What is an article from many months ago doing showing up as news?
The Coin Telegraph article came out today. |
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------UPDATE-----------------------------------------------
Fibre will be leaving the Blocknet Project.
It is with great regret that I have to inform you Fibre is leaving the Blocknet project. This decision was not easy to make, the reasons being community/investor demand and a change of direction for Fibre in 2015. My opinion of Blocknet has not changed, it will one day be a very successful project. However, I have a duty to look after the interest of our investors and my personal opinion cannot override my decision making for Fibre.
I have built a great working relationships with some of the guys involved and I wish Blocknet and all participating coins all the best in future.
Regards,
Killakem
----We had a great 2014, 2015 is the year Fibre will hit its true potential----
While we're disappointed to hear this news, we respect Killakem's decision and the way in which he has conducted himself. It is, in my opinion, a lamentable fact that holders of a coin are able to influence the strategic partnerships it maintains - and often against the intentions of the core team. We have witnessed this in the run-up to the Blocknet's ITO, with SDC. We are witnessing it again. That said, let me underline the change in Fibre's relation to the Blocknet: - Fibre is still able, at any point and for free - to become Blocknet-enabled. - Any other developer can, at any point, create a Blocknet-enabled Fibre wallet or app. (Github) - Fibre no longer participates in the weekly running of the Blocknet, and they no longer have a say in its development. We welcome Fibre's continued participation on Slack and on Bitcointalk. The Blocknet was created for all crypto and is an open framework. There is no "us vs. them" for the Blocknet. We wish you all the best. |
|
|
|
While we're disappointed to hear this news, we respect Killakem's decision and the way in which he has conducted himself. It is a lamentable fact that holders of a coin are able to influence the strategic partnerships it maintains - and often against the intentions of the core team. We have witnessed this in the run-up to the Blocknet's ITO, with SDC. We are witnessing it again. That said, let me underline the change in Fibre's relation to the Blocknet: - Fibre is still able, at any point and for free - to become Blocknet-enabled. - Any other developer can, at any point, create a Blocknet-enabled Fibre wallet or app. ( Github) - Fibre no longer participates in the weekly running of the Blocknet, and they no longer have a say in its development. We welcome Fibre's continued participation on Slack and on this thread. The Blocknet was created for all crypto and is an open framework. There is no "us vs. them" for the Blocknet. We wish them all the best. |
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------UPDATE-----------------------------------------------
Fibre will be leaving the Blocknet Project.
It is with great regret that I have to inform you Fibre is leaving the Blocknet project. This decision was not easy to make, the reasons being community/investor demand and a change of direction for Fibre in 2015. My opinion of Blocknet has not changed, it will one day be a very successful project. However, I have a duty to look after the interest of our investors and my personal opinion cannot override my decision making for Fibre.
I have built a great working relationships with some of the guys involved and I wish Blocknet and all participating coins all the best in future.
Regards,
Killakem
----We had a great 2014, 2015 is the year Fibre will hit its true potential----
|
|
|
|
|
@starblocks
- You mean about needing to find a way to get the two projects to work together asap?
Yes, I'd welcome ideas on that topic.
|
|
|
|
Boom.  [Click the image to read the rest of the article.]
|
|
|
|
Speaking of dark and light, i always wondered if both sides could work together (supernet and blocknet) but now it seems more extremities have come into play, and these examples may stand for a lifetime unless someone changes them
Personally I'd love to work with them. They're a technically competent and interesting project, and I respect what they're doing. (I don't think they want to work with us, but I'm open.) Furthermore, we'd enhance each other's service offerings if, say, a SuperNET node could offer Blocknet services. IMO we're both incentivised to work together. How about we put an XBridge in the SuperNET? |
|
|
|
You are kidding, right? You have spent this much time 'diligently' forming the incorporated company as being a major milestone for the project, No we haven't. We've spent time doing *market research* and *service creation* and *software development*. but you don't know the answer to questions such as how many blocknet tokens the company owns? Huh? We had an ITO. Tokens were *distributed* to holders. As such, the Blocknet does not own any tokens. Where are you getting this from? Who holds the shares for this Blocknet incorporated company? What name are they in? Surely you can answer that question, as it would have been part and parcel of the formation process. You are jumping the gun. For heaven's sake, presenting a *vision* that includes, as a minor facet, a traditional business component, is not forming a company. Where on earth have you got these notions from? Come back to earth. |
|
|
|
How will this play out practically, Arlyn?
Will there be two different "BLOCK" assets, each with their own marketcap (HZ assets & BLOCK tokens)? Or will they essentially be the same "asset" with one marketcap?
I am a bit confused on how this plays out. Could you provide some clarity?
They'll be different assets - one deprecated and the other current. There's nothing stopping people from just keeping their BLOCK of course, but I see no incentive to do so. Will there be a cut off date where block tokens can no longer be redeemed for the asset? I for one plan on redeeming every last one of mine. Nice work! Thanks :-) I think there may be a cutoff date, but this depends on the particulars of the method we use. If we don't need a cutoff date, I doubt we'll use one. Those who don't exchange their BLOCK would just lose out on fees. |
|
|
|
so what interest in blocknet will the 'executive board' in the incorporated company have.There has to be a director etc.How will they be renumerated, will they be disclosing their blocknet holdings and their blocknet income,How many blocknet tokens/hz asset shares will the incorporated company(directors etc) own and what percentage of the total assets will this be? Will each blocknet token be able to be exchanged 1 to 1 with hz asset exchange 'shares' or will the company inc have say 50% hz assets and the remaining 50% be represented by blocknet tokens/hz asset shares. How will it be structured?
Good questions - and ones we will take care to answer when we form the entities you mention. But we're not yet at that stage. However, since such entities are public, you can rest assured of our legal obligation to keep you all informed. |
|
|
|
How will this play out practically, Arlyn?
Will there be two different "BLOCK" assets, each with their own marketcap (HZ assets & BLOCK tokens)? Or will they essentially be the same "asset" with one marketcap?
I am a bit confused on how this plays out. Could you provide some clarity?
They'll be different assets - one deprecated and the other current. There's nothing stopping people from just keeping their BLOCK of course, but I see no incentive to do so. |
|
|
|
Will BLOCK holders have to turn in their BLOCK tokens to use on the HZ asset exchange? How will Block on the HZ asset exchange differ from Block being traded on exchanges like bittrex?
When the tech is ready, BLOCK can be exchanged at will for HZ assets. This will allow holders of Blocknet tokens to be paid Blocknet service fees. Getting paid service fees is the first difference between trading BLOCK on Bittrex and exchanging for HZ assets. The second difference, of course, is that there'll be no need to use a centralised exchange to trade Blocknet tokens. :-) |
|
|
|
the platform itself, by way of being an incorporated company, just became a centralised corporate entity that uses decentralised technology.
That's not correct. The platform has not become an incorporated company. Is Ethereum a registered company? Yes. Is it an open source platform? Yes. So it is with the Blocknet. Let's just get this straight: *Any* legal entity can use and build upon the Blocknet. This applies to individuals or to companies. It applies equally - and in the same respect - to a legal entity called Blocknet Inc. And this in no way gives centralised control over an open source technology. How could it, given that the tech is open source? End. ok a last one. Will the tokens then turn into shares of Blocknet inc. by legal definition or will they still be just tokens. i mean they will generate the revenue. are they tied to the inc. ? They will be crypto-tokens on the HZ asset exchange. |
|
|
|
the platform itself, by way of being an incorporated company, just became a centralised corporate entity that uses decentralised technology.
That's not correct. The platform has not become an incorporated company. Is Ethereum a registered company? Yes. Is it an open source platform? Yes. So it is with the Blocknet. Let's just get this straight: *Any* legal entity can use and build upon the Blocknet. This applies to individuals or to companies. It applies equally - and in the same respect - to a legal entity called Blocknet Inc. And this in no way gives centralised control over an open source technology. How could it, given that the tech is open source? End. |
|
|
|
|
Hoertest, if you don't permit projects the freedom to grow and realise their own internal potential, you should not be involved.
Our business case is based on months of research. It's also has plain utility, since if we're to create an internet of blockchains, it's absolutely essential that the "real world," which includes businesses that of necessity require legal entities to do business with, can integrate into the Blocknet. We're working hard at creating the best possible tech and I think you should respect that.
To get pissed off about some idea that doesn't appeal to you is, with respect, inappropriate in my opinion. Why be so brittle anyway? Rather just appreciate what we have to offer. It will always be limited, not infinite or ideal. But we're giving it everything we've got.
(And personally, I'm really excited about the Blocknet. Perhaps you have reason to be too.)
|
|
|
|
can u sue coins you don't want to be having the xbridge if they just use it without permit?
Huh? No, it's open source tech. None of this has changed. I'm not sure where you're going with this... |
|
|
|
so this is an Inc. now ?
It remains a decentralized technology, with a foundation and a collection of participating blockchain-based projects. However, you'll soon see our business plan, where we detail the need for traditional trusted entities for off-chain products and services. They will perform functions like escrow, arbitration, gateway services, and mediation. To this end, the Blocknet - and anyone else who builds a business upon the technology - will need to register as a legal entity. So yes, there will be a Blocknet Inc. |
|
|
|
And we're live!
Unveiling Blocknet.co, a PaaS for Blockchain interoperability, modularity and mobility. 
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
