ANNOUNCEMENT
We will be making an announcement on the state of the "coin sale" Monday morning.
On a side note, what does everyone think about removing the PoW phase and going straight to Bergstake from day one. This will eliminate the BRO coins and Bergstake issued to the "miners" and the coin network will still be supported by the Bergstake owners.
Like a POS? I'd vote for this. I would have liked to see a PoW mining period, but with the alt scene in the state it is in today, PoW mining will just turn this into a dump fest. This is a promising project and I invested 3 BTC on day one, but the alt scene is over saturated right now and there is simply not enough new investment to support the coin through an ICO and PoW phase. This decision has already been made. The PoW is no longer under consideration. |
|
|
|
If I post online that you are the head of ISIS...does that mean that is EVIDENCE you are the head of ISIS?
This is bitcointalk, of course it does, Osama. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like the zeit client has some minor stability issues that should be resolved.
My client just got stuck and I had to restart it to get back on the longest chain. That really shouldn't happen with a stable coin and needs to be fixed. In reality, it looks like I was on a fork, which means there are clients in the wild that are serving bad chains.
It may seem like a minor inconvenience, but if zeit is to have a log life, then these types of issues should not persist.
|
|
|
|
technically all coins have Bergstake.. Bergstake is defined as the coinbase transaction that creates the coin. There is a plan to "burn" the Bergstake from the 7 million promotional coins. 10 million coins will be sold before launch, and 2.5 million will be retained for devs.
Breakout Coins have Bergstake. neither can be created without the other.
So what I'm asking is about what is left from the 10 million coins. What does it mean for those coins to go to a "private sale"? 1. Will the private buyers get a better deal than the ICO investors? 2. Is Bergstake attached to coins sold in a private deal?ICO investors are at a disadvantage because we do not yet have a functional prototype of this gaming platform. So we are taking the biggest risk, which comes with it an implicit potential for the biggest gain. Of course you haven't said this is the plan, but if coins are going to be sold at a discount privately, then it would be most fair if ICO investors were given first crack. Also, an incentive for investing in the ICO could be the Bergstake, where private buyers would not have a chance to purchase it. If they want Bergstake, then they should take their chances like the ICO buyers. |
|
|
|
D. Approx 700 btc goal for initial phase
E. If the total amount of btc raised falls short of the proposed 700 btc amount, we will raise the remaining amount through a "private" sale.
F. Once the 700 btc criteria is met, the "coin sale" will end.
G. Remaining coins will be sold at a later date to be announced by Breakout Coin on this forum.
Can you enumerate exactly which pools of coins will come with Bergstake? And throw in examples if there are any contingencies. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
So there will be 12,500,000 Bergstake, correct?
What if all Bergstake is not bought before the end of the ICO? Will that Bergstake be created and staked by the devs or some centralized entity? I think such a plan would be very bad (TM).
It would be best, and preferable in terms of decentralization, if Bergstake were limited to the number of coins sold during the ICO, and if more coins were needed for downstream use, then those coins would be created without corresponding Bergstake.
|
|
|
|
You have 2 choices
1. refund
2. not refund
What was the middle one again? |
|
|
|
It only tells me the amount of BTC I invested as it always has. Is it supposed to tell me my total BRO as well? Try a different browser. You are probably using chrome. |
|
|
|
Yeah, mxxxxxx, those posts you quoted don't address any of Cryptico's (and mine) thoughts on the situation. I was under the impression that the altcoin:BLOCK exchange rate would be fixed, was this not the case?
Ultimately the Blocknet foundation don't know the exact figured raised by coingateway (impossible without knowing the algorithm) so who's to say they didn't set an algorithm that raised 600 BTC for example and gave you guys your 500 BTC (20% of 2500 BTC) and kept 100 BTC for themselves? Do you understand my concerns here?
Seriously. They should visit satoshi dice and see how provable fairness works. The concept is that you can demonstrate a fair system post facto. Let's drill that into our collective heads. |
|
|
|
Then why did you let a third party determine the exchange rate?
Because it's their responsibility to exchange the coins for BLOCK. We'd have a conflict of interest if we determined the price. This is pretty glaringly obvious IMO. How would there be a conflict of interest? Coingateway takes a percentage of the value of the transaction. They could value this transaction in terms of the tokens and have no uncertainty. Then you could set the exchange rate. And if you had done that, you could share the valuation function with us. There'd be a conflict of interest for us because we could set an algorithm that guaranteed we'd rake in the maximum amount of altcoin per BLOCK. What? If you shared the algorithm later, people could verify it with their own transactions and see if they got shafted later. The incentive would be for you to be fair because any unfair algorithm would hurt the value of the coin later when the algorithm was revealed. [edit]Hiding the algorithm or claiming that you have no control over it appears as if you have something to hide. This again x100. There would be no conflict of interest if you guys came up with the algorithm and shared it with us after the ITO ended on coingateway. This would allow people to verify their transaction to see if they received the correct amount of BLOCK. Also, the fact that you guys don't know the algorithm worries me. Who's to say coingateway didn't "set an algorithm that guaranteed [they'd] rake in the maximum amount"? Exactly. Blockchain and crypto technologies have the capacity to make game theoretic systems like this "provably fair". Why these coin developers didn't think about this aspect is beyond me. Let's get on the program. It's time to quit being amateurs. |
|
|
|
Can someone clear some things up for me.. I just woke up and was taking a look at blocknet and I see that poloniex has opened trading and blocknet is now selling there for less then the ito price and less then it is on bittrex.
Is that just a fuckup on Vern's part or was that how this is supposed to work?
There are 2mln BLOCKs (worth 500 BTC at ICO price) from coingateway that were converted from alts. People are free trade these on Polo and Bter but not Bittrex. Well you guys are doing this ass backwards. You cant have an open live market selling the ITO for 3K less satoshi and expect Bittrex to sell out at 3K more satoshi.. Someone made a fatal error. That blows my theory that the blocknet people were consulting you on this one. |
|
|
|
Then why did you let a third party determine the exchange rate?
Because it's their responsibility to exchange the coins for BLOCK. We'd have a conflict of interest if we determined the price. This is pretty glaringly obvious IMO. How would there be a conflict of interest? Coingateway takes a percentage of the value of the transaction. They could value this transaction in terms of the tokens and have no uncertainty. Then you could set the exchange rate. And if you had done that, you could share the valuation function with us. There'd be a conflict of interest for us because we could set an algorithm that guaranteed we'd rake in the maximum amount of altcoin per BLOCK. What? If you shared the algorithm later, people could verify it with their own transactions and see if they got shafted later. The incentive would be for you to be fair because any unfair algorithm would hurt the value of the coin later when the algorithm was revealed. [edit]Hiding the algorithm or claiming that you have no control over it appears as if you have something to hide. |
|
|
|
Then why did you let a third party determine the exchange rate?
Because it's their responsibility to exchange the coins for BLOCK. We'd have a conflict of interest if we determined the price. This is pretty glaringly obvious IMO. How would there be a conflict of interest? Coingateway takes a percentage of the value of the transaction. They could value this transaction in terms of the tokens and have no uncertainty. Then you could set the exchange rate. And if you had done that, you could share the valuation function with us. |
|
|
|
The term "you" here refers to a third party (CoinGateway) with no vested interest in shafting anyone.
In fact, their prime interest is to attract customers, so I very much doubt there'd be any "shafting" going on.
Their algorithm was not disclosed to prevent gaming coins' prices prior to the ITO.
If you're unhappy with the price of SWIFT, please take it up with them. I'm interested to hear their response actually, so by all means post it here.
Are you saying that you let CoinGateway come up with the averaging function for your ITO? That makes very little sense. It would be impossible to game an averaging function significantly if it weighted historical prices more than recent prices. That's not a new concept. I thought you guys were computer scientists and knew about mathy things like that. Yes, it is their responsibility for the pricing of coins, in the same way that it could not be our responsibility to price coins on an exchange where one is listed. Ah. So the blocknet people don't take blocknet coins for the ICO. Hmmm. Where's the faith in the blocknet coins?Your opinions get more weird by the second. Of course we take Blocknet coins! That's why the ITO included them. We'll use the coins to fund development. Then why did you let a third party determine the exchange rate? |
|
|
|
The term "you" here refers to a third party (CoinGateway) with no vested interest in shafting anyone.
In fact, their prime interest is to attract customers, so I very much doubt there'd be any "shafting" going on.
Their algorithm was not disclosed to prevent gaming coins' prices prior to the ITO.
If you're unhappy with the price of SWIFT, please take it up with them. I'm interested to hear their response actually, so by all means post it here.
Are you saying that you let CoinGateway come up with the averaging function for your ITO? That makes very little sense. It would be impossible to game an averaging function significantly if it weighted historical prices more than recent prices. That's not a new concept. I thought you guys were computer scientists and knew about mathy things like that. Yes, it is their responsibility for the pricing of coins, in the same way that it could not be our responsibility to price coins on an exchange where one is listed. that's just wrong. Umm, any reason for that opinion? Yes. It means that blocknet is not taking blocknet coins for the ITO. |
|
|
|
The term "you" here refers to a third party (CoinGateway) with no vested interest in shafting anyone.
In fact, their prime interest is to attract customers, so I very much doubt there'd be any "shafting" going on.
Their algorithm was not disclosed to prevent gaming coins' prices prior to the ITO.
If you're unhappy with the price of SWIFT, please take it up with them. I'm interested to hear their response actually, so by all means post it here.
Are you saying that you let CoinGateway come up with the averaging function for your ITO? That makes very little sense. It would be impossible to game an averaging function significantly if it weighted historical prices more than recent prices. That's not a new concept. I thought you guys were computer scientists and knew about mathy things like that. Yes, it is their responsibility for the pricing of coins, in the same way that it could not be our responsibility to price coins on an exchange where one is listed. Ah. So the blocknet people don't take blocknet coins for the ICO. Hmmm. Where's the faith in the blocknet coins? |
|
|
|
The term "you" here refers to a third party (CoinGateway) with no vested interest in shafting anyone.
In fact, their prime interest is to attract customers, so I very much doubt there'd be any "shafting" going on.
Their algorithm was not disclosed to prevent gaming coins' prices prior to the ITO.
If you're unhappy with the price of SWIFT, please take it up with them. I'm interested to hear their response actually, so by all means post it here.
Are you saying that you let CoinGateway come up with the averaging function for your ITO? That makes very little sense. It would be impossible to game an averaging function significantly if it weighted historical prices more than recent prices. That's not a new concept. I thought you guys were computer scientists and knew about mathy things like that. |
|
|
|
Now now tx42, be civil.
It's hard to be civil when I realize the averaging function you used for the trade ratio shafts those who held through the SWIFT dump. [edit]Please reveal your averaging function now that it's practically impossible to take advantage of it. |
|
|
|
I want an answer to this.Why don't you get someone from Coingateway on here to give a real statement about the 10% we're ALL missing?
Things sound VERY uncertain right now and I'd hate for this to cast a negative shadow over BLOCK.
And I also want to know why the SWIFT -> BLOCK exchange rate was NOWHERE near an average price. +1,000,000 Why was it valued on the dump? Why not the recent average? Some people were stocking up well in advance of the ITO. They got the shaft, especially when they were holding through the dumps based on claims that an average would be used. The value of an "average price" depends entirely on one's algorithm for determining the average. So "nowhere near an average price" is strictly incorrect. You can reverse engineer the averaging function from the time at trade and the trade rate. Your average was for a 45 minute window at best. Either that or you took the lower of two ratios, one being a long term average and the other being a short term average. You shafted SWIFT people here because it dumped the hardest. Other coins like SSD were stable throughout and those people got the fairest deal. |
|
|
|
I want an answer to this.Why don't you get someone from Coingateway on here to give a real statement about the 10% we're ALL missing?
Things sound VERY uncertain right now and I'd hate for this to cast a negative shadow over BLOCK.
And I also want to know why the SWIFT -> BLOCK exchange rate was NOWHERE near an average price. +1,000,000 Why was it valued on the dump? Why not the recent average? Some people were stocking up well in advance of the ITO. They got the shaft, especially when they were holding through the dumps based on claims that an average would be used. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
