What he's saying there is essentialy the same thing that people have been saying in this thread. Mainly that the anonymity tech provided to the network is key. Just as XC plans to provide it's mixing for blockNET, BTCD will provide people with teleport.

And I'm not bragging about anything as I hold none of the core currencies involved with superNET. Not because I don't think they are good though. I'm just trying to look at it from a logical perspective. Perhaps there's something I'm missing and I'll see that it's in fact not as good as it sounds.

As far as I know, yes.

Yes, most definitely.

If someone wanted to use NXT for example and use BTCD's teleport then that would be different. But if they didn't want to use any of BTCD's technology then BTCD doesn't gain anything directly. That being said teleport is considered an essential part of the anon solution(similar to how I'm reading here that XC is with blockNET).

I've been reading about the blockNET and I feel like superNET is being misrepresented in your marketing copy. I didn't want to bring this up in your blockNET topic or make a new post out of it but I'd like to hear your opinion on why you chose these three particular points:

1. The way you've represented it makes it sound like BTCD is somehow above all the other coins in superNET. BTCD is to superNET as XC is to blockNET. In superNET BTCD provides the Teleport technology and jl777 as developer. In blockNET XC provides the Xbridge technology and atcsecure as developer. Nothing other than BTCD providing an essential part of the anonymity tech of superNET makes BTCD special.

2. I'm also curious about the p2p claims that are written. Maybe I'm missing something here and if you could enlighten me I would appreciate it. But SuperNET is using an implementation of Kademlia for p2p nodes, which is the same technology that Bittorrent is built on and as far as I know using such a protocol would quality as 'true p2p'.

3. The intention of superNET isn't to have a single centralised enity holding 10% of each coins money supply. SuperNET is intended to be a decentralised organization controlled by shareholders, not one single person. And those coins are meant to be held indefinitely via multiple people using multisig technology. It should function in a similar way as I'm understanding your blockNET foundation to hold.

As an aside I'm not sure why the 10% holdings are painted in a negative manner in general. The idea of removing 10% of each currencies money supply to add value to the asset is a fairly large benefit to both people who hold the member coins and asset holders. Since you already have established the blockNET foundation which like superNET is not going to be a centralised organization, a similar deal would appear to be in the best interests of everyone. Having 10% of coins bought at market value and then removed from circulation sounds like a win-win scenario for all parties. Applying the appropriate multisig and distributing the keys among the blockNET foundation would seem to eliminate the centralisation part of it. This  is just something to consider. I just feel like this arrangement is mutually beneficial and I was surprised that it was presented as a negative aspect of superNET.

I'm making this post just to make sure that there's no misunderstandings between blockNET and superNET and so that people don't get the wrong idea. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented those points so I figured just posting this here might persuade you to correct some of the factual errors in the blockNET literature so far.

I wish blockNET good luck. Networking coins is an interesting idea and seeing how someone else chooses to do an implementation of the technology will be interesting to see.

I don't think you understand the point of this. It's not about the alt section at all. Those things you mentioned are irrelevant to marking and marking has nothing to do with any of those things.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. This is just about being able to instantly transfer crypto among people on Bitcointalk in a way that's also recorded on a public ledger. Each marking also acts as a method of bookmarking posts that you've found insightful or funny.

This isn't supposed to be a replacement for the (very bad)trust system that's currently implemented. That might come later, but what I'm talking about here isn't that.

It would be a third party implementation. Not an implementation by Bitcointalk.

Same way we implement on twitter, youtube, facebook ect. Marking acts as a layer above the web and doesn't need the approval of anyone.


Marking doesn't exclude people interacting in a normal manner and deciding who you feel is a more valuable contributor. But it also adds another dimension where you can use crypto as an acknowledgement and incentive to show your appreciation of people who contribute in a postie way.

This isn't meant to be believed blindly. In fact it's meant to be questioned and give people data too look at and make their own decisions via the public marking ledger.

People who are doing things that aren't welcome should realize over time that they're not getting the marks they had hoped for if their content is view in a negative manner.

Not really. I'd like the algorithm to weight the amount of money less the higher it gets. Similar to how it works now on Poloniex. On Poloniex a marking of 10 can easily give more reputation than a marking of 1000 depending on who it's from and how often that person has marked them in the past.

If anything the monetary aspect of it can at least help limit the abuse somewhat due to the cost associated with it. It's very low cost, but even microtransactions can help limit spam type activities.

If it were active now it would be something like this:

+20 bitcoinbboyce great question

Not sure on how the exact syntax will be after testing. But something like that.

The thing is that I don't think BTCD should lose value if someone can deanonymize teleport. Things like this need to happen early so that technologies can be strengthened. I'd rather have problems found and fixed now. If anything finding an issue and fixing now should raise the price, as it's only gotten stronger.

I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.

The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).

People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.

If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.

People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.

Thanks for the comments.


I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.

It's a reasonable idea to give people who don't want to build this from scratch something that works out of the box I think. For some people it might be worth it, for others not. I don't see anything wrong with offering people options.

I know you're probably joking but I'm almost certain that none of the selling is associated with jl777.

The total amount of data will be stored on 'x' which will be the bot responsible for this specific marking integration. But the intention to hash the data at certain times and store that on the blockchain so the data can be verified if needed. And the raw marking data itself is also intended to be stored in multiple places so it's more distributed. Things like torrents, other local hosts, storj ect. And since the hash of data from specified periods should be verifiable on the blockchain, you'll be able to check if the data you get from some source matches the original source from comparing the hashes.

That part though is a few steps ahead though.

He's already gathered all 3xx,xxx Bitcointalk accounts so I'm sure he has you in the database already. Don't think there's an exposed way to look yourself up yet unless someone marked you though.

The abuse issues are what I hope to mitigate here by discussing ways we can implement an algorithm that helps with that.

For example, on Poloniex I think they have it so the marks you give to the same person over time are diminished significantly.

One I idea I'm thinking of here is that hero members and legendary members markings will have significantly more weight in the algo than say newbies or jr. members.

I'd like to see some of the great technical minds here give this a shot. I like the idea of incentive based testing/bounties.

Working on integrating marking to add a decent reputation system to this place. Ideas and input greatly welcomed from people:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=830024

One of our developers with Bitmark(Leathan) has been working on a Bitcointalk marking integration. So far it works but it's still in the early stages of testing and not ready for full production yet. But I wanted to make a thread to ask people some of their opinions on how they think reputation should be calculated for this specific marking integration.

Having a robust reputation system here could really benefit the forum I think. As we can see that it's not always easy to tell who's worth listening to and who's not. Working it out and getting it right will take a little bit of time but I feel it's a worthy endeavor so any input is greatly appreciated.

For reference, one mark is 0.001 BTM.

If you're not familiar with the marking concept you can check out a temporary FAQ we put up here or ask me anything in this thread here and I'll do my best to answer you.

When you reply to someones post, the syntax will probably be something like this:


In this case the person you're replying to would gain 10 marks and that data would be recorded on the local bitcointalk integration ledger. And eventually the data will be hashed and the hash stored on the Bitmark blockchain for reference in what we're tentatively calling the 'markchain'.

Here's an example of some real markings that have taken place: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg9214321#msg9214321

An example of a live marking integration from Poloniex:  https://www.poloniex.com/marking and https://www.poloniex.com/markingLedger

Keep in mind this is still in early testing mode so I wouldn't try to use anything unless you contact Leathan and ask him how you can assist in the testing.

The raw data for each user will be simply this:

Number of marks given
Number of marks received
And then a 'why' string that a user can specify

So as far an an algorithm to help give a good representation of how reputable people are and how they contribute to Bitcointalk, what things do you feel are important to focus on or give more weight to?

Do you feel the registration date of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If  so, how much relative to other factors?

Do you feel the activity score of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If  so, how much relative to other factors?

How much weight do you feel should be given to the raw amount of marks given(more marks given is more value received)? Keep in mind that in general reputation algorithms have ways to mitigate abuse such as someone just marking themselves on another account. But nothing is full proof and human judgement by viewing the data on the marking ledger is always the best option.

Do you feel that people should gain reputation for giving marks? Should their marking activity or frequency add reputation? What about the amount they give relative to others?

Should people who give out a lot of marks to people be considering something like 'marking whales'?

How do you feel about having leaderboards to give a good idea of people who contribute positively and have a good reputation? Should there be two leaderboards, one for reputation received and then one for the 'marking whales' who give out the most marks?

Feel free to be as specific as you want. If you have some ideas on how to calculate the reputation score feel free to do so. Each marking integration normally has different requirements and different communities. Poloniex for example created their own reputation algorithm when they started the beta of their marking integration.

Here's a link to the main Bitmark thread and Bitmark News if you're curious:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544

http://bitmarknews.com/

Hmm, but if XMR wasn't set up for any withdraws people wouldn't have been able to cash out any ill gotten XMR though, right?

Just off the top of my head of services I've used recently that have needed confirmations: putting money on my mobile phone, paying my internet bill, localbitcoins.

Most of the time it seems any service that doesn't use coinbase or bitpay makes you wait in my experience.

I also answered his question in the BBR thread and I'll post it here too:

They will be bought as part of the transaction. This is one of the reasons that superNET can be a great benefit for BBR. As BBR's transaction outputs are anonymous there will likely be a large demand from users of other currencies such as NXT, VRC, BTCD ect. They use Teleport to protect them on the way in and BBR takes care of the output.

Yeah. This is why BBR is so important for superNET imo. The ring signatures complete the formula and make it so things like mixers are not relevant for the equation. While most other anon techs rely on some sort of mixing which as we know isn't really considered particularly good.