmMTBjYjZmNTZhY2RlMTRjNjlhNjg0YWQxNTViZDdlNmM)[/list]


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on July 17, 2018, 10:21:19 AM
      FYI - you will see us replying from this account with increasing frequency...and utilizing our personal accounts less

      - Victor


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 17, 2018, 10:19:41 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.7.2 for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS "Bionic Beaver"  

      Notes:
      These files are executable binaries, no unpacking or unzipping, etc. is necessary.

      Please install development version of OpenSSL 1.00
      Code:
      apt-get install libssl1.0-dev

      Suffix: "64b" is for 64 bit,  ".s" means stripped of debugging symbols (for smaller memory footprint)


      Bitmarkd daemon v0.9.7.2 for Ubuntu 18.04 Official: 64bit, stripped (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmarkd.v0.9.7.2-Ubuntu_18.04-Official.64b.s)
      Bitmark client v0.9.7.2 for Ubuntu 18.04, Official: 64bit, stripped (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-cli.v0.9.7.2-Ubuntu_18.04-Official.64b.s)

      shasum -a 256

      Bitmark-cli.v0.9.7.2-Ubuntu_18.04-Official.64b.s
      18eaec8f2d5b7ab0423c0410bec7f54a57b2babc85f8849a47f19c7aee82602c  

      Bitmarkd.v0.9.7.2-Ubuntu_18.04-Official.64b.s
      e36915c866cbb1b823fd37477c297cdffb68002cb368b47cdff3ff09dae43c79  



      1531864846 Tue Jul 17 22:00:46 UTC 2018


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: DEVTEAM_MARKS on July 18, 2018, 12:03:04 AM
      Bitmark Update
      Just received word that Bitmark "BTM" will be re-enabled on Poloniex this week!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Namduc on July 18, 2018, 07:35:01 AM
      Bitmark Update
      Just received word that Bitmark "BTM" will be re-enabled on Poloniex this week!

      Good news


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: RobbieRich on July 18, 2018, 08:26:01 AM
      Who and/or what is the TEAM here ! Clicking on the empty pix on the site takes you NOWHERE !



      Hi! Where is the wallet?

      http://www.bitmark.io/, Downloads section

      or

      https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: DEVTEAM_MARKS on July 18, 2018, 09:28:34 AM
      Who and/or what is the TEAM here ! Clicking on the empty pix on the site takes you NOWHERE !



      Hi! Where is the wallet?

      http://www.bitmark.io/, Downloads section

      or

      https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases

      That website will soon be replaced with a new one...we are working through some final edits and we should have it out shortly.

      To answer your question....the Project Bitmark DevTeam has always been a volunteer driven opensource community. We strive to maintain a decentralized handle on the project and seek to deliver on our promise of providing a leverage-able web-scale reputation framework, which we call Marking.

      Built on a SOLID framework by our lead dev Melvin Carvalho https://github.com/melvincarvalho && https://melvincarvalho.com/#me

      Project Management by myself (https://www.linkedin.com/in/valejandropmp/) & DBkeys (Blockchain Development Engineer | SME)

      A few more Notable Core Dev's...(I just don't remember there Bitcointalk handles of the top of my head)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: DEVTEAM_MARKS on July 18, 2018, 09:34:45 AM
      Wallet:

      https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: zhouyc on July 18, 2018, 09:35:23 AM
      There are endless projects in the field of stimulating content. This coin project team needs to redouble its efforts, because competition among similar projects is fierce.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: DEVTEAM_MARKS on July 18, 2018, 09:43:06 AM
      There are endless projects in the field of stimulating content. This coin project team needs to redouble its efforts, because competition among similar projects is fierce.

      I don't disagree...we welcome any capable dev's that wish to assist us in delivering to market.

      That said, please look into what SOLID is and how the framework will be the tip of the spear when it comes to this.

      https://github.com/solid/solid



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 18, 2018, 07:02:09 PM
      Request for Proposals (RFP)

      Fellow Bitmarkers, please check the discussion on merge-mined vs. native mined here:

      Native Mining and Merge Mining (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68)


       I would like to get some opinions on: ¿ Should we favor native blocks over merge-mined blocks ? , and if so, in what ratio.

      We're coding the proposed Bitmark v0.9.7.3 fork to have 2 variants of each of the 8mPoW algos, the native variant (not merge-mineable, no AuxPoW) and a merge-mineable variant (AuxPoW-enabled).
      For now, we are coding to have block time targets for each variant the same: 32 minutes. (This is necessary to maintain the overall block times at 2 minutes)
      The question is: ¿ Should we favor the ratios of native blocks over merge-mined blocks ?


      Here are a few possible ratios of native:merged and the resulting target block times.

                    Ratio                  Target  Time           Target Time        (minutes)
                native:merged                 native              merge-mined
                --------------                -------             -------------
                      1:1                       32                     32
                      2:1                       24                     48
                      3:1                       21.333....             64
                      4:1                       20                     80
                      5:1                       19.2                   96


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on July 21, 2018, 03:23:03 PM
      Poloniex.com

      Bitmark (BTM) (MARKS)

      Deposits & Withdrawals are now fully functional.

      Many thanks to the Poloniex team !


      Bitmark at Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on July 25, 2018, 09:44:51 PM
      Poloniex.com

      Bitmark (BTM) (MARKS)

      Deposits & Withdrawals are now fully functional.

      Many thanks to the Poloniex team !


      Bitmark at Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm)

      Amazing Work Guys!

      Extremely pleased with how our DevTeam has stepped up and made this happen...We are now on track, we have set goals and deliverables for the remaining QTRs and we should have a timeline out soon-ish. The core updates take priority as we all know...then we need to address the final touches on the website ans move forward with implementations, marketing, etc


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on July 29, 2018, 04:06:29 PM
      BTM is currently under maintenance or experiencing wallet issues. Deposits and withdrawals will remain disabled as we work to find, test, and audit a solution. Thank you for your patience in the meantime.
       
      unbelievable


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on July 29, 2018, 04:55:38 PM
      Poloniex.com

      Bitmark (BTM) (MARKS)

      Deposits & Withdrawals are now fully functional.

      Many thanks to the Poloniex team !


      Bitmark at Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm)

      did not last 15 days


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on July 29, 2018, 07:34:47 PM
      BTM is currently under maintenance or experiencing wallet issues. Deposits and withdrawals will remain disabled as we work to find, test, and audit a solution. Thank you for your patience in the meantime.
       
      unbelievable


      Reaching out to Poloniex now....we will need to ensure Polo provides us notice prior to placing the wallet under maintenance again


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on July 30, 2018, 05:07:44 PM
      BTM is currently under maintenance or experiencing wallet issues. Deposits and withdrawals will remain disabled as we work to find, test, and audit a solution. Thank you for your patience in the meantime.
       
      unbelievable


      Reaching out to Poloniex now....we will need to ensure Polo provides us notice prior to placing the wallet under maintenance again

      what's the problem


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AnfisKatechkin on July 31, 2018, 03:38:26 PM
      What happened to Bitmark? Why it has fallen so significantly when it always cost about 10k satoshi?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 31, 2018, 07:08:29 PM
      What happened to Bitmark? Why it has fallen so significantly when it always cost about 10k satoshi?

      The answer IMO goes back to economics... supply & demand.    Once the Bitmark blockchain started flowing steadily with v0.9.7.0, after many years of producing  very few blocks per day,  many more coins are being produced than the market demand to absorb them at 10k sat. was used to.
       Also, particularly because a majority of blocks are being merge-mined, perhaps they are seen as "freebies" or extras by the merge miners, to be liquidated ASAP on exchanges.

      While the project does not specifically target any price for the coin, one purpose of the Coin Emission Modulation (CEM) algo is to buffer, to some degree from these types of market pressures, by issuing coins according to demand, as sensed by network hashrate. Algorithmically, the implementation has worked well, but the limited action range of 50% epoch block reward has not proven to be strong enough. The current 50% CEM v0.1 action range will be expanded to at least 80%  in CEM v0.2.

      Additionally, an intense debate has been had on the Bitcoin GitHub regarding the pros / cons of rewarding merge-mined blocks the same as native-mined blocks.    ( Merge Mining Debate (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68) )    The discussion ensued after it was raised as an Issue by GitHub user Jarr0s.

      Merge-mined blocks are of near-zero marginal cost for merge miners to produce, because their fixed equipment costs do not change at all when they merge-mine MARKS. They are already in operation, mining another chain that shares one of Bitmark's 8 algos.  They just have to set up a Bitmark node on their existing hardware, and dedicate a some extra processor cycles to submit work for Bitmark.

      I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to reward them at a fraction of native-mined blocks, because they are of much lower cost to produce than native blocks. Is it simply a principled question of Equity.

      The project appreciates merge-miners. The blocks they mine, linked to higher hashrate parent chains, provide addtional security to the Bitmark blockchain, and have value for Bitmark and will be rewarded - just not at the same rate as native blocks.
      If merge miners wish to get the higher native rate, they may mine MARKS natively, as the parent chain.

      These measures are likely to result in  a coin emission rate more in line with the historical averages, and may restore the market conditions when the Bitmark price was in trading band an order of magnitude higher than it is now, but Disclaimer: this is just speculation on my part.      Market forces are always outside of the control of any one group or individual.

      Our purpose and vision from the start has been to be a solid, secure and reliable blockchain on which to implement the myriad possibilites of Marking.      Bitmark v0.9.7 is a solid step in that direcition, because it definitely restored prompt transactions processing, with block production fairly steady at the target 2 minutes.  The idea of decoupling coin emission directly from block production proved feasible and succesful with CEM v0.1, and wil be built upon and strengthened in the next iteration.

      Bitmark version 0.9.8 is being coded and will then enter testing. Once it is final, we will publish the exact specifications of CEM v0.2 and the policies regarding native and merged mined blocks.

      I am eager to move past the blockchain dynamics and start focusing on the Marking, which is what will bring the best value to Bitmark.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: DEVTEAM_MARKS on August 01, 2018, 06:12:27 AM
      What happened to Bitmark? Why it has fallen so significantly when it always cost about 10k satoshi?


      Afert a resonanable period of discourse our previoud developere could not see the real picture which was blatantly obvious (and which I will not go over as @DBKEYS has already laid out just reasoning for our decision).

      We SHALL take action NOW!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on August 01, 2018, 06:17:00 AM
      What happened to Bitmark? Why it has fallen so significantly when it always cost about 10k satoshi?


      Afert a resonanable period of discourse our previoud developere could not see the real picture which was blatantly obvious (and which I will not go over as @DBKEYS has already laid out just reasoning for our decision).

      We SHALL take action NOW!

      Sorry I meant to post that under my personal account:


      Afert a resonanable period of discourse our previoud developere could not see the real picture which was blatantly obvious (and which I will not go over as @DBKEYS has already laid out just reasoning for our decision).

      We SHALL take action NOW!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Robin37s- on August 01, 2018, 06:54:05 AM
      new team for bitmark?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: insosub on August 01, 2018, 06:55:12 AM
      I rely that the idea will carry out all that has been target!  Good luck DEVs!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 01, 2018, 09:03:47 PM
      I was the main developer for Bitmark since early 2017. I developed the multi-algo, merge mining and difficulty adjustments in the recently launched fork. As you can see on the merge mining discussion thread https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68 , I (user piratelinux) am opposed to the new change that is planned to be released by the people who control the project-bitmark gitub. It is obviously a scam (reduces the rate of money supply in order to pump the price). Bitmark was never pre-mined, never had an ICO, was a completely honest user-focused protocol. But this change will change will break that reputation. So if anyone is with me please contact me (here as a private message) and we can try to continue with the current protocol as it is, uncorrupted.

      Also just so people understand, CEM (coin emission modulation), was a change that went into the large multi algo fork we recently completed, and the point is to ensure that miners are working at their peak potential by punishing them if they are not at the peak hashrate of the past 365 days. This is good because it enhances hashpower security for users. It has nothing to do with pumping the price or as dbkeys would say "ensuring supply appropriately meets demand".

      I am not doing this for any profit. I just want to see and honest and reputable protocol for decentralized reputation. Also, if you currently are a Bitmark merge miner, you will get a much smaller reward with the change they are trying to push now, so contact me if you want to get involved. Just because merge mining is easier for miners because they are already mining other chains in the same time, they still need to be rewarded the same as any other miner, as the amount of reward is correlated with the likelihood of carrying out a double spend attack (I can explain this more if someone wants). There is no such thing as and "official team" in a P2P protocol and even one of the official owners of project-bitmark is opposed to the change as you can see in the thread I linked (his username is melvincarvalho), but has stopped speaking recently.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: tync on August 02, 2018, 06:53:09 AM
      I understand that those who now manage a coin want to stop the coin's depreciation. for this they want to use centralized methods. and the original developer does not agree to a centralized solution. correct if I do not correctly understood the situation


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: coinzy4 on August 02, 2018, 08:56:22 AM
      @onlineproof
      I've read the whole discussion - https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68
      I don't see why you oppose that proposal.
      Developers just want to reduce reward for merged mined blocks because cost of creating those blocks is much lower then block created with direct Bitmark mining. It makes sense to me. This would probably have very positive impact on the price. And for some reason you don't like that.
      It is very hard to understand you ideas in a discussion. Sometimes they are even laughable.
      What is your agenda here? Do you get a cut from merged miners?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 02, 2018, 09:53:06 PM
      .....

      Also just so people understand, CEM (coin emission modulation), was a change that went into the large multi algo fork we recently completed, and the point is to ensure that miners are working at their peak potential by punishing them if they are not at the peak hashrate of the past 365 days. This is good because it enhances hashpower security for users. It has nothing to do with pumping the price or as dbkeys would say "ensuring supply appropriately meets demand".

      .....

       It's interesting to me, how CEM is attractive to @onlineproof for the  reason he expresses, which is one of the effects of CEM, but I thought of Coin Emission Modulation (CEM) primarily as a way to decouple emission from the number of blocks produced.  From the start, it was absolutely thought of as a way to meet demand adequately, (because hashrate is the only intrinsic demand-linked metric available in the blockchain dynamics themselves) while still finding blocks quickly enough so that transactions (the main concern of users) are processed expediently. We intend to build on it by letting CEM v0.2 act on a larger percentage of the base epoch reward.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 02, 2018, 11:06:49 PM
      I must say I do stongly object to using the term "scam" in rererence to the proposal to reward merge-mined blocks less than native-mined blocks.

      A scam is an" intent to defraud", usually pulled by con artists who are disguising their intentions. It's wholly inappropriate here, and I find it frankly somewhat offensive....   needlessly so.

        First because nothing proposed is being disguised or hidden. It's entirely transparent and open for discussion.  

      Fact #1: Merge-mined blocks cost much, much less to produce than native blocks. By definition, their cost of production is marginal compared to native-mined blocks. The miner's fixed cost are exactly the same whether they mine just the parent chain, or the parent chain plus some number of AuxPoW (merge-mineable) chains along with it.

      Fact #2: Higher hashrate means a more secure blockchain, more secure against 51% attacks and other such shenanigans.  That is why we opened up Bitmarks 8 mPoW algos for merge-mining in the first place.  


      Unfortunately, enabling AuxPoW on all 8 of the algos has had the unitendended consequence of decimating native mining.  Most other mPoW coins, if they allow merge-mining, allow it on only a few of their PoW algos.  My initial thought of a solution was to create native & merge-mine-enabled variants of each of the PoW algos, resulting in 16 "virtual" algos;  each with its own block target time and DGWv3-governed difficulty. In this scenario, we could set any ratio desired of native to merge-mined algos by setting the block time target that DGWv3 seeks.
      However, separating merge-mined blocks from native blocks would create a scenario where the merge-miners or the native miners of an algo could manipulate the other group's reward by peaking their hashrate during a day so that the denominator (peak_hashrate) in the subsidy scale factor (SSF = current_hashrate / peak_hasrhate) in CEM would shrink, reducing the other group's reward for as long as the CEM look-back period remembers that peak hashrate.    
      So instead, by keeping native and AuxPoW blocks in the same CEM group, this problem is avoided.  And we don't have to choose an arbitrary ratio of native:merged blocks. We simply set the reward for native blocks to to be aproximately 5x greater than merged blocks, and let the economics sort it out.

      This way, we account for the fact that merged blocks are cheaper to produce (fact #1) while we  acknowlege that (although they are of near-zero cost to the miner),  they have greater than zero cost value to our blockchain (fact #2).   Setting this differential is somewhat arbitrary, but it's certainly "in the ballpark" of what's fair.  If it strictly represented the cost of mining differential, it would be much larger (maybe 100X greater reward for native), but we _do_want some merge-mining, it is valuable to our chain, therefore a middle ground, with a less pronounced differential seems appropriate.    

      I think it's also appropriate to put in a word about the emission rate and the total emission in general.  Since inception, Bitmark has a total cap on emission of below 28,000,000 coins  (27,579,894.73108000 to be exact). (This is on the very first page of our GitHub wiki: Bitmark: Block Reward & Currency Supply (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki#block-reward--currency-supply-20-bitmarks).   Everything we have done respects this total cap on emission.
      By its nature CEM has the potential (because it can lower a block reward down from the epoch's maximum) to push completion of the total emission further into the future. Likewise, rewarding merge-mined blocks less than native-mined blocks defers completion of the total emission into the future by its own measure.   I believe that a careful reading of the philosophy expressed in the Wiki justifies this. Particularly this passage:

      Quote
      the quicker the reward halves the more unstable the coin and unfair the distribution, and the more likely it will be considered and act like a project/currency with no longevity.

      Slow block halving reduces urgency to mine and allows more natural growth and adoption. There is no unfair benefit to mining on day 1 as opposed to day 400

      By deferring issuing coins when CEM reductions are in effect, and as well when blocks are mined by merge-miners, it ensures that mining will be sustainable for much longer before mining has to be incentivized only by transaction fees,  But more importantly, it means that there are even less of the "early bird" incentives pointed out in the original paper. The emission algorithms, keeps coins in reserve for a future that may have more demand for them. As always, no more than the 27,579,894.73108000 MARKS will ever be issued.

      And last but not least, these measures, although they will not reduce emission as low as it had been for some stretches of time in the past, will move the emission rate closer to what have been Bitmark's real, historical emission averages.

       In summary, their are 5 benefits I see with the approach we are working on now:

      1) We get the security of merge mining,    
      2) The emission is more dynamic,  and emission is more in line with Bitmark's real historical averages,  
      3) We have an incentive for merge-miners to adopt Bitmark as the parent chain,    
      4) We don't have to revoke merge-mining on any algo, and  
      5) No issues with merge-miners or natives sabotaging each other's CEM reward with 1-day high-hashrate attacks just to affect the other guy's SSF

      As always I welcome thoughtful input and suggestions.


      PS .. We're working on a graph that will illustrate our emission rates. Should be interesting.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 03, 2018, 12:17:18 AM
      First, I want to clear up the issue of "merge miners create coins at almost 0 cost thus should be rewarded less". What matters for security is the amount rewarded to the miner. The miner has 2 basic choices (whether merge miner or not). The miner can keep mining honestly and receive the quite predictable subsidy each block, or he can mine a side chain to reverse transactions and cause a double spend. If the value of the double spend is much higher than the value of mining honestly, the miner (or group of colluding miners) will be more likely to cause a double spend. This also why, as I mentioned in the github thread that the number of confirmations you wait to be sure that your received coins are safe should be proportional to the size of the transaction, because the bigger the size the more tempting is a double spend, but more confirmations means the miner can just mine honestly and attain the same amount honestly. Also, if he does a double spend it reduces the value of his coins, meaning only the value of the double spend is certain, while the value of the coins he generates during the double spend can depreciate a lot during the 720 blocks for maturity. Thus I would say you should wait the amount received divided by the block subsidy to determine the rough number of confirmations for your received coins to be safe. You also have to factor in value to the miner of having a long term supply of well paid subsidies as a deterrent to double spending. This would actually get worse to a sudden change in the maximum reward for merge miners. It sets a precendent that their reward can easily get lower. Makes sense or am I retarded like jarr0s says in the thread?

      Now if you look at the original announcement thread of Bitmark https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.0 you can see that it says:
      Quote
      Project Bitmark is an initiative to create an every day use alternative currency. No premine, no IPO, nothing unfair, no scam, no clone, no old code bases, no untested code, no token features, just what you need.
      Similarly on the webpage bitmark.io it says
      Quote
      Bitmark is a powerful decentralized reputation platform
      One of the main PR guys (82ndabnmedic) says
      Quote
      we are a volunteer group, fully decentralized and organically grown.
      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3169983.msg40969748#msg40969748 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3169983.msg40969748#msg40969748)

      But in the same time the protocol is decided for the best interests of investors? (you can even see dbkeys say how important investors are in the github thread). And it is important to differentiate investors from users. Users are people who make Bitmark transactions (including the embedding of data and reputation ranking). Investors are people who just buy in and then exit with a profit. For ICOs investors are the main group to satisfy. You have a promise to build something cool and then pay back investors when that's built. But as you saw in the original announcement thread "no IPO" and IPO is the traditional way of saying ICO. There's also other evidence scattered around that supports the idea that Bitmark's goal is not to serve investors but to serve users. Users pay miners and in turn get strong consensus security. Any discussion about price is about investors and that is totally irrelevant to the needs of users. Users will suffer from less security by paying less to miners.

      If you are going to advertise Bitmark as a decentralized reputation platform, and then it turns out to be the equivalent of an ICO (promising to build something cool in the future and giving investors a return on their investment) then you are commiting fraud, i.e. that is a scam. Do you think I am just calling it a scam to attract attention? The lowered rate of money supply increase causes the price to temporarily go up, benefiting the centralized group of early investors, and then they can make a quicker profitable exit. I think some of the guys who I worked with in the Project Bitmark Team are fine to hang out with and talk about life and stuff, but now I can clearly see their bad side. Is it intentional? I cannot know for sure. It could be a misunderstanding on their part of how decentralized protocols work or someone could be pointing a gun at them, pressuring them to do what they don't want, who knows. But there are only 2 people with write permissions to the Bitmark github and one of them clearly supports my position, but it seems he doesn't want to be the one to make the decision for the community. Anyway, it's a pretty small group. I only know 3 people for sure who support this price manipulating fork: dbkeys, 82ndabnmedic, and the random guy jarr0s who started the discussion thread. jarr0s could easily be someone who works for another cryptocurrency and wants to harm Bitmark, but either way it doesn't change the argument.

      I think Bitmark, as an honest protocol has the potential to become just as big as Bitcoin. So investors who have 10000 Bitmarks for example would be very rich if this would reach full potential. But it won't reach full potential if it is permanently damaged by such a protocol change. Who wants to use a reputation platform that has a bad reputation? In case someone is interested, I wrote a sketch of how a meaningful web of trust can be created on the Bitmark blockchain, and it would be well incentivized in order to create a large amount of demand for Bitmarks: https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Marking-Protocol. It's a very rough sketch so still subject to a lot of change.

      So if someone wants to help please contact me. I am moving to a new house soon and the next week will be very hectic. I will just add an important announcement to miners and mining pools:

      To Mining Pools and Solo Merge Miners: You can stop this fork by not upgrading your node and continue mining with the current version. It is in your interest as the current version gives you a higher subsidy as needed by users who appreciate the security you provide. With a higher proof of work, recognized by all current nodes, exchanges will have to reject the proposed fork since it is very controversial due to its price manipulating purpose

      I will post more links soon to the correct versions you need to be using


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 03, 2018, 05:51:17 AM
      I understand that those who now manage a coin want to stop the coin's depreciation. for this they want to use centralized methods. and the original developer does not agree to a centralized solution. correct if I do not correctly understood the situation

      Hmm, not really.  First, @onelineproof is not the original developer.   But most importantly,  the changes the project is contemplating now would have a de-centralizing effect.

      I recall it this way:

      In years 2015, 2016 and 2017, Bitmark had a very low emission rate and block production rate, beacause it was often stuck with very high difficulty when miners came and went: (the "multipool" problem).
      The original diffalgo only adjusted difficulty every 720 blocks. (The "Multipool" problem was solved with DGWv3 diffalgo).  @onelineproof was contacted in January of 2017 to help implement changes and improvements that were originally discussed in Slack and were memorialized here:   Bitmark Hard Fork (April 2017) (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Bitmark---Blockchain-----Hard-Fork--%231----v0.9.7.0/ad1c1557e71373712f1e7dc1e583cabb67c56cae) and design objectives finalized here:  Hard Fork 1 Criteria (May 2017)  (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria)  

      (Note: The originator of the project and original developer, @coinsolidation, left the project early on, sometime in 2015, iirc.  This is the old ANN thread where @coinsolidation announced Project Bitmark for the first time: Original Bitmark ANN thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.0) )

      Hard Fork 1, Bitmark v0.9.7.0, was succesfully deployed on June 6, 2018, solving the issues detailed in the first two links above. Eight Proof-of-Work algorithms, each governed by DGWv3 and each targeted for a 16 minute block time, replaced the single SCrypt PoW algo that had been in service since the start.  These graphs detail the performance of the 8 PoW algos and the resulting overall composite inter bock time: Bitmark 8mPoW Performance  (http://explorer.bitmark.co/plots/) (updated frequently)
       Additionally, novel technology, Coin Emission Modulation, CEM v0.1 was introduced as well. (Coin Emission Modulation has been extensively discussed and detailed elsewhere.)

      Hard Fork 1 not only introduced 7 new algos to Bitmark, but it allowed all 8 algos { SCrypt, SHA256d, Yescrypt, Argon2d, X17, Lyra2REv2, EquiHash & CryptoNote}  to be merge-mined. This proved succesful in vastly improving the hashrate and thus the security of the chain, but at the expense of eliminating most native mining.  Most other multiple Proof-of-Work (mPoW) coins allow merge mining on usually less than half their PoW algos. (For example, Argentum which has 6 PoW algos, has only AuxPoW enabled 2 of them: SCrypt and SHA256d;   likewise, Myriadcoin has only enabled merge-mining on 2 of its 5 PoW algos, also SCrypt and SHA256d. )

      Merge-mining is a simple and very low cost way for an existing mining operation to mine coins. I have not seen a real-life case analysis of what the fixed costs of a mining operation are and what the extra marginal cost of adding and mining AuxPoW enabled chains is on average; but it is simple to understand that if you already have equipment in operation and are already paying electricity and other recurring costs, simply adding an AuxPoW chain in addtion to the Parent Chain you are already mining on the same hardware and infrastructure would only cost a fraction, truly a very small additional cost in using your existing storage and extra processor cycles.

      Therefore the Hard Fork 2 proposed change in question is to reward native-mined blocks a bit more than merge-mined blocks and this way level the playing field.   This would have a de-centralizing effect, by incentivizing more miners to mine Bitmark algos directly (natively),  making it financially attractive to do so, discouraging centralization from large mining pools.
      Even with block rewards that are less than rewards payed to native miners, I believe that it will still be advantageous for the merge-mining operations to continue merge-mining Bitmark algos.

      The other changes we propose are evolutionary advancements of CEM, so that instead of acting on only 50% of the epoch reward, it can act on a larger portion, 80% and to make it somewhat more forgiving of hashrate swings by limiting its memory. (Instead of remembering hash rate peaks as far back as a year, CEM v0.2 would only look back 30 days.)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 03, 2018, 09:00:15 PM
      I can't believe I am still arguing about this. Here we have early Bitmark investors (dbkeys and 82ndabnmedic) using their smooth-talking skills to justify the manipulation of the supply of the currency solely for the purpose of benefiting investors (just like a central bank would do). And in the same time the main website of Bitmark describes itself as a "decentralized reputation platform". If Bitcoin developers wanted to release a forking change that decreases the subsidy paid to miners, do you think that would pass? No way in hell.

      You can argue about the advantages and disadvantages of merge mining. I personally believe that merge mining is better for both decentralization and security compared with native mining. though I can see some advantages of native mining in some proportion, thus as a compromise, I proposed to let users vote on whether they support merge mining, weighted by transaction fees, and that would dynamically affect the merged to native ratio.

      But cutting out the reward from merged miners will drastically reduce the average reward per block which reduces security for users. The reward is what serves to prevent double spending. It is not the cost that matters. I can be mining and heating my house in the same time, or I can be mining with free excess electricity. Everyone has a different cost. If you want to frame it in terms of cost, then you can say it is the opportunity cost that matters. In Economics, opportunity cost of option A is what you would gain by choosing the next best option. So for a miner (merge miner or not), the opportunity cost of mining honestly is what he would gain by double spending. The opportunity cost of double spending is what he would gain by mining fairly. As the amount gained (subsidy) of mining fairly goes down, the opportunity cost of double spending goes down, thus the chance of double spending goes up.

      Thus I would say that merge miners may actually deserve a larger subsidy than native miners, because they are gaining from other coins, so they would not be much affected if they lose our rewards if they are so small compared to other coins. But I think it is simple to keep it the same. Whatever you choose (less or more reward), you need to appropriately balance it for native miners, so that the average reward per block remains the same. If not, then you are decreasing security. With this fork, the merged blocks will receive a much smaller reward, and most blocks will still likely continue to be merge mined, thus the average reward per block will drastically decrease, and result in a decrease in security for users. And for what? To give a boost to early investors so that they can make a timely and profitable exit?

      As for decentralization of merged vs native mining. As you see with Bitcoin, native mining also leads to large mining pools. This is inevitable, but individual miners can always pull out of a mining pool that causes harm. Also with 8 algos, we are very decentralized in terms of mining. Since mining is very competitive (especially with merge mining) each miner I believe has it in their best interest to specialize in 1 algo, thus it would be hard for one entity to control multiple algos.

      I will try to expose this scam as best as I can, but it is hard to do it alone. So if other people want to help concretely, then you can contact exchanges that trade in Bitmark or mining pools. Merge miners and mining pools actually have it in there best interest to reject this proposed fork as it decreases their reward. If we are successful at stopping this fork then we can continue with the current protocol and replace the current development team with one that is more serious about building a real decentralized reputation platform. I fully support free speech, so even if it's a scam, I don't think it should be illegal, just I want it exposed and people to follow a chain the puts users first, not investors.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 04, 2018, 12:01:20 AM
      I think @onelineproof is confused about what serves to prevent double spending. It is not the reward per se, it is the work that goes into the hash computations, the Proof-of-Work.  
      There is some logic to saying that the larger the reward the likelier more work will go toward mining a block, but it is not a direct correlation: it is strictly the actual computational work that goes into finding the block versus the difficulty of surpassing that same work, (compounded as it becomes a string, more than one block),  which is the actual security.   Not the reward the blocks carry.

      He is making an assumption that the higher the reward the more work will go into finding the block. This is a reasonable assumption to make in general, but I believe its flawed logic in the case of merge-mining, for the reasons already given. To quote an old proverb, you "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."   ie, It's basically a "freebie", so you shouldn't complain that it's not as big as the reward someone gets when they work harder for it. It's falling on your lap; you're getting it for almost no effort.







      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 05, 2018, 12:18:45 AM
      Quote
      I think @onelineproof is confused about what serves to prevent double spending. It is not the reward per se, it is the work that goes into the hash computations, the Proof-of-Work. 
      The more work happening on a chain, the harder for a single actor to make a big effect, thus of course that helps to prevent double spending, which is why merge mining is good, since it adds more hashpower to the chain. But the reward is also important, since without a significant and stable reward, the miners can collude and create a double spend since it is more profitable than taking the honest reward. Doesn't have to be collusion, can be a short burst attack by one actor too.

      Quote
      He is making an assumption that the higher the reward the more work will go into finding the block.
      I didn't say that. Miners will look at profitability, which depends on the dollar value of the reward and inversely with the difficulty. Merge mining has a multiple chains with various rewards depending on the market value of the chains together with the reward for Bitmark, and you combine all the difficulties together with that to determine profitability. Native mining only includes the Bitmark reward thus is less profitable, but how much less depends on the market values of the other chains. You can't just pull a number from nowhere like 5 and say that native mining should get 5 times more reward than merge mining. Unless Bitmark has a much larger market cap than the other chains, it will still likely be more profitable to merge mine even with 5x less reward. The problem is now the merge miners are more likely to double spend on Bitmark since they are not gaining that much from Bitmark anyway, and they see that the rewards can easily be lowered by developers so they have even less trust in the value of mining honestly with Bitmark. Some of these are very unlikely attacks, and probably you will be fine without these protections. But why do you want to add security holes to the protocol just in order to give a favorable price to investors?

      My intention is not to annoy or make problems. I just want to inform the Bitmark community of users (if they still exist) that the Bitmark development team is compromised (I heard even Melvin Carvalho caved in to the demands), and if they want to stop that, now is the time. I would do the same thing if Bitcoin Core developers proposed some wacky fork that damages security for users. I am ringing the alarm with the hope of waking some people up. I think this is the responsible thing to do. If enough people join me, we can revolt and stick with the current honest protocol. It will all be clear soon enough...If this fork passes and not enough people join me, then whatever, I will move on. I can create a new currency with similar features.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: coinzy4 on August 05, 2018, 10:18:00 AM
      @dbkeys When can we expect new hard fork? I can't find that information anywhere.
      Changes you described are more than welcome at this point.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 05, 2018, 01:56:40 PM
      @dbkeys When can we expect new hard fork? I can't find that information anywhere.
      Changes you described are more than welcome at this point.


      Thank you @coinzy4
      Official repo has 0.9.8.0 branch with the changes described, and is undergoing testing.   Aiming for mid-August release. (In about a week to 10 days)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 11, 2018, 03:54:50 AM
      Bitmark (MARKS) (BTM)
      Coin Emission Graph.
      The first 4 years

      Total coins issued as time goes forward. Graph starts July 2014 and goes until August 10, 2018, basically 4 years.

      Almost reaching 10 million Bitmark units. (10,000,000 = 1x10^7 )

      http://explorer.bitmark.co/imark/emission_5.png


      Notice how low our rate of emission was the first 2 or or 2.25 years...
       then it shot up and is only now moderating with CEM v0.1
      CEM v0.2 will do a better job, and merge-mining changes should help too to get it more in line with an overall average.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 11, 2018, 02:29:03 PM
      This is what the same data look like in relation to the total emission limit of  about 27.6 million coins .
      (27,579,894.73108000 to be exact).     http://explorer.bitmark.co/imark/emission_6.png


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 12, 2018, 11:40:55 AM
      What those graphs above show is that there were many periods of time where the emission rate was higher than it is today; only in Fall 2014 to Fall 2016 was it low because there was not much interest in Bitmark at that time and it took a long time for the difficulty adjustment algorithm to catch up. Additionally, statistics like this are not justifications for changing the target emission rate.

      If you want to see more interesting statistics, see the wallet rich list: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/#!wallets.
      There is one wallet with 2.4 million marks (8.6 % of the total eventual 28 million Bitmarks) and one wallet with 1.5 million marks (5.4%).
      You can also see here https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/#!rich that there is a single address with 1.6 million marks.
      These large wallets are likely individual miners who were mining Bitmark when hashrate was low (uncompetitive), due to the native only mining for a cryptocurrency that has a small number of users. With merge mining this wouldn't happen as mining would be much more competitive and no individual miner can get such a large share of the mining rewards. As an investor I would actually be more worried about those big wallets dumping coins instead of merge miners that can only take little bites at a time.

      Anyone looking at those statistics (rich list) will immediately think, whoa that's some really centralized distribution, almost as if the coins were premined. Seeing that makes me rethink whether it is even worth trying to save Bitmark. The only way I see for Bitmark to reedem itself against this is to continue mining now with FULL merge miner rewards. And the question of whether or not to modify the supply schedule is a no brainer as I explained before.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 13, 2018, 11:13:58 AM
      Those large wallets almost certainly belong to the "selfish miner" which mined from the Fall of 2016 until perhaps early 2018, the exact period with the highest emission rate. You can read about this problem, and how we as a community have dealt with it here:    Hard Fork #1 Criteria and Motivation (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria).   The selfish miner did not attack the chain _per se_, that is, they did not double-spend or anything like that, they merely employed their superior hashing power (probably above 51%) to mine the chain, and they are almost certainly the holders of the large sums as detailed above.

      After early 2018, there is a much less pronounced emission rate from a relatively short period of honest, native SCrypt-only mining, and, now, once again, much higher emission from honest, distributed mining on the 8mPoW algos, dominated by merge-mining. Honest merge-mining, yes, but very cheap to produce merge-mining, which is driving the price down.

       I do believe that there must be a reward policy which accounts for the production cost differential of pure native mining from near zero-cost merge-mining. I think it's unwise to foster a complete reliance on foreign chains for our mining.   I do believe the best way to maintain balance, retain dedicated native Bitmark miners and still benefit from the security of a measure of merge-mining is simply to account for that production cost differential in the subsidy.

      And yes, certainly that selfish-mining period was centralized mining, and it is for that very reason that we went from a primitive diffalgo with single PoW SCrypt  to  8mPoW with DGWv3 diffalgo.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: coinzy4 on August 13, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
      The biggest wallet without any doubt is Poloniex wallet.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on August 13, 2018, 03:56:53 PM
      Those large wallets almost certainly belong to the "selfish miner" which mined from the Fall of 2016 until perhaps early 2018, the exact period with the highest emission rate. You can read about this problem, and how we as a community have dealt with it here:    Hard Fork #1 Criteria and Motivation (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria).   The selfish miner did not attack the chain _per se_, that is, they did not double-spend or anything like that, they merely employed their superior hashing power (certainly above 51%) to mine the chain, and they are almost certainly the holders of the large sums as detailed above.

      After early 2018, there is a much less pronounced emission rate from a relatively short period of honest, native SCrypt-only mining, and, now, once again, much higher emission from honest, distributed mining on the 8mPoW algos, dominated by merge-mining. Honest merge-mining, yes, but very cheap to produce merge-mining, which is driving the price down.

       I do believe that there must be a reward policy which accounts for the production cost differential of pure native mining from near zero-cost merge-mining. I think it's unwise to foster a complete reliance on foreign chains for our mining.   I do believe the best way to maintain balance, retain dedicated native Bitmark miners and still benefit from the security of a measure of merge-mining is simply to account for that production cost differential in the subsidy.

      And yes, certainly that selfish-mining period was centralized mining, and it is for that very reason that we went from a primitive diffalgo with single PoW SCrypt  to  8mPoW with DGWv3 diffalgo.

      You don't need 51% for selfish mining at all, roughly 30-40% are sufficient depending on the specific selfish mining technique used by the attacker/selfish miner, even much less if the chain is stalled for weeks like BTM was at that time.

      Selfish mining is not to be confused with a 51% attack where the goal is to doublespend inputs. The selfish miner just wants all blocks at lowest possible (hash-)price and to annoy honest miners until they leave by constantly invalidating the blocks the honest miners find.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 13, 2018, 05:39:20 PM
      Those large wallets almost certainly belong to the "selfish miner" which mined from the Fall of 2016 until perhaps early 2018, the exact period with the highest emission rate. You can read about this problem, and how we as a community have dealt with it here:    Hard Fork #1 Criteria and Motivation (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria).   The selfish miner did not attack the chain _per se_, that is, they did not double-spend or anything like that, they merely employed their superior hashing power (certainly above 51%) to mine the chain, and they are almost certainly the holders of the large sums as detailed above.

      After early 2018, there is a much less pronounced emission rate from a relatively short period of honest, native SCrypt-only mining, and, now, once again, much higher emission from honest, distributed mining on the 8mPoW algos, dominated by merge-mining. Honest merge-mining, yes, but very cheap to produce merge-mining, which is driving the price down.

       I do believe that there must be a reward policy which accounts for the production cost differential of pure native mining from near zero-cost merge-mining. I think it's unwise to foster a complete reliance on foreign chains for our mining.   I do believe the best way to maintain balance, retain dedicated native Bitmark miners and still benefit from the security of a measure of merge-mining is simply to account for that production cost differential in the subsidy.

      And yes, certainly that selfish-mining period was centralized mining, and it is for that very reason that we went from a primitive diffalgo with single PoW SCrypt  to  8mPoW with DGWv3 diffalgo.

      You don't need 51% for selfish mining at all, roughly 30-40% are sufficient depending on the specific selfish mining technique used by the attacker/selfish miner, even much less if the chain is stalled for weeks like BTM was at that time.

      Selfish mining is not to be confused with a 51% attack where the goal is to doublespend inputs. The selfish miner just wants all blocks at lowest possible (hash-)price and to annoy honest miners until they leave by constantly invalidating the blocks the honest miners find.



      Thanks for the clarification @psycodad. And this is what was happening. Nobody but Mr./Ms. Selfish mined Bitmark until they left, and shortly thereafter we switched to 8mPoW with DGWv3 anyway.  

       IIUC, this selfish-mining is possible (at least in part) because a larger chain can appear out of the blue and is accepted by all the nodes, because it is the longest, most-work chain, although the "honest" nodes had not seen the selfish node before at all.
      Thus, the "selfish" part: The Selfish Miner did not share their work (and thus allow possible competition) until they were sure they hade a stronger chain to show.   Can you shed some more light on this ?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on August 14, 2018, 08:49:26 AM
      Those large wallets almost certainly belong to the "selfish miner" which mined from the Fall of 2016 until perhaps early 2018, the exact period with the highest emission rate. You can read about this problem, and how we as a community have dealt with it here:    Hard Fork #1 Criteria and Motivation (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria).   The selfish miner did not attack the chain _per se_, that is, they did not double-spend or anything like that, they merely employed their superior hashing power (certainly above 51%) to mine the chain, and they are almost certainly the holders of the large sums as detailed above.

      After early 2018, there is a much less pronounced emission rate from a relatively short period of honest, native SCrypt-only mining, and, now, once again, much higher emission from honest, distributed mining on the 8mPoW algos, dominated by merge-mining. Honest merge-mining, yes, but very cheap to produce merge-mining, which is driving the price down.

       I do believe that there must be a reward policy which accounts for the production cost differential of pure native mining from near zero-cost merge-mining. I think it's unwise to foster a complete reliance on foreign chains for our mining.   I do believe the best way to maintain balance, retain dedicated native Bitmark miners and still benefit from the security of a measure of merge-mining is simply to account for that production cost differential in the subsidy.

      And yes, certainly that selfish-mining period was centralized mining, and it is for that very reason that we went from a primitive diffalgo with single PoW SCrypt  to  8mPoW with DGWv3 diffalgo.

      You don't need 51% for selfish mining at all, roughly 30-40% are sufficient depending on the specific selfish mining technique used by the attacker/selfish miner, even much less if the chain is stalled for weeks like BTM was at that time.

      Selfish mining is not to be confused with a 51% attack where the goal is to doublespend inputs. The selfish miner just wants all blocks at lowest possible (hash-)price and to annoy honest miners until they leave by constantly invalidating the blocks the honest miners find.



      Thanks for the clarification @psycodad. And this is what was happening. Nobody but Mr./Ms. Selfish mined Bitmark until they left, and shortly thereafter we switched to 8mPoW with DGWv3 anyway.  

       IIUC, this selfish-mining is possible (at least in part) because a larger chain can appear out of the blue and is accepted by all the nodes, because it is the longest, most-work chain, although the "honest" nodes had not seen the selfish node before at all.
      Thus, the "selfish" part: The Selfish Miner did not share their work (and thus allow possible competition) until they were sure they hade a stronger chain to show.   Can you shed some more light on this ?

      This is perfectly right as you describe it, though the selfish miner is at all times connected with the honest network and nodes.
      The selfish miners two or more nodes are connected to the whole network and they seem to agree on the chain all nodes have (while in hidden the selfish miner advances the chain on his 2+ nodes secretly).

      Say, the honest network is on block # 1000 and all nodes agree on that, then the selfish miner mines say until # 1010 but leaves the network thinking it is still on # 1000 by not releasing these blocks. Only when the selfish miner hears from one of its peers that a block has been found and broadcasted by a honest miner, he/she will release 2 or 3 blocks to invalidate the honests miners work. If he he has and advantage of ten he can even wait longer to invalidate the others blocks.

      There are certainly checks and balances in most wallets that limit how many blocks one can release at once and so on, I can't say much about this as I never dug into these parts in the code. Though the attacker knows this exactly and has "tuned" wallets/nodes that make sure other blocks are only seemingly accepted from honest nodes and he/shee only releases his blocks when needed and in an interval that is acceptable for the specific network currently attacked.

      In the last 2-3 yrs we saw this very same attack on quite a lot scrypt chains (don't know about others, I am only into scrypt chains) like BTM, EAC, WDC, TIPS just to name a few and I am pretty confident it is still going on, ABY seems to be a current example of it.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 15, 2018, 12:47:20 AM
      Those large wallets almost certainly belong to the "selfish miner" which mined from the Fall of 2016 until perhaps early 2018, the exact period with the highest emission rate. You can read about this problem, and how we as a community have dealt with it here:    Hard Fork #1 Criteria and Motivation (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Hard_Fork_Criteria).   The selfish miner did not attack the chain _per se_, that is, they did not double-spend or anything like that, they merely employed their superior hashing power (certainly above 51%) to mine the chain, and they are almost certainly the holders of the large sums as detailed above.

      After early 2018, there is a much less pronounced emission rate from a relatively short period of honest, native SCrypt-only mining, and, now, once again, much higher emission from honest, distributed mining on the 8mPoW algos, dominated by merge-mining. Honest merge-mining, yes, but very cheap to produce merge-mining, which is driving the price down.

       I do believe that there must be a reward policy which accounts for the production cost differential of pure native mining from near zero-cost merge-mining. I think it's unwise to foster a complete reliance on foreign chains for our mining.   I do believe the best way to maintain balance, retain dedicated native Bitmark miners and still benefit from the security of a measure of merge-mining is simply to account for that production cost differential in the subsidy.

      And yes, certainly that selfish-mining period was centralized mining, and it is for that very reason that we went from a primitive diffalgo with single PoW SCrypt  to  8mPoW with DGWv3 diffalgo.

      You don't need 51% for selfish mining at all, roughly 30-40% are sufficient depending on the specific selfish mining technique used by the attacker/selfish miner, even much less if the chain is stalled for weeks like BTM was at that time.

      Selfish mining is not to be confused with a 51% attack where the goal is to doublespend inputs. The selfish miner just wants all blocks at lowest possible (hash-)price and to annoy honest miners until they leave by constantly invalidating the blocks the honest miners find.



      Thanks for the clarification @psycodad. And this is what was happening. Nobody but Mr./Ms. Selfish mined Bitmark until they left, and shortly thereafter we switched to 8mPoW with DGWv3 anyway.  

       IIUC, this selfish-mining is possible (at least in part) because a larger chain can appear out of the blue and is accepted by all the nodes, because it is the longest, most-work chain, although the "honest" nodes had not seen the selfish node before at all.
      Thus, the "selfish" part: The Selfish Miner did not share their work (and thus allow possible competition) until they were sure they hade a stronger chain to show.   Can you shed some more light on this ?

      This is perfectly right as you describe it, though the selfish miner is at all times connected with the honest network and nodes.
      The selfish miners two or more nodes are connected to the whole network and they seem to agree on the chain all nodes have (while in hidden the selfish miner advances the chain on his 2+ nodes secretly).

      Say, the honest network is on block # 1000 and all nodes agree on that, then the selfish miner mines say until # 1010 but leaves the network thinking it is still on # 1000 by not releasing these blocks. Only when the selfish miner hears from one of its peers that a block has been found and broadcasted by a honest miner, he/she will release 2 or 3 blocks to invalidate the honests miners work. If he he has and advantage of ten he can even wait longer to invalidate the others blocks.

      There are certainly checks and balances in most wallets that limit how many blocks one can release at once and so on, I can't say much about this as I never dug into these parts in the code. Though the attacker knows this exactly and has "tuned" wallets/nodes that make sure other blocks are only seemingly accepted from honest nodes and he/shee only releases his blocks when needed and in an interval that is acceptable for the specific network currently attacked.

      In the last 2-3 yrs we saw this very same attack on quite a lot scrypt chains (don't know about others, I am only into scrypt chains) like BTM, EAC, WDC, TIPS just to name a few and I am pretty confident it is still going on, ABY seems to be a current example of it.


      Yes, this happened to Verge and is the reason they went 5mPoW.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 23, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
      As you see on the project-bitmark github, they have pushed to master the fork dbkeys proposed (so he can easily sell his stash). Not only does it fundamentally change Bitmark from a P2P cryptocurrency to a crowdfunding campaign for investors, but it uses cheap hacks to get the thing done (forced block height not even waiting for user or miner votes), doesn't fix important bugs, and still continues to be advertised as a "decentralized cryptocurrency". If it is not 100% crystal clear to someone that this fork is about manipulating the price from the supply side, then ask me and I can try to make it more clear (except for dbkeys whom I already explained this to repeatedly).

      In case someone / people want to continue with the current protocol, with a couple of minor/bug fixes that technically need a hard fork, then I created a github repo called bitmark-protocol, that has this under the software version number 0.9.7.3 (dbkeys' fork is 0.9.8.x). The core block number remains as 4, just a variant/subversion number 1 is embedded into the full version number, so the version number for blocks would be called 4.1 (dbkeys's fork has version number 5). My fork would require 950 out of the last 1000 blocks signaling for version 4.1 to activate. The code is available at https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark. You can clone the latest master for stable code. It is quite well tested, though I will test more thoroughly if I see version 4.1 blocks being mined. The dev branch is for developments before they enter master. I also launched an explorer for monitoring blocks: https://explorer.bitmark.cc and https://explorer.bitmark.cc/testnet for testnet.

      The 2 fixes in this release are:
      1) Use Bignum for the subsidy scaling factor to prevent an overflow that has occasionally caused block rewards to be much less than they should be.
      2) Activate the resurrector even right after the surge protector kicks in. Currently, 25 blocks must pass before the resurrector (lowering of difficulty after some time of no blocks of an algo) can kick in after a surge protector event (9 in a row for an algo). This is a rare case, but still needed for correctness.

      If there is not enough support for my fork, then, instead of creating a new coin, I will likely work on migrating the Bitmark protocol into a Bitcoin sidechain. Sidechain technology is still not mature and requires some layer of trust, but I think it can work and help other sidechains thrive as well. You can see my post about this here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4919679.msg44289606#msg44289606

      By the way, dbkeys' fork is not even well tested, they use the requirement block.nVersion >= 5, while it should be GetBlockVersion(block.nVersion) >= 5 in order to force version 5 blocks. The raw version number only worked for the first fork where we first introduced the notion of raw (with extra data) and core version numbers. It's not a critical bug, but still shows lack of testing.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on August 24, 2018, 01:37:08 AM
      As you see on the project-bitmark github, they have pushed to master the fork dbkeys proposed (so he can easily sell his stash). Not only does it fundamentally change Bitmark from a P2P cryptocurrency to a crowdfunding campaign for investors, but it uses cheap hacks to get the thing done (forced block height not even waiting for user or miner votes), doesn't fix important bugs, and still continues to be advertised as a "decentralized cryptocurrency". If it is not 100% crystal clear to someone that this fork is about manipulating the price from the supply side, then ask me and I can try to make it more clear (except for dbkeys whom I already explained this to repeatedly).

      In case someone / people want to continue with the current protocol, with a couple of minor/bug fixes that technically need a hard fork, then I created a github repo called bitmark-protocol, that has this under the software version number 0.9.7.3 (dbkeys' fork is 0.9.8.x). The core block number remains as 4, just a variant/subversion number 1 is embedded into the full version number, so the version number for blocks would be called 4.1 (dbkeys's fork has version number 5). My fork would require 950 out of the last 1000 blocks signaling for version 4.1 to activate. The code is available at https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark. You can clone the latest master for stable code. It is quite well tested, though I will test more thoroughly if I see version 4.1 blocks being mined. The dev branch is for developments before they enter master. I also launched an explorer for monitoring blocks: https://explorer.bitmark.cc and https://explorer.bitmark.cc/testnet for testnet.

      The 2 fixes in this release are:
      1) Use Bignum for the subsidy scaling factor to prevent an overflow that has occasionally caused block rewards to be much less than they should be.
      2) Activate the resurrector even right after the surge protector kicks in. Currently, 25 blocks must pass before the resurrector (lowering of difficulty after some time of no blocks of an algo) can kick in after a surge protector event (9 in a row for an algo). This is a rare case, but still needed for correctness.

      If there is not enough support for my fork, then, instead of creating a new coin, I will likely work on migrating the Bitmark protocol into a Bitcoin sidechain. Sidechain technology is still not mature and requires some layer of trust, but I think it can work and help other sidechains thrive as well. You can see my post about this here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4919679.msg44289606#msg44289606

      By the way, dbkeys' fork is not even well tested, they use the requirement block.nVersion >= 5, while it should be GetBlockVersion(block.nVersion) >= 5 in order to force version 5 blocks. The raw version number only worked for the first fork where we first introduced the notion of raw (with extra data) and core version numbers. It's not a critical bug, but still shows lack of testing.

      if you two are right, what truth should I believe?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 25, 2018, 12:18:54 AM
      As you see on the project-bitmark github, they have pushed to master the fork dbkeys proposed (so he can easily sell his stash). Not only does it fundamentally change Bitmark from a P2P cryptocurrency to a crowdfunding campaign for investors, but it uses cheap hacks to get the thing done (forced block height not even waiting for user or miner votes), doesn't fix important bugs, and still continues to be advertised as a "decentralized cryptocurrency". If it is not 100% crystal clear to someone that this fork is about manipulating the price from the supply side, then ask me and I can try to make it more clear (except for dbkeys whom I already explained this to repeatedly).

      In case someone / people want to continue with the current protocol, with a couple of minor/bug fixes that technically need a hard fork, then I created a github repo called bitmark-protocol, that has this under the software version number 0.9.7.3 (dbkeys' fork is 0.9.8.x). The core block number remains as 4, just a variant/subversion number 1 is embedded into the full version number, so the version number for blocks would be called 4.1 (dbkeys's fork has version number 5). My fork would require 950 out of the last 1000 blocks signaling for version 4.1 to activate. The code is available at https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark. You can clone the latest master for stable code. It is quite well tested, though I will test more thoroughly if I see version 4.1 blocks being mined. The dev branch is for developments before they enter master. I also launched an explorer for monitoring blocks: https://explorer.bitmark.cc and https://explorer.bitmark.cc/testnet for testnet.

      The 2 fixes in this release are:
      1) Use Bignum for the subsidy scaling factor to prevent an overflow that has occasionally caused block rewards to be much less than they should be.
      2) Activate the resurrector even right after the surge protector kicks in. Currently, 25 blocks must pass before the resurrector (lowering of difficulty after some time of no blocks of an algo) can kick in after a surge protector event (9 in a row for an algo). This is a rare case, but still needed for correctness.

      If there is not enough support for my fork, then, instead of creating a new coin, I will likely work on migrating the Bitmark protocol into a Bitcoin sidechain. Sidechain technology is still not mature and requires some layer of trust, but I think it can work and help other sidechains thrive as well. You can see my post about this here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4919679.msg44289606#msg44289606

      By the way, dbkeys' fork is not even well tested, they use the requirement block.nVersion >= 5, while it should be GetBlockVersion(block.nVersion) >= 5 in order to force version 5 blocks. The raw version number only worked for the first fork where we first introduced the notion of raw (with extra data) and core version numbers. It's not a critical bug, but still shows lack of testing.

      if you two are right, what truth should I believe?

          It's unfortunate when a there is division and disagreement. However, the decision to subsidize merge-mined blocks less than native mined blocks was taken after long discussions, where everyone except @onelineproof agreed that it was in the best interest of the entire Bitmark community.  This includes users, early adopters, early investors and miners as well.

          Despite having been employed by the project for over a year and a half, @onelineproof has taken the stance that the project would either implement his vision, or he would fork. Despite having been repeatedly  invited to understand the point of view of most everyone else, and to engage in discussions whereby we could find common ground, or at least find some compromise, he chose to cut off communications, "ostrich style,  except to accuse me and the project of turning into an ICO (which is absurd as anybody who know Bitmark's history is well aware).  This radical stance and lack of balance and relational skilss are simply not qualities I would like to see in a leader, to be honest. By his own admission, he says:

      Quote
      "I'm not an easy person to work with, people who know me know that I am very stubborn. Though I don't have much invested so I don't know how it feels, but I am not driven at all by profit and I don't care even if the price goes to 1 satoshi"

          As a project, we cannot be held hostage to the "merge-mine fundamentalism" of a single person, especially when he appears insensitive to destroying the value of the coin and completely disregards the concerns of early adopters.

          The issue of merge-mining, and the pros and cons of seeking equitable subsidies between native mining and merge mining have been discussed at length on Project Bitmarks official github: Merge-mining as an Issue (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68), on Project Bitmark's Slack channels and directly among interested parties.   I have invited input from the community repeatedly on this forum, and by and large, people are mostly interested in how soon the fork with the features as we propose will be ready.  

          I have sought the best advice on ths issue and have received this illustrative comment:


      Quote
       ..@onelineproof]...does seem to be confused about the finer points of double spend protection. He's saying the block reward is linked to the protective factor of "confirmations", or, put another way, linked to the cost of producing those blocks, and the rewards from doing so. He's unfortunately deducing from that line of logic that reducing the merged mining block rewards will reduce security of the chain. This would be true for a non-merged chain, because the incentive to mine the coin would go down, and thus mining pressure would decrease, but with merged mining the additional cost for mining pools to mine the blocks is effectively zero, and the rewards are just gravy, so they're never going to stop mining. That's both a feature and a bug in this case. It keeps the chain secure with a high difficulty for a low cost, but completely floods the market with un-invested dumpers who see dumping Bitmark as a 0.5% profit increase on their Litecoin mining setup.
      There's no doubt an economics problem with enabling merge mining rewards, I think this is why you see so few prominent merge mined coins. It simply creates a ton of market sell pressure which is hard to deal with.
       ....

          I believe that by finding balance the right rewards for native mining and merge-mined mining, the Bitmark blockchain will be both secure and produce coins at the rate that the market is calling for. It is no secret that I have sought to regulate emission in response to market demand as early as 2015, when the idea of Coin Emission Modulation was born, and finally implemented earlier this year, ( with @onlineproof's coding help: give credit where credit is due.)

          @onlineproof seems to think it is wrong to consider the hardship suffered by early investors in the coin, who have seen the BTM/BTC exchange rate drop  dramatically this year. After long periods of rather minimal emission, and then a long period dominated by a selfish miner, ( as yet not identified to my knowledge, who may be hoarding their entire mining take for some future), we have had a few months of very distributed mining, which is good, but by mostly merge-miners who are acquiring  bitmarks at nearly zero cost and liquidating them ASAP.  We seek to remediate this, unashamedly.

          @onelineproof is correct that v0.9.8.3 is an absoute hard fork, set to occur at block 511,111, in approximately 5 or 6 days, around August 30.  We may delay this a bit to address the valid issues pointed out, but ultimately, IMO we should not pretend to ask the merge-miners who we have unwittingly let dominate all of Bitmark mining if they think letting go of the "candy" is a good idea.    As we have stated, we think the compromise we have implemented in Bitmark version 0.9.8.3 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/0.9.8.3) between 1) the near-zero cost of merge-mining Bitmark on top of an already on-going mining operation  and 2) the value of merge-mined blocks to the Bitmark blockchain is a good one.  I believe it is even good for the merge-miners, utlimately, because altough they will get less units, these units should be worth more. And of course, they can always mine natively for the full CEM reward.

          Losing @onelineproof as a coder for the project has been unfortunate, as in truth and fairness, he is a fine coder, resourceful, and was able to implement the Bitmark Project's vision of our transition from a single-PoW algo regulated by a primitive diffalgo to an 8mPoW blockchain regulated by the DGWv3 diffalgo,  and implented also the vision of Coin Emission Modulation as CEM v0.1.
       
          @onelineproof actually likes CEM well enough, although it has the same effect of withholding and deferring a part of the coin's emission into the future, just  as reduced subsidies for merge-mined blocks does.  It bears repeating that is a strong positive, because it means mining Bitmark will be viable much longer into the future and the number of coins emitted will match market demand much closer. Also it bears underlining that the total emission of Bitmark is being respected: no more and no less than originally planned
         Rather incongruoulsly, though, @onelineproof has chosen to chacterize the improvement of adjusting merge-mining subsidies as a "scam" and an "ICO" which IMO shows an embarrassing lack of understanding, a unfortunate quickness to judge negatively  and an unwarranted propensity to ascribe dark motives.  
       @onlineproof seems to think that it's OK to modify the code, as he helped to do in the v0.9.5 to v0.9.7 transition, but then somehow a sin to do so again to fix issues and address flaws discovered since v0.9.7 went live on June 6. Incongruous is the word that come to my mind.

          In any case,  for all his positive contributions we are grateful.   If @onelineproof wishes, he may submit a pull request with  the BigNum and other technical issues he points to. If we have time before the forkheight, or if we decide to postpone the fork, these minor details will be taken care of now, or they will be addressed later.  


      In short, we must move forward. Enough has been said.  


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 25, 2018, 04:01:08 PM
      It is not true that I didn't compromise. I personally believe merge mining is better for security and decentralization than native mining, but even if you do want to reduce the rewards of merge miners, I did accept that to a certain degree. But dbkeys mixes two things that are completely separate: 1) Reducing the reward for merge miners relative to native miners, 2) Modifying the emission schedule. (1) can be done in various ways without (2). You can see the github thread for 3 of these ways: https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68#issuecomment-408140614. But now dbkeys is saying that those other ways would have merged miners quickly bringing up the peak hashrate of the native algo variant, and messing up the CEM calculations, so he wants to keep native and merge miners with the same difficulty adjustment, just with a different reward. But you can still respect the supply schedule. Just like DGW adjusts the difficulty to meet a target time for blocks, you can adjust the "bonus" paid to native miners to meet the emission rate target (taking into account CEM), with small variations about the mean (also other ways I thought of that don't require any variations). So you can think of the bonuses as money saved by paying merged miners less. Like I said, I would like merge mining to remain fully dominant, but at least this solution would respect the emission schedule, thus I wouldn't call it a scam.

      Then they might say, oh well lowering the emission rate will help to delay the need for a fee market. But you need to understand what the point is of Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin was created in order to prevent the manipulation of the money supply by central bankers. A predetermined algorithm is used instead of people deciding what the proper emission should be at any given time. You can even read this in the bitcoin wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
      Quote
      In a centralized economy, currency is issued by a central bank at a rate that is supposed to match the growth of the amount of goods that are exchanged so that these goods can be traded with stable prices. The monetary base is controlled by a central bank. In the United States, the Fed increases the monetary base by issuing currency, increasing the amount banks have on reserve or by a process called Quantitative Easing.
      In a fully decentralized monetary system, there is no central authority that regulates the monetary base. Instead, currency is created by the nodes of a peer-to-peer network. The Bitcoin generation algorithm defines, in advance, how currency will be created and at what rate. Any currency that is generated by a malicious user that does not follow the rules will be rejected by the network and thus is worthless.
      If the rate could be modified on the fly then insiders could use that to profit. They could buy before the announcement of a lowering of the rate, and sell right before the rate is announced to be increased. In general it can be used to temporarily create favorable conditions for special interests. Also miners look at this and see that the rewards are not stable, no good track record, and are more likely to attack the chain as a result.

      There is also 2 other changes in dbkeys' fork. Only 30 periods instead of 365 are used for calculating the peak hashrate, and CEM can reduce the reward by up to 80% instead of 50%. I can give you many reasons why these changes would harm users, but it is important to understand that any drastic protocol change without clear proof that it benefits users is clown shoes. As for setting a fork height without a miner supermajority, it is dangerous for users who may end up sending money on the wrong fork. It's irresponsible.

      As for the quote of me saying I'm stubborn, well yes it's true and I have high standards for some things, maybe higher than average. I don't think I'm such a good programmer, I just work hard on whatever I'm passionate about and pay attention to details. I mostly said that because they were pressuring me to do something I don't want to do, so I didn't want to give them false hope. I would be surprised if my comments on Slack are still publicly viewable, as I was banned from there a month ago by 82ndabnmedic, just for expressing my disagreement with the fork. I can also find you quotes of dbkeys saying how he wants to send a percentage of miner rewards into a developer fund (that was blocked by Melvin) and how he wants to consider master-nodes or proof of stake voting or mining... And for the price, who knows. I think $0.10 is a strong bottom, even with all merge miners selling. A 1 satoshi price would be almost impossible and it was an exaggeration. $0.10 to $1 is easy within a year. But people have to actually work hard to improve the protocol instead of coming up with ways to work less.

      As for the person who said my thoughts about double spend protection are wrong, let them come here or any other open/uncensored forum and I can debate them. I think they are wrong about this, and also there is a nice thread about merge mining security in the bitcoin-dev archives: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2014-January/003981.html. I think one conclusion from that is that as long as you are not a scam-coin, merge mining is quite secure, and still the best you can do compared to the other alternatives.

      I think currently, from the Bitmark community, there is just a few people who strongly support dbkeys' fork and most people don't care or don't understand the issues. If you see the github thread, I also initially said "sure why not, let's reduce the merge miners reward by 50%". But after more careful thought, I changed my mind on that and definitely don't want to mess with the emission schedule. On my side I see some kind of support from the following users in this thread: psycodad, tync, Matiel. Also I had some level of support by someone who contacted me privately. But I need strong support from at least a few people. So please make it known or contact me privately at least, and like that I can try to submit a petition to exchange to include my vision for the fork, and even let dbkeys have his vision under the BTM ticker if he wants (though I think putting scam-coins on an exchange would be unwise for the reputation of the exchange). I am in good contact with people who work in Trade-by-trade, but I don't want to use my access to push my own vision and I definitely need an exchange to make sure I am not the only person mining the chain. So this is the last chance! dbkeys' fork may activate in less than a week.

      I think in the future sidechains will enable multiple currencies to exist on one blockchain (for the purpose of paying miners for transactions). They cam also further decentralize mining (no merge mining 2 sidechains of a chain at once). You could have for example Bitcoin being transferred to the Bitmark blockchain, and people can choose to pay with Bitcoin or Bitmark, just like now USD can be used in almost any country, but you could still use the local currency if you want. To transfer the Bitcoin would have a waiting time, so sometimes it would be better to use the MARKS, or marks could just be a backup, in case there are some problems with Bitcoin. So I don't think sidechains will completely kill altcoins, and still, with the best computers and moon-math, it is very inefficient to use sidechains in a trustless manner. The network effect (strong bonds between P2P nodes) with those nodes resistant to many attacks is what makes a coin a good store of value.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on August 25, 2018, 04:16:22 PM
         It's unfortunate when a there is division and disagreement. However, the decision to subsidize merge-mined blocks less than native mined blocks was taken after long discussions, where everyone except @onelineproof agreed that it was in the best interest of the entire Bitmark community.  This includes users, early adopters, early investors and miners as well.

          Despite having been employed by the project for over a year and a half, @onelineproof has taken the stance that the project would either implement his vision, or he would fork. Despite having been repeatedly  invited to understand the point of view of most everyone else, and to engage in discussions whereby we could find common ground, or at least find some compromise, he chose to cut off communications, "ostrich style,  except to accuse me and the project of turning into an ICO (which is absurd as anybody who know Bitmark's history is well aware).  This radicalism he displays and lack of a balanced vision are simply not qualities I would like to see in a leader, to be honest. By his own admission, he says:

      Quote
      "I'm not an easy person to work with, people who know me know that I am very stubborn. Though I don't have much invested so I don't know how it feels, but I am not driven at all by profit and I don't care even if the price goes to 1 satoshi"

          As a project, we cannot be held hostage to the "merge-mine fundamentalism" of a single person, especially when he is insensitive to destroying the value of the coin and completely disregards the concerns of early adopters.

          The issue of merge-mining, and the pros and cons of seeking equitable subsidies between native mining and merge mining have been discussed at length on Project Bitmarks official github: Merge-mining as an Issue (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68), on Project Bitmark's Slack channels and directly among interested parties.   I have invited input from the community repeatedly on this forum, and by and large, people are mostly interested in how soon the fork with the features as we propose will be ready.  

          I have sought the best advice on ths issue and have received this illustrative comment:


      Quote
       ..@onelineproof]...does seem to be confused about the finer points of double spend protection. He's saying the block reward is linked to the protective factor of "confirmations", or, put another way, linked to the cost of producing those blocks, and the rewards from doing so. He's unfortunately deducing from that line of logic that reducing the merged mining block rewards will reduce security of the chain. This would be true for a non-merged chain, because the incentive to mine the coin would go down, and thus mining pressure would decrease, but with merged mining the additional cost for mining pools to mine the blocks is effectively zero, and the rewards are just gravy, so they're never going to stop mining. That's both a feature and a bug in this case. It keeps the chain secure with a high difficulty for a low cost, but completely floods the market with un-invested dumpers who see dumping Bitmark as a 0.5% profit increase on their Litecoin mining setup.
      There's no doubt an economics problem with enabling merge mining rewards, I think this is why you see so few prominent merge mined coins. It simply creates a ton of market sell pressure which is hard to deal with.
       ....

          I believe that by finding balance the right rewards for native mining and merge-mined mining, the Bitmark blockchain will be both secure and produce coins at the rate that the market is calling for. It is no secret that I have sought to regulate emission in response to market demand as early as 2015, when the idea of Coin Emission Modulation was born, and finally implemented earlier this year, ( with @onlineproof's coding help: give credit where credit is due.)

          @onlineproof seems to think it is wrong to consider the hardship suffered by early investors in the coin, who have seen the BTM/BTC exchange rate drop  dramatically this year. After long periods of rather minimal emission, and then a long period dominated by a selfish miner, ( as yet not identified to my knowledge, who may be hoarding their entire mining take for some future), we have had a few months of very distributed mining, which is good, but by mostly merge-miners who are acquiring  bitmarks at nearly zero cost and liquidating them ASAP.  We seek to remediate this, unashamedly.

          @onelineproof is correct that v0.9.8.3 is an absoute hard fork, set to occur at block 511,111, in approximately 5 or 6 days, around August 30.  We may delay this a bit to address the valid issues pointed out, but ultimately, IMO we should not pretend to ask the merge-miners who we have unwittingly let dominate all of Bitmark mining if they think letting go of the "candy" is a good idea.    As we have stated, we think the compromise we have implemented in Bitmark version 0.9.8.3 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/0.9.8.3) between 1) the near-zero cost of merge-mining Bitmark on top of an already on-going mining operation  and 2) the value of merge-mined blocks to the Bitmark blockchain is a good one.  I believe it is even good for the merge-miners, utlimately, because altough they will get less units, these units should be worth more. And of course, they can always mine natively for the full CEM reward.

          Losing @onelineproof as a coder for the project has been unfortunate, as in truth and fairness, he is a fine coder, resourceful, and was able to implement the Bitmark Project's vision of our transition from a single-PoW algo regulated by a primitive diffalgo to an 8mPoW blockchain regulated by the DGWv3 diffalgo,  and implented also the vision of Coin Emission Modulation as CEM v0.1.
       
          @onelineproof actually likes CEM well enough, although it has the same effect of withholding and deferring a part of the coin's emission into the future, just  as reduced subsidies for merge-mined blocks does.  It bears repeating that is a strong positive, because it means mining Bitmark will be viable much longer into the future and the number of coins emitted will match market demand much closer. Also it bears underlining that the total emission of Bitmark is being respected: no more and no less than originally planned
         Rather incongruoulsly, though, @onelineproof has chosen to chacterize the improvement of adjusting merge-mining subsidies as a "scam" and an "ICO" which IMO shows an embarrassing lack of understanding, a unfortunate quickness to judge negatively  and an unwarranted propensity to ascribe dark motives.  
       @onlineproof seems to think that it's OK to modify the code, as he helped to do in the v0.9.5 to v0.9.7 transition, but then somehow a sin to do so again to fix issues and address flaws discovered since v0.9.7 went live on June 6. Incongruous is the word that come to my mind.

          In any case,  for all his positive contributions we are grateful.   If @onelineproof wishes, he may submit a pull request with  the BigNum and other technical issues he points to. If we have time before the forkheight, or if we decide to postpone the fork, these minor details will be taken care of now, or they will be addressed later.  


      In short, we must move forward. Enough has been said.  


      Allow me to be as clear and concise as possible....@onelineproof did great work while he was employed by us, however his unwillingness to adopt a change that was voted on and widely accepted by the community (not to mention his attempt to hijack), has placed him outside our circle of trust. We will move as a unit toward what is in the best interest of the project & community. Sadly, since he cannot accept what we agree on as a team, then he can not work with us (or anyone of that matter "by his own admission")...who want a dev that only drives his unsubstantiated view and not the views or options of the team/project...??


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 26, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
      Allow me to be as clear and concise as possible....@onelineproof did great work while he was employed by us, however his unwillingness to adopt a change that was voted on and widely accepted by the community (not to mention his attempt to hijack), has placed him outside our circle of trust. We will move as a unit toward what is in the best interest of the project & community. Sadly, since he cannot accept what we agree on as a team, then he can not work with us (or anyone of that matter "by his own admission")...who want a dev that only drives his unsubstantiated view and not the views or options of the team/project...??[/color][/size][/b]

      TeamBitmark is a puppet account of 82ndabnmedic I assume, since the writing style is the same. What vote? Where did it take place? On slack where people get banned for disagreeing with the fork. How can you not get 100% support in such an environment?

      I actually have a significant stake in Bitmark, it's not just peanuts. If I were to lose all my marks, that would be a very significant setback financially. I do have skin in the game, but for sure I would sell what I have on dbkeys' fork. The price of Bitmark never surpassed $1 except for a short time last winter when Bitcoin peaked, and the market cap never surpassed $7 million, except for that short burst. The BTC value of marks in 2014 is a useless measure since there was much less altcoins at the time, bitcoin value was lower, and there was much less marks in circulation. Same with any other BTC price / market cap. The only meaningful marketcap is USD since that's the dominant world currency right now. From 1.2 million to 7 million market cap is quite easy (we just saw a rise this month from 1 million to 1.2 million). Reducing the emission rate will not magically increase the price, it will reduce selling pressure so investors can more easily dump. Any gains will likely be temporary and unstable.

      The email I listed previously in my signature seems to have problems so I am changing it back to my previous email:
      <my username>@gmail.com
      Like I said, this is the last chance if you support the uncorrupted version of Bitmark. Block reward changes that favor special interests will be visible on the blockchain forever. You cannot hide it.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on August 26, 2018, 11:35:30 PM
      I understand that those who now manage a coin want to stop the coin's depreciation. for this they want to use centralized methods. and the original developer does not agree to a centralized solution. correct if I do not correctly understood the situation

      Correction, He was never our original Developer, he was initially an employee which we assumed may chose to become a full member of the team. -  (this is no longer an option)

      So Lead Dev = No

      Our Lead Developer is and has been Melvin Carvalho

      https://melvincarvalho.com/#me

      Melvin is an amazing developer and his needs no introduction.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on August 27, 2018, 12:07:17 AM
      Allow me to be as clear and concise as possible....@onelineproof did great work while he was employed by us, however his unwillingness to adopt a change that was voted on and widely accepted by the community (not to mention his attempt to hijack), has placed him outside our circle of trust. We will move as a unit toward what is in the best interest of the project & community. Sadly, since he cannot accept what we agree on as a team, then he can not work with us (or anyone of that matter "by his own admission")...who want a dev that only drives his unsubstantiated view and not the views or options of the team/project...??[/color][/size][/b]

      TeamBitmark is a puppet account of 82ndabnmedic I assume, since the writing style is the same. What vote? Where did it take place? On slack where people get banned for disagreeing with the fork. How can you not get 100% support in such an environment?

      I actually have a significant stake in Bitmark, it's not just peanuts. If I were to lose all my marks, that would be a very significant setback financially. I do have skin in the game, but for sure I would sell what I have on dbkeys' fork. The price of Bitmark never surpassed $1 except for a short time last winter when Bitcoin peaked, and the market cap never surpassed $7 million, except for that short burst. The BTC value of marks in 2014 is a useless measure since there was much less altcoins at the time, bitcoin value was lower, and there was much less marks in circulation. Same with any other BTC price / market cap. The only meaningful marketcap is USD since that's the dominant world currency right now. From 1.2 million to 7 million market cap is quite easy (we just saw a rise this month from 1 million to 1.2 million). Reducing the emission rate will not magically increase the price, it will reduce selling pressure so investors can more easily dump. Any gains will likely be temporary and unstable.

      The email I listed previously in my signature seems to have problems so I am changing it back to my previous email:
      <my username>@gmail.com
      Like I said, this is the last chance if you support the uncorrupted version of Bitmark. Block reward changes that favor special interests will be visible on the blockchain forever. You cannot hide it.


      I apologize to the Bitmark [MARKS] Community for the distorted and disrespect @onelineproof has shown to the community....Yes We announced that the TeamBitmark account would be used as our official means of communication for updates and coordination....so to say it is a puppet account (for me or the team) is utterly out off touch & offensive.

      @onelineproof  I wish you the best of luck, I can rest easy knowing that I attempted to reach out and collaborate with you...in search of some mutually beneficial resolution....But working with you is all or nothing (and the sad this is that the part your "all in on" is flat out wrong/and based on distorted views of the market/blockchain dynamics)...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 27, 2018, 07:49:29 AM
      Reading everything posted reinforces my impression that @onlineproof is a bit too rigid and does not know nor understand the history of Bitmark, even after I went through the trouble of generating and posting the emission graphs of the coin.

      His fervor for adhering to an emission schedule that never was is... just silly. Especially in light of the long history of discussions about Coin Emission Modulation and its entire reason for being, which finally came to bear fruit in Fork#1: To reduce emission to match market demand. Try as he might to say this is not important, and "not the reason for it", it is exactly the reason for its existence; the record is out there on Bitmark's Github, and on extensive discussions in the Slack archives as well.

      While it is true that the theoretical emission schedule could be adhered to, even while reducing rewards for merge-mining, it would mean that native rewards would have to be higher than the epoch's max reward.  It would no longer be a "max" reward.   There is no point and nothing to be gained by this.  _That_ would be disorderly and senseless. This goes against logic, and this viewpoint can easily be demolished with recourse to reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).  If it was a good thing to issue coins faster, then why not issue them all quickly, in short spurt, insta-minining style ? Yes, in fact, why not just issue them all at once, ya, the entire remaining emission, some 17 million coins, to the lucky miner of some soon-to-be-issued block ? It would be just like winning the lottery !  Whopeee !   That would certainly accelerate the emission...
       But of course not:    ¡ Because it would be absurd !  The mindless, rigid insistence on adhering to a schedule which
         #1) Has never been adhered to in reality anyway (due to the rigidity and ineffectivenss of the original diffalgo), and
         #2) Because CEM v0.1 already throttles emission and stretches that schedule anyway,  (and not a single person before @onelineproof complained) exposes the insistence on blindly following a theoretical emission rate for no good reason as some kind of unreasonable religious fundamentalism.  
      (It bears repeating that the total emission of some 27 million MARKS has never been in question or proposed to be altered. That emission is an absolute cap, and will eventually be reached.)

      From the outset, Bitmark was designed to have not only block reward halvings, like bitcoin, but also intermediate quarterings, in order to reduce the importance of mining early-on versus later in the lifetime of the coin.  This is was established in the early days, the midSummer of 2014. The guiding philosophy is clear: let's make it equally attractive to mine this coin in the beginning, or later on, even years later on. By dynamically throttling the emission rate when the market calls for it, price stability is fostered and mining viability is ensured far into the future.  By throttling it further, when it is warranted for good reason (the principle of remuneration of work according to effort) this guiding idea is respected and strengthened.

      CEM v0.1 already started the path in this direction, by moderately slowing the emission when hashrate is below recent peak performance.  CEM v0.2 strengthens this authority even more.

      As far a the issue of merge mining goes, it is clear that it is desirable in certain measure, but not as the only kind of mining for  our blockchain, and must not dominate to the detriment of all native mining.  Perhaps a more dynamic adjustment of merge-mine rewards vs native mining can be achieved in the future, but for now, a simple scaling will do. It is honest and correct to reward work according to effort. Merge mined blocks are achieved with much less effort than native mined blocks. This simple fact has unfortunately been denied entry into @onelineproof's understanding, apparently.

       Because a large number of our blocks are now merge mined,  emission rate will be reduced, but as far as price goes, this would hardly create a pump. The current price of Bitmark is well below historical levels, in large measure because Fork #1, (while solving a number of difficult problems the coin faced), also opened a fire hose of emission, flooding the market with coins. If anything, fairly adjusting reward for merge-mined block may restore or help bring up the price to the levels it was at before, but to characterize that negatively shows a remarkable ignorance of the situation we are experiencing; a distorted perception of the true picture.

      The dark accusations remind me that of a saying, sometimes involving leopards, sometimes lions,  (and sometime thieves !)  which goes something like this: 'The leopard thinks everyone has the same "spotted skin, as he does'.    In Spain, the  saying, ("el león cree que todos son de su condición"),    roughly translated: "The Lion thinks everyone is of his same condition"   leads me to suspect that perhaps he has ( or had ) some deal to exploit merge mining of the coin and now sees this plan threatened. Perhaps it is for personal reasons that he is so strongly opposed to what should be a relatively minor change in the big picture, bringing some balance to the ratio of merge-mined and native blocks. For the first 4 1/2 years, all Bitmark mining was native mining. Now we are unwittingly dominated by merge-mining.   Fork #2 simply seeks to restore balance to this situation.

      In fact, we plan to make a two algos native-only again, and perhaps introduce an additional native-only algo. This would mean that at least 1/3 of the algos are native algos. This will, in fact, increase the rate of emission, since native blocks are not subject to the merge-mining reduction factor... and, all miners are welcome to be Bitmark native miners and earn the full native rewards.

      About the only thing I agree with in the criticism leveled is that reducing the CEM window from 365 days (1 year) to 30 days (1 month) might be too drastic, therefore I will suggest that we only reduce the CEM look back time frame to 1/4 of its previous reachback, to 90 days (3 monts).


      A couple more points:

      The false analogy made to the arbitrary manipulations of fiat central bankers simply does not apply.
       First of all, because Coin Emission Modulation is not based on whimsy or human capriciouness. It is an algorithm, just like DGW is an algorithm, as are all block reward epoch reduction algorithms, they are algos written into program code. Of course program code _can_ be changed, (and should be) for good reasons, but this is done sparingly, and these changes are published and open sourced for public inspection.

      CEM is an algorithm which attempts to track demand by equating hashrate to demand, and adjusts emission according to demand. Thus, it is not humans attempting to manipulate anything  (as the Chair of the Federal Reserve does by deciding to "Quantitatively Ease" the value out of your fiat savings) but  a coded algorithm, much like DGWv3 is an algorithm that regulates the timeliness of block production and ensures that transactions are processed promptly, CEM v0.1 and CEM v0.2 regulate emission to match market demand as best as possible, based on the only blockchain-instrinsic analog metric of demand available: mining hashrate.  The total eventual money supply of Bitmarks has never been changed, and more importantly, is limited to less than 28 million coins, (similarly as Bitcoin is limited to less than 22 million coins), as are most other reputable cryptos.

      Also, addressing the question of tickers. Our original ticker BTM, while still in use in different venues, including Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm),  is also in conflicting use by a latecomer coin, Bytom. The Bitmark Project decided to change to and use MARKS as our main ticker symbol, both to avoid conflict and because it better represents the ultimate purpose of our blockchain. We lay claim to MARKS and hope others respect this.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 27, 2018, 02:10:50 PM
      82ndabnmedic: I never said there was something wrong with you controlling another account. I am just clearing it up that's all. And to say I was ever disrespectful is nonsense. I always gave everyone a chance to make their case. In fact the current lead developer who replaced me (jarr0s) was disrespectful as you can see he called me "a rookie" and "retarded" on the github thread https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/issues/68. All I did was say the truth by calling what I see as a scam a scam. Giving honest opinions is disrespect? I guess in their view it is because I got banned from slack, and jarr0s remained.

      If you look at the website of Melvin Carvalho that @82ndabnmedic linked https://melvincarvalho.com/#me you can see a site where a guy claims to be this big mathematician and computer scientist who worked with these high-profile people. But can someone find me actual work he did or any papers he published? Also on the project-bitmark github you can see that his contributions are extremely minimal. On his github (melvincarvalho) it seems he is working on some repositories related to a "solid-server", it's unclear. My contributions to the project-bitmark repo are actually hidden because I didn't use my official username, so you will see many commits with "AK" or "Andrew K" in them, but I think I would have the top commits for that repository, even more than the original developer Mark Pfennig.

      And now more invalid arguments coming from dbkeys. So let me clear up what CEM is. CEM means "coin emission modulation". It reduces the reward from 100% down to a maximum reduction of 50% according to the current hashrate (in the last 90 blocks / 1 day for an algo) compared with the peak hashrate for 365 periods of these 90 blocks. It was his idea actually. It is a good security feature actually. It incentivizes miners to work at peak hashrate. Without it, miners would be incentivized to collude so that they can work less for the same reward, which is basically how selfish mining works. An individual miner or a group of colluding miners mines in secret and then releases the blocks all at once, and it only requires about 30% of the hashpower as psycodad pointed out, so it lets them get the same rewards for less hashpower, and drives other hard working non-colluding miners out. With CEM, the selfish miners may get the first 90 blocks for cheap, but then with the lower hashrate, their reward would decrease, defeating the purpose (or at least diminishing the use) of their attack. We actually had a form of CEM before fork 1. We had a slow difficulty adjustment algorithm that would cause blocks to come at a slower rate when hashrate is low, thus reducing the emission rate in terms of real time (rather than block time). Now with the fast difficulty adjustment algo (DGW + resurrector), block time matches real time, so this keeps the same effect without delaying blocks for users. As long as miners are working at peak (providing peak security), the emission rate matches the target rate. It has always been like that. Further, the actual CEM reduction value is dependent on market forces and cannot be easily predicted or manipulated by insiders, especially with merge mining where the market forces depend on the value of other chains.

      What dbkeys' fork does is completely cut off 80% of the maximum reward for merge miners, making it completely unavailable even if the miners are working at peak performance. Without paying bonuses to native miners, the emission rate will no longer be at target even if all miners are working at peak, except for the almost impossible scenario that all miners switch to native (sure lets leave that to luck!) (it's likely merge miners will take about 60+% of the blocks as they are now). Whether a miner native or merge mines depends on market values of other coins compared to Bitmark, and cannot be just set with an arbitrary fixed parameter for the differences in merged to native rewards. A bonus paid to native miners would also be needed to create a balance of merged and native miners, with a target ratio of merged to native blocks given by a parameter that I think should be dynamically voted on by users in order to be a completely honest protocol. I supported even a ratio of 99 native blocks to 1 merged block, as long as it was decided by dynamic user voting as you can see in the github thread. Whatever you do, you need to make sure the target emission rate remains the same when mining is at peak, that's just obvious if you want to continue claiming it's a decentralized currency.

      Oh and for the insta-mining / faster issuance rant, of course I would never agree with increasing the emission rate, so what is his point? The point is that the rate is pre-determined and not changed (up or down) after that, because both upward and downward changes can benefit special interests.

      And yes it's wrong to consider the hardship of a group of investors when making protocol changes. The genesis block of Bitcoin has the following data imbedded: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks". No bailouts! Dbkeys now is suggesting that I'm a scammer because I can imagine that someone is a scammer. He's going much lower than I would expect...Sure call me a scammer, it's your free speech and I will defend my position. I have met many people in my life who seem nice, who seem reliable, but then it turns out they're not that nice and not so reliable. It is not hard at all for me to imagine that someone would be a scammer, and the point of P2P currencies to create a trustless system for transacting, without having to trust any one person, without having to trust any miners to be honest, because like it or not, people cheat and people are dishonest!

      @Matiel says:
      Quote
      if you two are right, what truth should I believe?

      That's a very good question actually and related with what I just said. I am likely spewing a bunch of technical stuff that people may find hard to follow. Dbkeys seems to be throwing around sophisticated English language words (to appear educated, well-read, have a high social status, and thus unlikely to be a scammer). Ideally, you shouldn't trust anyone and just verify the logic and evidence presented. Also you should validate the code if you can (trust just the code and not the developer of the code). I think I made my argument clear. I don't want to repeat everything. If you have a particular quote of mine that you think needs clarification, then ask me, and I will clarify. This problem of "what is the truth" is also the problem that can be efficiently solved by Bitmark if it truly becomes a decentralized reputation system. We are constantly fed loads of information, and it is hard to know in what order information should be prioritized for further analysis and judgement on the conclusions. With a reputation system, we can more efficiently prioritize information so that we can quickly come to accurate conclusions based on who we value as accurate, for what category, and what fundamental assumptions we make. Different people may have different fundamental assumptions, so I hope such a system could allow for flexibility in that.

      Anyway, a simple way to know, without much analysis is look at the block explorer (explorer.bitmark.cc or explorer.bitmark.co). Do you see any problems with Bitmark? Are blocks getting delayed? Are miners attacking? Is Poloniex blocking withdrawals because of some attack? No. All you see is a group of people called "Team Bitmark" who are rushing to put a new fork, without carefully analyzing what they're doing, and talking a lot about price and investors. Price is actually quite stable now after the adjustment of fork 1 to a fairer market value. Maybe it's "low", but it's stable. So you can judge based on that what the truth is.

      If I do become a lead software maintainer for a cryptocurrency, and then if someone puts a gun to my head and makes me tell people to support a corrupt fork, then I sure hope people do revolt against me, because otherwise it means the project is dead. In this case, I think it is more likely that we have a group of investors who are under financial pressure due to poor decisions they made, and instead of putting in the hard work necessary to improve the situation, they want to take the "easy" way out.

      If people don't support my vision for Bitmark, then I will create another chain (possibly with a new currency or simply with Bitcoin transferred into a sidechain). Decentralized reputation is far too important to be left to lazy scam-rationalizing clowns.

      I had one email about listing a coin on an exchange for 0.5 BTC. $3000 for a listing? No thanks, but I can get you some good volume if you list it!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 27, 2018, 05:35:05 PM
      Quote
      Whatever you do, you need to make sure the target emission rate remains the same when mining is at peak, that's just obvious if you want to continue claiming it's a decentralized currency.

      Why ? This is not obvious at all. Proving this kind of baseless assertion, (if that were possible), would certainly require a proof spanning more than one line (pun intended). There is no way to prove this. This is just more embarrassing mental confusion, opinion and FUD from our erstwhile (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/erstwhile) coder. (Yes, another high-brow word. Look it up. LOL)

      A decentralized currency can follow the emission policies being set by CEM and the mergeReduction factor and still be decentralized. All that is required is that users and miners adopt these rules and follow them in a P2P decentralized fashion.

      Quote
      We had a slow difficulty adjustment algorithm that would cause blocks to come at a slower rate when hashrate is low, thus reducing the emission rate in terms of real time (rather than block time).

      Correct. And this was a very serious problem for users, who just want their transactions to go through quickly. Therefore, the idea of CEM was born: Decouple the coin emission rate from the rate of block production. Now block production rate does not equal coin emission rate. Block production rate is stable, (averaging 2 minutes between blocks) and equates primarily to expediency of transaction processing.

      Regarding the selfish mining issue, I believe Andrew K's understanding is again lacking. Selfish Mining is primarily about being able to tinker and abuse the timing and time-stamping, and abusing some measure of superior hashrate. Not directly related to block rewards at all. Please read and understand Bitcoin Core contributor  David A. Harding's explanation on StackExchange. (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/75438/what-prevents-similar-time-warp-attacks-in-bitcoin-as-happened-to-verge)

      I truly find it surprising that @onelineproof is so married to the idea of merge-mining.
      <sarcasm> He almost seems like the prophet of a merge-mining religion and the one true emission rate </sarcasm>.... That is the only reason I speculate  about his motives. (And I acknowledge these possible motives are speculative, and by no mean hard accusations.)  
      Talk about nice & reliable. Employ a guy for over a year, and then have him call the team's development direction and ideas a "scam" just because he doesn't understand, or they don't fit his erroneous notions or finds them unpalatable for whatever reason. That kind of baseless hyperbole and hysterical name calling has no place in a professional team; you may be free to disagree,  to express strong reservations, to try to prove your point of view etc. But to go so low as to imply fraud and ill intent, well, frankly that is just unacceptable. People who have followed Bitmark from the start will realize how far from the truth these accusations are. It is with real chagrin (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chagrin) that we have to stop working with him.  

      These ongoing accusations of "scams" which imply criminal fraud and intent, are simply unacceptable when the reasons to reduce merge-mine rewards are clear and founded on principle; they are not capricious (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/capricious) nor random. Further, they are called for by the majority of the Bitmark community.

       Again, at risk of being repetitive,  despite being spelled out for him numerous times, let's say it again: It is honest and correct to reward work according to effort. Merge mined blocks are achieved with much less effort than native mined blocks. They should be rewarded proportionately This undisputed fact has unfortunately not yet permeated into @onelineproof's understanding. If this happens to lower emission rate, ¿so what? There is no rule that says a certain emission rate has to be maintained. That is just baseless dogma (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogma).


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Jeff_gi on August 27, 2018, 05:37:24 PM
      the team of this idea is very experienced I think, because there are some advisors from famous technology companies, such as dell, google ... this concept is interesting mix between paypal and cryptocurency .. Good luck guys.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 27, 2018, 06:52:25 PM
      Quote
      Ideally, you shouldn't trust anyone and just verify the logic and evidence presented. Also you should validate the code if you can (trust just the code and not the developer of the code).
       
      This is good advice.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Jeff_gi on August 27, 2018, 06:55:56 PM
      Good Project.. But How we can check that How many tokens have already been sold? Good luck guys!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 27, 2018, 07:28:15 PM
      Good Project.. But How we can check that How many tokens have already been sold? Good luck guys!

      In short: 9509391.96671310 (MARKS)
       

      For a more detailed answer ....  

      It is easy to determine how many Bitmarks have been mined to date; this is the "money supply" figure given by the "getinfo" (or "gi" command) :

      Code:
      ~/.bitmark$ marks gi; d
      {
          "version" : 90803,
          "protocolversion" : 70004,
          "walletversion" : 60000,
          "balance" : 12120.20856989,
          "blocks" : 509415,
          "timeoffset" : 0,
          "connections" : 8,
          "proxy" : "",
          "pow_algo_id" : 2,
          "pow_algo" : "YESCRYPT",
          "difficulty" : 625207.19796797,
          "difficulty SCRYPT" : 3683745378.32694530,
          "difficulty SHA256D" : 3979171592.16466856,
          "difficulty YESCRYPT" : 625207.19796797,
          "difficulty ARGON2" : 54793.28359004,
          "difficulty X17" : 48717125.22686026,
          "difficulty LYRA2REv2" : 338651219.50738722,
          "difficulty EQUIHASH" : 146523.83192184,
          "difficulty CRYPTONIGHT" : 40324.66477642,
          "moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310,
          "testnet" : false,
          "keypoololdest" : 1514664007,
          "keypoolsize" : 4097,
          "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
          "relayfee" : 0.00001000,
          "errors" : ""
      }
      1535397408 Mon Aug 27 19:16:48 UTC 2018

      "moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310
      so the answer is, a little bit over 9.5 million MARKS       (9509391.96671310  MARKS, to be exact)    
      That is the total number of Bitmarks in existence at the moment.

      Every day, no more than about 720 * 15 = 10800 MARKS are added to this number.  Usually less, because CEM v0.1 is already on the job, modulating the block reward down for algorithms where the hashrate is not at peak.

      There never was an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) for Bitmark. It has always been generated by mining exclusively.

      The exchanges that trade Bitmark (Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm), Cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC), qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC) and TradeSatoshi.com among other) may have all-time volume figures on Bitmarks traded inside their platforms, but these numbers would only indicate how many Bitmarks have changed hands on those exchanges... Understand that one Bitmark (or any fraction of it) may have changed ownership many, many times, so those volume figures may be quite a bit larger than the absolute number in circulation.


      With the proposed enhancements in Bitmark v0.9.8.3 (Fork #2) it is almost certain that the daily emission of MARKS would be less than the present theoretical maximum of 10800 MARKS. How much less would depend on factors beyond anyone's control. How many miners kept on mining through the merge-mining enabling AuxPoW feature, whether a steady hashrate was maintained or high peaks observed, etc.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Fannin_Ase on August 27, 2018, 07:35:54 PM
      Hello to everyone! A question to you: are you going to use token sale platform provided by TokenGet which is one of the most advanced ICO platform in the world???


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on August 27, 2018, 11:37:38 PM
      Good Project.. But How we can check that How many tokens have already been sold? Good luck guys!

      In short: 9509391.96671310 (MARKS)
       

      For a more detailed answer ....  

      It is easy to determine how many Bitmarks have been mined to date; this is the "money supply" figure given by the "getinfo" (or "gi" command) :

      Code:
      ~/.bitmark$ marks gi; d
      {
          "version" : 90803,
          "protocolversion" : 70004,
          "walletversion" : 60000,
          "balance" : 12120.20856989,
          "blocks" : 509415,
          "timeoffset" : 0,
          "connections" : 8,
          "proxy" : "",
          "pow_algo_id" : 2,
          "pow_algo" : "YESCRYPT",
          "difficulty" : 625207.19796797,
          "difficulty SCRYPT" : 3683745378.32694530,
          "difficulty SHA256D" : 3979171592.16466856,
          "difficulty YESCRYPT" : 625207.19796797,
          "difficulty ARGON2" : 54793.28359004,
          "difficulty X17" : 48717125.22686026,
          "difficulty LYRA2REv2" : 338651219.50738722,
          "difficulty EQUIHASH" : 146523.83192184,
          "difficulty CRYPTONIGHT" : 40324.66477642,
          "moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310,
          "testnet" : false,
          "keypoololdest" : 1514664007,
          "keypoolsize" : 4097,
          "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
          "relayfee" : 0.00001000,
          "errors" : ""
      }
      1535397408 Mon Aug 27 19:16:48 UTC 2018

      "moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310
      so the answer is, a little bit over 9.5 million MARKS       (9509391.96671310  MARKS, to be exact)    
      That is the total number of Bitmarks in existence at the moment.

      Every day, no more than about 720 * 15 = 10800 MARKS are added to this number.  Usually less, because CEM v0.1 is already on the job, modulating the block reward down for algorithms where the hashrate is not at peak.

      There never was an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) for Bitmark. It has always been generated by mining exclusively.

      The exchanges that trade Bitmark (Poloniex.com (https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_btm), Cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=MARKS_BTC), qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC) and TradeSatoshi.com among other) may have all-time volume figures on Bitmarks traded inside their platforms, but these numbers would only indicate how many Bitmarks have changed hands on those exchanges... Understand that one Bitmark (or any fraction of it) may have changed ownership many, many times, so those volume figures may be quite a bit larger than the absolute number in circulation.


      With the proposed enhancements in Bitmark v0.9.8.3 (Fork #2) it is almost certain that the daily emission of MARKS would be less than the present theoretical maximum of 10800 MARKS. How much less would depend on factors beyond anyone's control. How many miners kept on mining through the merge-mining enabling AuxPoW feature, whether a steady hashrate was maintained or high peaks observed, etc.

      Glad you clarified for all the new community members....no ICO EVER, Never a Premine & never investor driven...solely a community driven approach that seeks to imperilment our vision and them likely market quite a bit more than we have


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 28, 2018, 03:54:40 PM
      Is anyone actually starving to death or are your children starving because of the Bitmark price? Send me a receipt for food purchased and your Bitmark address and I'll reimburse you. It is in my interest to have bitmarkers alive and healthy and I hope others can pitch in because I may not be able to feed everyone.

      But I definitely have no sympathy for those who are worried that their purchase of Apple computers, Google self driving cars, or other such centralized malware is delayed. I am a user and investor of Bitmark and it is my full right to protest the reduction of security and corruption being placed on the blockchain I use.

      Working with dbkeys was fine until around the time of the June fork, where he started telling me he wants to make the Bitmark protocol send a certain percentage of miner rewards into a hardcoded developer fund controlled by the "official team". I told him straight up then that I will continue to work on Bitmark (even for free whenever I have time), but if it includes centralized elements like that, I will promptly create my own fork that continues the current smoothly functioning and uncorrupted protocol.

      I have worked with other clients who wanted premined coins, and I had no problem doing it for them as it was a good way to learn the Bitcoin code while making some money to cover my cost of living. I didn't say anything bad about them because it is clear what they are (premined ICO type coins), and I have no investment or interest in them.

      I actually had a lot of hope for Bitmark and that's why I am trying my best to wake up whoever is left in the community. Of course I have to call dbkeys' fork a scam because that is how I see it, and I want potential investors to be well informed of the difference between my fork (the current protocol) and his (the corrupt one). And I will continue to call it a scam even after his fork is activated. As long as I am working on a decentralized reputation system, I will inform people of any other fake reputation systems that exist.

      He keeps trying to paint me as obsessed with merge mining, while it's not true. As I said, I was always willing to accept a mix of native and merge mining. I talked about the economics and opportunity cost involved in merge mining as well (page 11). Then he asks me questions which I am very sure he knows the answer to and is just acting to not know as I have explained these things to him an enormous number of times, so I will only answer them if someone else echoes these questions. He is also mixing selfish mining with timestamp attacks, and timestamp attacks have been well taken care of already. (not to mention Harding is Bitcoin Cash/ Bcash proponent)

      This kind of dishonesty presented by dbkeys makes me want to look deeper into the history of Bitmark and do a full audit of the modifications to Bitcoin that Mark Pfennig did. I did find a bug with signatures earlier, but it turned out to not be that significant and not relevant in a post-quantum-cryptography world. One question that should be answered is: How did Melvin Carvalho become the administrator of the project-bitmark github repository after Mark Pfennig disappeared?

      Edit: Here are some interesting claims about Melvin Carvalho: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg18731714#msg18731714. Needs confirmation.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 28, 2018, 04:26:56 PM
      Quote
      where he started telling me he wants to make the Bitmark protocol send a certain percentage of miner rewards into a hardcoded developer fund controlled by the "official team".

      This was discussed as an idea once , as many things are, promptly nixed by Melvin and never brought up again. As were other things you keep trying to mischaracterize. I've said Proof of Stake has interesting aspects, but can be implemented many different ways. I have not advocated for Bitmark to implement any particular form of Proof of Stake. I have only said that voting, and weighting votes according to stake held, to decide different issues, might be an interesting feature. You said you would code up a system to allow the kind of voting, which you proposed for the dynamic ratio of merged:native. Still waiting.

      And again with the name calling and insinuations of fraud and crime. If you were willing to :
      Quote
      As I said, I was always willing to accept a mix of native and merge mining.
      then, in your definition of things, you are willing to accept a mix of "uncorrupted" and "scam" mining ?  How odd. So stop pretending to be oh so very honest and better than anyone.

      I told you many times that if you didn't agree with reducing merge-miners rewards as much, we should engage in a dialog and come up with a reasonable compromise number. But oh,  rejoice, believers of the one true emission rate and its defender, (PBUH !), he would have none of it !  
        LOL  :D

       AK, of course you must follow your conscience and principles, I do commend you for that. So you've issued your dire, paranoid, pious warnings, you've done what you could.
      Now,  if you can't compromise, just fork already, announce your new ANN thread, follow your beliefs and take your faithful to the promised land, of perfect incorruptibility,  and let those of us who live in the real world and have to make decisions and balance issues do our work.   I believe you'll learn a few lessons soon enough.

      But, if by chance instead, you were to accept the premise that  a reduced emission rate is not sinful per se, and and may happen for good reason, such as:
      A)  Work should be rewarded according to effort
             [and *not* according to "need", a là communist style, or what was written in some holy book long ago, a là religious dogma style] and
      B) Merged mined blocks require orders of magnitude less effort than native-mined blocks to produce  

           and that
      C)  A reduced emission rate may even have positive side effects
            (and no, I don't mean an easy exit for some theoretical investors you keep being paranoid about),   such as:
             1)  Mining viability much longer into the future
             2)  Part of the emission still available to mine, should new & more democratic mining algos be developed in the future
             3)  Possible a rise in MARKS/BTC rate, which should make for happier native-miners, even happier merge-miners and  investors and holders of the coin. ¿ What could possibly be wrong with that ?  
                 (Yes, yes I know, the central bankers, the bitcoin people would never reduce their reward (but they don't have merge-mining by the way) blah blah blah.    Did you ever stop to think that the bitcoin protocol was thought of, and developed, in one central point ? Heresy ! Oh yes, it was !! the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto, yes, one central point: that one brilliant mind, whoever he / she / they are.)  

         It's not like there are too few coins out there, already emitted. With nearly 10 million MARKS emitted ( Thats nearly a BILLION Bitmark "satoshis"   [should we call them "markoshis" ?] emitted ) There are plenty to use for all sorts of Marking and Reputation uses already.

       So what do you say, ¿ can we reach a compromise mergeReduction percentage figure you can live with ? (currently Jarr0s' code maps full CEM value for merge-mined rewards to the range 10%-20%)    
           I realize that merge-mined blocks have security value far above their producer's production cost, and that's why I to agree to reward them at what I consider a very healthy 10% to 20%, far above their real production cost, instead of the basis-points (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_point) ranges ...      

       The only other blockchain basics that I think Bitmark needs is to remove AuxPow from 2 algos, add a third native-only (for a total of 6 merge-mineable, 3 native-only)  and then.... we can finally be done with the blockchain mechanics / blockchain dynamics part and move on to the Marking / Reputation aspects of the project, which I believe you will agree, are much more interesting.



      Kindest Regards !

      dbKeys


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 28, 2018, 04:56:57 PM
      Quote
      then, in your definition of things, you are willing to accept a mix of "uncorrupted" and "scam" mining ?
      I never said native mining is a scam. I recommended to let users vote with fees (not stake) to determine the ratio. So please try to be more accurate as anyone can verify your errors.

      Quote
      Now,  if you can't compromise, just fork already, announce your new ANN thread, follow your beliefs and take your faithful to the promised land, of perfect incorruptibility,  and let those of us who live in the real world and have to make decisions and balance issues do our work.   I believe you'll learn a few lessons soon enough.
      And now rationalizing your scam as "real-world"...Ya I know in the real world idiots get fooled by scammers and scammers make money. Doesn't mean I will support it, especially when it interferes with my vision, which I believe others would like as well.

      There is still the questionable nature of Melvin Carvalho. According to the claim in my link, he is just auto importing commits from other repos to make it look like he is actually active on Github? I did notice that there was a lot of commits that don't make sense together, and a lot of the things he writes on slack don't make sense as well. And this is the "lead developer" and official contact for the project?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 28, 2018, 05:53:31 PM
      Quote
      then, in your definition of things, you are willing to accept a mix of "uncorrupted" and "scam" mining ?
      I never said native mining is a scam. I recommended to let users vote with fees (not stake) to determine the ratio. So please try to be more accurate as anyone can verify your errors.

      And now rationalizing your scam as "real-world"...Ya I know in the real world idiots get fooled by scammers and scammers make money. Doesn't mean I will support it, especially when it interferes with my vision, which I believe others would like as well.

      There is still the questionable nature of Melvin Carvalho. According to the claim in my link, he is just auto importing commits from other repos to make it look like he is actually active on Github? I did notice that there was a lot of commits that don't make sense together, and a lot of the things he writes on slack don't make sense as well. And this is the "lead developer" and official contact for the project?

      Alright, so you still want to characterize rewarding merge-miners honestly as a "scam". You and I clearly have different definitions of this word. Fine. Then just fork already. Go in Peace.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 28, 2018, 06:06:23 PM
      Quote
      I recommended to let users vote with fees (not stake) to determine the ratio. So please try to be more accurate as anyone can verify your errors.

      OK, so maybe there could be a bi-cameral system (https://ballotpedia.org/Bicameralism) whereby users could vote with fees and stakeholder with signed messages.
      But, I think voting with fees could be gamed by stakeholders bouncing coins around to themselves anyway, so in my mind at least, it's back to stakeholders. If you have "skin in the game" you hold coins, you have stake, then your vote should be proportional to that stake. Simple.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 28, 2018, 06:16:19 PM
      @1LineProof:
      Why are you so concerned with Melvin ?  Let him do his work.

      I have been focused for a long time on ensuring the fundamentals of the Bitmark blockchain, that its dynamics and functioning are solid platforms on which to build Marking. (Long before we employed you; before you knew about Bitmark.)
      I think we are close to this goal, finally (yes, thanks in some part to your coding skill & effort).  

      Once that is done,  then it will be time to move on to the actual marking and reputation systems, and interact more actively with Melvin and others in that area.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Dyonis on August 28, 2018, 06:18:34 PM
      An original idea. The project aroused interest. I will follow the development of the project. Plus that the passport of this kind is more truthful and it can not be faked.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 29, 2018, 05:50:06 PM
      @dkeys says:
      Quote
      Alright, so you still want to characterize rewarding merge-miners honestly as a "scam". You and I clearly have different definitions of this word. Fine. Then just fork already. Go in Peace.

      Again putting words in my mouth and like I said I talked about the economics of merge mining on page 11. Here are 2 links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3169983.msg43367362#msg43367362 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3169983.msg43421409#msg43421409.

      @dbkeys says:
      Quote
      OK, so maybe there could be a bi-cameral system whereby users could vote with fees and stakeholder with signed messages.
      But, I think voting with fees could be gamed by stakeholders bouncing coins around to themselves anyway, so in my mind at least, it's back to stakeholders. If you have "skin in the game" you hold coins, you have stake, then your vote should be proportional to that stake. Simple.

      Fees go to miners. To mine costs energy. No cheating the system this way. With stake you cheat the system as you can keep throwing your stake around and the vote will just favour the rich investors, not those who actually use the system (i.e. make transactions).

      @dbkeys says:
      Quote
      Why are you so concerned with Melvin ?  Let him do his work.
      I have been focused for a long time on ensuring the fundamentals of the Bitmark blockchain, that its dynamics and functioning are solid platforms on which to build Marking. I think we are close to this goal, finally (yes, thanks in part to you & your coding efforts).  
      Once that is done,  then it will be time to move on to the actual marking and reputation systems, and interact more actively with Melvin and others in that area.

      Melvin is the owner of the github repository. These questions need to be answered. How did he become the owner? What is he working on? Why can't he come here to explain himself?

      @dbkeys says:
      Quote
      3)  Possible a rise in MARKS/BTC rate, which should make for happier native-miners, even happier merge-miners and  investors and holders of the coin. ¿ What could possibly be wrong with that ?

      I like this new excuse. Native miners will remain with the same reward, not really happier. Merge miners less happy since a 5 times decrease in their reward does not translate to a 5 x increase in price. Yes old investors may be happy, but not the new ones. The new investors and users will have to buy at an inflated price because the old ones wanted to change the rules for their advantage. What it does is effectively create a pre-mine for the old investors and miners, since before the fork there was a much higher (5 times higher) reward per unit peak hashrate, and then after the fork it suddenly drops. That's how an instamine / premine works. And of course the 5 times drop is just for merge miners, but most miners will still be merge miners, so it's still a close to 5 times drop. My other explanations on the subject of modifying the emission rate still stand as well, and I encourage others (except for dbkeys) to ask me for clarification.

      So if you want a blockchain where a certain group of investors is placed ahead of users, then why would users want to use Bitmark instead of a blockchain that strictly adheres to the interest of users? What gives Bitmark value? Maybe you can get some gamblers buying, or people just relying on the network effect of Bitmark, since it is already established for a few years. But that won't last long. Or maybe people will buy because they will have faith in king dbkeys (and perhaps new followers) to steer their investments to the moon as he has steered the investments of the old investors. Remind you of a pyramid scheme?

      Adhering to the emission rate is not a hard thing to do. It doesn't require the stars of the galaxy to align. Bitcoin has done it, Litecoin has done it, Namecoin (merge mined) has done it, all during their lifetimes, which are longer than that of Bitmark. So not adhering to it shows that Bitmark is not the cream of the crop, and rather far from it. I think the stars are quite well aligned for Bitmark. The protocol until now (to my best knowledge) is completely honest. With the June fork, the protocol is very secure against many attacks (even more secure than Bitcoin I would say). Distribution is not that bad (Bitcoin had 1 million coins mined by Satoshi). The community is quite organically grown and leaderless, and last but not least: marking - a powerful new idea that can be very valueable (at the same level as Bitcoin). But with dbkeys' fork, this could all be ruined.

      If exchanges (like Poloniex) accept the addition of the centralization elements dbkeys' fork adds, then they must also establish who is the centralized group that controls these elements, and why do they get to control it and be listed on their exchange. After the original owner Mark Pfennig (Nathan Rixham) disappeared, I do not know the exact history of events, but it seems Melvin Carvalho (of questionable credibility) took control of the code repository (somehow) and then passed on ownership rights to dbkeys (so they both have ownership rights). 82ndabnmedic also has some leadership involvement as he was able to ban me on the projectbitmark slack channel, and I think he is an official contact for exchanges as well. So what gives these people the right to control what version of Bitmark will be running on exchanges? 82ndabnmedic said there was some kind of vote, which I've never seen, and then that warrants some evidence that the vote actually happened, what security measures were put in place (possibility of ballot stuffing?), who voted, how many people, what gives them the right to vote on this...There are many questions and they really need to be clarified.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 29, 2018, 08:53:02 PM
      More FUD @onelineproof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt), proving nothing, just opinion & a lot of unfounded accusations. Tired of this. Andrew K, oh defender of the one true emission rate !  You won't be a team player, so why don' t ya... focus on your Fork or sidechain or whatever you want to call it, and prove that your strategies and policies are so  much better, secure, uncorrupted, honest, glorious, blah blah blah.  All the best.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 30, 2018, 05:26:48 PM
      Let me clear up some loose ends first

      @Matiel
      The discussion between psycodad and dbkeys about selfish miners is just a side topic, and I don't disagree with any of that. There truly were selfish miners present before the June fork, which fixed that. I would give psycodad merit for his comment, but I would have to confirm for myself the 30-40% number, as I don't give merit without fully confirming the claim. Not sure why dbkeys gave psycodad merit (maybe to bribe him?), but it doesn't really matter. The merit system is a bit flawed because people can just say "I will merit you if you merit me". That's why we need a more robust reputation system.

      @dbkeys says:
      Quote
      But, if by chance instead, you were to accept the premise that  a reduced emission rate is not sinful per se, and and may happen for good reason, such as:
      A)  Work should be rewarded according to effort
             [and *not* according to "need", a là communist style, or what was written in some holy book long ago, a là religious dogma style] and
      B) Merged mined blocks require orders of magnitude less effort than native-mined blocks to produce  

           and that
      C)  A reduced emission rate may even have positive side effects
            (and no, I don't mean an easy exit for some theoretical investors you keep being paranoid about),   such as:
             1)  Mining viability much longer into the future
             2)  Part of the emission still available to mine, should new & more democratic mining algos be developed in the future
             3)  Possible a rise in MARKS/BTC rate, which should make for happier native-miners, even happier merge-miners and  investors and holders of the coin. ¿ What could possibly be wrong with that ?  
                 (Yes, yes I know, the central bankers, the bitcoin people would never reduce their reward (but they don't have merge-mining by the way) blah blah blah.    Did you ever stop to think that the bitcoin protocol was thought of, and developed, in one central point ? Heresy ! Oh yes, it was !! the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto, yes, one central point: that one brilliant mind, whoever he / she / they are.)  

      He keeps editing this post, hard to keep up...
      A & B) Work should be rewarded according to effort. Yes it is actually rewarded according to effort. If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine. I already explained all of this more completely in my posts about merge mining economics on page 11. And no, I am not a communist. In fact I would consider myself the opposite of a communist. And the point still remains that reducing merge mining rewards does not need a change to the overall emission rate.
      C) 1) I already explained why you can't just change the emission rate, but let me explain it in a different way. Say you are renting something to someone and they agree to pay you $100 every month for next 3 years. After 6 months they come to you and say "actually I will now pay you $20" every month for for the next 2.5 x 5 = 12.5 years. You will still get the same amount in the end, so why not? It will help you to stay disciplined and not blow your money all at once on booze and hookers!" I don't know about you, but I would say "Sorry buddy but we agreed to $100 a month for 3 years, changing it to $20 for the next 12.5 years is a violation of our agreement. Pay up according to the agreement or I will blacklist you and never do business with you again". So think of yourself as the miners or new users and think of that guy who wants to now pay $20 as the early investors. That is what is happening in his fork. And when dbkeys asks me "what miner reduction do you want?", what he is asking me is how much am I willing to steal from people? The answer is none. I want us (the protocol) to pay as agreed. Also, there is a reason why banks charge interest. The value of money received in the future is LESS than the value of money received now. So actually the claim that the total sum of emission is constant is wrong.
      2) is just a variant of 1, already explained above.
      3) I explained in my last post
      Yes Satoshi came up with the emission rate but whatever he came up with, people stuck with. Each coin may have a different emission rate and different schedule that changes the emission rate after certain intervals, but the schedule needs to remain as originally agreed or it is clear there is central manipulation happening. I never said there is only "one true emission rate" as dbkeys keeps saying.

      The picture is clear. Bitmark was created in mid 2014. The original developer left after 6 months. It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository. During the 2014-2016 "low hanging fruit" season of Bitmark, dbkeys mined a large number of coins (maybe 1 million?). He even told me himself that he was the only one mining at some point. Then in 2016, the selfish miners came and made mining really hard for him. They also made it hard for users to use Bitmark (Poloniex put the wallet in maintenance mode). He then came up with a plan to fix that. He hired me in 2017 and I developed the changes needed together with other security improvements (2017-2018). At this point he was strongly invested in Bitmark (mining rewards, purchases on exchanges, payments for marketing/development). When the fork happens in June 2018, he makes an important realization: By design, a decentralized system makes it very hard for 1 person to get very rich by investing in it (how surpising!). His goal is to make a profit. Cryptocurrency and decentralized reputation is "cool" for him, but his priority is to make a profit, and he doesn't want to lose all that he invested. At this point he also has gained control of the code repository and is an official contact for exchanges. Instead of being grateful that he has a significant early mover advantage in a currency that has great potential (especially with my improvements), he decides to promote his "fork" with the most deceptive marketing tactics possible. He purposely lies about the purpose and effects of the fork. He misquotes me. He uses sophisticated language to appear of high social status and unlikely to be a scammer (he toned that down a bit now). He preys on uninformed people to gather support, bans me from slack...I gave him many chances to explain himself (privately and publicly) but the picture is clear and I can back everything up with evidence. There is also that link I posted of that guy talking about how Melvin Carvalho is scamming people, and that guy has plenty of merit on this forum.

      So @dbkeys, do you want to continue doubling down or admit to your mistakes and make it easier for you? While I think non-violent scams should be legal and fall under free speech, real-world law enforcement may think otherwise. Remember what happened to the pyramid scheme scammer pirateat40? You know exactly what you are doing. You have intent. No I will not take legal action, as I think the legal system is corrupt itself. But others may, and how can people do business with you after that? It's a total loss of reputation for you.

      His sidekicks 82ndabnmedic and Melvin Carvalho should also show their faces. I don't see any possible way how these people could be approved as official contacts for exchanges trading in Bitmark. The original vision of Bitmark was clearly laid out in the original announcement thread:
      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.0
      Quote
      Project Bitmark is an initiative to create an every day use alternative currency. No premine, no IPO, nothing unfair, no scam, no clone, no old code bases, no untested code, no token features, just what you need.

      These people clearly don't follow that vision and the original developer is not present. They want to hijack the protocol for their own pyramid scheme. So who has authority of Bitmark for the purpose of providing updated code to exchanges?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 30, 2018, 07:15:03 PM
      Tiresome, but necessary to refute

      Quote
      If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine.

      The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less.  The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS, our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support.   So Yes, Fact #1)  MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
       Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?

          Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion, it's painful to watch....  Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on.  Fact #2) The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered.  So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved.   Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
          In fact,  @onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!   it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)

       <humourous sarcasm>Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? </humorous sarcasm>.... \

          but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.

      So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered again for good reason.  

        Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic, algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times.  And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.


       Oh and a few more things ...

      "Steal from people",  Andrew ?  You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".  

      With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.  This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
       And we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks.  We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
       We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners  and merge-miners,
      But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach!  All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given !  Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters)  LOL :)    
         "Unlikely", I hear you say ?       Right, and it doesn't matter.... that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much,  and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
       I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain:  what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus.  This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.

      My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.



      Quote
      It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository.
       What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights.  Elementary, AK.

      Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.

      And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. That's quite a reach.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: jidenko on August 30, 2018, 07:20:05 PM
      According to the map i see you have beta application ready.Is it possible to try it out?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 30, 2018, 07:31:48 PM
      According to the map i see you have beta application ready.Is it possible to try it out?

      We're still working on v0.9.8 - the code is available to see and we certainly appreciate all feedback and comments. But not to worry, when it is ready, we will make the announcement and have binaries (wallets) for Windows, MacOS, Ubuntu & Raspbian.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Dwyer-Prov on August 30, 2018, 07:41:04 PM
      if you go through the Whitepaper of the plan, you will see that there’s a system to ensure stability, no matter what market does. It'sreally good designed system and makes a lot of sense.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on August 30, 2018, 10:53:53 PM
      Tiresome, but necessary to refute

      Quote
      If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine.

      The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less.  The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS, our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support.   So Yes, Fact #1)  MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
       Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?

          Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion and fractures, it's just painful to watch....  Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on.  Fact #2) The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered.  So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved.   Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
          In fact,  @onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!   it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)

       <humourous sarcasm>Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? </humorous sarcasm>.... \

          but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.

      So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered again for good reason.  

        Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic, algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times.  And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.


       Oh and a few more things ...

      "Steal from people",  Andrew ?  You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".  

      With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.  This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
       And we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks.  We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
       We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners  and merge-miners, ( no thanks to you AK !)
      But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach!  All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given !  Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters)  LOL :)    
         "Unlikely", I hear you say ?       Right, and it doesn't matter.... that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much,  and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
       I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain:  what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus.  This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.

      My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.



      Quote
      It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository.
       What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights.  Elementary, AK.

      Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.

      And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. Quite a reach for a guy who turns on their employers cause he thinks he knows better.

      So dbkeys decided to double down and continue lying. If anyone (other than him) thinks his explanations are valid, then ask me, and I will explain. Additionally, the claim about Melvin Carvalho needs proof and more details. I said enough.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dancingAce on August 30, 2018, 11:15:03 PM
      Geo coordinates will show your current location?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: nyuon christopher on August 30, 2018, 11:25:40 PM
      Invested in your plan a pretty big sum of money, it looks amazing and I can’t wait for the creators to reveal even more ‘bout it. Кeep the good work! I will sta tuned for your updates!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on August 31, 2018, 12:55:02 AM
      Quote
      So dbkeys decided to double down and continue lying. If anyone (other than him) thinks his explanations are valid, then ask me, and I will explain. Additionally, the claim about Melvin Carvalho needs proof and more details. I said enough.

      The senseless, unsubstantiated statements. The FUD in full regalia.  Oh well ... ¿ qu'est ce qu'on va faire ?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 01, 2018, 06:52:14 PM
      volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 03, 2018, 03:32:48 AM
      volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?

      Yes, Without a doubt...we should see a persistent increase in volume, once we stabilize a bit more and transition into the most sought after phase of development (Marking & Implementation, then scaling).

      So, I (WE) have, and always will, persuade users to do their own research. This is not investment advice, and honestly we have been around long enough for users to gain substantive insight on the project.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dokegeki on September 03, 2018, 03:43:43 AM
      Can you explain about the staking a bit.Will wallet be out before the end of the ICO for the desktop or will we be able to stake on mobile devices also?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: alarmod on September 03, 2018, 04:08:01 AM
      volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
      Wallet disabled


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on September 03, 2018, 04:50:51 AM
      Can you explain about the staking a bit.Will wallet be out before the end of the ICO for the desktop or will we be able to stake on mobile devices also?

      No Stacking has been implemented within the current system nor the upcoming 0.9.8.3 update.

      Short answer:  Bitmark is AuxPoW (not PoS). 


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on September 03, 2018, 04:57:03 AM
      volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
      Wallet disabled

      Yes, this is solely due to the fact that we informed Cryptopia of the update to 0.9.8.3 (which should be released here shortly, I think within the next week or so).

      - Quick Note: We simply wanted to do a better job of announcing the update this time around.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 03, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
      volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
      Wallet disabled

      Yes, this is solely due to the fact that we informed Cryptopia of the update to 0.9.8.3 (which should be released here shortly, I think within the next week or so).

      - Quick Note: We simply wanted to do a better job of announcing the update this time around.


      Can you tell me how long it will take to finish after the update starts?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Watson_Goshi on September 03, 2018, 09:00:43 PM
      It seems to me this it a plan with clear defined roadmap and whitepaper. to be honest with you nowdays I rarely see such solid plans. just my opinion...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 04, 2018, 05:28:23 AM
           Bitmark is a Proof-of-Work (PoW) coin, started as single Scrypt PoW when introduced in 2014, and now has eight PoW algos, a very succesful evolution to 8mPoW, governed by an effective difficulty algo, Dark Gravity Wave v3, DGWv3 and, with an emission control policy dubbed "Coin Emission Modulation", in its first version, CEMv0.1
           All algos have the Auxiliary chain Proof-of-Work submission (AuxPoW) feature: they are "merge-mineable".    Bitmark was probably the first coin to offer as many, 8 PoW algos and all merge-mineable.

           But, there have been calls for some algos to go back to native-only, and for the distinction between the production cost of merge-mined blocks and native-mined blocks be taken into account in general.
      @onelineproof coded most of our vision for the current v0.9.7.2, and it is certainly a very solid, secure blockchain, flowing well, producing blocks regularly and promptly

           That said, I thinks we can add some natural improvements. With the drive to keep building on our success, for example, CEM v0.1 which has been well received in general, can be improved.  Let's give it authority over a larger part of the epoch base reward; it's warranted. CEM v0.2 will act on 80% of the epoch base block reward, instead of on 50%. The lookback time window has been softened a bit: instead of "remembering" back a whole year, we only look back 3 months, because it seems rather harsh to punish loyal miners for hashrate peaks that happened more than 3 months ago. This  will have the effect of restoring full emission that much quicker after a high hashrate event, while still deploying the "CEM Effect" for a substantial amount of time.

      For the Road Map:
           I propose an additional, 9th PoW algo, Groestl (or Grøstl) as a native-only algo, and also revert Argon2d and Yescrypt to native-mined only. This would make the individual algos' target block time 18 minutes (for a combined production of a block every 2 minutes) . Code for this is taking shape in the 0.9.9 branch of the project-bitmark github repo.
           This would mean 2/3 of the algos are merge-mineable, and 1/3 are native-mined only. This will have the effect (that @onelineproof should like) of keeping to a larger emission and making it so that (I like this ...) it goes to miners who prize them a bit more, as they are the mainline, and not merely a bonus.
      As I've argued in previous posts (and been pilloried by @one lineproof) I do believe that merge-mined blocks should be rewarded at a lower fraction than native mined blocks: currently Fork#2 v0.9.8.3, will map native CEM to the range 10% - > 20% for merge-mined block rewards. But I am open to reasoned arguments and discussions about what fraction of the CEM-modulated full epoch block reward merge-miners should receive and any other aspects.

      All are welcome to comment, and now's the time.

      We would like to hear all opinions and viewpoints,
       expressed respectfully and bringing solutions & shedding light on issues.

       

      Dev Time Frames : we will release 0.9.8.3 today. Bitmark v0.9.8.2 only has a small change, but it's an important and a forking change affecting consensus rules. We have run testnet4 and are satisfied.

      Our dev team is picking up the slack and continues advancing. The Bitmark project is getting code contributions and moving forward with development and the next version,  v0.9.9  You can help by taking a look at the code, compiling and playing with it.  Do have fun and give us some feedback !


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 04, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.8.3

      Official Release (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.8.3)

      Ubuntu Long-Term Server (LTS) -  Full Nodes

      14.04 LTS "Trusty Tahr"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-14 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-14)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-14 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-14)

      16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-16 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-16)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-16 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-16)

      18.04 LTS "Bionic Beaver"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-18 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-18)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-18 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-18)


      MacOS & Windows Wallets in the next couple days.

      Fork #2 set to happen at block height 518191 (https://numbermatics.com/n/518191/).


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: prinkingle on September 04, 2018, 10:07:40 PM
      Great devs, great community, and a chance to have a slice of a massive global industry? Yes, please. Wish the developers only good luck and success!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 06, 2018, 08:21:50 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.8.3

      for your Raspberry Pi !
      Raspbian debian package (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark.v0.9.8.3-Official-Raspbian.armhf.deb)

      installs in /usr/bin



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 06, 2018, 09:29:20 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.8.3

      for your Raspberry Pi !
      Download: Raspbian debian package (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark.v0.9.8.3-Official-Raspbian.armhf.deb)

      Code:
      dpkg -i bitmark.v0.9.8.3-Official-Raspbian.armhf.deb

      installs in /usr/bin




      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 06, 2018, 09:42:30 PM
          Bitmark is a Proof-of-Work (PoW) coin, started as single Scrypt PoW when introduced in 2014, and now has eight PoW algos, a very succesful evolution to 8mPoW, governed by an effective difficulty algo, Dark Gravity Wave v3, DGWv3 and, with an emission control policy dubbed "Coin Emission Modulation", in its first version, CEMv0.1
           All algos have the Auxiliary chain Proof-of-Work submission (AuxPoW) feature: they are "merge-mineable".    Bitmark was probably the first coin to offer as many, 8 PoW algos and all merge-mineable.

           But, there have been calls for some algos to go back to native-only, and for the distinction between the production cost of merge-mined blocks and native-mined blocks be taken into account in general.
      @onelineproof coded most of our vision for the current v0.9.7.2, and it is certainly a very solid, secure blockchain, flowing well, producing blocks regularly and promptly

           That said, I thinks we can add some natural improvements. With the drive to keep building on our success, for example, CEM v0.1 which has been well received in general, can be improved.  Let's give it authority over a larger part of the epoch base reward; it's warranted. CEM v0.2 will act on 80% of the epoch base block reward, instead of on 50%. The lookback time window has been softened a bit: instead of "remembering" back a whole year, we only look back 3 months, because it seems rather harsh to punish loyal miners for hashrate peaks that happened more than 3 months ago. This  will have the effect of restoring full emission that much quicker after a high hashrate event, while still deploying the "CEM Effect" for a substantial amount of time.

      For the Road Map:
           I propose an additional, 9th PoW algo, Groestl (or Grøstl) as a native-only algo, and also revert Argon2d and Yescrypt to native-mined only. This would make the individual algos' target block time 18 minutes (for a combined production of a block every 2 minutes) . Code for this is taking shape in the 0.9.9 branch of the project-bitmark github repo.
           This would mean 2/3 of the algos are merge-mineable, and 1/3 are native-mined only. This will have the effect (that @onelineproof should like) of keeping to a larger emission and making it so that (I like this ...) it goes to miners who prize them a bit more, as they are the mainline, and not merely a bonus.
      As I've argued in previous posts (and been pilloried by @one lineproof) I do believe that merge-mined blocks should be rewarded at a lower fraction than native mined blocks: currently Fork#2 v0.9.8.3, will map native CEM to the range 10% - > 20% for merge-mined block rewards. But I am open to reasoned arguments and discussions about what fraction of the CEM-modulated full epoch block reward merge-miners should receive and any other aspects.

      All are welcome to comment, and now's the time.

      We would like to hear all opinions and viewpoints,
       expressed respectfully and bringing solutions & shedding light on issues.

       

      Dev Time Frames : we will release 0.9.8.3 today. Bitmark v0.9.8.2 only has a couple small changes, but they are important and forking changes affecting consensus rules. We have run testnet4 and are satisfied.

      Our dev team is picking up the slack and continues advancing. The Bitmark project is getting code contributions and moving forward with development and the next version,  v0.9.9  You can help by taking a look at the code, compiling and playing with it.  Do have fun and give us some feedback !


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Ricardo Tucker on September 06, 2018, 09:43:58 PM
      The project has just started its business development. Already I see activity! I liked the idea of your idea. I will follow the development of the platform in the future!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 07, 2018, 06:28:14 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.8

      Fork #2 Delayed

      until further notice


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Brian.Miller on September 07, 2018, 06:47:10 PM
      There are a lot of parameters and unknowns in this project. The thing is that the competition is huge and every plan has to go that extra mile to get investors and after that, users...So, the less unknowns, the better the project! Good luck, team!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: imageanodising on September 08, 2018, 04:04:36 AM
      In my opinion, thanks to projects that allow the use of gestures and social investment of digital to create, establish and build the value of a currency in a way that is simply not possible before the advent of the mark, Bitmark supply level funding mechanisms to finance new products and services to be community rated.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: cubonho2k on September 08, 2018, 04:09:17 AM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on September 08, 2018, 11:18:39 AM
      Bitmark v0.9.7.2

      Latest Official Release (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.2)

      MS Windows - Wallets

      Windows "64bit" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win64-Official-setup.exe)
      Windows "32bit" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win32-Official-setup.exe)

      Apple MacOS - Wallets
      MacOS "El Capitán,  Sierra & HighSierra" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-Qt_0.9.7.2-MacOS-Official.dmg)

      --------------  %  ---------------


      Fork #2 Postponed
      No hard fork @518191 (https://numbermatics.com/n/518191/).


      Please continue using the v0.9.7.x  series for the moment



      Can you clarify the current plan (ideally before fork height is reached!) ?

      Do I see this right, that at block # 518191 the people that were "tricked" into upgrading to 0.9.8.3 and did not stick with 0.9.7.x will be on their own (invalid) fork?

      My node currently says that about 1/3 of bitmark network is on 0.9.8.3:
      Code:
      Sep  8 13:11:12        2         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.5/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12        7         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       15         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7.2/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       24         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.8.3/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       32         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7.1/",

      So these 24 nodes need to downgrade ASAP so that they do not fork off to an invalid chain that no exchange will recognize?



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 08, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.7.2

      Latest Official Release (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.2)

      MS Windows - Wallets

      Windows "64bit" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win64-Official-setup.exe)
      Windows "32bit" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win32-Official-setup.exe)

      Apple MacOS - Wallets
      MacOS "El Capitán,  Sierra & HighSierra" (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-Qt_0.9.7.2-MacOS-Official.dmg)

      --------------  %  ---------------


      Fork #2 Postponed
      No hard fork @518191 (https://numbermatics.com/n/518191/).


      Please continue using the v0.9.7.x  series for the moment



      Can you clarify the current plan (ideally before fork height is reached!) ?

      Do I see this right, that at block # 518191 the people that were "tricked" into upgrading to 0.9.8.3 and did not stick with 0.9.7.x will be on their own (invalid) fork?

      My node currently says that about 1/3 of bitmark network is on 0.9.8.3:
      Code:
      Sep  8 13:11:12        2         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.5/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12        7         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       15         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7.2/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       24         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.8.3/",
      Sep  8 13:11:12       32         "subver" : "/Pfennig:0.9.7.1/",

      So these 24 nodes need to downgrade ASAP so that they do not fork off to an invalid chain that no exchange will recognize?



      Many of these nodes on 0.9.8.3 will be changing to the latest stable version 0.9.7.2 ;
      There was a coding error which was deemed significant enough ( Block Version Check (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/commit/7f87cb8446776cc3eaa878bad6d845dbd062324e) ) to warrant postponing the fork.

      "If some miner that didn't update to 0.9.8, mines a block with version 4 and sends it to the network.
      Without this patch version check is done too late, and somehow network gets in temporary stall. chain active is updated, but new block isn't accepted."


      My apologies for the inconvenience, but generating binaries for Windows & Mac on this short notice is not feasible.
      (We will look into automating our build process down the road for greater agility....) , and so having miners  on different, incompatible versions than regular users is of course not a good option;


      IMO the best option at this point is to revert to latest stable version, Release v0.9.7.2 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.2)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 08, 2018, 12:05:24 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking. 

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 08, 2018, 04:12:29 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking. 

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 08, 2018, 04:57:31 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 08, 2018, 10:28:32 PM


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on September 09, 2018, 03:23:11 AM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

      Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 09, 2018, 03:58:13 AM


      Glad DBkeys posted this...We should have this update (v0.9.8.3) ready to go shortly....we will keep y'all updated, and thanks for the continued support!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 09, 2018, 11:50:24 AM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

      Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).


      May be it could be a new tab intended explusively for marking, showing the available fields to fill, and when the user commits the action then it automatically do the transaction, marks the file and upload it to the bitmark storage.

      A webpage having a "marked files explorer" that allows anyone to search and to check the marked files, additional data, timestamp and hashes would be very useful.

      The main problem I can think on this is what happens when someone marks illegal content and it is stored on the bitmark servers or bitmark storage. There should be a way to report illegal content and a way to delete it.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 09, 2018, 02:20:43 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

      Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).


      May be it could be a new tab intended explusively for marking, showing the available fields to fill, and when the user commits the action then it automatically do the transaction, marks the file and upload it to the bitmark storage.

      A webpage having a "marked files explorer" that allows anyone to search and to check the marked files, additional data, timestamp and hashes would be very useful.

      The main problem I can think on this is what happens when someone marks illegal content and it is stored on the bitmark servers or bitmark storage. There should be a way to report illegal content and a way to delete it.


      The question of legality is always tied to jurisdiction. It's an interesting question, because what is legal in one place might not be legal in another. There should be a way to report questionable content, and for contributors to the storage federation to decide whether they want to keep it or not.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: 82ndabnmedic on September 09, 2018, 02:50:21 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

      Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).


      May be it could be a new tab intended explusively for marking, showing the available fields to fill, and when the user commits the action then it automatically do the transaction, marks the file and upload it to the bitmark storage.

      A webpage having a "marked files explorer" that allows anyone to search and to check the marked files, additional data, timestamp and hashes would be very useful.

      The main problem I can think on this is what happens when someone marks illegal content and it is stored on the bitmark servers or bitmark storage. There should be a way to report illegal content and a way to delete it.


      The question of legality is always tied to jurisdiction. It's an interesting question, because what is legal in one place might not be legal in another. There should be a way to report questionable content, and for contributors to the storage federation to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

      Those are good points.

      We could look into the Firewall offerings (through the web server/services provider)

      It is easy to block certain types of traffic, however files (with illegal content) gets a bit trickier.

      https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/71/pan-os/pan-os/policy/create-best-practice-security-profiles

      https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Management-Articles/Complete-List-of-PAN-DB-URL-Filtering-Categories/ta-p/129799

      Not sure if google offers an API for this. That said it would be prudent to take a similar approach as services like reddit. Relying on the community is much more feasible, since we don't have the resources/assets for this at the moment.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dimarco on September 09, 2018, 08:14:14 PM
      We've added bitmark to our pool http://nlgpool.nl/pool/ as a merged mining coin ...
      Feel free to join us :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 09, 2018, 08:31:43 PM
      Is this a new project? What are your key features compared to other wallets that may appeal to users? Your wallet is a new version so I think it needs to be improved, and you already have the person in charge of this part yet? You should improve the wallet so that users can use the best way


      The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

      The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking.  

      Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

      We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

      Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

      If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.


      I like your suggestion !

      That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

      The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

      Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).


      May be it could be a new tab intended explusively for marking, showing the available fields to fill, and when the user commits the action then it automatically do the transaction, marks the file and upload it to the bitmark storage.

      A webpage having a "marked files explorer" that allows anyone to search and to check the marked files, additional data, timestamp and hashes would be very useful.

      The main problem I can think on this is what happens when someone marks illegal content and it is stored on the bitmark servers or bitmark storage. There should be a way to report illegal content and a way to delete it.


      The question of legality is always tied to jurisdiction. It's an interesting question, because what is legal in one place might not be legal in another. There should be a way to report questionable content, and for contributors to the storage federation to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

      Those are good points.

      We could look into the Firewall offerings (through the web server/services provider)

      It is easy to block certain types of traffic, however files (with illegal content) gets a bit trickier.

      https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/71/pan-os/pan-os/policy/create-best-practice-security-profiles

      https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Management-Articles/Complete-List-of-PAN-DB-URL-Filtering-Categories/ta-p/129799

      Not sure if google offers an API for this. That said it would be prudent to take a similar approach as services like reddit. Relying on the community is much more feasible, since we don't have the resources/assets for this at the moment.

      The distributed storage idea and to get paid in Bitmarks for hosting the marked content is pretty attractive. It is a groundbreaking idea, like what Dash did with the masternodes, but it is pretty risky too. With no content control, Bitmark could become a network to share child pornography or something scary as that. Allowing the content to be controlled by a public community could not always avoid legal problems: In an hipotetical case where someone marks a leaked hollywood movie or some content DMCA protected, publishing it without authoritzation, then maybe the users in the comunity would like to keep accessing to the content because they like it but that would be illegal in the USA where many lawyers would take action.

      From my point of view, the best way would be to keep it simple: Store the content in one server, in one legislation and managed by one entity. In one hand it would imply resources in terms of hardware and support but in the other hand that would make all the marking storage easy to acomplish with laws. The fees for marking could be higher than a normal transaction and destined to pay the server storage and support. By support I mean what could be review the content complaints and content removals.

      A Bitmark association or fundation backing all the process would be nice and would provide confidence to the users.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 09, 2018, 11:48:50 PM
      Another option InQuest "Deep File Inspection"

      http://blog.inquest.net/blog/2018/02/12/deep-file-inspection/




      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 10, 2018, 12:00:03 AM
      As usual, incompetence walks hand-in-hand with scams. What serious developer would want to work on a scam? And no I'm not using some weird definition of scam. The fork pushed by dbkeys does 2 main things:

      1) Transfers wealth from new investors to old investors (total wealth depends on demand)
      2) Reduces security for users

      and it is advertised as an "improvement"

      If this isn't a scam then what is?

      The dependence of emission rate on value of Bitmark relative to other chains was never part of the protocol, and it's basically a parametrized if statement:

      If wealth of current investors is x, then take 1/x wealth from new investors.

      And by current investors I mainly mean the early investors. People who just bought yesterday can still benefit from fair prices tomorrow. The earlier you bought, the more benefit you get from this fork. x would have to be big (market cap of Bitcoin) for 1/x to be negligible, so once (if) dbkeys with his 1 million coins is a billionaire, then the algorithm will allow for an almost fair emission rate (though you can't reverse what is essentially a premine caused by a past unfair rate). This is precisely a pyramid scheme, marketed as a decentralized cryptocurrency.

      Obviously dbkeys told his friends to buy bitmarks right before the June fork, and when the price went down they got mad, so he wants to "regain their respect" (together with his own profit). So he thinks that by lying and stealing from other people he will regain the respect of his friends? Good luck with that.

      Uncorrupted bitmarks reached $0.30 last week. I predicted $1 within a year from August 2018, so actually I think that can be reached must sooner. With uncorrupted bitmarks, the destination is moon. With scam bitmarks, the destination is dbkeys' pocket, and the amount is dependent on how many fools buy in.

      I had some good discussions going on about selfish/colluding mining in the Development and Technical Discussion board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4998410.0). It is refreshing to talk to people who don't pretend to not understand what I'm saying. Though dbkeys / TeamBitmark did try to brigade it to push his agenda.

      So if people want uncorrupted bitmarks, I can work on an exchange solution, but I need your support!



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 10, 2018, 12:48:14 AM
      Hey guys.
      If your idea is the most perfect decentralized platform in the world for immediate payment without the risk of volatility for the implementation of the crypto receiver, then in the near future it will be successful.


      Thanks @radeba

      We hope to finish the Core Update phase of our development cycle and move toward the most exciting areas of development, "Marking: A distributed reputation based ecosystem".


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Tieluabrockrabh on September 10, 2018, 01:18:25 AM
      Hi, guys!
      I think this is a new but promising plan. the obstacle is the number of similar competitors of the idea, all offering great service. who's the good luck.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 10, 2018, 10:09:03 AM
      https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/china-allows-evidence-authentication-through-blockchain/ (https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/china-allows-evidence-authentication-through-blockchain/)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Switorusti on September 10, 2018, 10:15:31 AM
      Attentive dev team, active community and a coin that has a purpose beyond just existing. I dig, man, I dig. I see this coin as one that will establish a place beyond the coin exchanges to be used in the real world.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: gerald232 on September 10, 2018, 10:22:41 AM
      Hey guys.
      If your idea is the most perfect decentralized platform in the world for immediate payment without the risk of volatility for the implementation of the crypto receiver, then in the near future it will be successful.


      Thanks @radeba

      We hope to finish the Core Update phase of our development cycle and move toward the most exciting areas of development, "Marking: A distributed reputation based ecosystem".
      I hope the renewal stage is accelerated because competition in this sector is very great. indeed all need to process and need time, but that is a challenge for you. Updates create platform development and leave a good image in the minds of users of this platform.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 10:25:40 AM
      Bitmark
      Performance of current v0.9.7.x BlockChain : (http://explorer.bitmark.co/plots.week/)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 10:38:19 AM
      As usual, incompetence walks hand-in-hand with scams. What serious developer would want to work on a scam? And no I'm not using some weird definition of scam. The fork pushed by dbkeys does 2 main things:

      1) Transfers wealth from new investors to old investors (total wealth depends on demand)
      2) Reduces security for users

      and it is advertised as an "improvement"

      If this isn't a scam then what is?

      The dependence of emission rate on value of Bitmark relative to other chains was never part of the protocol, and it's basically a parametrized if statement:

      If wealth of current investors is x, then take 1/x wealth from new investors.

      And by current investors I mainly mean the early investors. People who just bought yesterday can still benefit from fair prices tomorrow. The earlier you bought, the more benefit you get from this fork. x would have to be big (market cap of Bitcoin) for 1/x to be negligible, so once (if) dbkeys with his 1 million coins is a billionaire, then the algorithm will allow for an almost fair emission rate (though you can't reverse what is essentially a premine caused by a past unfair rate). This is precisely a pyramid scheme, marketed as a decentralized cryptocurrency.

      Obviously dbkeys told his friends to buy bitmarks right before the June fork, and when the price went down they got mad, so he wants to "regain their respect" (together with his own profit). So he thinks that by lying and stealing from other people he will regain the respect of his friends? Good luck with that.

      Uncorrupted bitmarks reached $0.30 last week. I predicted $1 within a year from August 2018, so actually I think that can be reached must sooner. With uncorrupted bitmarks, the destination is moon. With scam bitmarks, the destination is dbkeys' pocket, and the amount is dependent on how many fools buy in.

      I had some good discussions going on about selfish/colluding mining in the Development and Technical Discussion board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4998410.0). It is refreshing to talk to people who don't pretend to not understand what I'm saying. Though dbkeys / TeamBitmark did try to brigade it to push his agenda.

      So if people want uncorrupted bitmarks, I can work on an exchange solution, but I need your support!



      MARK Ops - BlockChain Security & Dynamic Guiding Comm

      Many Thanks to the Following Devs, whose Spirit Lives in Bitmark:

      in no particular order ...


      @82abnmedic
      @melvincarvalho
      @onelineproof <--- I'm starting to understand your point of view a little bit better, and I think that the current version does deserve a longer run because it has proven succesful.
      The last few suggested absolute forkheight I have felt the need to pull the breaks on and avoid because of last minute code corrections and bug catches that just don't feel right .
      And I see a point in that perhaps it is wise to leave nearly the full CEM reward (thinking of magic £ 88.888888 % figure) on some merge-mined algos, perhaps up to 3, but to certainly downgrade the ASIC algos by some harsher factor. Don't know ? What do you think ?

      @jarr0s
      @coinmoon
      @dogedarkdev
      @ecucoin
      @amarha
      @mark.pfennig
      @docharibo
      @luke-jr
      @sipa


      Many thanks, wherever you are, dear ones, departed dear ones, dear ones to come

      Our own Satoshi, Mark Pfennig, little is know of him, more than that he hailed from beyond the wall . .  .       .\\`

      We call our 1 / 100,000,000 unit the Markoshi for him, wherever he may walk today.

      A pfennig for his thoughts  !  

      Cheers Mates !

      ~~~ @dbkeys ~~~


      First, let's give thanks that our blockchain is secure, working well, and promptly processing transactions in a very secure way.

      We are ready to make the leap into Marking ... inWallet


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 10:42:01 AM
      BTW

      By The Way

      Bitmark Truth Wiki

      I Always Tell People to Buy Bitmark :) !!!

      Unashamedly, it's as good or better technology than Bitcoin for keeping account !

      and more lightweight  (  ¡¿ Have you checked the size of the Bitcoin full blockchain lately ? !)


       :D :D :D

      Yup, the Bitmark BlockChain is Secure. And Fast.

      Perhaps just the crowning addition of a 9th, and finial algo, Groestl, which would be native only.

      we have the sketch of a v0.9.9 that does that, and returns 2 algos { Argon2d & Yescrypt } to native - only as well,

      For a   1:3   ~   Native:Merge-Mineable Ratio.

      Seems like an attractive Tesla Numbers Combination

      I now feel in no rush to fork, because I think @onelineproof has a point, that the security and stability of our present setup are not to be let go of lightly.

      I think the 9th algo version, ( with or perhaps without, the return of 1 or 2 algos to native-only status ) with changed CEM parameters for a version 0.2 and perhaps or perhaps not, the application of a reduction factor to merge-mined algos, (as a whole or individually) are question that perhaps are best resolved with some kind of voting based on dynamic fund motion stress testing, aka, user transaction fee voting. I proposed a bi-cameral system, One that would represent Stakeholders with votes over 1024 MARKS, along with @onelineproofs idea of a user transaction fee - weighed voting system.  But in general, I like the democratic approach.

      And regarding price, well, if MARKS are cheap on market, let's buy 'em up guys.

      I do thank @onelineproof for finding something to like in CEM as it is, so ...  I do suggest that  accentuating CEM @least an additional 25% of the epoch max reward for a trailing 90 days {as is coded in the present v0.9.8.x series (current master branch)} is in whole is a good idea. Variants of this rule could be accentuated over different algos for different reasons


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Forcovaljudg on September 10, 2018, 10:46:11 AM
      The platform presented here opens up wide opportunities for us to successfully realize our ideas, with a generous bounty program, where everyone can participate.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 11:22:32 AM
      #Lovin_the _PirateTalk_!

      Wish I had a Million MARKS ;)    !!!

      Bitmark (BTM) (MARKS)  Donation Address for db Keys:  :) :) :)

      $marks gna:

      bN8bCsyhJXMQMVTrqvoJV1zwhDLLAofoeG

      ---

      Latest 1-Day, 8-mPoW BlockChain Performance, Bitmark v0.9.7.2 :

      http://explorer.bitmark.co/plots.day/


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: sokuyaku on September 10, 2018, 11:34:29 AM
      The plan is interesting and I think this is a good plan for the investors. but many plans are similar in the market. I hope with the innovation and strategy of the team will be effective in getting investors to support this business.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 11:50:46 AM
      Call for Ideas as to What the next 750/1000 Fork of Bitmark could look like

      I think the 9th algo version, ( with or perhaps without, the return of 1 or 2 algos to native-only status ) with stronger CEM parameters in v0.2 and   {maybe or perhaps not}, :
             Applying a reduction factor to merge-mined block, moreso if this mmRf factor was dynamically set (as is done with the SSF= current/peak hash_ratio in CEM) ( and as a set, subset or individually to the PoW algos, Ax_mmRF),
             Are questions that perhaps are best resolved with some kind of voting based on dynamic fund motion stress testing, aka, user transaction fee voting, as AK suggested. I proposed a bi-cameral system that would also represent Stakeholders ( maybe with with threshold over 1024 MARKS, so that they didn't feel compelled to bounce marks and markoshis around to themselves and clutter up the blockchain), but along with @onelineproofs idea of a user transaction fee - weighed voting system.  
      BitmarkCause,  I do, as a general principle,  I like the democratic approach.

      ~ dbkeys :

      Something that I didn't see before : it might be profitable to set up a co-mining operation on a stronger parent chain combo with bitmark as aux-PoW, but without the full Bitmark CEM Epoch Reward, it might not be profitable against established miners of the parent chain

      So, unless they are ASIC, perhaps other algos should no be hit so hard for being merge-mined or merge-mineable (ie, instead of merge-mine down to 10-20% CEM, the would be 20-88% CEM Range. I do think some reduction is appropriate for merge, ie, combined mining or 'promiscuous' mining. But a minimum 12% for some algos, particularly if they are ASIC resitant / CPU-friendly, Democratic-Distributed Mining committed, they should be exempt from the more pronounced reduction of 80% for the classic ASIC algos {SHA256d, SCrypt, EquiHash }

         ¿¿¿  Marking Facilities in Wallet / File Selector   more   Ideas ? ? ?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 10, 2018, 05:37:23 PM
      I don't know what your plan is @dbkeys but I don't support any sneaky moves. 9 th algo I don't see a point, it would just overcomplicate things, and any new algo changes I think should be done through proper miner (and perhaps user) voting systems to remove special interests biasing it. To increase the effect of CEM by more than 50% also looks sneaky, as does changing the time to look back for peak hashrate. Even if there is good reasons (I don't see them), doing them after the parameters are already set allows for special interest manipulation, and that's why I recommend user voting to sort things like this out. And reducing the total emission rate, of course I can't support even if you just make it affect some algos. I don't know if there's a point to try to compromise with me because I don't have any interest to work on something that is "hand-waved" and not following the highest standards.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 10, 2018, 06:26:54 PM
      There is no sneakiness involved. I'm actively soliciting input.  

      I think it makes sense to have distinctions based on whether or not algos have been implemented on ASIC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit)

      Also, reducing the CEM look back window returns the emission rate toward the "standard" curve (the one based on just the quartering and halving system) faster than 'remembering' a long ago peak.  1 years seems a bit excessive to me now. In light of the possibility of a large amount of hashrate disappearing through some type of force-majeure, (like an EMP) which is not the decision or fault of any miner, should not be affecting the entire network for so long, IMO. So I suggest reducing 365 day lookback to 120 day, or 127 to be binary and prime, (about 1/3 year)

      I do think that some algos should be native-only, if not the majority, at least a third; that is why the least disruptive path to this ideal seems to be to revert 2 of the lesser used ones (no huge parent chains anyway) and introducing a third which has never been mm'd in Bitmark.  

      So, first, I propose the non-controversial, non-forking improvements be adopted into a new tag 0.9.7.3; this is the squelching of the excessively sensistive "mining difficulties" warning, any other useful improvements & fixes, as well as  the simple ability to Mark a file via an embedded transaction comment.  (The issue of long-term cloud storage and accesibility of the marked data is left for later).

      Then, more than likely, we should go through a vetting & testing phase determines what the next Forking version may look like, and set it to activate as we did with Fork #1, perhaps with a 75% supermajority over 256 blocks, or perhaps 1000. But I think a 95% requirement is a bit much.


      For the First Fork, the current v0.9.7.2 @melvincarvalho laid out a good guide document of what should be achieved.

      The GitHub wiki has the example:
      Fork #1 (Current Bitmark Version 0.9.7.2, now in operations) Historical Proposal and Cautionary Notes from Melvin (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Bitmark---Blockchain-----Hard-Fork--%231----v0.9.7.0)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: mine_phun on September 11, 2018, 11:59:42 AM
           NLPOOL.NL (https://NLpool.NL) https://www.nlpool.nl/images/bct/bitmark.png

      NLPOOL.NL | Highly profitable Bitmark Mining Pool


      Start Mining:

      Code:
      z-Enemy -a lyra2z -o stratum+tcp://mine.nlpool.nl:6233 -u WALLET_ADDRESS -p c=BTM
      Our features:

      - Approximately 20 - 30% extra profits with custom finetuned profit switching system in the Lyra2Z pool
      - Payouts possible in any currency present in our pool (LTC / Smart / XVG / BTM etc.)
      - High profits for miners by lowering latency and stale shares
      - Blocks are distributed proportionally among valid submitted shares.
      - High security / DDOS protection with 99% uptime, multiple nodes, loadbalancers and status system
      - Professional pool - No un-announced downtime. We care for your profits.
      - Hourly payments
      - 0.9% fee

      Support
      Telegram - Telegram (https://t.me/nlpool)
      Discord - Discord (https://discord.gg/gVWGkQD)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 12:24:36 PM
      Is the plan open source? Where can I find the source code? Does your business have a bug bounty program? Where can I find your GitHub, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Slack and/or Subreddit? What is the web address for your business?

      The Bitmark Project is an Open Source Project: Bitmark Project on GitHub (https://github.com/project-bitmark)

      - - -   %   - - -

      We do have a bug-bounty program, which was announced in July:


      Bitmark (MARKS)

      Bug Bounty Program

           We invite all developers to review our code, provide feedback, and report any issues. In return, our bug bounty program will compensate you for discovering issues that could potentially impact the security and performance of the Bitmark blockchain

      Compensation
          Our team will assess each submission individually and assign a severity level according to its likelihood and security and performance impacts. Compensation will depend on the severity of the issue found.


      Rewards:

      * Critical: 10000 MARKS - A critical bug is a bug that will enable stealing or loss of funds
      * High: 5000 MARKS - A high bug significantly affects the ability of the system to operate.
      * Medium: 2500 MARKS - Medium bugs entail an issue regarding operation not exactly as designed or intended, but not causing the loss of funds nor impeding operation completely.
      * Low: 1000 MARKS - Low bugs are less significant errors
      * Informational: 1 MARKS - Informational errors have no impact on the operation of a the system but should be brought to attention, such as a comment not matching the updated code, etc.

      Note:
      These MARKS denominated bounties are good thru October 1, 2018
      (will revise after that date to adjust for possible value changes)


      - - -   %   - - -

      Forums / Social Media
      Twitter (https://twitter.com/projectbitmark?lang=en)

      Slack  (https://projectbitmark.slack.com)
      Bitmark Subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitmark/)

      Facebook, LinkedIn :   "In the Works"


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 11, 2018, 04:06:22 PM
      There is no sneakiness involved. I'm actively soliciting input.  

      I think it makes sense to have distinctions based on whether or not algos have been implemented on ASIC's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit)

      Also, reducing the CEM look back window returns the emission rate toward the "standard" curve (the one based on just the quartering and halving system) faster than 'remembering' a long ago peak.  1 years seems a bit excessive to me now. In light of the possibility of a large amount of hashrate disappearing through some type of force-majeure, (like an EMP) which is not the decision or fault of any miner, should not be affecting the entire network for so long, IMO. So I suggest reducing 365 day lookback to 120 day, or 127 to be binary and prime, (about 1/3 year)

      I do think that some algos should be native-only, if not the majority, at least a third; that is why the least disruptive path to this ideal seems to be to revert 2 of the lesser used ones (no huge parent chains anyway) and introducing a third which has never been mm'd in Bitmark.  

      So, first, I propose the non-controversial, non-forking improvements be adopted into a new tag 0.9.7.3; this is the squelching of the excessively sensistive "mining difficulties" warning, any other useful improvements & fixes, as well as  the simple ability to Mark a file via an embedded transaction comment.  (The issue of long-term cloud storage and accesibility of the marked data is left for later).

      Then, more than likely, we should go through a vetting & testing phase determines what the next Forking version may look like, and set it to activate as we did with Fork #1, perhaps with a 75% supermajority over 256 blocks, or perhaps 1000. But I think a 95% requirement is a bit much.

      For the First Fork, the current v0.9.7.2 @melvincarvalho laid out a good guide document of what should be achieved.

      The GitHub wiki has the example:
      Fork #1 (Current Bitmark Version 0.9.7.2, now in operations) Historical Proposal and Cautionary Notes from Melvin (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Bitmark---Blockchain-----Hard-Fork--%231----v0.9.7.0)

      Maybe you can fool others with this but making some algos native only would obviously benefit those who want to mine and gather Bitmarks easily without much competition, and in the same time reduce supply on exchanges. And then "conveniently" the lookback period is less to give these native miners more rewards. Maybe people don't realize this but blockchains are very unintuitive. There are no real world analogies to blockchains. Details matter. One small detail is the difference between a serious cryptocurrency and a joke. So it's your choice...

      In general any change should show support from all 3 parties who have an interest in Bitmark: users, investors, and miners. Users can show support by voting when they make transactions (weighted by fees). Investors can show support by voting with stake (weighted by amount owned). Miners can show support by voting with hashpower. In the end users decide, since investors will follow users, and miners will then follow them since they want the highest market value of the coin they mine. But there should be a guideline written in the wiki that all 3 parties should agree with a strong supermajority (95%) in order to make a change to the protocol. If there is a division, then better just fork into 2 coins.

      I already learned not to trust dbkeys, so I will try my best to get an exchange to support my "uncorrupted" vision. Like that if I do a bunch of work on Bitmark, at least there is a chance it can continue being used. But I also need support from people who support my vision.

      By the way, I already have a 0.9.7.3 (with technical fixes) released on the bitmark-protocol repository: https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.3
      It requires 950 out of the last 1000 blocks to signal it in order to activate. I even have a 0.9.7.4, with stricter block reward requirements, so people can signal for that too.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 04:14:25 PM
      Interesting note on Yescrypt from its developer, SolarDesigner:  (https://www.openwall.com/yespower/)
      "   For historical reasons, multiple CPU mining focused cryptocurrencies use yescrypt 0.5'ish as their proof-of-work (PoW) scheme. We currently have a separate project for the PoW use case: yespower. Thus, rather than misuse yescrypt 1.0+ for PoW, those and other projects are advised to use yespower 1.0+ instead.  "

      Because its developer has a specific version for the Proof-of-Work case, I suggest that we:

      replace Yescrypt with YesPower at the next fork.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Isinngulur on September 11, 2018, 04:18:26 PM
      Do I understand right that I need to be minimum a Junior member and then I can join the bounty? Or can I go for airdrops until I have become a junior member? It would be a good way to support the business also…


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 04:23:01 PM
      Do I understand right that I need to be minimum a Junior member and then I can join the bounty? Or can I go for airdrops until I have become a junior member? It would be a good way to support the business also…

      Anyone can claim a Bitmark Bounty.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 04:24:43 PM
      Quote
      making some algos native only would obviously benefit those who want to mine and gather Bitmarks easily without much competition, and in the same time reduce supply on exchanges.

      Yes, and No.  

      Yes:
      because, indeed, this is why most mPoW coins only allow merge-mining on some of their algos - definitely not all. There is the desire to let the core supporters of the coin mine them, not just as an afterthought or mere bonus, but as the main target of the mining.
      (This does not mean that native mining is restricted, or exclusive. Not at all.
      After all, it is an open, decentralized P2P network. Anyone can mine natively
      )
      Taking advantage of powerful hashrate through auxPoW merge-mining is a good idea, but totally eliminating native mining is not, IMO.
      Therefore, I propose that at least 1/4 to 1/3 of algos be native-only.
      Mining is open. But pitting native miners in all algos against the much larger hash rates  (at least for now) of other chains is an apples:oranges comparison.     ( That's why in boxing, for example, you have weight classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class_(boxing)): welter-weight, heavy-weight, etc..)
      Relying exclusively on merge-mining seems unwise and is in fact a centralizing measure. In order to de-centralize, mining must be specific to our blockchain, at least on some algos.

      No: because, since the proposed Fork#2 has no proposed merge-mine_Reward_Reduction_factor (mmRRf ) at all for native-mined coins, reverting some algos to native mining actually increases the emission rate and supply. We can speculate that native-miners aren't as prone to liquidate everything mined immediately, but this is just speculation. Native miners can sell their mined coins just as easily as merge-miners.  ( Note: If mmRRf is not applied at all to any algos, then reverting some algos to native-only is emission & supply neutral. )

      The CEM lookback-period could be tailored, (specific to a class of algo, or to individual algos) or, for simplicity, be the same for all.  However, I do believe that a 1 year lookback is too long, and that about 1/3 year is sufficient, for the original stated purpose of matching supply to demand, and also for the side-effect of keeping miners at peak performance.     And again, this proposed change has the effect of more quickly restoring the basic emission rate after a high-hashrate event, rather than keeping it supressed for a whole year.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 04:58:54 PM
           NLPOOL.NL (https://NLpool.NL) https://www.nlpool.nl/images/bct/bitmark.png
      ......

      NLPOOL.NL and @mine_phun:   Thanks for joining the Bitmark community !

      Question for you, @mine_phun:  would you consider mining Gulden (NLG) and Bitmark (MARKS) simultaneously through Bitmark's SCrypt AuxPoW function ?    (I'm aware also of FlorinCoin (FLO) and eGulden (EFL) ... but kind of like NLG because of their ability to deposit straight into Euro IBAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number) accounts from the NLG wallet  ;)  )

      Nogmaals Gefeliciteerd en welkom bij de Bitmark-familie!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 11, 2018, 06:16:11 PM
      Quote
      In general any change should show support from all 3 parties who have an interest in Bitmark: users, investors, and miners. Users can show support by voting when they make transactions (weighted by fees). Investors can show support by voting with stake (weighted by amount owned). Miners can show support by voting with hashpower. In the end users decide, since investors will follow users, and miners will then follow them since they want the highest market value of the coin they mine. But there should be a guideline written in the wiki that all 3 parties should agree with a strong supermajority (95%) in order to make a change to the protocol.

      Generally in agreement with this, except perhaps to the 5% minority holding the rest back. I think a simple majority ( > 50% ) is already considerable. Other thresholds to consider: 2/3 (66.7 %) and 3/4 (75%), so I would say let's stick to the rule employed to activate Fork #1: 75%, but perhaps of a larger sample, maybe 720 blocks (nominal day) :   540/720 blocks.

      I do still think that investors (aka, large "rich list" holders of the coin) can masquerade as users for any given vote, by having a bot generate many transactions from one wallet to another (where the HODL entity controls both), but it's not trivial (although it could also be done manually).
       I don't know how this could be mitigated, and in essence it means that votes by users might be influenced, at least to some extent, by stake-holders. Perhaps coin-age can come into play here. If coin-age being destroyed in the TX is high, it could be assumed to come from a stakholder, also if it can be seen on chain that the source address has a large amount of change being produced.  
      But all these are complications and assumptions.

      My main point is that while Users should be considered, we must bear in mind that Stakeholders can very easily assume the identity of Users. After all, in a real sense stakeholders are the first users.







      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 12, 2018, 08:11:23 PM
      For the time for peak hashrate calculation (1 year) I think it is good because it is the time needed for a full rotation of the Earth about the Sun. Yes maybe in the Northern hemisphere, summers in June-August may make mining more costly, but we should encourage decentralization, thus that should be offset by mining in the Southern hemisphere. As for EMP/UFO/asteroid attacks, we have no obligation to protect from them in the protocol, but of course we should adapt to changing conditions. If all continents except Australia get attacked by "aliens" then you are left with a centralized group of miners in Australia, and if the peak hashrate requirement dissipates quickly, they will have no incentive to help the other parts of the world to rebuild and make mining competitive again. They will probably attack the other parts of the world (take out the competition). I don't know why I am still responding to these obvious/troll questions.

      What I can work on is to develop an automated system for changing algos. I think we should keep 8 algos, and just change 1 at time in an automated way using a rigorous voting process and deterministically compiled binaries for the algo specification. In order to replace a new algo, we should have 75% vote from all 3 parties: users, investors, and miners. We look back at the last 5000 blocks (1 week), and this is in line with Bitcoin which uses 1000 blocks for fork activation and 10 minute block time. The blocks/transactions used for voting will include the hash of a deterministically compiled binary that specifies the algorithm, so that it is absolutely clear what is being voted on. Also, the weight to assign to the algo should be included (set some limits on this). The source code should be distributed in a way that anyone can exactly reproduce the binary (that's what I mean by deterministic). Miners/validators don't have to work with the same binary, but should be able to prove it's the same algorithm by comparing their source code with the source code that we distribute for producing the deterministic binary.

      Once a new algo is activated, the block reward should be equal to the average of the block rewards of the other algos for maybe 5000 blocks, to prevent abuse by people creating new algos just to have easy mining.

      If all 3 parties agree to replacing an algo with some new algo that no other chain mines (thus is basically native), then it can happen. It would look bad on Bitmark in my view if this became abused, but at least it is done within a fair system, and the algos can improve in the future. We already have a lot of native mining going on and actually I would propose to replace Cryptonight with the new cryptonight that monero will use in October. That would give us a lot more honest hashing power in my view.

      Basically, with mining you want to maximize honest hashing power. A miner is providing honest hashing power if he doesn't attack (double spend, censor transactions...). The expected value of the honest hashing power is h*P, where h is the hashrate and P is the probability that a miner is honest. For native mining, it is not hard to imagine P being greater on average, though h is very small and there can be quick burst attacks where dishonest miners suddenly flood in, so variance is high on honest hashpower and expected value is low when you are a small coin. That's why I think merge mining is safer, so if you're going to propose a replacement algorithm, you should have a justification for why it will increase the honest hashing power.

      Another thing I would support is reducing the max block size to 200 kB to prevent spam, allow a fee market to develop, and ensure good decentralization. Bitcoin uses 1 MB per 10 min, so for 2 min, 200 kB makes sense, and Segwit can be added if needed. This would also be useful if we have a user voting system, as currently fee requirements are minimal, so it is cheap for people to create many transactions that support their vote.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: CharlesCobaxter on September 12, 2018, 08:13:35 PM
      it seems like it takes a lot longer to really believe in this, the website is too simple and the information is not enough, although it has a total supply of quite a lot, but I cannot believe the price, hope the future gets better, I'll keep seeing this


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 12, 2018, 09:13:09 PM
      Maybe having an easy and functional Marking feature will benefit more the Bitmark price than the CEM or the available algos. Once the users start purchasing Bitmarks to mark documents on the  blockchain, then the demand will grow. Most of the users will prefeer purchase Bitmarks than to put their computers to mine or to buy ASICs.

      An easy marking and an easy way to query the marked data is the key to put at Bitmark where it belongs (Along with more exchanges having the Bitmark trading enabled).

      I would not like to be rude (I do not fully understand all you are talking about the CEM, the algos and their consequences), but you look like perfectionists trapped in the details, without throwing the project forward because it is still not perfect for the next step, when you already have achieved a very very good project.
       


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 12, 2018, 09:14:19 PM
      Quote
      deterministically compiled binaries

      This is what the gitian build system does I believe.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: RidenourPrin on September 12, 2018, 09:16:30 PM
      I just went through the whitepaper. Do you plan to offer the service worldwide from Day #1 or do you have a first geographical area in mind to start with ?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 12, 2018, 09:18:36 PM
      Maybe having an easy and functional Marking feature will benefit more the Bitmark price than the CEM or the available algos. Once the users start purchasing Bitmarks to mark documents on the  blockchain, then the demand will grow. Most of the users will prefeer purchase Bitmarks than to put their computers to mine or to buy ASICs.

      An easy marking and an easy way to query the marked data is the key to put at Bitmark where it belongs (Along with more exchanges having the Bitmark trading enabled).

      I would not like to be rude (I do not fully uderstand all you are talking about the CEM, the algos and their consequences), but you look like perfectionists trapped in the details, without throwing the project forward because it is still not perfect for the next step, when you already have achieved a very very good project.
       


      I completely agree with you:
      "A functional Marking feature will benefit the Bitmark price more than the CEM or the available algos."

      Apologies, regarding the block chain mechanics, CEM, etc., indeed, the chain is functioning well now (compared to what was going on with single SCrypt and old diffalgo, and we have been discussing details, which have less bearing on the success of Bitmark than the core functionality.  I agree:  Let's focus on Marking Apps and Marking Functionality.  I'll keep working on it all, but I will shift my focus primarily to Marking.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 12, 2018, 09:40:48 PM
      Quote
      I would propose to replace Cryptonight with the new cryptonight that monero will use in October. That would give us a lot more honest hashing power in my view.

      This has been the plan in regards to Cryptonight, although it imposes a develoment burden that must be met, every 6 months. For this reason, in my mind, it is reasonable to keep Cryptonight exempt from any proposed mmRRf, so that the mining community is motivated to keep the merge-mineability of Bitmark with Monero viable.  This commitment to change from the Monero devs means that they are committed to de-centralized mining.

      It is mainly the ASIC algos (sha, scrypt & equihash) that have known and varied ASIC implementations, where I think a merge-reduction factor is justified;   My feeling on the CPU / GPU friendly algos is that any mmRRf reduction on merge-mining must be substantially less than would be for the ASIC algos, in particular Lyra2REv2, where @metalicjames (https://github.com/metalicjames) and the VertCoin community are also committed to remain democratic and de-centralized. As a composite algo, like Lyra2REv2, X17  is also CPU/GPU friendly by nature.    

      Yescrypt/Yespower  is CPU friendly and ASIC agnostic/neutral, as per @solardesigner.  My inclination on Yescrypt is to take heed of @solardesigner's advice, and tune it for cryptocurrency use (our use) by evolving it into Yespower.  Further,  I suggest we, as The Bitmark Foundation, join the Yespower Consortium to have a voice on its future development, although this will require that we pool funds to gather 1 BTC.
      Because, it is one of two existing algos, along with  Argon2d, that are not implemented (at least not yet) on ASIC's and that do not have large parent chains, I propose them as the least-disruptive route back to having some native-only algos.   I believe that reserving some (a minority, in this case 25% of our algos) for native mining is entirely reasonable and appropriate. The security of the chain is well-assured in any case, and fostering native mining and yes, giving core supporters a bit of a "home team advantage" if you will, is desirable, logical, has been done by practically every other mPoW coin, and is called for by a segment of our mining community.

      Quote
      The expected value of the honest hashing power is h*P, where h is the hashrate and P is the probability that a miner is honest. For native mining, it is not hard to imagine P being greater on average, though h is very small and there can be quick burst attacks where dishonest miners suddenly flood in, so variance is high on honest hashpower and expected value is low when you are a small coin.

      Indeed, because in the equation h * P, we can fairly reasonably assume that P is higher for native algos, we should at least have some. If the native algos are ones where CPU mining is dominant (maybe GPU to a lesser extent), it is less likely that there will be attack attempts. Further, because there are 8 algos, and many are merge-mined, truly, the probability of a succesful attack overall is vanishingly small. So, in the balance of things, I think it is wise to have somewhere between 1/3 to 1/4 of native algos in the mix.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Jeffrey_Cycde on September 12, 2018, 09:45:37 PM
      Been around in this business for a while now and I really think there's a huge potential. Price is ridiculously low at the moment in contrast to the development that's being made by the team in this idea.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 13, 2018, 07:56:22 PM
      Maybe having an easy and functional Marking feature will benefit more the Bitmark price than the CEM or the available algos. Once the users start purchasing Bitmarks to mark documents on the  blockchain, then the demand will grow. Most of the users will prefeer purchase Bitmarks than to put their computers to mine or to buy ASICs.

      An easy marking and an easy way to query the marked data is the key to put at Bitmark where it belongs (Along with more exchanges having the Bitmark trading enabled).

      I would not like to be rude (I do not fully understand all you are talking about the CEM, the algos and their consequences), but you look like perfectionists trapped in the details, without throwing the project forward because it is still not perfect for the next step, when you already have achieved a very very good project.
       


      If you follow the discussion since July, you will see that I was ready to work on a Marking protocol months ago, and one that I think has the potential to bring a lot of user demand. But dbkeys (and some others) wanted to fork, and I strongly opposed it. For now, the fork is not happening, but there is still some things stirring, and if people really want to change the mining system, then at least with my automated system it will happen fairly, with less politics, and no messy patchwork of forks that make the coin look like a joke.

      If we can't even agree on such basic things, then who knows how messy it will be now to create the "marking protocol".

      As for Monero merge mining, I don't care so much, it can be delayed without much problems.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 13, 2018, 08:46:44 PM
      Quote
      As for Monero merge mining, I don't care so much, it can be delayed without much problems.

      What is the status of Cryptonight / Monero ? What do you mean by "it can be delayed without much problems." ??

      My thought process was perfect/finish the mining /blockchain dynamics work (that is, respond to the flaws found and criticism leveled at Fork#1) via a Fork#2  and then move on to Marking.  (We can argue all day long about it, but the bottom line is that I think it was excessive to go full AuxPoW on everything. There is a strong call for some measure of native mining, so the easy fix is to revert Argon2d native, evolve Yescrypt to Yespower native, and perhaps introduce 9th native-only algo.   )

      Marking itself is a very broad field, but the essence is to be able to easily hash large data sets to obtain a "fingerprint" of this data, and to embed that "fingerprint" hash on an in-blockchain transaction, with an identifying comment or meta-information.

      The fundamentals of this simple operation are what we should focus on first IMO: the core commands, as  JSON RPC calls, and then how to implement & present this facility most effectively GUI QT Wallets.  Much more sophisticated applications can surely be built on this basic functionality.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 14, 2018, 05:49:12 PM
      If an algo can already be "attacked" by merge miners, then those merge miners can become native miners and attack it also. So it is better to change the algo completely if you really want a different way of mining it. But changing algos needs to be done properly, not just with a centralized group of developers handpicking new algos whenever they want. Anyway there is already a good amount of native mining going on for about half the algos. Argon2 is only merge mineable with Unitus which is a tiny coin, equihash still no merge mining happening with Zcash because it requires more understanding of the code. Only sha and scrypt are really dominated by other chains. Monero we don't have to follow, we can leave it as it is and follow them later on. So I don't know what you're complaining about, there is already a good mix of native and merge mining, and nothing needs fixing, except for the overflow bug which should be done soon. I already told you what I agree with / don't agree with, and I only want to work on something that supports my vision, I have no interest in working on sloppy code just for the purpose of pumping the price.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 14, 2018, 06:29:36 PM
      when will they release the polo and cryptopia wallets


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 15, 2018, 06:44:58 AM
      when will they release the polo and cryptopia wallets

      Good question, not sure what their criteria is.  But chain is working reliably under the current protocol and most nodes are in the v0.9.7.x series, as they should be at this time.

      But, there are a few v0.9.8.3 nodes still appearing, and in fact someone mined a few blocks beyond height 518191 (iirc, like 20 blocks or so) on that fork, which I found odd. No one should be running a v0.9.8.3 node or wallet. I have taken down the Release binaries for that version, (because there were last minute questions about it right before the forkheight); but it's possible that a few are out there.


      Please make sure that your nodes and wallets are on the Bitmark v0.9.7.x series.
      This is the correct version to be on at this time.


      There are also a couple of nodes listed on the Chainz explorer (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btm/#!network) as v0.9.5 and one as v0.9.2.2.
      Those version are old and totally obsolete.
      ¿ Maybe an old VM running somewhere, forgotten.... Or just ...
      ¿ A monitor to see if anyone mines that old fork ?  
      v0.9.5 had a SCrypt diff in the 20,000 IIRC    

       


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 15, 2018, 07:00:52 AM
      .%.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Arching_wild on September 15, 2018, 07:06:08 AM
      I'm very excited about the amazing potential of this project. The most promising project of the year in my opinion. So great to see more and more mature and professional teams entering the market. It will definitely help not-so-tech-savvy people get involved with the crypto space.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: tokenZ on September 17, 2018, 11:19:56 PM
      Just found MARKS
      Am I able to mine it via equihash through z9m?
      Anyone know?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: iso2000 on September 18, 2018, 07:17:48 AM
      Just found MARKS
      Am I able to mine it via equihash through z9m?
      Anyone know?

      http://equihash.smilingmining.com (http://equihash.smilingmining.com)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 18, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
      I just received this email from Poloniex:

      Quote
      Hello,

      If
       you are receiving this message, it is because you currently hold a balance in  BTM on Poloniex.

       

      In order to bring Poloniex forward into a new phase of innovation and development, we have decided to delist some of our currently supported assets. Section 16 of the User Agreement provides that Poloniex may delist an asset at any time in its sole discretion based on a number of factors, in this case, the technical and operational challenges associated with continuing to support the asset.

       

      On
       Tuesday September 25th, at 12:00 ET, the following assets will be delisted from Poloniex: BTCD, BTM (Bitmark), EMC2, GRC, NEOS, POT, VRC, XBC.
       Please finalize all trades and close any positions in these assets prior to September 25th. Once delisted, you will have 30 days (up to and including October 25th) to withdraw any balances in these assets. We will send an email to balance holders reminding
       them to withdraw their funds prior to October 25th.

       
      The
       exact timeline of events is as follows:
      September 25: Markets for
      BTM will be closed
      October 25: Withdrawal of
      BTM will be disabled

       
      To
       withdraw your assets, please visit the Balances page of your account and provide a withdrawal address for the currency you wish to withdraw. We will send another email reminder in the coming days. For more information about these changes, please visit

      our blog post. We greatly appreciate your help.

       
      Thanks
       so much,

      The
       Poloniex Team


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Altcoinlover on September 18, 2018, 04:49:52 PM
      OK, I just got the news that BTM is beeing delisted from POLO. Now, on this occasion,
      I learned that a forked happened and the new coin name is MARKS....

      But, Polo did not update the name.

      SO, could you clarify what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      I also saw from Coinmarketcap, that ONLY cryptopia is listing the coin with the name MARKS.

      WHERE can we move our BTM coins from POLO to?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 18, 2018, 05:06:22 PM
      and here we see the end of one more coin, I lost a lot  :'( :'( :'( :'(

      I just received this email from Poloniex:

      Quote
      Hello,

      If
       you are receiving this message, it is because you currently hold a balance in  BTM on Poloniex.

       

      In order to bring Poloniex forward into a new phase of innovation and development, we have decided to delist some of our currently supported assets. Section 16 of the User Agreement provides that Poloniex may delist an asset at any time in its sole discretion based on a number of factors, in this case, the technical and operational challenges associated with continuing to support the asset.

       

      On
       Tuesday September 25th, at 12:00 ET, the following assets will be delisted from Poloniex: BTCD, BTM (Bitmark), EMC2, GRC, NEOS, POT, VRC, XBC.
       Please finalize all trades and close any positions in these assets prior to September 25th. Once delisted, you will have 30 days (up to and including October 25th) to withdraw any balances in these assets. We will send an email to balance holders reminding
       them to withdraw their funds prior to October 25th.

       
      The
       exact timeline of events is as follows:
      September 25: Markets for
      BTM will be closed
      October 25: Withdrawal of
      BTM will be disabled

       
      To
       withdraw your assets, please visit the Balances page of your account and provide a withdrawal address for the currency you wish to withdraw. We will send another email reminder in the coming days. For more information about these changes, please visit

      our blog post. We greatly appreciate your help.

       
      Thanks
       so much,

      The
       Poloniex Team


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: JungleOnion on September 18, 2018, 07:30:43 PM
      BTM was really useful for the polo trollbox. Where are MARKS being used currently?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 18, 2018, 08:34:33 PM
      where I can deposit my MARKS?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: tokenZ on September 18, 2018, 08:42:34 PM
      Just found MARKS
      Am I able to mine it via equihash through z9m?
      Anyone know?

      http://equihash.smilingmining.com (http://equihash.smilingmining.com)

      Thanks @iso-


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dac10 on September 18, 2018, 09:34:09 PM
      where I can deposit my MARKS?
      In your wallet! ===>v0.9.7.1-0f20f6a-dirty-beta


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 18, 2018, 09:37:37 PM
      where I can deposit my MARKS?
      In your wallet! ===>v0.9.7.1-0f20f6a-dirty-beta

      I am referring to exchanges


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 18, 2018, 09:39:57 PM
      By the way, I already applied to list BTM on Bisq (decentralized exchange). It may take a few weeks for it to get into the next release. But weird that Polo is dropping BTM, I guess the fork caused too much disruption. I'd like to see if those 2.5 million coins actually move.

      Also I think cryptopia, trade-by-trade, and others are trading it. I need to setup an account on trade-by-trade to see how it works.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 18, 2018, 11:41:45 PM
      where I can deposit my MARKS?
      In your wallet! ===>v0.9.7.1-0f20f6a-dirty-beta

      I am referring to exchanges
      Bitmark (MARKS) (BTM) -  Exchanges, Working and Validated:

      qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)

      cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=MARKS_BTC)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Namduc on September 19, 2018, 07:13:00 AM
      BTM will be delisted on POLO.

      I need a new compatible wallet to regain BTM on Polo.

      Anyone have the link to download?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boomboom on September 19, 2018, 07:52:49 AM
      Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. Never really recovered after Nathan Rixham was expossd as a scammer, i know later devs tried, but the rixham scam and lies drove away a lot of the original community.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 19, 2018, 09:39:15 AM
      ...
      I need a new compatible wallet to regain BTM on Polo.

      Anyone have the link to download?
      Bitmark v0.9.7.2 - Latest Release - Binaries - Wallets


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 19, 2018, 09:45:33 AM
      Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. ....

      We're actively traded on Cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.cryptopia.co.nzExchange?market=MARKS_BTC), and are also listed on a promising, new exchange, qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)

           We will appeal Poloniex's announcement, we think it's unwarranted, particularly at a time when the functioning of the Bitmark blockchain is stronger than ever. After transitioning succesfuly into a very secure, merge-mining enabled, 8-algo Proof-of-Work system, the team is shifting gears into crafting Marking Apps to create volume demand and deliver on Marking.

            Poloniex itself has played a role in Bitmark's difficulties, by, in my opinion, unecessarily disabling deposits and withdrawals for far too long on too many instances, (and to their own detriment) by removing the very popular Troll Box which utilized Marking succesfully. It's an unwelcome announcement, but the Project is really just coming into its own, will survive and flourish.

      Marking will lift this blockchain up and create a fantastic and useful ecosystem of appications.

       
      We will keep working towards that.





      Bitmark (MARKS) (BTM)

          
      Exchanges:          
      qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)      &    Cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.Cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=MARKS_BTC)
       
       
      Nodes & Wallets:
      Bitmark v.0.9.7.2 on GitHub (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.7.2)

      Windows 64bit (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win64-Official-setup.exe)

      Windows 32bit (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-0.9.7.2-Win32-Official-setup.exe)

      Mac OS (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-Qt_0.9.7.2-MacOS-Official.dmg)

      Raspberry Pi (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.7.2/Bitmark-v0.9.7.2-Raspbian-Official.armhf.deb)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Altcoinlover on September 19, 2018, 02:14:47 PM
      ...
      I need a new compatible wallet to regain BTM on Polo.

      Anyone have the link to download?
      Bitmark v0.9.7.2 - Latest Release - Binaries - Wallets

      Can we get a link to BTM wallet, please?

      EDIT - Sorry, just see after the info on another post... and cannot delete my own.

      thanks


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Altcoinlover on September 19, 2018, 02:17:21 PM
      OK, I just got the news that BTM is beeing delisted from POLO. Now, on this occasion,
      I learned that a forked happened and the new coin name is MARKS....

      But, Polo did not update the name.

      SO, could you clarify what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      I also saw from Coinmarketcap, that ONLY cryptopia is listing the coin with the name MARKS.

      WHERE can we move our BTM coins from POLO to?

      Please, could I get an answer for my questions to help me understand
      what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      thanks in advance


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on September 19, 2018, 02:43:34 PM
      OK, I just got the news that BTM is beeing delisted from POLO. Now, on this occasion,
      I learned that a forked happened and the new coin name is MARKS....

      But, Polo did not update the name.

      SO, could you clarify what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      I also saw from Coinmarketcap, that ONLY cryptopia is listing the coin with the name MARKS.

      WHERE can we move our BTM coins from POLO to?

      Please, could I get an answer for my questions to help me understand
      what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      thanks in advance

      BTM and MARKS are the same, they (Bitmark team) needed a new ticker for BTM on Cryptopia, as BTM on Cryptopia means Bytom (https://cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=BTM) so they went for MARKS on Cryptopia. You can check this back in this thread earlier.

      So BTMs you withdraw from Polo to Cryptopia for example become MARKS but it is still the same coin and blockchain.

      HTH


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Altcoinlover on September 19, 2018, 05:47:37 PM
      OK, I just got the news that BTM is beeing delisted from POLO. Now, on this occasion,
      I learned that a forked happened and the new coin name is MARKS....

      But, Polo did not update the name.

      SO, could you clarify what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      I also saw from Coinmarketcap, that ONLY cryptopia is listing the coin with the name MARKS.

      WHERE can we move our BTM coins from POLO to?

      Please, could I get an answer for my questions to help me understand
      what is the situation btw BTM and MARKS?

      thanks in advance

      BTM and MARKS are the same, they (Bitmark team) needed a new ticker for BTM on Cryptopia, as BTM on Cryptopia means Bytom (https://cryptopia.co.nz/CoinInfo/?coin=BTM) so they went for MARKS on Cryptopia. You can check this back in this thread earlier.

      So BTMs you withdraw from Polo to Cryptopia for example become MARKS but it is still the same coin and blockchain.

      HTH

      thanks a lot for the clarification. Much appreciated.

      Now all makes sense :-)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 19, 2018, 07:44:58 PM
      I just tested the qtrade wallet and the deposits and withdrawals are working fine, the problem is very low volume, I hope that Bitmark can overcome all this.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 19, 2018, 10:31:46 PM
      Bittrex do not charge any fees to list a new coin https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000475411-How-do-I-submit-a-token-to-Bittrex-for-listing- (https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000475411-How-do-I-submit-a-token-to-Bittrex-for-listing-)

      https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=114093958872 (https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=114093958872)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 19, 2018, 10:38:28 PM
      Coinexchange.io looks a good option too https://coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/9000149877-applying-to-list-your-coin-token-on-coinexchange-io- (https://coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/9000149877-applying-to-list-your-coin-token-on-coinexchange-io-)

      https://coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com/login/normal?host_url=coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com (https://coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com/login/normal?host_url=coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: gleclercg on September 20, 2018, 12:05:41 AM
      Any update from Poloniex? Why they dislist? And Cryptopia We cannot deposit and withdraw?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 20, 2018, 04:50:15 PM
      We're actively traded on Cryptopia.co.nz (https://www.cryptopia.co.nzExchange?market=MARKS_BTC), and are also listed on a promising, new exchange, qTrade.io (https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC)
      It's an unwelcome announcement, but the Project is really just coming into its own, will survive and flourish.
      ...

      Hope so  :)
      But I should notice that 24h trading volume on cryptopia is 59$  ;D
      I hope that all trading volume will be transfered from Poloniex (45k$) to cryptopia or anywhere else.

      There's some buy orders on qTrade.io for Bitmarks at the moment.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: lextaliones on September 20, 2018, 05:26:30 PM
      hy dev, happy to find your project. from the explanation about bitmark looks very convincing, if your project has been running from 2014. then how about your plan


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 21, 2018, 12:05:03 PM
      By the way I did a quick audit of the code starting at Mark Pfennig (Nathan Rixham)'s initial "global rename" commit and indeed it seems to be an exact copy of Bitcoin Core v0.9.2.1, other than renaming "Bitcoin" to "Bitmark". I also looked at his other commits before and didn't find anything dishonest. Thus, I am very convinced now that the code is honest and secure (up to the security of Bitcoin Core v0.9.2.1). Yes Nathan ran away with people's money (from what I heard), but he didn't (from my audits) code anything dishonest into the protocol. It is unlikely he would put something malicious into the git commits since anyone can view them publicly, but of course it is worth checking it some more.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 21, 2018, 06:03:10 PM
      how many confirmations are needed to confirm the deposit in cryptopia?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 21, 2018, 06:37:02 PM
      Any update from Poloniex? Why they dislist? And Cryptopia We cannot deposit and withdraw?
      Good News:  Cryptopia Deposits and Withdrawals are working normally again.

           Regarding Poloniex, it seems like Poloniex was acquired (bought) by a larger company, Circle (https://www.circle.com/en/about). In these type of changes and transitions, verbal promises and shared history are often disregarded & overlooked. We are appealing the decision to de-list, because we had assurances that "as long as development continued, creating a stable environment for volunteers to create a rare fair coin, which never benefited from an ICO or premine, like most other coins" Poloniex would continue listing us.

           As everyone on this forum knows, development on Bitmark is active and ongoing. At this particular junction, when we have just transitioned to an 8mPoW algo system, and are starting to devote our energies and focus on Marking, it seems premature to de-list.

           Circle's criteria is, as I understand it, about Bitmark's comparatively lower volume on the exchange.   I believe we should at least be allowed some time, perhaps a year, to get the trade volume up to Circle's minimum average threshold, as now that the blockchain mechanics have been addressed, we are shifting our focus to Marking, our main reason for being or raison d'être. Marking has the potential to really drive interest in Bitmark and our blockchain, and multiply the trade volume.  

      In fact, we have great shared history with Poloniex, as Polo implemented the first day-to-day use of Marking in their Troll Box. The Circle Company, IMO, should bring back this much-loved feature of the Poloniex Exchange, and with it, Marking, which tracked user's reputation on the Troll Box.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 21, 2018, 06:44:35 PM
      .... did a quick audit of the code starting at Mark Pfennig (Nathan Rixham)'s initial "global rename" commit and indeed it seems to be an exact copy of Bitcoin Core v0.9.2.1, other than renaming "Bitcoin" to "Bitmark". I also looked at his other commits before and didn't find anything dishonest. Thus, I am very convinced now that the code is honest and secure (up to the security of Bitcoin Core v0.9.2.1).  ...


      In your opinion,  ¿what are the most important new features in the latest Bitcoin v0.16.3 code that we should adopt ?  I can think of the faster blockchain initial downloads for one.   Or perhaps we should "simply" transfer our features into the  BTC v0.16.3 base (our own genesis block, target block time, DGWv3, CEM, 8mPoW, etc.), and be completely up-to-date.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 21, 2018, 10:28:12 PM
      We can try to open as many support tickets as we can (I mean one per user) to Poloniex support, asking to keep Bitmark listed or to list it again. If many Poloniex users show interest in this coin/project then it will help to be able to trade Bitmark on Poloniex again.

      https://poloniex.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/new (https://poloniex.freshdesk.com/support/tickets/new)

      If we act as a community it could help us all and this project.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 21, 2018, 10:34:14 PM
      I already have submitted my ticket requesting to keep Bitmark listed


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on September 22, 2018, 10:27:59 PM
      In your opinion,  ¿what are the most important new features in the latest Bitcoin v0.16.3 code that we should adopt ?  I can think of the faster blockchain initial downloads for one.   Or perhaps we should "simply" transfer our features into the  BTC v0.16.3 base (our own genesis block, target block time, DGWv3, CEM, 8mPoW, etc.), and be completely up-to-date.

      The only feature that I really care about is Segregated Witness because most Lightning Network software relies on it (though it is not strictly necessary for Lightning). The faster syncing and possible DoS/security fixes would be important too. Luckily the current vulnerability being patched for Bitcoin Core 0.14-0.16 (which allows for inflation) does not affect us.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 25, 2018, 05:39:35 AM
      wanted some information from some developer on the exchanges, now that Poloniex will close, have some plan in progress to add in new exchanges, for example the cryptopia has some volume of purchase and sale, but in this new exchange Qtrade the purchase volume is 0.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on September 25, 2018, 12:42:55 PM
      wanted some information from some developer on the exchanges, now that Poloniex will close, have some plan in progress to add in new exchanges, for example the cryptopia has some volume of purchase and sale, but in this new exchange Qtrade the purchase volume is 0.

      I see some Bitmark buy orders on qTrade, but no sellers. It is a smaller exchange, and I have found it reliable.





      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matheus2009 on September 26, 2018, 03:31:38 PM
      Bitmark is dead, price has already been 10k + and today is 350, will it recover?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 26, 2018, 10:11:15 PM
      Bitmark is dead, price has already been 10k + and today is 350, will it recover?

      There is activity in the GitHub repository of this project. If marking is not dead now is a good time to buy cheap.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Amadeus82 on September 27, 2018, 07:38:23 AM
      Bitmark is dead, price has already been 10k + and today is 350, will it recover?

      There is activity in the GitHub repository of this project. If marking is not dead now is a good time to buy cheap.

      And IF it is dead you would be throwing your money through the window  ;)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matheus2009 on September 27, 2018, 03:34:24 PM
      Bitmark is dead, price has already been 10k + and today is 350, will it recover?

      There is activity in the GitHub repository of this project. If marking is not dead now is a good time to buy cheap.

      And IF it is dead you would be throwing your money through the window  ;)

      it would be good good news from the developer to brighten the day


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on September 28, 2018, 07:29:34 AM
      UPDATE: Poloniex provided guidance on how to get Bitmark relisted....with [MARKS] Ticker no doubt

      Additionally we will be highlighting areas of interest to expand our market reach out to various platforms...so if the community has connections with platforms which would benefit from a reputation system send them our way.

      Regardless we have a path set fourth which we will be following...I'm going to put an ETA out there for 1 NOV Timeline to be drafted and approved. Anyone have input please let us know....and guys, provide solutions please, not just rants which are disruptive and honestly a waste of time to all parties involved.

      - We will be focusing on implementation, core standardization to support the lighting transactions and of course Marking at Layer 2, with a few application layer surprises is all goes as planned.


      FY19 will be full of awesomeness!!!..More to come as Melvin refines a few integral pieces to the ecosystem as a whole...and we plan to be busy locking in partnerships





      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on September 28, 2018, 04:30:40 PM
      what is the status of Bitmark at TradeSatoshi?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on September 28, 2018, 07:53:28 PM
      @TeamBitmark, is it planned to list Bitmark on more exchanges in the near future?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: mike0829 on September 29, 2018, 04:44:52 PM
      Hello! Good day!
      Please tell me if there's a short video giving a brief yet detailed explanation of this project? I've found myself unable to explain this to one of my friends, so I wanna link her a video presentation of sorts.
      Thank you!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Altcoinlover on October 01, 2018, 02:08:54 PM
      UPDATE: Poloniex provided guidance on how to get Bitmark relisted....with [MARKS] Ticker no doubt

      Additionally we will be highlighting areas of interest to expand our market reach out to various platforms...so if the community has connections with platforms which would benefit from a reputation system send them our way.

      Regardless we have a path set fourth which we will be following...I'm going to put an ETA out there for 1 NOV Timeline to be drafted and approved. Anyone have input please let us know....and guys, provide solutions please, not just rants which are disruptive and honestly a waste of time to all parties involved.

      - We will be focusing on implementation, core standardization to support the lighting transactions and of course Marking at Layer 2, with a few application layer surprises is all goes as planned.


      FY19 will be full of awesomeness!!!..More to come as Melvin refines a few integral pieces to the ecosystem as a whole...and we plan to be busy locking in partnerships





      Would be great / important to have MARKS relisted there... even if Polo lost a lot of users, this is still a significant player as an exchange


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TheMiningPool.mine on October 02, 2018, 05:54:00 AM



      theminingpool.online (http://theminingpool.online)

      BitMark[MARKS] Added to TheMiningPool.online!

      https://theminingpoolstratum.selfip.com/dashboard/img/anns/BitMarks.png (https://theminingpool.online)

      BitMark [MARKS] Equihash Algo
      stratum+tcp://theminingpoolstratum.selfip.com:3406


      https://theminingpoolstratum.selfip.com/dashboard/img/anns/discord.png (https://discord.gg/nfpGabj)             https://theminingpoolstratum.selfip.com/dashboard/img/anns/twitter.png



       (https://twitter.com/The_MiningPool)



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: x1ngfang on October 03, 2018, 01:57:14 AM
      UPDATE: Poloniex provided guidance on how to get Bitmark relisted....with [MARKS] Ticker no doubt

      Additionally we will be highlighting areas of interest to expand our market reach out to various platforms...so if the community has connections with platforms which would benefit from a reputation system send them our way.

      Regardless we have a path set fourth which we will be following...I'm going to put an ETA out there for 1 NOV Timeline to be drafted and approved. Anyone have input please let us know....and guys, provide solutions please, not just rants which are disruptive and honestly a waste of time to all parties involved.

      - We will be focusing on implementation, core standardization to support the lighting transactions and of course Marking at Layer 2, with a few application layer surprises is all goes as planned.


      FY19 will be full of awesomeness!!!..More to come as Melvin refines a few integral pieces to the ecosystem as a whole...and we plan to be busy locking in partnerships





      Hi Bitmark Team & Community,
      I am XING, a new Forging Delegate with the Shift Project, www.shiftproject.com (http://www.shiftproject.com).
      I've been following the outstanding progress of Bitmark over the past several months, and I think Bitmark & Shift would benefit greatly through mutual collaboration.
      Regardless of the recent delisting on Poloniex, I can see the innovation, hard work, persistence, patience and business potential by the Bitmark team.
      Similarly, the Shift team is hard at work, building an agnostic decentralized web storage and hosting platform on IPFS, and open to integration with other blockchains.

      Quote
      Shift is very proud and excited to be a technological partner to www.coinsandsteel.com (http://www.coinsandsteel.com), (connections with Animoca Brands & Loom Network) which will use Shift’s storage layer to achieve the technological milestone of being the first ever fully decentralized ERC20-based game, including the data storage component.

      As Bitmark starts to re-focus it's efforts again on the business of Marking & Reputation, please consider to use Shift for hosting and storage in the future as well. The Lead Developer is Ralf S., who would be best to speak to regarding any and all types of technical integration and overall benefits of a collaboration between Shift and Bitmark.

      Shift team can be contacted directly on Ryver or via email (check footer of their website www.shiftproject.com/team (http://www.shiftproject.com/team)),
      or just ping me on the Bitmark Discord @XING if you have any questions/comments.
      Thanks!
       :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: gregofdoom on October 04, 2018, 11:00:23 AM
      Personally, I think it's a great idea to combine the solutions of both projects.

      It would create an amazing hybrid - something new in the crypto.


       :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: onelineproof on October 04, 2018, 08:08:24 PM
      I feel out of the loop on "the plan", but for now I am just trying to pay my expenses so I am focusing on working hard through my other freelance clients. I cannot put much time on building the protocol unless I am getting paid a reasonable amount (at least 500 USD a month). I don't think there is a huge rush to change the protocol now, but a design of an innovative marking/repuation protocol needs to move forward in order to remain competitive. Also, distractions, like how to reward miners to make the price go higher need to be toned down.

      It's good to work with other projects, but we have to make sure it will really be something that users will value, and not just a way to get more funding.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on October 05, 2018, 06:26:28 AM
      UPDATE: Poloniex provided guidance on how to get Bitmark relisted....with [MARKS] Ticker no doubt

      Additionally we will be highlighting areas of interest to expand our market reach out to various platforms...so if the community has connections with platforms which would benefit from a reputation system send them our way.

      Regardless we have a path set fourth which we will be following...I'm going to put an ETA out there for 1 NOV Timeline to be drafted and approved. Anyone have input please let us know....and guys, provide solutions please, not just rants which are disruptive and honestly a waste of time to all parties involved.

      - We will be focusing on implementation, core standardization to support the lighting transactions and of course Marking at Layer 2, with a few application layer surprises is all goes as planned.


      FY19 will be full of awesomeness!!!..More to come as Melvin refines a few integral pieces to the ecosystem as a whole...and we plan to be busy locking in partnerships





      Hi Bitmark Team & Community,
      I am XING, a new Forging Delegate with the Shift Project, www.shiftproject.com (http://www.shiftproject.com).
      I've been following the outstanding progress of Bitmark over the past several months, and I think Bitmark & Shift would benefit greatly through mutual collaboration.
      Regardless of the recent delisting on Poloniex, I can see the innovation, hard work, persistence, patience and business potential by the Bitmark team.
      Similarly, the Shift team is hard at work, building an agnostic decentralized web storage and hosting platform on IPFS, and open to integration with other blockchains.

      Quote
      Shift is very proud and excited to be a technological partner to www.coinsandsteel.com (http://www.coinsandsteel.com), (connections with Animoca Brands & Loom Network) which will use Shift’s storage layer to achieve the technological milestone of being the first ever fully decentralized ERC20-based game, including the data storage component.

      As Bitmark starts to re-focus it's efforts again on the business of Marking & Reputation, please consider to use Shift for hosting and storage in the future as well. The Lead Developer is Ralf S., who would be best to speak to regarding any and all types of technical integration and overall benefits of a collaboration between Shift and Bitmark.

      Shift team can be contacted directly on Ryver or via email (check footer of their website www.shiftproject.com/team (http://www.shiftproject.com/team)),
      or just ping me on the Bitmark Discord @XING if you have any questions/comments.
      Thanks!
       :)

      Hi @XING // ShiftProject Team,

      We appreciate you taking the time to get to know our Project, to include the recent development strides. We have reviewed SHIFT's mission/vision to implement a decentralized hosting environment, and will be reaching out to you to further discuss the path to mutual collaboration. Would be glad to explore the ways a hybrid/collaborative effort would yield greater benefits as we look to mature both projects/products.

      Cheers,

      TeamBitmark


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on October 07, 2018, 10:35:10 PM
      Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. Never really recovered after Nathan Rixham was expossd as a scammer, i know later devs tried, but the rixham scam and lies drove away a lot of the original community.

      Glad to see people here from way  back in the day.. (this is medic writing, so I remember this all to well)...

      I do hope you continue to stick around, I know we have more potential now than we ever did at any point. Solid framework (Melvin Carlvalho's main focus over the last 18 months) is complete and starting to take form. Take note that Tim Berners-Lee is heading the SOLID development project, so having Bitmark transactions/payment structures (in development) integrated into Solid means the MARKS is NO small scale crypto project anymore. Additionally, we see this as an opportunity...and we are going to capitalize on this.

      We have other news which should shape our direction (we hope to announce this very soon), and we have begun to shift our direction to Marking & MARKS transition into an everyday use currency


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: maser82 on October 08, 2018, 05:37:23 PM
      Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. Never really recovered after Nathan Rixham was expossd as a scammer, i know later devs tried, but the rixham scam and lies drove away a lot of the original community.

      Glad to see people here from way  back in the day.. (this is medic writing, so I remember this all to well)...

      I do hope you continue to stick around, I know we have more potential now than we ever did at any point. Solid framework (Melvin Carlvalho's main focus over the last 18 months) is complete and starting to take form. Take note that Tim Berners-Lee is heading the SOLID development project, so having Bitmark transactions/payment structures (in development) integrated into Solid means the MARKS is NO small scale crypto project anymore. Additionally, we see this as an opportunity...and we are going to capitalize on this.

      We have other news which should shape our direction (we hope to announce this very soon), and we have begun to shift our direction to Marking & MARKS transition into an everyday use currency


      This sounds very good.

      It will be very helpfull for this project to have a presentable website.

      The current website is a template with many "lorem ipsum" pages (http://www.bitmark.io/bitmark-webcredits/) , it have a very poor performance and do not have https (Needed if a good SEO is desired).

      If someone try to know more about Bitmark by visiting bitmark.io (http://bitmark.io), as it is right now, for sure they will think this project is not worth to invest in it.

      Using a cheap VPS from kimisufi (OVH) (https://www.kimsufi.com/us/en/vps-ssd.xml) and the free tier from cloudflare (https://www.cloudflare.com/plans/) will provide a very good performance, SEO optimizations and https.

      If you need it I can help you to complete the website or at least to set it presentable as a real project.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on October 08, 2018, 06:51:55 PM
      Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. Never really recovered after Nathan Rixham was expossd as a scammer, i know later devs tried, but the rixham scam and lies drove away a lot of the original community.

      Glad to see people here from way  back in the day.. (this is medic writing, so I remember this all to well)...

      I do hope you continue to stick around, I know we have more potential now than we ever did at any point. Solid framework (Melvin Carlvalho's main focus over the last 18 months) is complete and starting to take form. Take note that Tim Berners-Lee is heading the SOLID development project, so having Bitmark transactions/payment structures (in development) integrated into Solid means the MARKS is NO small scale crypto project anymore. Additionally, we see this as an opportunity...and we are going to capitalize on this.

      We have other news which should shape our direction (we hope to announce this very soon), and we have begun to shift our direction to Marking & MARKS transition into an everyday use currency


      This sounds very good.

      It will be very helpfull for this project to have a presentable website.

      .......
      If you need it I can help you to complete the website or at least to set it presentable as a real project.



      We're mostly all volunteer group, any help is welcome !


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on October 15, 2018, 02:00:14 AM
      any response from Poloniex to re-list MARKS?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: hard2up on October 23, 2018, 03:44:11 AM
       ::) When Marks will be Great Again?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on October 31, 2018, 10:49:45 PM
      ::) When Marks will be Great Again?
      up


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on November 04, 2018, 05:52:10 PM
      We are taking time to align our offerings...still here working guys.

      As always , we will post when we have something of value...(ie: not just hype)




      UPDATE:


      That said, we are working on an updated website (thanks to @maser on our slack).

      webdev.bitmark.co

      Your input is welcome


      - Additionally, we are upgrading the wallet to support an Marking (hope to see DBkeys / Andrew / Eric drive this development)

      -Marking within the new wallet will allow users to Mark public Content/Documents, etc.....this will then be expanded to a website front end where Marking will leverage decentralized storage to MARK urls/online documents/videos/user content/friends/...anything online.

      - Once in place we move to expand the Big Data Analytics provided by Public Marking. Gatherng data at this scale will open vast opportunities for our platform moving forward.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: konesseser on November 04, 2018, 06:40:32 PM
      I love you, gentlemen. You are unsinkable ...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: GG_Group on November 08, 2018, 05:41:56 AM
      Whom am I able to speak if i wonna but that project?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Rsj91 on November 13, 2018, 05:00:47 PM
      We are taking time to align our offerings...still here working guys.

      As always , we will post when we have something of value...(ie: not just hype)




      UPDATE:


      That said, we are working on an updated website (thanks to @maser on our slack).

      webdev.bitmark.co

      Your input is welcome


      - Additionally, we are upgrading the wallet to support an Marking (hope to see DBkeys / Andrew / Eric drive this development)

      -Marking within the new wallet will allow users to Mark public Content/Documents, etc.....this will then be expanded to a website front end where Marking will leverage decentralized storage to MARK urls/online documents/videos/user content/friends/...anything online.

      - Once in place we move to expand the Big Data Analytics provided by Public Marking. Gatherng data at this scale will open vast opportunities for our platform moving forward.

      Hi TeamBitmark,

      Bitmark is listed on https://novaexchange.com/ (https://novaexchange.com/) with active market, deposits and withdrawals. Exchange has been under renovation and handover process for a while but new owners are going to relaunch the platform very soon.

      Can you add https://novaexchange.com/ (https://novaexchange.com/) under active exchange and let you community know about one of your old exchange which is now live and active again with several upgrades? Please let me know in case of any query :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: OMG_Moments on November 19, 2018, 07:34:32 AM
      BTM gonna break out trollbox  ;D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on November 30, 2018, 03:40:45 AM
      How's the bitmark project going?
      Let's go to the moon?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Rsj91 on November 30, 2018, 06:01:20 PM
      Nova Exchange will open its doors again on Monday the 3:rd of December!
      We will hit the ground running.

      Want to list with us? NOW is the time to get a good deal! Fill out the listing request form HERE  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdRNwypA-6DiWqsX4-VuWYKdM0mMyL8COUuvQoqkm1AaVA45Q/viewform

      Or get in touch with our Coinmaster on coinmaster@novaexchange.com

      Do you want to work with us? Apply to become a Listing Agent. HERE. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfrgrbJ2J3Z8Bjijz3ks7TbtYKuKADUJyEnRP8xxDHt63Bcsg/viewform

      We are very excited to be back!
      Team Nova
      #novaisback

       https://i.imgur.com/3YPPUxn.png


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on December 25, 2018, 12:20:46 PM
      Is there still life here?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: gregofdoom on December 26, 2018, 08:54:06 PM
      Is there still life here?

      Ofcourse....

      It is the silence before the storm  ;)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: akrmn on January 15, 2019, 01:57:07 PM
      Hi, this is @onelineproof. I lost my password to this forum, so I am using this new account. You can see that my github page github.com/piratelinux is still actively contributing to Bitmark (in the dev branch). We are preparing some new features (RPC api for marking) and I am working on a voting system as well.

      For trading BTM, we are now listed on BISQ (bisq.network). Download the latest release and you will see Bitmark as an altcoin you can add from the settings page. This is a fully decentralized exchange and there is currently 1 buy and 1 sell offer on it. Let's try to get more liquidity on it!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Ireson on January 15, 2019, 01:59:49 PM
      Does the project have a telegram group?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: toboho on March 14, 2019, 01:21:53 PM
      Bitmark v0.9.8.3

      Official Release (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/tag/v0.9.8.3)

      Ubuntu Long-Term Server (LTS) -  Full Nodes

      14.04 LTS "Trusty Tahr"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-14 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-14)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-14 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-14)

      16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-16 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-16)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-16 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-16)

      18.04 LTS "Bionic Beaver"
      bitmarkd_Ubuntu-18 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmarkd.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-18)
      bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-18 (https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/releases/download/v0.9.8.3/bitmark-cli.v0.9.8.3-Official-Release-Ubuntu-18)


      MacOS & Windows Wallets in the next couple days.

      Fork #2 set to happen at block height 518191 (https://numbermatics.com/n/518191/).





      good job!
      I came here to support you!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: tync on March 29, 2019, 12:07:53 PM
      I suggest all holders of the dead coins(removed from poloniex, bittrex etc) create a new coin for SWAP.
      RIC XVC BTM etc


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on April 09, 2019, 02:10:55 PM
      Are there any developers who are in contact with Cryptopia?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Rsj91 on April 18, 2019, 12:30:58 PM
      Is there anyone who is running a local wallet? There is no working explorer.
      Can someone help me to verify the block for hash 7d757d3f8160ff8f96e078cbf295482945d9db7374aee29d0c371234a1a133e5.

      Thank you in advance


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on April 18, 2019, 01:03:08 PM
      Is there anyone who is running a local wallet? There is no working explorer.
      Can someone help me to verify the block for hash 7d757d3f8160ff8f96e078cbf295482945d9db7374aee29d0c371234a1a133e5.

      Thank you in advance

      Here you go:

      Code:
      bitmark-cli getblock 7d757d3f8160ff8f96e078cbf295482945d9db7374aee29d0c371234a1a133e5
      {
          "hash" : "7d757d3f8160ff8f96e078cbf295482945d9db7374aee29d0c371234a1a133e5",
          "powhash" : "7d757d3f8160ff8f96e078cbf295482945d9db7374aee29d0c371234a1a133e5",
          "confirmations" : 574,
          "size" : 2481,
          "height" : 669050,
          "version" : 5964548,
          "algo" : "SHA256D",
          "auxpow" : true,
          "parentblockhash" : "0000000000000002fac5e4f16b383f4a840f4be2e6d4cc3d8fcb75cb61a3fcd7",
          "parentblockpowhash" : "0000000000000002fac5e4f16b383f4a840f4be2e6d4cc3d8fcb75cb61a3fcd7",
          "parentblockprevhash" : "0000000000000000003fcf72e2df766f87a747cef5f4e25fe9d2a10073be8596",
          "SSF height" : 71,
          "SSF work" : 221464783933872,
          "SSF time" : 74515.00000000,
          "merkleroot" : "faaff1a3aeae6d4883c4c78e64b36475c3a821c2e5a071560e0f95ef821e6dba",
          "tx" : [
              "faaff1a3aeae6d4883c4c78e64b36475c3a821c2e5a071560e0f95ef821e6dba"
          ],
          "time" : 1555514778,
          "nonce" : 0,
          "bits" : "190874de",
          "difficulty" : 507880971.59424472,
          "chainwork" : "00000000000000000000000000000000000000000012fc798dd212492e043cea",
          "previousblockhash" : "ad008b16f9e4c244e2fed55445e9e40a7ed587fcfe6fd01d9b4c3cfe3e8bfb28",
          "nextblockhash" : "4735358b3ba5b0ce573da55789579961ebbea17f94ee0ee20bd8da3600c35205"
      }

      HTH


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Redcapp on May 12, 2019, 11:59:49 PM
      This fuking project is DEAD. lost so much money. sold all my bag. fuking idiots. :@


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Matiel on May 15, 2019, 08:17:47 PM
      It was a pleasure to lose money with you bitmark, thank you.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on May 16, 2019, 06:03:14 AM
      These explorers are running:

      http://explorer.bitmark.co  
      http://explorer.bitmark.io/
      https://chainz.cryptoid.info/marks/


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on May 16, 2019, 01:34:38 PM
      What is this:

      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143885 ?

      Did I miss something?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on May 23, 2019, 06:46:34 PM
      What is this:

      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143885 ?

      Did I miss something?

      Can't follow that link ...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on May 25, 2019, 06:18:06 AM
      What is this:

      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143885 ?

      Did I miss something?

      Can't follow that link ...


      Good to see it removed. It was an (obviously faked) ANN for MARKS, probably spreading some malware.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on May 30, 2019, 01:18:04 PM
      The excellent explorer at

      https://chainz.cryptoid.info/marks/

      is running as well !


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on May 30, 2019, 01:38:27 PM
      Working Exchanges:

      https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC    (Buys @  65 satoshis)

      https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_BTM/   (Buys @ 40 satoshis)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Mariia_BT on May 30, 2019, 02:20:21 PM
      How's the bitmark project going?
      Let's go to the moon?
      most probably now nobody can say that. this will be visible in the future. the team's results will show it. If the work is good, then we will see a high price.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 01, 2019, 09:42:22 PM
      How's the bitmark project going?
      Let's go to the moon?
      most probably now nobody can say that. this will be visible in the future. the team's results will show it. If the work is good, then we will see a high price.

      Bitmark is a solid, proven 8 algorithm Proof-of-Work blockchain. It launched in July of 2014 without a pre-mine  and was *not* an ICO.     Just like Bitcoin, it is an honest, mined PoW blockchain cryptocurrency and digital asset.  

      Its  focus and reason for being is to facilitate and develop marking applications.
      In this role it was very succesful when used in the original Poloniex troll box.

      Technically, Bitmark has evolved, and is now secured by 7 additional PoW algos, all merge-mineable, in addition to the original SCrypt algorithm, (also now merge-mineable).    Mining / Transaction processing rewards are now very de-centralized, and the blockchain flows securely, smoothly and regularly.

      Bitmark is currently traded a https://novaexchange.com  and https://qtrade.io

      The team focusing now on building marking features to deliver on the original vision of the project.



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: rushmybitcoin on June 01, 2019, 10:49:23 PM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 03, 2019, 05:27:05 PM
      ...I sold all my coins and invested in better projects. I lost so much money with bitmark!

      Sorry that you decided to bow out.  Bitmark is very much alive, you can verify easily the health and strength of the blockchain:
      https://chainz.cryptoid.info/marks/#!extraction (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/marks/#!extraction)   <--- this shows how decentralized Bitmark mining is, a hallmark of healthy coin.
      The largest single miner accounts for only about 15% of Bitmarks mined.  Mining is very distributed.

      With the decline of bitcoin price which followed the peak in late 2017 early 2018, most altcoins took a big hit, and we were no exception.

      In regards to investing, these are interesting words of wisdom:


      https://davisetfs.com/investor_education/quotes

      https://www.indianafutures.com/pages/custom.php?id=19889


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 07, 2019, 02:44:29 PM
      Iquidus Bitmark Explorer
      has been updated

      http://explorer.bitmark.io/


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 15, 2019, 04:55:09 PM
      The Classic . . .  

      Bitmark Paper Wallet Generator (http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/)


      http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/ (http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/)

      Source Code: https://github.com/project-bitmark/paper-wallet

      ¡ Enjoy !


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on June 18, 2019, 03:07:23 PM
      The Classic . . .  

      Bitmark Paper Wallet Generator (http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/)


      http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/ (http://explorer.bitmark.one/paper-wallet/)

      Source Code: https://github.com/project-bitmark/paper-wallet

      ¡ Enjoy !
      Trollbox  poloniex https://medium.com/circle-trader/trollbox-is-back-a458e3ec58df


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on June 20, 2019, 08:11:35 PM
      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: TeamBitmark on June 21, 2019, 12:24:22 AM
      Very Much alive guys...we have more community interest than we have had in quite some time....feel strongly about our ability to thrust ourselves out of this market rut


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Jamie37 on June 25, 2019, 04:14:26 PM
      What's Bitmark? Why did price spike last days? Something is happening?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 25, 2019, 05:40:55 PM
      Nice rise in haspower for  some algos.

      http://explorer.bitmark.co/plots.week/

      https://i.imgur.com/VtqiloC.png


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on June 25, 2019, 06:45:03 PM
      This coin is undervalued.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dez82 on June 26, 2019, 11:23:53 PM
      Where are all the equihash miners? Network Hashrate is 0H/s


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Juchee on June 28, 2019, 05:17:47 PM
      This coin is undervalued.
      I've gotten lucky a few times and I'm still refining and trying out. Pump-and-dump scheme.

      See: https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_BTM/


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on June 29, 2019, 05:26:53 PM
      Looks like an arbitrage opportunity...

      NovaExchange.com has some MARKS for sale below 700 sats, and there is a buy order on qTrade.io for 810 sats. That's more that 10% differential.

      Nova: https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_BTM/
      qTrade: https://qtrade.io/market/BTM_BTC


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: clpedev on June 29, 2019, 10:33:55 PM
      Thank you  ;)


      Title: Bitmark on Coinmarketcap.com has disappeared.
      Post by: c r y p t o n i n j a on June 29, 2019, 11:33:22 PM
      Hi,

      why we can't see Bitmark on https://coinmarketcap.com/ ?
      It has dissappeared!  :o

      cryptoninja





      Feel free to fill my bags if you don't need your coins  ;)

      MARKS Wallet:
      bUXf1KAQGeEg62Fq86DNeXTJYziL8dGx6u

      BTC Wallet:
      36Mnwfc5w6Hk7wXH1VTP7HEtz9PdrBswFe
      [/sub]





      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Heno1974 on June 30, 2019, 05:22:09 PM
      bitmark solo pool?
      equihash


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 02, 2019, 04:32:31 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on July 03, 2019, 02:17:50 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
      Loser ;D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 03, 2019, 04:56:45 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
      Loser ;D
      Fuck you! Bitmark is a scam - shitcoin. Fuck your pump & dump scheme.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: clpedev on July 03, 2019, 06:57:44 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
      Loser ;D
      With this attitude to users, you will be difficult to earn the next pump  >:(


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 08, 2019, 02:28:16 AM
      It's an open market for all crypto. It's usually a wild ride. Look at bitcoin. Up to nearly $20,000 USD - then down to $3,000. Now $11,000. But overall, patience is called for to see good returns.

      You haven't lost unless you sell.  Why get upset when there is a low price "sale" ? Rather, take advantage of the weak hands and average down your holding price by acquiring some more.

      And please remember, Bitmark is an open source volunteer project. You can help the project and the value of the coin with your time, work & energy.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on July 09, 2019, 10:21:29 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :) 


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 14, 2019, 04:59:48 PM
      Happy 5th Anniversary !

      Bitmark

      Quote
      The genesis block has been found, with a timestamp of 18:00:41, and the message "13/July/2014, with memory of the past, we look to the future."


      Title: Re: Bitmark on Coinmarketcap.com has disappeared.
      Post by: dbkeys on July 14, 2019, 10:56:13 PM
      Hi,

      why we can't see Bitmark on https://coinmarketcap.com/ ?
      It has dissappeared!  :o

      cryptoninja

      ....



      It's still there, but they apparently have removed it from the search feature.... what gives ?

      https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitmark/ (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitmark/)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Redcapp on July 15, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
      Be aware. dbkeys is a scammer.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 16, 2019, 08:14:52 AM
      Be aware. dbkeys is a scammer.
      How so ?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Redcapp on July 17, 2019, 06:13:35 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :) 
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Red pipes on July 20, 2019, 02:13:58 PM
      It was a pleasure to lose money with you bitmark, thank you.
      Hahahahahaha, I told you brother these guys are scammers  :D Nova will delist bitmark soon.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 21, 2019, 02:37:51 AM
      Attack of the 1 post Newbies ... LOL  ...  Newbies with practically the same "Red" name.  Like watching sock puppets on Sesame Street ...



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on July 22, 2019, 07:12:09 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :) 
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Red pipes on July 23, 2019, 02:35:40 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :) 
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      You're being scammed. LMAO. It isn't going to happen again that's why they call it "exit scam".  :D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 23, 2019, 06:27:35 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      You're being scammed. LMAO. It isn't going to happen again that's why they call it "exit scam".  :D
      I think so. I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam" and this looks completely same. Look at the chart. First a big jump (1000 sats), second a small jump (100 sats) and third, it will die... Don't even buy this shit. Don't get scammed. You're going to think it will happen again but no my friend. It won't. You won't see a big jump (1000) again.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Monrral on July 24, 2019, 05:07:08 AM
      im mining bitmarks and i have 125k bitmarks and want to dump.no access to nova exchange. anyone willing to do otc trade?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Redcapp on July 25, 2019, 02:40:41 AM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      You're being scammed. LMAO. It isn't going to happen again that's why they call it "exit scam".  :D
      I think so. I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam" and this looks completely same. Look at the chart. First a big jump (1000 sats), second a small jump (100 sats) and third, it will die... Don't even buy this shit. Don't get scammed. You're going to think it will happen again but no my friend. It won't. You won't see a big jump (1000) again.
      agree. i lost so much money. bitmark is shit. SCAM


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on July 25, 2019, 08:24:35 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 25, 2019, 10:23:23 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      So what? I run a bitcoin news site since 2012 (not english) I think you are dbkeys. You have many accounts here and those are fake bids. You put them so you can sell your shit at a higher price. You're manipulating people.

      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on July 27, 2019, 02:28:22 PM
      This coin is undervalued.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 27, 2019, 10:29:31 PM
      This coin is undervalued.
      I agree.

                                 Bitmark

                                         "",_o\
                               !       ( (  _)
                               `\ ,,,,_`),)=~
                                (    V8    )
                                 ,   ,,,,  ,
         _+_+_+_+_     ) ,)   < (
                                < <      ",\
                                 ",)      "_)

      The Bitmark chain flows smooth & securely, pulled by a "V8" mPoW Algo suite ;)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 27, 2019, 10:56:10 PM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back



      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 28, 2019, 06:23:38 PM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back


      Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Redcapp on July 28, 2019, 06:34:12 PM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back


      Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!
      Sell it.. Never see 1000 sats again you shouldn't buy at 900 sats dude


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 29, 2019, 10:21:30 AM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back


      Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!
      Sell it.. Never see 1000 sats again you shouldn't buy at 900 sats dude

      @Deathnotei: If you bought bitcoin at $1000 in December of 2014 you would be whining the same way all through 2015 and 2016. But if you had patience and held until now, you would be amply rewarded.  You're simply dense if you think I've spent all this time and energy to sell my Bitmark position that low. :D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 29, 2019, 09:02:39 PM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back


      Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!
      Sell it.. Never see 1000 sats again you shouldn't buy at 900 sats dude

      @Deathnotei: If you bought bitcoin at $1000 in December of 2014 you would be whining the same way all through 2015 and 2016. But if you had patience and held until now, you would be amply rewarded.  You're simply dense if you think I've spent all this time and energy to sell my Bitmark position that low. :D

      What idiot would buy at this price? We will never see 1k sats ever again. Anyone buying this shitcoin is delusional and you are a scammer.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 30, 2019, 07:55:48 AM
      im mining bitmarks and i have 125k bitmarks and want to dump.no access to nova exchange. anyone willing to do otc trade?

      Do you have access to qTrade.io ?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: dbkeys on July 30, 2019, 07:56:57 AM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: akrmn on July 30, 2019, 11:06:00 AM
      Looks like more pollution by unverfiable newbie accounts...Anyway Bitmark is not meant as a get rich quick scheme. We (myself and some other people in the community) are working on some interesting new tech (not shown in the GitHub activity), and currently have an OpenTimestamps timestamping service you can check out: https://calendar.bitmark.one. If anyone wants to help to make this service more useable with an easy to use web interface, let me know.

      And yes, I am the user "onelineproof" (not a newbie) account as you can verify with previous posts or ask me more proof and I will give it. My passwords were lost a while ago so I have to use this account.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on July 30, 2019, 11:37:05 AM
      from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
      Quote
      I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary.  How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro.  And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
      He replied, "I thought the fork was QE".  In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM.  We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals.  This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us.  We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
      I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data.  We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.

      Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
      The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.

      This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
      People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that  a second version can capitalize on that.
      CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )

      The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .    

      I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back


      Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!
      Sell it.. Never see 1000 sats again you shouldn't buy at 900 sats dude

      @Deathnotei: If you bought bitcoin at $1000 in December of 2014 you would be whining the same way all through 2015 and 2016. But if you had patience and held until now, you would be amply rewarded.  You're simply dense if you think I've spent all this time and energy to sell my Bitmark position that low. :D

      All questions are logically answered!!!
      Thanks, dbkeys!
      And ...
      I have trading BTM since 2016-2017 (Poloniex) and remember price about 20 000 -50 000 sat . I"m not glad to see level 100-200 sat , but this is THE WORLD OF CRYPTO!!! For example, BSD, LBC , NXT, NLC2   are a very good coins as for me. But they are at low level now too ...
      Exactly , BTM is not a scam!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 30, 2019, 04:15:12 PM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on July 30, 2019, 07:34:15 PM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.
      Pathetic, broke loser. ;D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: clpedev on July 30, 2019, 07:55:14 PM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.
      How much can you whine? The price was 30 sat, now 90 sat, 300% is bad?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 30, 2019, 08:20:12 PM
      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.
      How much can you whine? The price was 30 sat, now 90 sat, 300% is bad?
      You're a fucking stupid. There is no volume. Keep waiting for 1000 sats. Fucking sheep.  :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: clpedev on July 30, 2019, 08:43:19 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
      Loser ;D
      With this attitude to users, you will be difficult to earn the next pump  >:(

      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.
      How much can you whine? The price was 30 sat, now 90 sat, 300% is bad?
      You're a fucking stupid. There is no volume. Keep waiting for 1000 sats. Fucking sheep.  :)
      I will wait. It is a pity that you do not know how to trade on the scheme pump and dump.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 30, 2019, 11:01:47 PM
      I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
      Loser ;D
      With this attitude to users, you will be difficult to earn the next pump  >:(

      Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.

      Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
      And today was good movement on Nova!

      Thanks for your support guys !  It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
      How many 'fake accounts' do you have to shill your shit here? We know bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. You're manipulating people to sell your shit at higher price. Greedy fuck.
      How much can you whine? The price was 30 sat, now 90 sat, 300% is bad?
      You're a fucking stupid. There is no volume. Keep waiting for 1000 sats. Fucking sheep.  :)
      I will wait. It is a pity that you do not know how to trade on the scheme pump and dump.
      Idiot. Dbkeys is manipulating you. Bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again. Stupid sheep.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 31, 2019, 04:11:45 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on July 31, 2019, 05:19:57 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 31, 2019, 05:59:25 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?
      Dbkeys has manipulated me and dumped on me. I have bought this shit at 800 sats. I'm really angry and wanna protect others. This guy is a scammer. >:(


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: psycodad on July 31, 2019, 06:51:01 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?
      Dbkeys has manipulated me and dumped on me. I have bought this shit at 800 sats. I'm really angry and wanna protect others. This guy is a scammer. >:(

      I certainly understand your frustration, but dbkeys is not bitmarks - bitmarks is a community including all hodlers, miners and other stakeholders - which includes you and me as well.
      This thread is for all sorts of discussions revolving around bitmarks and if you open a well detailed and well documented thread in Scam Accusations board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) and link to the post here, most of us will certainly consider your statements carefully.  But just repeatedly shouting in very big letters doesn't help you and your cause, it rather disproves any point you might have and paints you as one of the many lunatics here. Nor will it help bitmarks (I somehow read you want it back at 0.00007 BTC where it was in Apr 2018, to make a nice profit),

      Anyway, if alts ever pump again like in early 2018, bitmarks will surely be among them, but nobody knows that right now - high profit opportunities are high risk investments.





      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on July 31, 2019, 06:59:06 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?
      Dbkeys has manipulated me and dumped on me. I have bought this shit at 800 sats. I'm really angry and wanna protect others. This guy is a scammer. >:(

      I certainly understand your frustration, but dbkeys is not bitmarks - bitmarks is a community including all hodlers, miners and other stakeholders - which includes you and me as well.
      This thread is for all sorts of discussions revolving around bitmarks and if you open a well detailed and well documented thread in Scam Accusations board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) and link to the post here, most of us will certainly consider your statements carefully.  But just repeatedly shouting in very big letters doesn't help you and your cause, it rather disproves any point you might have and paints you as one of the many lunatics here. Nor will it help bitmarks (I somehow read you want it back at 0.00007 BTC where it was in Apr 2018, to make a nice profit),

      Anyway, if alts ever pump again like in early 2018, bitmarks will surely be among them, but nobody knows that right now - high profit opportunities are high risk investments.




      No, I've already sold that shit. I'm sure it'll never see 1k sats ever again. I got scammed and help other people to not buy this shit.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on July 31, 2019, 08:22:57 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?
      Dbkeys has manipulated me and dumped on me. I have bought this shit at 800 sats. I'm really angry and wanna protect others. This guy is a scammer. >:(

      I certainly understand your frustration, but dbkeys is not bitmarks - bitmarks is a community including all hodlers, miners and other stakeholders - which includes you and me as well.
      This thread is for all sorts of discussions revolving around bitmarks and if you open a well detailed and well documented thread in Scam Accusations board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) and link to the post here, most of us will certainly consider your statements carefully.  But just repeatedly shouting in very big letters doesn't help you and your cause, it rather disproves any point you might have and paints you as one of the many lunatics here. Nor will it help bitmarks (I somehow read you want it back at 0.00007 BTC where it was in Apr 2018, to make a nice profit),

      Anyway, if alts ever pump again like in early 2018, bitmarks will surely be among them, but nobody knows that right now - high profit opportunities are high risk investments.




      No, I've already sold that shit. I'm sure it'll never see 1k sats ever again. I got scammed and help other people to not buy this shit.
      Well, if you sold, get out of here. ;D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Red pipes on July 31, 2019, 08:54:26 PM
      Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.

      We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
      May we ask you to move on now?
      Dbkeys has manipulated me and dumped on me. I have bought this shit at 800 sats. I'm really angry and wanna protect others. This guy is a scammer. >:(

      I certainly understand your frustration, but dbkeys is not bitmarks - bitmarks is a community including all hodlers, miners and other stakeholders - which includes you and me as well.
      This thread is for all sorts of discussions revolving around bitmarks and if you open a well detailed and well documented thread in Scam Accusations board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) and link to the post here, most of us will certainly consider your statements carefully.  But just repeatedly shouting in very big letters doesn't help you and your cause, it rather disproves any point you might have and paints you as one of the many lunatics here. Nor will it help bitmarks (I somehow read you want it back at 0.00007 BTC where it was in Apr 2018, to make a nice profit),

      Anyway, if alts ever pump again like in early 2018, bitmarks will surely be among them, but nobody knows that right now - high profit opportunities are high risk investments.




      No, I've already sold that shit. I'm sure it'll never see 1k sats ever again. I got scammed and help other people to not buy this shit.
      Well, if you sold, get out of here. ;D
      bitmark is shit


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on August 01, 2019, 08:18:25 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on August 01, 2019, 08:46:02 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...
      Sheep. It'll drop back to 10 sats.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on August 01, 2019, 09:00:00 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...
      Sheep. It'll drop back to 10 sats.

      loser


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on August 01, 2019, 09:02:01 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...
      Sheep. It'll drop back to 10 sats.

      loser
      Sheep. Bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Grendew on August 01, 2019, 09:10:50 PM
      Which idiot is selling at 1500 sats. Let it ride this time. Let it gain fomo and momentum will take it to 15k sats. Dont be a retard and keep squashing this coin before people hear about it. Give it time. Accumulate at these low prices and hold. In few months we can be in dollar range, especially with new exchange listings.

      Dont be fooled by the fud. This bull market will continue, and alts will pump again. Plenty of shitcoins already 5mil 10mil marketcap. Bitmark is only 50k mcap. Lol. 50 thousand dollars! Think about that. Even 1500 sats is a bargain.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on August 01, 2019, 09:12:26 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...
      Sheep. It'll drop back to 10 sats.

      loser
      Sheep. Bitmark will never see 1k sats ever again.
      Don't cry, loser.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: boltalka on August 01, 2019, 09:15:11 PM
      This coin is greatly underestimated, soon there will be new listings and new growth, buy before it's too late


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on August 02, 2019, 12:02:40 AM
      I'm absolutely sure this was exit scam. Don't think that you'll see 1k ever again. :)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Grendew on August 02, 2019, 03:45:45 AM
      Dont be fooled by the fud. Bitmark price will break 1000 sats.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on August 03, 2019, 08:32:52 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...

      BTM hit 750 sat! O-o-o!!!
      Where is noise about scam?
      8) ;D


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Grendew on August 03, 2019, 09:07:55 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...

      BTM hit 750 sat! O-o-o!!!
      Where is noise about scam?
      8) ;D

      8)

      Bitmark will break 1000 sats.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on August 03, 2019, 09:42:03 PM
      The sheep get slaughtered. :) I'm sorry for you. It isn't going to happen again. Scam. Period.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Red pipes on August 04, 2019, 08:10:52 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...

      BTM hit 750 sat! O-o-o!!!
      Where is noise about scam?
      8) ;D

      https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_BTM/

      L M F A O

      BID (BTC): 0.00000207
      ASK (BTC): 0.00000498

       :D

      Pump & dump scheme.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on August 19, 2019, 12:18:31 PM
      Yes, it"s trade range.
      It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell) :)  
      An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. :)
      I have my own view!
      So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving ! :)
      It looks like we are at beginning ...
      Posted by: Deathnotei
      I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
      And Activity: 2  lol

      So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market :)
      O, we have nice news!  BTM hit 420 sat! It looks like I was right ...:)
      We were at the beginning ...

      BTM hit 750 sat! O-o-o!!!
      Where is noise about scam?
      8) ;D

      https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_BTM/

      L M F A O

      BID (BTC): 0.00000207
      ASK (BTC): 0.00000498

       :D

      Pump & dump scheme.
      I told you. It is a scam and 1000 sats isn't going to happen again. Do not believe those scammers.


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: fraazi on August 23, 2019, 07:25:06 PM
      Do I need to have an old BCT account to take part in your bounty program?


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on August 27, 2019, 01:59:02 PM
      It"s a good time to accumalate more BTM, guys !!!


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: Deathnotei on September 01, 2019, 01:42:44 PM
      It"s a good time to accumalate more BTM, guys !!!
      It's done. It'll not pump again and most of altcoins will die soon. 2017 is over. Buy bitcoin only.  ;)


      Title: Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
      Post by: AlUz on September 14, 2019, 07:43:23 PM
      It"s a good time to accumalate more BTM, guys !!!
      Okey! My bags are full! It's time to go to top border of trade range!!!!