Unique opportunity to be involved in 3 million+ people using crypto currency... nothing major.  Anybody?

Will Katz has been inspired to write a song all about Bitmark and Marking: http://youtu.be/wl4rnEguL2w 

Hmm... point broadly accepted, but:

- Dan is not providing Xmixer tech to the Blocknet. That's an XC feature only.

- There are no plans for development of the XBridge to run on XC first. It's not an analogous situation to BTCD.


There is no "internet of blockchains" if one coin has superordinate status over another. This would be like one website having superordinate status over others.
It's great to hear that BTCD's position is temporary BTW.
On the other hand, the SuperNET runs on NXT's blockchain and as far as I know that can't change. This could be a problem.

BTCD?

I got a little bit more information regarding the first two points we were discussing yesterday:


The issue here is that jl777 and the other BTCD devs have all been working on implementing libjl777 which I think is analogous to Xbridge in this case and BTCD is just the first reference implementation. But the idea behind libjl777 is that it's supposed to be implemented in to every coin in superNET. Right now that's BBR, VRC, BITS, NXT, BTCD (all equal memebers but providing different technology or assets). Each developer of coins in superNET will eventually add libjl777, but for now the attention is focused on getting it in to BTCD first. Crypto_Zoidberg the lead dev for BBR only just started talking with jl777 about integration last week, so it's probably going to be a little while. But every coin is supposed to be equal, even though it may seem like BTCD is special, it's only really special in the sense that it has a bunch of people working full time and testing at the moment making it the first implementation of superNET. And of course in the same way that XC is meant to provide its mixers BTCD provides teleport. But BTCD isn't a necessary condition for someone to use superNET. The majority of people might end up using BTCD as their 'gateway' to superNET in a similar way that XC people would presumably hope that people will be using XC as a their coin of choice when using Blocknet.

Also, from what I can understand everyone person running superNET is equal and node and there's no particular server(other than each node being a "server" in the p2p sense) so I unless I'm missing something I would expect that to qualify as true p2p considering there are no central servers.

Personally, I don't think you need to justify Blocknet anyway based on those contrasting points you were using. A good idea is a good idea. And a new implementation of the same concept with a different network of coins should be sufficient in my opinion.

I believe now, especially coupled with FinCen's latest ruling, that Blocknet's nature puts it ahead of other public offering styled events. It being fully decentralized (not having any set of core coins, which I admit I argued against before the FinCen ruling ), and lack of trust on one single team(It's composed of a large set of different decentralized coins), makes it an even better contender than Supenet was.

Now this is interesting.

YouTube (Google) pays out about $1 billion/year to media companies based on views, etc...
But this is likely mostly going to established entities with complex contractual agreements...
You wanna start poaching some of that is a more decentralized way (DISRUPTION)...
And also paying ordinary people for producing valuable, viral material.

IMO, As a 20 year pro trader...
I was not particularly impressed by the Polo Troll Box Marking Rankings...
No one ever posts valuable trading information on the web (you just trade and post wrong info)...
So the Polo thing is just Ranking based on usage and random/false information.

99.99% of financial predictions on the web are random... people are easily "fooled by randomness".

I realize BTM is scaling up with test projects...
But you cannot go BIG without being VERY DISRUPTIVE... and pissing off "important industries".

sure man. there are no revenues to support a multi-million dollar market cap. the price is doing what it should be now....it's shrinking.... altcoin users hate expensive 'fees' so its doubtful there will be any significant revenue coming any time soon.

long term 'stock'. thats funny. no revenues etc and a market cap of "3 million."

what goes up must come down.

...

If you got it for free, there has been a no-way transaction, and any value traded will be off the books, recorded not in any ledger but rather in the informal value systems of reputation, karma, or other wispy forms of barter. That doesn’t mean nothing has happened. Maybe you’ll get some positive strokes over a social network because of what you say about the book. That sort of activity might benefit us both. But it’s a kind of benefit that is unreliable and perishable.

The clamor for online attention only turns into money for a token minority of ordinary people, but there is another new, tiny class of people who always benefit. Those who keep the new ledgers, the giant computing services that model you, spy on you, and predict your actions, turn your life activities into the greatest fortunes in history. Those are concrete fortunes made of money.

This book promotes a third alternative, which is that digital networking ought to promote a two-way transaction, in which you benefit, concretely, with real money, as I do. I want digital networking to cause more value from people to be on the books, rather than less. When we make our world more efficient through the use of digital networks, that should make our economy grow, not shrink.

Here’s a current example of the challenge we face. At the height of its power, the photography company Kodak employed more than 140,000 people and was worth $28 billion. They even invented the first digital camera. But today Kodak is bankrupt, and the new face of digital photography has become Instagram. When Instagram was sold to Facebook for a billion dollars in 2012, it employed only thirteen people.

Where did all those jobs disappear to? And what happened to the wealth that those middle-class jobs created? This book is built to answer questions like these, which will only become more common as digital networking hollows out every industry, from media to medicine to manufacturing.

Instagram isn’t worth a billion dollars just because those thirteen employees are extraordinary. Instead, its value comes from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it. Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value. But when they have them, only a small number of people get paid. That has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.

Instead of enlarging our overall economy by creating more value that is on the books, the rise of digital networking is enriching a relative few while moving the value created by the many off the books.

By “digital networking” I mean not only the Internet and the Web, but also other networks operated by outfits like financial institutions and intelligence agencies. In all these cases, we see the phenomenon of power and money becoming concentrated around the people who operate the most central computers in a network, undervaluing everyone else. That is the pattern we have come to expect, but it is not the only way things can go.

The alternative introduced in this book is not a utopian idea; it won’t be hard to foresee its annoyances and messiness. However, I will argue that monetizing more of what’s valuable from ordinary people, who turn out to be the uncompensated sources of the data that make networks valuable in the first place, will lead to a better future.

That will make power and clout more honestly distributed, and might even lead to a persistent middle class in an information economy, which would otherwise be an impossible goal.

Yes. One bitcoin buys about 2 days worth of bitmark minting. 

In US dollar terms, the bitcoin blockchain is minting about 50,000 USD worth every 24 hours. The bitmark block chain is minting about 175 USD worth every 24 hours

One idea to meet the planned BTM coin release schedule and also incentivise more hash power to join the network would be that the block reward be variable. Examples: if an hour has gone by when the next block is found, that block could get 600 BTM instead of 20. If two real-time hours separate blocks, then that last block could be rewarded 1,200 BTM. If it takes 10 minutes to find the next block (instead of the target 2) then that block would be awarded 100 BTM, etc.

The idea is that the 20 BTM reward per block would accrue 'virtually' every 2 minutes, whether a block was found or not, and the sum of all the 'virtually accrued block rewards' would be 'physically' awarded on the next block actually found to the node who found it, whenever that is. 

What about Darkcoin and Stealthcoin? Those are just two off the top of my head but I thought they had managed to achieve anonymity?

Price it´s still going down, this is dead. Thanks, another shit scam ico coin where i lose money.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was such demand that blocks were being found every 30 seconds (4x the target rate) so that 720 blocks were generated by the time 6 hours went by. Would the difficulty then re-adjust after those 6 hours and throttle the production down to a block every two minutes ?

I'm just wondering if people realise how rare BTM is?  If the coin had stayed strictly to the 2 minute schedule since inception, there would be around 1.5 million coins in circulation, however in reality only a little over 900,000 have been minted.  Unless the hashrate explodes to LTC levels, it is highly unlikely that the blockchain will ever catch up to the planned release schedule.  

Blocks are being found at a rate of 1 or 2 per hour, when the target rate should be 30 blocks per hour. Clearly, this is because the network hash rate is far below what the current difficulty is demanding for a block to be found every 2 minutes.

 Bitmark's block maturity and the difficulty retarget are set the same, at 720 blocks.  Would it make sense to keep the block maturity at 720 blocks, but shorten the difficulty retarget so that the block production rate is more responsive to the real network hash rate ?

 It makes sense to me that the difficulty should more closely follow the actual network hash rate in order to produce blocks at the desired 2 minute rate.

So then btcd's centralized supernet with that shitcoin boolberry should be taken down by the SEC, am I right? Take your hypocritical bullshit elsewhere.