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. |
|
|
|
It just occurred to me that something very important is missing from this thread.
Define economic growth.
Excellent point. Also: define inflation (there's monetary inflation and price inflation) Growth is usually measured by GDP And inflation measured by CPI and PPI How reliable do people here think those numbers are? The ones used by academic economists. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
is there any news on mining pool/s? I would like to direct some steady hashrate.
I would seriously suggest that you consider PMing MineP.it (on here) as I know that he works with devs...
So far I know miningpool.co has intentions of adding support on release. I can speak to MineP.it, or you can, or bring him here  4. we will be able to launch any time from tomorrow
I would give at least 48 hours from the official announcement to the time mining starts. You don't want anyone screaming "Ninja Launch," either. the difficulty re-targets every 720 blocks (1 day)
I would urge you to reconsider this. This is how coins get hash-raped. Something like KGW/DigiShield/DGW would protect from this. There have been coins with lower hashrates that have actually had to fork just to get past a block after being hash-raped. Considering the coin has a decent starting difficulty, zero value, no exchanges, potentially no pools, and doesn't expect to have any value or exchanges for a long time, do you think these things are still a concern? My own original rationale was that Bitmark is crafted in such a way that the usual MINE DUMP can not happen, since there is no value, and so no concern. edit: The next post covers this in more detail. The first release serves one purpose, to allow early adopters and those contributing to the project to slowly get the network going and prove it is in fact stable and good code, whilst we work on the important things which give value to the coin, once they are happening then we may reasonably expect a natural rise in hashing power, and perhaps some value. Remember, the first release is just a rebranded bitcoin, fully tested, converted to scrypt, and with a different block chain configuration. That itself has no real value other than as a code base for some other projects to use. 1) Miningpool.co - great! EDIT: (that's a sincere Great! - looked a little sarcastic on reading back!) 2) MineP.it - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=298616I have PMd and emailed the dev at MineP.it - hopefully he will respond. Whilst you have set out very reasonably the issues of MINE DUMP, and I agree that there will be no value, there is a general trend for miners to jump on a new coin launch just because it may have some value and they want to 'get in on it'... just be aware that your worthy ethics and philosophy are not widespread in the profit hungry shark / whale infested waters that make up the crypto sea... Well it will be interesting to see what happens. That's for sure. If someone ends up accumulating a large amount of Bitmark from mining then they now have incentive to see Bitmark succeed. So maybe that will draw in some new supporters who can help out. |
|
|
|
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. Oh, yeah. I think I remember this happening a while ago to a SHA256 altcoin when ASICs were first released around a year ago. It was so bad that the time between blocks basically crippled the network. In that case I think it was a personal vendetta being taken out on the developer or something. (I think it was Lukejr who did the attack, but I'm not 100% sure) In our case I think(and hope) that something like that is pretty unlikely to happen to us. But it's good that cryptozim brought it up because things like that are definitely something to keep in mind. |
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
One huge issue that pops up with name based systems is phishing. Where as phishing with bitcoin addresses is much more difficult. I guess someone could try create a vanity gen address that copies the first few letters of an address or something. But I haven't heard of that happening yet.
|
|
|
|
I would urge you to reconsider this. This is how coins get hash-raped. Something like KGW/DigiShield/DGW would protect from this. There have been coins with lower hashrates that have actually had to fork just to get past a block after being hash-raped.
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? |
|
|
|
When I deal with bigger amounts. (Big for me is anything over .1 lol.) I tend to double check the first and last few characters just to make sure its correct after pasting. Its never not been correct but the first time I don't check will be the first time I send coin to the wrong address. Its just my luck Yep. I always check the first and last characters. The odds of it being the the wrong address with the name characters in those positions are pretty high. |
|
|
|
screw ipo. The truth is: when dev cries for money from minute 1 he is likely to wrong guy.
You need people with the right spirit. They are very few. Maybe 1% or 2% of devs.
If the dev delivers something of value he'll be making money from the coins he mined, bought and gets donated.
There is no need for an ipo ever.
The thing is not everyone is a miner. I'm not a miner. What should I do? It seems a lot of people are seeing the letters 'IPO' in the title and putting their blinders on. The point of the thread is to discuss alternatives to the traditional IPO. If the dev mines a lot of coins by himself, people will scream 'ninja launch!'. Even when there is lots of prior announcement. If there is an IPO anyone who is involved in mining will call it 'unfair' by default. If there is a premine of any sort people will automatically consider that a 'scam'. So the question is, is this a better option or not? |
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see how the network sorts itself out since we're in a sort of transition period now between GPUs and ASICs in scrypt.
One thing that could happen at one point in the future is if Litecoin's popularity wanes and the price drops to the point where it's not very profitable to mine with all these new ASICs that have been manufactured and Bitmark is sustaining itself by then, we could see some migration.
|
|
|
|
i'm not even sure.. i hated my philosophy teacher in college, since he was kind of avant garde and just ranted about nonsense that no one else understood. it's probably just convoluted logical thinking about the ethos of man.
Your school probably had a continental philosophy department. That's the outdated style. Modern analytical philosophy based on hard logic and attempting to understand what knowledge is(epistemology) is where most schools are at now. |
|
|
|
I assume everybody now understands that money printing effectively is the money printers skimming value from all holders of money.
People are contempt with a small yearly rise in prices. We adjust for it almost without thinking. When you negotiate your salary, you just assume that an inflation adjustment is accepted, the question is what more. The same with prices. The traders offering prices, more or less automatically adjust for inflation first, then he thinks about should he go more or less whatever he thinks the market can take.
The inflation is internalized.
Measuring inflation is fundamentally impossible. Since the goal of all activity is consumption, only consumer goods and services are included. Traditionally a basket of goods were bought, and then prices compared year on year. But as the world changes, some of the wares in that basket will be irrelevant, and important new goods has to be included. So after a number of years, the basket has to be changed. Then there is the individual preferences, each person sees the the price changes of the goods he tends to buy.
The inflation is thus not really measurable.
The public does not understand what is the input parameters to the value of money. They think it has something to do with the strong innovation, a great country, a strong military, hard working people, or whatever. In reality it is the supply of money, and the demand to hold money that decides the value.
The public will always underestimate future inflation.
Since inflation is internalized, it stops working. There is therefore room to accelerate it. And since it is unmeasurable, there is the possibility to hide it in fake indexes. Eventually they see that they personally can buy less. They do not understand why, and therefore they might think that prices may go down. Therefore, the inflation will always increase, and the public will always be surprised.
This is the psychology of inflation. This is seen in historical hyperinflation episodes.
Refer to "When money dies" by Adam Ferguson. I was pointed at the book somewher on this forum (have not finished reading it).
Why does changing the basket of goods to keep it updated mean that inflation is unmeasurable? Isn't that logical? you compare different things. Was your granddad richer than you? Maybe he had horses. How do yo compare his horses to your car? But it's gradual and you can compare lots of different things. Plus there's things like gold which are always going to be the same. Do you think the inflation rate of the US dollar in the last hundred years that is commonly quoted is wildly inaccurate? You can only make an estimate. Yeah, but at least you have a good general idea of what the rate of inflation has been. Plus you can see with your own eyes how things are getting expensive in your day to day life. So it's nice to have a good estimate to go with what you're already seeing anyway. Over the long run you are able to measure the rate of inflation. There are many financial products that are linked to the inflation rate. Plus you can still compare different things over time like transportation costs like OP mentioned. You could figure out the marginal cost per kilometer or whatever between a horse and a car. Just because two things are different doesn't mean they can't be compared when they are used for the same purpose. |
|
|
|
Stability doesn't have anything to do with market cap, but the distribution of coins.
If the market cap is 1 trillion, but there are still whales with considerable amount of btc then they will be able to crash the markets.
I wouldn't say it doesn't have anything to do with market cap, but that both things are issues related to stability. The larger the market cap the more money it's going to take to move the market on a day to day basis. But yes, someone who holds a large percentage of coins will have the ability to crash the market in most cases unless the buy support is incredibly large. But when the market cap is higher, people who have the ability to manipulate the price will have less of an incentive to do so as they have more to lose. Also people who have existing amounts of bitcoin would have less incentives to try to crash the price as they now have a lot more to lose. Right. Unless they receive some non public information or early public information that might want to cause them to sell all their coins at once. Like some sort of government crackdown or major technical issue. If they feel that they would lose more by holding then that's one situation where they might have more to gain by unloading all their coins at once. |
|
|
|
Reverse-IPO sounds unfair and meaningless to the investors, why don't they rent miner rig themselves but take more risk and get just 95% coins, if there are big Scrypt miners rolling into the pool, they will take more risk. I don't think you can raise any BTC via reverse-IPO.
I agree that there is lots of risk in this scenario. A couple of big pools could easily crush the reverse-IPO group's hashing efforts. |
|
|
|
|
I think projectbitmark.com is a decent domain for now as it describes the current state. Like you said other domains can always be purchased at a later date, even once that are already taken can be negotiated for if we feel they are worth it from a branding perspective at some point.
bitmark.net as was mentioned would be great too as it is a network. but that appears to be taken as well.
|
|
|
|
I think we have too many coins already. Initial funding should be harder, not easier.
I don't think it's about making anything easier. It's about fairness and transparency. If you did a word map of all the posts on this forum you'd probably end up with some giant words like: "Premine", "Instamine", "Unfair distribution", "ScamCoin" etcetera. People are constantly complaining and arguing about fairness in alternative cryptocurrencies. So this thread is a continuation of those discussions linked in the OP where myself and others were attempting to figure out ways that fixed costs could be addressed in a fair manner. And the discussion is continuing here but at this point there is no definitive answer. So there is lots more room for discussion here. The method in OP doesn't make it easier to fund coins. I see it as making it harder since in the interest of fairness more work and significantly more risk has to be taken on by people who fund(since they are not just purchasing a stake as they would in an IPO). But if this is what it takes to make a fair launch then perhaps the community would benefit from exploring ideas such as this. |
|
|
|
1. Unless there is easy access to scrypt ASICs for everyone to rent I worry that one or two individuals who are in possession of those devices before the mass propagation of ASICs to the general public could dominate the hashing. They could use that hashing power for malicious purposes but I think it's more likely that they would just monopolize the mining and probably hoard the coins while waiting for the project to progress.
Or the opposite might happen. So Bitmark gains a little traction and a massive sell whale floats on by and crushes the price of the coin. How do you mitigate this? One thing I have though about is that, at its core, this is a monetary vehicle and a digital one at that. Why can't we toss around the idea of forming a foundation? Dogecoin has a foundation but their philosophy is more altruistic than anything. The idea is to form a "Bitmark Foundation" purely from the standpoint of protecting an asset. How do we do that? We do it in the same way companies do when they believe in the strength of their business, with a stock purchase, or in our case a Bitmark purchase. When whales begin to dump, let's put our money where our mouths are, have the BMF initiate a purchase of the currency and hold it in a public address. How do we fund this? Through the community, of course! The BMF would be formed of community members that pool their moneys and are entitled to a percentage of the publicly available funds. This is just me talking from the lack of sleep but it makes sense to me. I haven't seen any other coin do this but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thoughts? I think for the most part that's going to be unavoidable. I think the intention is just to focus on the long term development of the infrastructure and community and ignore the short term price fluctuations that come with the territory. A foundation might be a good idea at some point since development will need to be funded by donations in the long run it seems. I'm not sure if keeping money set aside to buy on large price dips is the best solution in the long run as if the price goes up as it is intended to all the money that's reserved gets left behind so to speak. I think just letting supply and demand take it's course is the only realistic thing to do. But I've never seen your idea in action before so I'm just speculating here and I'm not sure what is actually the best thing for the coin. But I am a bit weary of trying to create somewhat artificial demand. Although if that money would be buying Bitmark anyway I guess it's not necessarily artificial demand. |
|
|
|
|
Does this have any way to provide long term support for development? The 5% or whatever is decided is something, but that's not going to continue to grow after the mining contracts are all used up and the fund is empty.
After that is it just back to development funded by donations?
|
|
|
|
|
So do people who disagree with developers being compensated for their time also think that Gavin et al should stop being paid to work on Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
