IPO.
There is no IPO, there will be no IPO. Bitmarks have zero value, any value they achieve will be earned, any IPO would mean giving a supposed value to each btm before it is even launched, we can not do that.
What do you mean? Mining? Burning electricity does not give value, you just waste resources and the money spent on mining could be used in a productive way. Value is not "supposed", it is a value given my the market. You will not find a better measure than the market price. Value will be earned by having a stable(technically, not necessarily monetarily) currency built on solid technology over time. Or as coinsolidation has already put it: Technically: Light and stable with a modern codebase, maturing features from the alternative currency sector which benefit users added on a faster timeline than bitcoin. Think of it more as standardization rather than innovation. User focussed: Most development effort and innovation goes in to making bitmark as user friendly, and simple to integrate with, as possible. Adoption: In line with being user focussed, all marketing and outreach will be to potential adopters, such as microtransaction marketplaces. The project is crafted in such a way that encourages all involved to focus on adoption. Earned Value: no hype, no rush to get on exchanges, no ipo, premine, it's not a cash cow, it's a project to make a viable every day currency, any value will be earned. Longevity: 0.250% (max) of the block reward goes to the bitmark development fund, supporting long term dedication to to the project, and future growth as value grows. Distribution: A configuration which aims to ensure fair distribution whilst using proven PoW which has had substantial investment in hardware. So, no hype or gimmicks, just a project which focusses on becoming a stable every day currency. Remember the days when the first bitcoins were gifted to each other, when buying a pizza was a milestone, when it was about developing a useful currency, when we asked how can we get x to use this, rather than what it it be worth tomorrow? this is about getting back to that ethos, whilst recognising the space has moved forward. Project Status: We are close to releasing the first clone-able reference implementation (technically already complete), it's 90% of the bitmark foundation and serves as a modern, tested, codebase which other can fork and use to make their pump and dump clones. They're going to do it so we may as well ensure they're using safe tested code rather than copy and pastes of redundant code. I don't think anyone is under any illusion about energy used on mining somehow inferring any kind of value in Bitmark. |
|
|
|
I believe you are missing a point here: Business miners (mine big, sell quick, take profits and run) are causing, among other good and bad things, decreasing prices and (psychological/market/...) uncertainty
This is bullshit needlessly complicated way of thinking. No matter who mines, there must be demand for the newly created coins. Economically, it does not matter if it is the miner who saves the coins or investor who buys them. Sure but miners who have no interest in the coin and this sell immediately increase available supply and contribute to the overall sell pressure. The demand is fixed in this case. But the miners are incentivized to increase the supply(available supply for sale and not held). |
|
|
|
If it were any other coin with
#1. Large botnets being primary miners, paying known mining coders to write custom code for them to mine
#2. Private custom GPU mining software asking for donations or face inefficiency
the coin would be subject of massive hatorade and calls for abandonment. XMR is getting away because of the network effect. It doesn't make it right and will debated down the road. But it is what it is. These are getting reflected in valuation at the moment. Any pump would mean more heavy selling from existing holders too, because they know they can get back in cheaper.
While I think that wolf0's decision to knowingly write code for botnets is despicable, let me point out the only difference between XMR and a hundred other coins: With XMR, you know that it's happening. The custom GPU miners are not that different from Bitcoin -- after all, to play in the bitcoin mining game, you have to purchase an ASIC. The difference there is that the mining tax is closer to 100% -- or 150%, because most ASICs won't even ROI -- instead of 5%. You're making the same mistake that others have in thinking that the process of mining is more important than it is. Mining mostly matters to miners. As a user, but not miner, of Bitcoin, I could care less whether or not people have to buy custom silicon to mine it, or whether they make or lose money in the process. Some attributes of the mining process matter for the value of coin, such as whether it's easy to 51% attack it, but that's really just saying that the security of the coin is important to users and holders. But beyond that, the distribution of mining, or profits associated therewith, etc., are completely unimportant. Miners are cogs in the coin machine that respond to the incentives created by the developers and the market. Don't ascribe to them mythical powers -- look instead at the underlying money flow. I could not agree more that the whole focus on mining in this community is completely misplaced. The underlying truth behind this is that mining output is approximately constant. It doesn't really matter to anyone other than miners who is mining or how they are mining. The same number of coins are being released onto the market every single day, and the same number will be released every single day in the future regardless of who is mining (to be more precise for XMR-style coins, as opposed to BTC-style coins, a very slightly reduced amount each day). If you are are a user what matters to you is what you can use the coin for (at present, nothing in this case). If you are investor what matters to you is whether other people are investing and how much (which affects the price action) As I have said before, if you want this coin or any coin to appreciate in value, make it more useful. Create applications for it. Use your imagination as to which of these is likely to be profitable in their own right, and you will likely be directly rewarded handsomely for your efforts (in addition to increasing the value of any coin holdings). It isn't really that hard to figure out. I believe you are missing a point here: Business miners (mine big, sell quick, take profits and run) are causing, among other good and bad things, decreasing prices and (psychological/market/...) uncertainty in short to medium term, see BBR, see XMR, see LTC, see the other altcoins. This keeps investors away from a coin. Of course, making easy profit is the logical action from the business point of view. However, for the substainable development of a coin, a reliable environment is most crucial. Without price and network stability (and the continuous support of a rock solid community) it is very unlikely that a broader audience will (ever) spend money and effort on building applications etc that contribute usefulness to the coin, which is what every coin requires in order to get value. So, my point is simple: business miners are effectively counteracting the goal of creating a sound coin economy/environment. They endanger the survival of (good) altcoins, and act a bit like locusts. No one actually needs them. That's an interesting way to put it. I haven't seen it put quite like that before, but I can see where you're coming from. I wonder if this type of attitude is going to become more prevalent as time goes on. |
|
|
|
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher. No, but it helps to use the same set of tools. Mainly logic and avoiding common fallacies. Sure, I would think anyone bothering to make analyses in metaphysics or epistemology should be trained in logic. But one does not need to be an academic for that. Definitely. I didn't mean to imply that someone had to be an academic exclusively. When I wrote "(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy)" I didn't mean only formal study. All the knowledge is out there already. My main point was that if someone was interested in philosophy that they should look to be using the same set of skills that professional philosophers use. Else we end up with philosophy being considered a waste of time and effort like many people in this thread seem to think. I don't think anyone who's truly studied philosophy can say that it has little benefit. Philosophy teaches you how to think. And thinking is required in anything and everything we do. |
|
|
|
A new coin minus greed = satoshis original plan. Good work and the best of luck
Thank you. What stops major hash power from mining at low difficulty, then jumping off when it goes up? Nothing except that they have to wait 720 confirms to get their coins. But when they do that the difficulty goes back down in a day. They mine another coin for that time and when bitmark difficulty drops they hit it again. Accumulating low difficulty coins would be fairly simple, just tedious because they need to switch the miners every difficulty spike.
It might just be unavoidable no matter what it is done. But I'd hope that any of that happening has little to no effect on the long term health of Bitmark. That is my thinking also, we can try to limit the risks of particular actions, but we cannot stop or prevent them. Somebody may add and remove 1GH, dump 10k bitmarks, permanently add 1GH, buy 10k bitmarks.. The more we focus on natural growth in every aspect the project, the harder each of these actions will be. If there are any additional steps we can take, let us discuss them as a community and see if they work. I feel most solutions are to these potential problems are social. For now, nobody can mine or dump. Soon people can mine but have no where to dump, later there may be some value, and some dumping may happen. We can frame any future dumping as distribution, and early adopters taking some reward. Only if we are successful in earning value. I hope those that add a small amount to the project over a long period of time will be rewarded most. Miners included. I think shortly after launch an exchange will add the coin. Smaller exchanges stand to gain a lot by adding new coins because it creates an influx of new users, who may stick around to trade other coins. Has anybody considered a time based rewards system, where your reward is based on the amount of time you spend mining? Rewards are capped at 24 hours/7 days. So all miners who mine 24/7 receive the same reward regardless of hash rate. The problem I see here, is there are no incentives for larger hashrates to join the network, which potentially hurts security. The problem you mentioned is one, and another one is that people can just run hundreds of workers since the power output would be minimal. Even if they had to rent hundreds of IPs. As to the issue with exchanges. Perhaps we can make a polite request that Bitmark is not added to any exchange before the community decides it's time. That's certainly no guarantee but something in writing like that just might dissuade an exchange from ninja listing Bitmark for fear of bad publicity. I feel the 'earned value' part of Bitmark is important and one of if not the core value of the currency. And while coinsolidation has certainly done more than enough work to warrant some value on mined Bitmarks, I still really like the idea of us going in to the project with a zero value currency that will earn its value over time. Impossible as it might be to stop the market from valuing something, the intention should be there. |
|
|
|
Well, I doubt we'll see another financial crisis like the most recent one any time soon. But if we do it's going to be a huge benefit to bitcoin. That's for sure.
If Internet would somehow disintegrate, that would instantly kill Bitcoin. And the odd is higher than most people assume. Maybe. But why do you say that specifically? |
|
|
|
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
IMO, that distinction is not always clear. Certainly, one does not need to be an academic to be a prolific thinker/philosopher. No, but it helps to use the same set of tools. Mainly logic and avoiding common fallacies. |
|
|
|
There are many bitcoin startups in the past, but mostly in the gambling sector. Now we are going to see more serious ones, hopefully some will revolutionise the bitcoin ecosystem. We had the dotcom boom, this is the bitcoin boom.
Hopefully that will be the case. It will be interesting to see what happens. That's for sure. |
|
|
|
What happens exactly, someone targets a large amount of hashrate at the coin which solves blocks at a much faster rate than the target? And then it goes until the difficulty adjusts, in this case one day?
If this happens, blocks are mined faster until the difficulty increases, if the hashing power is then removed the chain runs slower for a while until another 720 blocks have passed. If the hashing power isn't removed then the chain is just getting stronger. However, Bitmark is setup so that non of the coins minted are mature until 720 blocks later, after the difficulty has changed again, so somebody who did this wouldn't get the coins for quite some time. More importantly, the coins and chain has no value, it doesn't matter if it runs slow for a while, nobody has any need to be transferring valueless coins unless they are testing the code. There is no exchange, and even when there is nobody can mine coins today and dump them today, they have to wait another day yet before they can be spent, then wait for them to transfer. If they "rape" the coin, it could be two days before they get the coins to spend, by which time the price could have dropped considerably due to their own actions. Thus we try to avoid this, and by the time it is of a concern and Bitmarks have any value, we should have a reasonable network hash rate and stable chain such that impact from a multipool or private entity with lots of hash power is mitigated. I don't really see how this prevents miners from dumping their coins at the onset. What stops major hash power from mining at low difficulty, then jumping off when it goes up? Nothing except that they have to wait 720 confirms to get their coins. But when they do that the difficulty goes back down in a day. They mine another coin for that time and when bitmark difficulty drops they hit it again. Accumulating low difficulty coins would be fairly simple, just tedious because they need to switch the miners every difficulty spike. Especially considering the chosen PoW is scrypt. There will be some big hash numbers out there now that scrypt asic companies are delivering regularly. Its just a matter of waiting for a place/time to sell the coins. It might just be unavoidable no matter what it is done. But I'd hope that any of that happening has little to no effect on the long term health of Bitmark. |
|
|
|
Inflation is a process and not an event. And it does occur on the export countries.
Housing is actually cheaper in the US than it is in the exporting countries, the reason why you see so many Chinese buying out unsold home in the US and Europe.
Yes this is definitely the case in many parts of the world. Even in some countries that are extremely poor by US standards real estate can often be expensive. Some of the prices for real estate in certain areas in the US is amazingly low. |
|
|
|
regarding xmr - did someone expect that low prices? - I assumed that we find after ATH a new equilibria around 0.005 or at least 0.004
I never expected them to go this low. It is painful and discouraging. Such is the way with downswings. I wouldnt mind wild swings after Monero establishes itself as the #1 privacy coin. But with comp coming from every corner now, boom/busts do more harm then good, the mintpal pump was horrible timing. Where does everyone think the money is going now then? Mostly held in BTC? Money is still going into XMR, otherwise it wouldn't support a price of 0.0028 (or any other price >0). There is just less money going in that there was during periods of higher speculative interest (mintpal pump, etc.) Yeah, but I'm curious as to where people think the excess money is going now. XMR is fairly large now and I'm not sure exactly where people who sold are reinvesting(if they are). For a while it looked like it was going in to Vericoin. But that seems to have cooled off. Unless I'm missing something the whole altcoin pool seems pretty calm at the moment. |
|
|
|
I tend to be sensitive on the hash-rape issue, because I've been mining CasinoCoin off and on Since December, and it has been a huge issue for us.
I have just realized that the IPM proposal addresses this issue. As the investors would also be indirectly mining and providing a percentage of the network power. Any such drop off in hashing would be partially mitigated by the percentage of power provided by the investors. As it is variable, calculated daily to be 35%(tbc) of the needed power, not a limited resource like that of the core miners. This would strengthen the overall value of the coin and it's security, whilst removing the difficulty volatility issue for long term miners. Since the IPM is always open, people could invest as a vote of confidence and rescue the situation for miners and users, whilst earning btm, and while supporting continued development. Miners, investors, and developers all working together with their respected assets.  Yeah, in a way the IPM can act as sort of a defense fund for the coin as well. We already knew that the hashing it provides adds general network security and such. But it can also prevent or mitigate the specific issue of having a someone or some group drive the difficulty up much too high. |
|
|
|
regarding xmr - did someone expect that low prices? - I assumed that we find after ATH a new equilibria around 0.005 or at least 0.004
I never expected them to go this low. It is painful and discouraging. Such is the way with downswings. I wouldnt mind wild swings after Monero establishes itself as the #1 privacy coin. But with comp coming from every corner now, boom/busts do more harm then good, the mintpal pump was horrible timing. Where does everyone think the money is going now then? Mostly held in BTC? |
|
|
|
|
Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. But I think it's important to draw the distinction between a random person who likes to think about life and professional philosophers(or people who have actually studied modern philosophy).
From reading this thread I can tell people in general have a fairly bad impression of what it means to be a philosopher.
|
|
|
|
|
With Mike Hearn's Lighthouse and things like Swarm coming, are we going to see mass funding of promising companies that might change Bitcoin for the better?
Outside of Bitcoin, in Silicon Valley startup incubators like Ycombinator have been attracting some of the smartest young minds to try their hand at starting the next dropbox or heroku. The immediate financial incentives are incredibly small considering the options that a young coder in Silicon Valley has(it changes, but it's probably not more than 20k upfront to each company).
So my question is if we're going to see some of that spill over into the Bitcoin world now that we have some infrastructure being developed that will hopefully enable the free flow of capital to those who deserve it.
I've followed Bitcoin for many years now and Bitcoin 'investments' in general have been wrought with scams and incompetence. Will it be different now?
|
|
|
|
Nice writeup on the current situation. US and many European states getting more and more difficulties to sell their debt to the market. They are forced to use extraordinary mechanisms to keep the system alive for a little longer.
It's just a question of time when this construct will collapse.
What would such a collapse look like at the start? And wouldn't there be measures that could be taken to prevent a collapse? That is assuming they saw it before it was too late. |
|
|
|
either you doing it because you love it or you are doing it because you have a groundbreaking idea that is a gamechanger. If none of that applies you shouldn't release a coin.
sorry for being direct. Investor here. (one of the last survivors probably)
So do you think it's a benefit to Bitcoin that Gavin et al get paid? Or do you think that they should be doing it for free? Remember, developers are a limited resource. With completing incentives(ie they can get paid for other work quite easily). As someone who owns a currency and wishes to to see it succeed(which almost always with one exception involves significant development over time), wouldn't you like to provide the maximum amount of economic incentive to the developers of any coin that you hold? It seems to me that it's a case where interests align, but it seems some people don't see it that way. I can understand people not wanting all the developers remuneration to be front-loaded like it would be in an IPO. It makes sense that you might want something that incentivises continued development and progress. Ideally, donations alone would be more than enough since like I said, holders and developers interests are aligned. But there is risk that donations fall short. As is often seen in the Bitcoin world. Which is why maybe a voluntary automatic system that takes a fixed amount out of (something) over time is good. But it's still hard to come up with a good system. Say you had a coin with a 300 million dollar market cap and you owned a large chunk of your net worth in that coin. Would you not want there to be a team of developers working full time on that project? As there is in Bitcoin? i personally think Gavin is a multimillionaire who owns a lot of BTC from early investing and mining and has more highclass joboffers than he can count. Every day more. Gavin is suited. Developing a successful coin means also to build a reputation which itself is worth a lot of money. I can't comment on Gavin's financial status from jobs before his full time status as lead developer. But he's said that he doesn't own a very large amount of bitcoin. Almost all of his early bitcoin from when mining was easy had been sold off long ago from what he has said. He felt that it was important for him and his family that he was able to earn a steady income from Bitcoin development which was the main reason the foundation was created. |
|
|
|
Anyone like buying BBR every time it drops below 25% of the price of XMR?
And with their dev it's not impossible that BBR could make some progress and exceed the 25% target over time and catch up somewhat to XMR. It would take something wild happening for BBR to reach parity with XMR but 33% is not out of the question, is it?
It's a winner-takes-it-all situation, for which reason BBR is trading at a significant discount. Market sees its chances to overtake XMR as slim. Well, I'm not quite sure how to evaluate that since the BBR emission rate is more front-loaded than XMR. I'd guess the market isn't as skeptical as you might suspect considering that right now there are much more BBR being mined. I'm not sure how to quantify that exactly, but I would say that the market thinks that BBR has a greater than 25% chance in 'succeeding'(murky term). In generally I'm pretty impressed with how much support BBR has gotten. Er, that's backwards - XMR has a much faster initial emission than BBR. Oh, I just looked again and I thought the chart on the BBR thread was a chart of BBR vs XMR but it's a chart of BBR vs Bitcoin emission! Oops. |
|
|
|
I need more BTC... trying to buy a little at a time.. Wish i got in 3 years ago when they were cheap Me too but I thought Bitcoin was just silly gaming shit. What do you mean? What sort of gaming did you think it was? Gambling or something? |
|
|
|
either you doing it because you love it or you are doing it because you have a groundbreaking idea that is a gamechanger. If none of that applies you shouldn't release a coin.
sorry for being direct. Investor here. (one of the last survivors probably)
So do you think it's a benefit to Bitcoin that Gavin et al get paid? Or do you think that they should be doing it for free? Remember, developers are a limited resource. With completing incentives(ie they can get paid for other work quite easily). As someone who owns a currency and wishes to to see it succeed(which almost always with one exception involves significant development over time), wouldn't you like to provide the maximum amount of economic incentive to the developers of any coin that you hold? It seems to me that it's a case where interests align, but it seems some people don't see it that way. I can understand people not wanting all the developers remuneration to be front-loaded like it would be in an IPO. It makes sense that you might want something that incentivises continued development and progress. Ideally, donations alone would be more than enough since like I said, holders and developers interests are aligned. But there is risk that donations fall short. As is often seen in the Bitcoin world. Which is why maybe a voluntary automatic system that takes a fixed amount out of (something) over time is good. But it's still hard to come up with a good system. Say you had a coin with a 300 million dollar market cap and you owned a large chunk of your net worth in that coin. Would you not want there to be a team of developers working full time on that project? As there is in Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
