Simply send your bid to the bidding address shown in-wallet on the bids page: 1BCRbid2i3wbgqrKtgLGem6ZchcfYbnhNu

Then unlock your BCR wallet and import the Bitcoin privkey for the Bitcoin address that you sent from. You then magically receive your share of the block reward each block until the next bid period starts at midnight GMT each day.

If you send from the same BTC address each time, you only need to do the importprivkey thing once.

Bidding still way cheaper than Bittrex. (Assuming you get your bid in early of course.)

It would get rid of all this mining nonsense...

But hey, only 20 million to go.

210 million to 50 million reduction in total supply imminent... may not be a 4X price rise but it will move the market.

If you have a little patience then bidding daily is usually a far cheaper way to acquire BCR. Also feels less like handing over money, more like moving it from one pocket to another.

Sounds good. 

If people think it's worthwhile I could port the scheduled bid code from my bidbot into the wallet so users can set up their daily bid without having to be online during the bid window.  (This needs users to have the Electrum BTC wallet installed.)

1st draft of the borrowing UI, based on the code I've seen:



Details will doubtless change but it should remain as simple as this.

Backend still being worked on so no UI just yet.

Most of the proposed structural changes to the v2 wallet are in place and working on testnet. Basic Bitcoin Core funtionality right now as a lot of the advanced features haven't been ported over from the v1 wallet yet, and some of the v2 stuff isn't quite ready.

Note that this colour scheme is just what I'm using for development, I'm waiting on the website/design guys to finish their branding proposals so they can be voted on and the chosen scheme adopted. It's all in the stylesheet though so that's mostly a quick find/replace op.


So, WIP and subject to change but should give you a flavour:

You're hired.

Sounds like a plan.

Open to them, sure. To us, not so much.




It's doubtful to me that banks as we know them have much use for blockchains at all. And if used they will be neither open source nor open ledger.

Blockchain babble rilin' up the good 'ol ZH boys again:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-04/future-money

The MyCrypto one ?

Ah yes, somebody elbereth has changed their backend installed an SSL cert that doesn't match his domain name(s) without telling me about it, the swines. Will address as soon as I remember how to use Google Studio...

Have changed it to felch from http://explorer.dash.org instead. Will publish an update as soon as I remember how to do that...

Coins101 is pretty hard to keep up with...   

I go with cake and stackoverflow.com myself. Remember that not all of this needs to happen at once, it can be released bit by bit but basic p2p loans in v2.0 (even just on testnet) would be fantastic.

I envisioned the p2p lending working something like this:

1. Wallet user (Lender) is able to mark a % of their balance as available for lending if they wish. Wallet user (Lender) selects their risk profile and maybe their min interest rate - ie. has some say in who they will lend to.

-> Needs: UI checkbox and amount entry field, some means of storing lender prefs (on chain?) - Amount Borrowalbe either locked or sent to appropriate Risk Level Address - lender has option to pull out / withdraw funds or change preferred risk level somehow if funds not already loaned out.

2. Wallet user (Borrower) is credit scored by the code and presented with a list of single lenders willing to do business with them and/or an option to source the loan truly p2p based on what regular lending users have added to the available pot at various risk levels.

-> Needs: Basic working TrustDB / credit scoring code and client ability to pull suitable lenders from the lender DB and display them.

3. Borrower chooses Lender(s), picks loan amount and repayment terms, clicks GoForIt

-> Needs: Loan request message facility to lender or p2plenders. Check risk match, Lender themselves or network in case of p2p loan sends funds to borrower.

4. Borrower pays back Lender direct, or pays back lenders by paying to one address from which proportional shares to all lenders are sent. Or just make micropayments direct to all participating lenders in that loan?

-> Needs: Automated invoicing? GoForIt button.

5. In event of dispute, Lender requests Big Al's gang to sort things out, or network decides on behalf of p2p lenders to instigate Big Al's Tutelage & Chastisement Package.

-> Needs: Call Big Al button.

++ a whole crapload of other stuff.  

Do we enable all wallet users to mark funds as available for loan or just BNs? If possible I would go with the former, but... legailties... keep it BN for now perhaps if that speeds development and minimises legal voodoo.

If this could be demonstrated working in native BCR* with maybe just BNs as lenders at first, we could then add an in-wallet BTC/BCR facility (I think this should be done anyway**) and the same code template can be applied to BTC too, ie. BTC loans also, same schema. Suddenly we've got a $billions of market cap to provide p2p lending opportunities to anyone with some spare BTC.

*At this point at the latest we should take it to VC/ICO. And keep it closed source IMO, cryptognats will whine about that but nobody else gives a damn, and the blockchain is still an open ledger.


**I'm about as much of an actuary as I am a lawyer, but in order to prevent some whale coming along any buying the entire future mintage for peanuts, we could offer fresh superblock BCR something like...

1000 BCR @ current market price +10%
Each subsequent 1000 BCR at (cost of last 1000 BCR) + 2% cumulative

eg. CMP is 400 sats, 1000 BCR costs 440000 sats, 2000 BCR costs 44000 sats + (1000 * 400 * 1.12), 3000 BCR costs 44000 + (1000 * 400 * 1.14) + (1000 * 400 * 1.16) etc.  ... 100000 BCR BN package (50k collateral + 50k working capital) would cost about 0.8 BTC @ 400 sat base price, which is about 10% more than what 100k BCR would cost on Bittrex currently.



Thought I'd jot down some ideas while waiting for the oven timer to beep...   ***


***Dinner only slightly burned.

I'm sure there are ways around that. Call them Network Support Tokens not 'shares', and call the 'dividends' Network Support Fees Payable, which is true enough, they're actively maintaning copies of the distributed ledger - in essence every running wallet is a subcontractor and what they do about legalities is their own affair.

First to admit I'm no lawyer though. But hey, we can actually play that angle at the VC meeting.

"As lawyers go, Crouton here makes a great ashtray. He just can't be relied upon to find his arse with both hands. So, naturally, part of the $70 million we're asking as investment would go to... whatever law firm gives you the biggest backhanders you recommend."

What's the advantage over letting every BCR holder be a shareholder? BNs can still do their stuff, and can be accorded a Voting Share, with all wallets receiving proportional dividends each quarter or whatever - rather than blockchain-bloating daily payments - which 4 times a year would see a nice market price spike.

So:

1. Incorporate as outlined by Coins101, 1 BCR = 1 nominal share
2. Concentrate all efforts on getting asset management and asseteer/customer interaction functional and easy to use
3. Demonstrate it working to a bunch of VC firms / ICO it in the real world*
4. BCR share price goes from 0.000004 BTC  to $1 in very short order.
5. Use new found $$$ to hone and polish product

Really, the potential upside is ridiculous.



*From zerohedge yesterday: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-29/top-silicon-valley-vc-laments-startups-being-funded-are-mostly-crap-largely-worthles

VC's are desperate for projects that aren't crap, that actually provide a real service and have a viable revenue stream.

How is infinite supply better than finite supply that's (for all practical purposes for the forseeable future - and we can add more zeroes as needed) infinitely divisible?

I'm not overly concerned with the current market price of BCR, but reducing the total issuance to 70 million from 220 million would have a more positive impact I think than going from 220 million to infinity.

Burning BN collateral would have a further deflationary effect, but would reduce BN numbers greatly perhaps. If BNs are to be proactive businesses rather than network-crucial infrastructure collecting passive block reward then why not? At that point, do we need a masternode-type overlay network at all? Concentrate on making asset creation and management as simple as possible and give asseteers and their customers the tools in-wallet to communicate, contract and transact painlessly.

edit: If all wallet users with a balance > 0 were nominal proportional shareholders that got a quarterly dividend in whatever the currency the parent company used natively (fiat, crypto, cans of beans) then at some point the BCR token itself becomes almost irrelevant... well except as being one's def-facto share ownership of BCR Pan Galactic Inc.

Can BCR itself not be viewed as shares? 1 BCR = 1 share. Really the block reward each block is in principle no different to an ongoing share allocation process.

And I don't think BCR's native matketcap needs to be a limiting factor. Lender establishes blockchain asset, operates whatever business they like via BCR's chain. BCR infrastructure just hooks up lenders/borrowers etc. BCR 'shareholders' get their proportional cut of whatever the network charges for asset hosting.

An easy way of doing BTC/BCR exchange in-wallet would be to have a Buy BCR Now BTC address in addition to the existing bidding address. BTC sent to that address get added to the backing fund, and the buyer gets a chunk of freshly minted BCR (subtracted from the eventual total mintage) in the next block @ for example current market price + 10%. Or have a sliding scale, or do a quick calc of what X BCR would cost if bought via exchange then add some margin for saving the buyer the hassle. Most of the code to achieve this is already there.