Just want to think the person who rented our miner. Thank for showing us the future. As soon as there done they will become part of the community..
Juston Point, and all fair miners. I have been speaking to a group of syndicate miners, I think we have a solution which will help all of you financially, and our growing community. After checking the details I will propose it here soon. |
|
|
|
Get MarkedFrom IRC [19:37] <@MarkPfennig> Este, Pablo, when you were both in school, and the teacher took your work and checked it over, did you say that they had "marked" your work? [19:41] <EsteNuno> yeah [19:42] <EsteNuno> some might say graded [19:42] <EsteNuno> but marked was the most common [19:42] <@MarkPfennig> I was thinking about a button people could use, which said "Mark me", and another which said "Mark my work", when you clicked them they would be bitmark urls, so allow people to send a small amount of bitmark (some marks) to those people, the first would be social, the second would be used like flattr and on open source projects [19:42] <@MarkPfennig> if successful "mark" would be the daily use currency, and primary brand, "bitmark" is just for our bootstrapping phase [19:42] <@MarkPfennig> what do you think? [19:42] <EsteNuno> sounds like a cool idea [19:44] <EsteNuno> i could see people having it on their blogs and such [19:44] <@MarkPfennig> "Bob just Marked you [amount]", "You have 123.21 Marks" [19:44] <EsteNuno> you could still keep bitmark as the currency name but just use mark as the verb in this case [19:45] <EsteNuno> unless you mean mark as in the unit of bitmark [19:46] <EsteNuno> bitmark helps people associate it with bitcoin which is good for now since people are just barely understanding bitcoin at this point [19:46] <EsteNuno> average people [19:46] <EsteNuno> maybe not understanding it, but being aware anyway [19:47] <@MarkPfennig> yes, I agree, Bitmark is the currency, a mark is just 0.001 bitmark, so both as a verb and a unit of currency. [19:47] <EsteNuno> right [19:47] <@MarkPfennig> do you know soundcloud? [19:47] <EsteNuno> yeah [19:48] <@MarkPfennig> if you could "mark a song" on soundcloud today, that would be a tip. Which would be fine for services like that to add I think. [19:48] <@MarkPfennig> as value increased, "marking" a song or product, would literally be paying for it. [19:48] <EsteNuno> yeah it would be a perfect place for that [19:48] <@MarkPfennig> it could be a back door in to adoption, it encourages people to view a mark as something of value, and to think of it in the context we use money [19:49] <EsteNuno> yeah, definitely [19:50] <@MarkPfennig> just an idea .. two or three little buttons would be nice, I could then make a small generator for people on the website.. perhaps even getmarked.com or something like that [19:50] <EsteNuno> i like the idea a lot [19:50] <@MarkPfennig>  [19:50] <EsteNuno> things like that can really help us reach out beyond bitcoin [19:51] <EsteNuno> get people who use BTM as their first crypto [19:52] <EsteNuno> most post-bitcoin cryptos other than dogecoin don't even really consider that [19:52] <EsteNuno> but i think it's important [19:54] <EsteNuno> plus it will be easy to answer the question of "why bitmark over bitcoin" from someone who has heard of bitcoin but not bitmark yet by showing them how it can be used and the fact that it's faster and +++ [19:54] <@MarkPfennig> yes I feel the same, of the most importance [19:55] <@MarkPfennig> a nice thing for us, is that to give somebody 500 marks free, is only 0.5 BTM, about 2 or 3 cents [19:55] <EsteNuno> yeah [19:55] <@MarkPfennig> and 500 marks could last a person a very long time [19:56] <@MarkPfennig> and potentially be 500$ [19:56] <@MarkPfennig> also, if it takes somebody 4 months of blogging to get 1000 Marks, then 1 bitmark will represent something of value, something to be earned [19:57] <EsteNuno> yeah, people will want to complete a full BTM [19:58] <EsteNuno> like a game at first, then later more about the value as it grows [19:59] <EsteNuno> people like to collect things [20:00] <EsteNuno> not like a game in the sense that it has not value, but psychologically motivated to complete the whole [20:01] <EsteNuno> just like people now often strive to save 1 BTC or round numbers of BTC .... [20:03] <EsteNuno> getting a full BTM from getting "Marked" could be like a badge What do you all think of this?
|
|
|
|
But a pre-mine where the developer slowly gets access to it over a 3 year period, that's only profitable if the coin is a success - the developer only profits if a lot of early adopters profit and continue to profit.
A tax per block does the same thing. A Transaction fee tax has the greatest incentive as the rewards only come when people actively use the coin It forces the development team to do everything they can to encourage adoption. |
|
|
|
How to get Bitmark?
Here is the Bitmark Release if that is what you are looking for. To get some BTM at a fair cost you can either mine it directly, or indirectly through the ipm pool test as detailed in the previous post. |
|
|
|
The full details of Bitmark can be found on the first post in this thread, a list of all milestones and updates is also provided and kept up to date. Decentralization of Supply and Distribution and Spreading out the Bitmark Network UpdateYesterday we started and completed our first effort to decentralize the hashing power of the Bitmark Network. 1. xHash.net have added a Bitmark Pool and the process went smoothly, Thank you. 2. P2Pool is ready. Thank you to TheDirector helped with this work. 3. Our checkpoints were updated on github if you are building from source, further solo miners joined our network. 4. miningpool.co continued to prove stable and it's cumulative hashrate dropped to well under 50%. 5. The Investor Public Mining Pool Test has completed two rounds, and development of the automated IPM Pool is well under way. This was a big day for the Bitmark Network, I wish to thank everybody for their efforts, and for their fair distribution of hashing power. It will serve well for our future. Investor Public Mining (IPM) Pool Test UpdateFirst Round Funds DistributedThe results of the First Round have been distributed. Status: confirmed, broadcast through 7 nodes
31.9998 BTM to Bitmark Foundation bQmnzVS5M4bBdZqBTuHrjnzxHS6oSUz6cG
304.00 BTM to bDz5HR4xQCKsXw97riGN5yCss7FBaEncQ6
304.00 BTM to bYBJ77hXNiBBzLhaRZgpsDMZd3qZ3hnzi3
Transaction fee: 0.0005 BTM
Net amount: 640.0003 BTM
Transaction ID: 883c20f3a42ae71c880832ad65ecbadb99400eedbcca2a87dc7cbae24a43f1c3-001
The second IPM Pool test went well, performing as expected, and again minting 608 BTM for the investors and 32 BTM for the Bitmark Foundation. Time Period: 3 Hours
Network Difficulty: 32.2279
Network Block Target: 90
Network Block Created: 111
Network Performance: 1.233x
Target Net Hashrate: 1,153.48 MH/s
Average Net Hashrate: 1,422.62 MH/s
IPM Pool Hashrate: 403 MH/s (35% of target)
IPM Pool Network %: 28.34%
IPM Pool Block Target: 31 Blocks
IPM Pool Blocks Found: 32 Blocks
IPM Pool BTC/MH/day: 0.00013196 BTC
Production Cost/BTM: $0.0521 USD, 0.00008310 BTC
Investor Cost/BTM: $0.0548 USD, 0.00008747 BTC
BTM Cost Change: +86.185%
Time Period: 12 Hours
Network Difficulty: 32.2279
Network Block Target: 360
IPM Pool Block Target: 126 Blocks
Production Cost/BTM: $0.0521 USD, 0.00008310 BTC
Time Period: 24 Hours
Network Difficulty: 44
Network Block Target: 720
IPM Pool Block Target: 252 Blocks
Production Cost/BTM: $0.0784 USD, 0.00012500 BTC
BTM Cost Change: +43%
The Investor Public Mining Pool Test will conclude after Round Five, in 2 days. There is still space available if you would like to help us test and acquire some BTM at a cost close to that of production. The available investment slots cumulatively total 0.95 BTC, you can reasonably expect to receive 1 BTM per 0.00012500 BTC. Investment Slots are issued on a first come first served basis. If you would like to join in the BTC address is 18rai2ichzUfXG6PVmUQLNPqBjtctnVRAD and I require your Bitmark address by return to send the BTM minted to you. It should be made clear that the IPM Pool is non-profit, the word Investor is used to describe the role those using the pool see themselves in. |
|
|
|
The community appears to have moved towards screaming scam every time they see the potential for a coin developer to make some money on a coin they created, released, and supported.
So as a community, what method of remuneration would you be happy with?
If you create something really new and stable that can becomes new Bitcoin some day - ever 1%premine is pretty much. Some about 0.5%for all dev's and promoution team and then just donation's. If the coin is really good - this amount is enough for team. In the opposite case - they deserve no profit. The thing being created is already launched now, Bitmark. We originally planned for a 0.25% taxation on each block, however rejected this and moved to a donation based Bitmark Foundation, where all donations are in the BTM currency only, locked until for a year at least. My goal was not to create something which earned profit, but to create something which ensured that if Bitmark was widely adopted, the team working on it would have a reasonable amount of the currency to support continued development and further focus on enabling greater adoption. |
|
|
|
He Mark are you intentionally preventing me from mining BitMark by renting my rig again? (Joking)
Glad you like the rig. Currently not hashing so great..... Is that due to a test you are running?
The last round consisted of 30 hired mining rigs and on average they performed exactly as required. Could you provide more details as to how it was not hashing so great, was it rejects or a the difficulty inappropriately set or something else? I will post the details of the last round very shorty. |
|
|
|
Checkpoints: I have updated the checkpoints now that we are a few days in, if you are building from source or run a pool, please update as you see fit. P2Poolhttps://github.com/project-bitmark/p2pool is ready for testing if anybody would like to run it. One node is up on the dedicated server. Follow the install instructions including scrypt support. Then start with "--net bitmark". Thank you to TheDirector for his help in both initiating and setting this up. Once we have P2Pool mined a block I will submit a pull request to the main project. IPM PoolMy concerns with our stratum pool have now been addressed. The next three hour test updated 08:30 UTC is now underway, the IPM Pool is hashing at 430MH/s. There will then be a twelve hour test before the next change. Followed by two full mining day tests.
|
|
|
|
Again, there may be some pools out there who do vardiff incorrectly, but the stratum implementation you linked would properly handle various speed rigs connecting under the same worker name and properly hand them different difficulties based on their hashing speed.
We also understand that users would like the ability to track their rented rigs individually at their pool, thus we are implementing (in the near future) a method to allow you to template worker names in your profiles... such as merc.{ID} or merc.{COUNTER} etc -- but the current implementation should cause no issues at pools
Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns and double check this with me. |
|
|
|
Where connection is the a pubsub connection from stratum? Am I then correct in thinking then 1. all stats will be wrong since they are based on worker name? 2. if the difficulty is too high, say you have a 150MH worker and add another 2 MH worker, that the 2MH worker will not be able to submit any shares for it's difficulty to be adjusted down 3. if the 'big rig' disconnects it will get the starting difficulty of the last session saved diff from another rig to start, instead of it's own? |
|
|
|
MRR, there is an issue I need to speak with you about concerning your website.
From the code I read in the most popular stratum-server implementation (stratum-server), it refers to all workers by the username sent, and assigns variables like the difficulty to them.
On your website there is no option to append a unique value like a rig provider id to the username automatically.
So if I rent 20 rigs with a profile and send them to a pool (as I just have), all rigs have the same username and password, and thus the same difficulty. Whether they are 50KH/s or 150MH/s.
This is quite a big issue which can be circumvented by manually choosing a different username and password in the meantime.
But it makes the features like profiles and multibuys you have implemented almost redundant, and may lead to negative reviews when people find the lower spec rigs aren't performing (because their share diff is incorrect), or correspondingly that the large rigs have a share diff too low.
I look forward to hearing from you about this matter and hope it can be resolved quickly.
If you can find him, ahmed who maintains stratum-mining may be able to confirm if this is accurate or not.
Nevertheless, the ability to have a unique identifier for each rig automatically appended would be very useful and ensure this fault cannot happen in any software.
You bring up a good point and a feature we're likely going to implement in the near future should help in your situation.. however this is not 100% accurate. Most stratum vardiff pools have vardiff controlled at the connection level, the workername is merely a way to track your hashrate at the pool for various 'rigs' you might have connected. For example, I have 2 7970's that I point at my pool on merc.1, and often rent large amounts of hash and point it to merc.1 as well.. my 7970's difficulty doesnt fluctuate when I do this, and the large rentals get appropriate difficulties for their hashrates as well. We will likely be implementing a 'templating' feature for worker names, but you will have to ensure that the pool you chose either has the workernames existing already, or auto-adds workernames appropriately. Can you confirm that this is with workers all having an identical username, for example all "pfennig" as opposed to "pfennig.worker1" "pfennig.worker2". See for example: https://github.com/Crypto-Expert/stratum-mining/blob/b039cbb74dc99b706e758b32d797231b3b24f43d/mining/service.py#L86Interfaces.worker_manager.get_user_difficulty(worker_name)
If three workers all have the same worker name, then it is impossible for them not to reference the same value, at this level. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry to have to say, but BTM is already used by another currency.
|
|
|
|
i am saying NOTHING should be proposed. read the topic title.. they are not entitled to anything nor do they deserve anything ..it's open source software after all. and many of these greedy dipshits should be in jail for charging money for open source code other people wrote and GPL'd. debating on how i should charge people for open source software is typical idiot fucktard logic.. no big surprise around here  save the excuses.. they don't work on me But that is exactly what you do. |
|
|
|
The IPM Pool proposal has more information on BTM production cost according to network difficulty. In the absence of a market to establish the price, NewLibertyStandard's estimate based on production cost is a good guess and a helpful service (thanks). The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price.
Isn't this way setting a price for Bitmark? The difficulty determines the production cost of a Bitmark each day. Supply and Demand determines the price tag. If demand for the Bitmark is greater than the supply, then the price tag on markets goes up. More people try to provide the supply which pushes the difficulty (and therefore production cost) up. If supply for the Bitmark is greater than the demand, then the price tag on markets does down. Less people try to provide the supply which pushes the difficulty (and therefore production cost) down. Demand is driven by the usefulness and adoption of Bitmark. From a price tag perspective the IPM pool: * allows people to see the production cost transparently and see it changing each day. * allows some investors to purchase a fair share of each days Bitmarks at a price close to that of production. * provides a measure of confidence in Bitmark, that people are willing to pay slightly more than the base production cost to ensure the longevity of Bitmark. * reduces downwards changes in difficulty, cushioning the blow to markets and producers (miners). * reduces the ability for multipools and private farms to exploit the value of the coin, as when they drive up production cost the variable hashrate of the IPM pool keeps production higher than pools alone can, reducing it back down softly, which makes it harder for these bad actors to repeat the exploit. * encourages honest miners who mine to hold and support as they can, which reduces some downwards pressure on markets. * reduces the ability for anybody to hoard, ensuring distribution is fairer and limiting ability to corner the market, manipulate it or price fix, or acquire an unfair amount. * encourages user adoption by cushioning the effects of difficulty adjustments to keep confirmations at an average speed even when under attack. * reinforces security by making a 51% attack almost infeasible, as any attacker would have to out power the miners and the variable hashing power of investors seeking to protect their investment. The IPM Pool combined with both our block chain configuration and the way the project is focussed, attempts to balance the interests of miners, investors, development team, so that we can offer the user a stable and balanced experience. |
|
|
|
|
MRR, there is an issue I need to speak with you about concerning your website.
From the code I read in the most popular stratum-server implementation (stratum-server), it refers to all workers by the username sent, and assigns variables like the difficulty to them.
On your website there is no option to append a unique value like a rig provider id to the username automatically.
So if I rent 20 rigs with a profile and send them to a pool (as I just have), all rigs have the same username and password, and thus the same difficulty. Whether they are 50KH/s or 150MH/s.
This is quite a big issue which can be circumvented by manually choosing a different username and password in the meantime.
But it makes the features like profiles and multibuys you have implemented almost redundant, and may lead to negative reviews when people find the lower spec rigs aren't performing (because their share diff is incorrect), or correspondingly that the large rigs have a share diff too low.
I look forward to hearing from you about this matter and hope it can be resolved quickly.
If you can find him, ahmed who maintains stratum-mining may be able to confirm if this is accurate or not.
Nevertheless, the ability to have a unique identifier for each rig automatically appended would be very useful and ensure this fault cannot happen in any software.
|
|
|
|
we're debating things with greedy corrupt scumbags who think Scams and Clones and IPO's and Pre-mine's and Crowd Funding and Angel investing etc.. is all good shit.
What about good old hard work, with no premine, instamine, ipo, taxation, unfair distribution or anything of the like? If somebody creates an alternative currency with zero value, and earns some value for it over time by working hard, whilst mining or buying a tiny fractional percentage for themselves, is that fair? For example is satoshi had kept say 500 BTC for himself out of the millions we have, for a few years of hard work, would you begrudge him that? |
|
|
|
IPM Pool Test UpdateI have ran the first IPM Pool Test round for a period of 3 hours. Some settings need changed on the Pool server, and I need to speak to both the rig rental company and the stratum-mining team about some issues. Additionally the difficulty is too low and the network speed too high after changes today. The first test went well, performing exactly as expected, and minting 608 BTM for the investors and 32 BTM for the Bitmark Foundation. First RoundTime Period: 3 Hours
Network Difficulty: 16.0725
Network Block Target: 90
Network Block Created: 173
Network Performance: 1.9222x
Target Net Hashrate: 575.257 MH/s
Average Net Hashrate: 1,105.759 MH/s
IPM Pool Hashrate: 205 MH/s
IPM Pool Network %: 18.552%
IPM Pool Block Target: 31 Blocks
IPM Pool Blocks Found: 32 Blocks
IPM Pool BTC/MH/day: 0.00111461 BTC
Production Cost/BTM: $0.0280 USD, 0.00004463 BTC
Investor Cost/BTM: $0.0295 USD, 0.00004698 BTC
BTM Cost Change: ?
Once the difficulty changes again I will run the next test for another 3 hours. Next Round EstimateTime Period: 3 Hours
Network Difficulty: 33.5128
Network Block Target: 90
Network Block Created: 114
Network Performance: 1.2666x
Target Net Hashrate: 1,199.469 MH/s
Average Net Hashrate: 1,520 MH/s
IPM Pool Hashrate: 419 MH/s (35% of target)
IPM Pool Network %: 27.565%
IPM Pool Block Target: 31 Blocks
IPM Pool Blocks Found: 31 Blocks
IPM Pool BTC/MH/day: 0.00115 BTC
Production Cost/BTM: $0.0611 USD, 0.00009715 BTC
Investor Cost/BTM: $0.0643 USD, 0.00010226 BTC
BTM Cost Change: +117.667%
The IPM Pool proposal has more information on BTM production cost according to network difficulty. In the absence of a market to establish the price, NewLibertyStandard's estimate based on production cost is a good guess and a helpful service (thanks). The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price.
|
|
|
|
The two "fair" block chain approaches are: 1. Block or Transaction Fee Taxation 2. What you suggest, a premine which is locked. The problem with 1 is that it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructures such as mining pool servers and more. If BC isn't a problem then you can use this. The problem with 2 is that nLocktime doesn't particularly work, it would require the transactions to release the premine to be floated around the network until each lock time is hit, which would be transaction spam/ddos and if the network was busy they wouldn't be held in the transaction pool. After studying all the technical approaches, we came to the following conclusion for Bitmark, to use Investor Public Mining (IPM) Pool, coupled with a donation based foundationI am currently testing the process and it seems to work well, it also has a wide range of benefits for miners, investors, network health, attack mitigation, and continued incentivised developer support. |
|
|
|
Just gave you an extra hour. Enjoy  Sorry, but if possible could you remove the extra hour? I am very grateful for your sentiment, thank you. For the next 2-3 days I am trying to manually complete the IPM Pool process and implement it at the same time. The exact figures are very important to have and quite complex to calculate, any additional free time added will skew the figures and potential lead me to make a mistake. Again, thank you, perhaps as we progress a fixed fee hashing power arrangement could be made. If the IPM Pool has constant demand and bitmark continues to grow as it is, the hashing power needed could require more than the hashing power that is available to lease from all the services combined. As such, prearranged fixed fee hashing may need to be considered in the future. |
|
|
|
My Bitmark Address: bDz5HR4xQCKsXw97riGN5yCss7FBaEncQ6
Thank you. That saves me a PM. Already the IPM Pool has mined 140 BTM, and counting. well for me the non prefixed and standard OP made me realize what this coin's about and made me mine and stick with it
That is good to know, and thank you for sticking with it. I will update the OP as it needs freshened up and to be more relevant to the current status. The project is moving fast. Confirmed: A2 Mini 29MH/s, rental id 34790 Mark |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
