You do not need to use any of the 1%, you can simply mint more more UNITY, whatever is bought +x% and put the additional in to a fund.

A vote would be useful to gauge the sentiments of your growing community, one would hope nobody would seek to prevent such a thing going forward.

I would have mentioned but you moved really fast, was not aware until too late. To quickly resolve an issue before it arises, we (bitmark) wish not to be part of the supernet (*), but are happy to support any well spirited project with time and thought when we can.

(*) if you would like the reason's as to why I'm happy to expand.

edit: if you want to carry on the conversation I'll try and track your posts between the noise, otherwise please quote and reply on our own thread to keep discussion public (this is one of the reasons, we've worked to have all signal and no noise, joining would change that)

This seems like a unique opportunity to do something good.

I would propose that a percentage of funds raised or minted are send to a community foundation with a multisig wallet, where representatives of each coin included are the key holders, the funds could then be used to sponsor open source work - including critically expert review of libjl777 in the context of security and potential ddos holes, it could also be used to back good causes in the same way.

From the numbers mentioned on the ann, I can see no problem with scraping off 5-10%, or minting an additional 5-10%, for this purpose. It would effectively quantitatively easy the initial distribution also, making it a bit fairer for all.

You are right, we need to devise open alternatives as a service to the wider community, and provide models going forward that do not rely on any one person, and also where the fates of projects are not tied - I (and we) share your thoughts on the matter.

An interesting question, can we devise a system that does both?

There is one such system that we plan to use heavily, the notion of micro trust, by trusting businesses and services which people already trust with smaller amounts of funds, we can utilize them as natural gateways - if any fiat accepting service allows withdrawals and deposits of marks, then they become a little gateway. We hope to initially avoid any AML or gov issues by being dressed as reputation, in the same way bitcoin has problems but facebook credits do not - just distributed rather than a single commercial entity.

I feel that speculators and the existing broad community is already heavily focused on crypto > fiat, it is easy to exit but hard to enter. Thus personally feel that the walls we need to break down are in to the systems not out.

Let me propose something backward: why don't we start by working on the worst and slowest ways to do fiat > crypto, then improve from there - rather than going for optimal solutions straight out. We may learn much along the way, and build up a good set of alternatives.

How should we proceed? We need a collaborative space for those interested to specify and discuss.

We have moved to cold storage wallets for project funds, the new addresses are as follows for future transactions:

Donations: 1KsbYk2rMvwg456PyPmLuEgERPwyuxtGRL
Developer Loans: 17Vy1BM7P6AsqoFmSpWMzdj2aeAKwGW2n3

Can some members of Ora and Bitmark, and the wider community, team up to address this?

From our side consider yourselves to have any resources required - other than funds - we will gladly discuss, specify, and create anything required.

To kick start the effort I would propose the creation of a simple online key sweeper, given any private key (or alias for one) it sweeps the currency associated with the key in to a user supplied address.
Such a thing would serve as a simple framework to allow paper or plastic loaded cards, a receiver simply enters a code online and an address for any wallet, and they have funds within minutes. It can be replicated and made to be pretty later.

We have a new team member Markus - you should follow him on twitter @RobotMarkus.

Markus is our very own hubot integrated in to our team environment on slack to save us time and automate all those repeatable tasks like manage trello, posting tweets, checking the network and markets, and so forth. Markus has great potential and I am sure we will be using him to send marks around the internet soon.

Exactly, invest your time long before your money.

Nothing is up about it, it's very much down.  

Yesterday for example only 1160 BTM were created, less than 10% of what would have been normally.

Very happy about this, we have a very active team which is now in the double digits working daily, hardly any BTM being created, and a low volume market.

It's very healthy if you consider it in terms of currency, you see even with a room full of miners or a bank full of cash, you couldn't acquire enough BTM to become a whale no matter what you tried.
Or if you consider it in terms of a project, there is no noise or distractions, just lots of productivity.

It's nicer to have a busy team environment and an inbox full of interested parties, than a thread full of speculators, shills or noise.

Please do not worry about hashrate or price, we have ensured that both will be relatively stable and grow smoothly when our systems are being used, which is not now as we are creating them.

If anybody feels it's all a little boring, you are perhaps looking at the wrong things - check out our open project management, look at our github, or join in with our team on stack, I can assure you that side is anything but boring, and that's where it matters.

Warmest regards & thank you to all for letting us work without distractions, and to the many who are joining in.

Perhaps not, in earlier threads we explored many different funding models, and ultimately couldn't find any that was fair, so decided to just develop and request donations and see what happened.

Bitmark BTM isn't really the project, it's just the required foundation on which we can build useful things without requiring other projects to change or modify things in order for us to proceed - it's also balanced for our particular needs. One area of work we will do on bitmark is adding a powerful API.

We are creating a global reputation system, you will be familiar with 'likes' and 'upvotes' and 'karma', we have marks. A primary difference is that marks have a limited supply and are passed from person to person through the process of marking. Each mark is a divisible transferable token designed to be earned and passed as reputation from person to person, capturing the associated value, distributing the supply, and reflecting value over time - you earn marks by sharing or creating something people value, and you give marks to others for things they have shared or created.

There is quite a large document covering everything if you'd like to read more, and a growing community who'll answer any questions you may have.

These images may help visually describe what we are making.







The last one is quite subtle, it's a DAC/DA and multisig rolled in to one simple usable thing.

Whoops, there was no IPO, ICO, premine or anything similar. Short version, the only people who have any BTM have mined or bought it.

Thanks! and no, what would the purpose be? I am not familiar with proof of bag hold.

To confirm, tobeaj2mer01's involvement was earlier on, everybody else is fine and happy I do believe! sure hope so.

tobeaj2mer01, what amount do you propose? should we sort it out via email or publicly, i am happy with either what do you feel is fair return.

Sorry! please all reach out to mark@bitmark.co at any point for near instant replies, I don't spend much time on the forum now, all things happen in stack.

tobeaj2mer01, can we agree a suitable amount? I'd be keen to consider us all square.

identifi is one of the critical missing components, it is required and must exist - sirius is a skilled, hard working, and respected.

I would encourage any able developer with any free time to get familiar with the project, and if they subsequently have any motivation then contribute whatever time they can to this project, whether developing, testing, or simply discussing issues.

I for one will do what I can.

Thank you melvster, and also thank you for joining the team, your input and work will prove invaluable to our effort

Thanks, that is exactly it.

Somebody with contacts and your exact mentality is currently working hard to reach out VCs who have future interest in the system we are creating (not the currency btm), perhaps something will come of that.

I quote: "it's a bit fkn annoying that timelines / cash, become so difficult when doing stuff you believe in.  hopefully we can change that paradigm [with marking]".

The irony is that this project provides the funding model for any project like it in the future, in any domain, it's a crowd sourced funding model and reputation system where if you work hard and create things people like, the likes given (marks) directly translate to money which funds what you do organically.

LOL

Let's update as to the status of the project.

Marking is the primary focus and is being discussed intensively outwith this forum, with academics, technology specialists, socio economic specialists, people working on future systems, hackers, institutes, other projects, teams of students - the first primitive usages of marking (through twitter, and irc) are currently being created.

Discussion is mainly around how it will work technically, how it relates to Web of Trust and accountability, how it applies to decentralized autonomous organisations, communities, companies, and how it will utilize identifi among other technologies.

This is the primary part of the project, the primary usage, and sorry but also the part that will bring in funding to allow us to make it all a reality, so it is given precedence.

Outstanding we have:

1. An IPM pool which is 95% complete, it requires some UI elements and integration with ...
2. The bitmark.co website, which is 75% compete, and requires some further work,
3. A user focused website about the daily use marking, this is nearing completion and is to be released with the first usable marking, the twitter integration.

I have written these in chronological order, to the overall project and to maintain progress and enable further progress as our project rapidly evolves, they are required in reverse order.

If marking were to be released right now it would be used by many and spur our project on in multiple interested communities, if bitmark.co was released right now it would be viewed by a few, if the IPM pool were released right now there would be maybe two miners wanting to swap on to it to get some btc, and all investors who would potentially use it would find it cheaper to buy on market.

Scope grows daily, so many people are coming to the project from every corner of the web, and also many people who want to work on it part and full time.

Everything reduces to what is in demand, and bluntly, funding. If we were a well funded project there would be a team of people working round the clock on many different aspects and producing great things, that's in addition to my own productivity increasing substantially - given even quarter of the funding of these IPO scams people are so keen to invest in we'd be one of the most exciting productive and innovative projects on the web, let alone this forum. This is not the case, so please bare with me whilst I (and others) react to demand and have several meetings per day, we are working incredibly hard to create something new with far reaching impact and scope, far beyond the scope of this forum and existing crypto currency userbases, and beyond that of all current alt-coins combined.

I am not in irc all too much these days, mainly because I keep getting netsplits and disconnects, every time I return to my client or the web client it's disconnected - and also as it could be a little distracting.

Myself and other team members are online all day in slack, anybody can join, please send me an email for an invite, (or ask medic or estenuno). It's the nicest chat free from all speculation, just people working and updating.

I can be contacted at mark@bitmark.co any time also, this is the fastest route to me.

Or alternatively you can add me to skype for longer conversations, Mark.Bitmark is my username.

For the quickest responses email mark@bitmark.co at any time - I'm online many hours each day.

tobeaj2mer01 is correct, and is a good man, yet we are also unclear.

Here is our conversation from pm around the time of investment:




Context is important, the messages were discussing the then current funding proposal in it's earliest incarnation:


At the time of investment the marking document he read stated:


Notice there is a discrepancy between both those last quotes, the first equates to 25% returned as BTM, and the second to 20% returned as BTM.

Subsequently tobeaj2mer01 did invest 0.5 BTC.

The issue is that tobeaj2mer01 needs some BTM for his investment, and I have agreed to send him a 'fair' amount of BTM.

But it is unclear whether that should be:

1. 20% (0.1 BTC) worth of BTM
2. 25% (0.125 BTC) worth of BTM
3. 100% (0.5 BTC) worth of BTM

And for each of those at which price point?

As a community what is your understanding after reading that, and what is a fair amount of BTM to be sending back in return for his early investment?

I had been working on the basis of 3, and trying to put anything I could in to acquiring additional BTM to send to tobeaj2mer01 to resolve this.

Hope that helps clarify as to the current status - I will link tobeaj2mer01 here to read this also and comment.

Let us first resolve this, then I will reply to other posts in a separate response.

Warm Regards,

Mark

spent most of last night reviewing identifi from sirius/martti, spoken with him about it all day so far. It seems that our projects have mutual needs, so will be working to have identifi in with marking, which will give us a big open p2p trust network as another backbone for our system