It will take aeons to mine with a CPU. If you would like to invest according to the IPM model you can do so right now, although it will be a manual process on my part and incur some trust on your part. I have the stratum server set up for the IPM Pool and it needs tested. You can donate to our BTC address 18rai2ichzUfXG6PVmUQLNPqBjtctnVRAD and provide me with a Bitmark address, I will then manually do the IPM process while creating the rest of the IPM Pool. This will ensure that you get some BTM at a fair price, and help the project by allowing me to test the process properly and what has been built so far. Alternatively you can ask if anyone will sell any, or hire a miner yourself. Thank you for your interest in the project. If I send you some BTC how it will be counted how many Bitmarks I will get for them? It can be estimated each day based on the difficulty: difficulty = 25.3615 required network hashrate = 907.7235 MH/s maximum IPM pool hashrate = 317.7 MH/s The exact figures can be calculated at the end of each 'days' mining, every 720 blocks. I will manually do the IPM Pool calculations and process. Today's Estimate is 4788 BTM per $200, or $0.0418 per BTM, or 147.3 BTM per 0.01 BTC Tomorrow's Estimate based on the IPM pool working at full capacity today: 4788 BTM per $270, or $0.0564 per BTM, or 109.1 BTM per 0.01 BTC I am prepared to run the IPM Pool manually for 3 days, which places a theoretical hard cap on the total amount for a test run at $740 or 1.2 BTC maximum which should create about 14,360 BTM for investors and 750 BTM for the Bitmark Foundation. There may be some variance in the exact figures, but at the end of each mining day the exact amounts will be reported. Bitmarks created take a mining day to mature, so if you were to do this with me it would be roughly 24 hours from investment until the first days report, then another day for the Bitmarks to be mature and delivered to your account. If anybody is interested in joining a three day test of the IPM pool as outlined above, please express interest and investment amount in this thread. |
|
|
|
It will take aeons to mine with a CPU. If you would like to invest according to the IPM model you can do so right now, although it will be a manual process on my part and incur some trust on your part. I have the stratum server set up for the IPM Pool and it needs tested. You can donate to our BTC address 18rai2ichzUfXG6PVmUQLNPqBjtctnVRAD and provide me with a Bitmark address, I will then manually do the IPM process while creating the rest of the IPM Pool. This will ensure that you get some BTM at a fair price, and help the project by allowing me to test the process properly and what has been built so far. Alternatively you can ask if anyone will sell any, or hire a miner yourself. Thank you for your interest in the project. |
|
|
|
Why not use gitian to cross compile on a virtual machine for all target operating systems? It is not hard. Personally I would hope that somebody launching a coin of their own would have the technical competance to compile a windows binary on their own. Or at least have dev. on-staff full-time that can do it. Am I missing something here?
Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
there are also some http helper functions in rpcprotocol.cpp which may help you read the http headers and messages
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to create an implementation where a number is pulled from a website and added to the wallet.
and added to where exactly? |
|
|
|
a clear community sales ethos needs to be added to the agenda
We can have no such thing, that is unfair manipulation. We must be fair to community members who are not with us yet, that is in our best interests. Bitmark will earn it's value fairly and responsibly. The community is healthy at this time, if we focus on earning value many of the social issues like unfair dumping and price fixing will be reduced or alleviated. What about running an exchange through the website, simply wallet addresses listed for those that want to trade Bitmark for BTC? Similar to localbitcoins but just direct wallet to wallet instead of bank account to wallet.
A localbitmarks service which provided user to user exchanging with escrow would be good to have early on. This would be a conflict of interests for both the Bitmark Foundation or myself to create or support, and further too centralized. Anybody is welcome to create this service or any service which utilizes bitmark and offers utility to users. The Bitmark community and myself would surely discuss, test, and use any services created. There are early adoption incentives for anybody creating fee based services which use Bitmark. A 0.5% fee on a 100 BTM transaction today is a far larger amount of BTM than a fee on 100 Marks in the future. Any such services would add to Bitmarks usefulness to end users and aid adoption, that is our goal. |
|
|
|
On Github IPM doc: 1,2,3 correlating to 20, 20 and 5 BTM respectively. Is 20, 20 and 5 correct or s/b 20, 15 and 5? Thank you, I have corrected the document, added some navigation, and a new section. |
|
|
|
Also, to bring this back to exchanges...how will the IPM determine what 95% of your bitcoin donation is in Bitmark? Without an exchange to set the price there is no simple answer There is a simple answer. Production cost. How is the IPM Pool maximum hashrate calculated?How much does 35% of the network hashrate cost the IPM Pool to produce? see the table for a list of example prices in $ based on the current average hired mining rig cost per MH/s. The effective BTM price for investors using the IPM pool is therefore +5% on "Production Cost of 1 BTM" correlating to the difficulty at the time their investment is active. I should create an example section for potential investors. |
|
|
|
But this will take BTC > Mining? Simple enough / in scope of aims to have open stratum port for public mining?
BTC in, BTM out, but with the benefits listed. We cannot have an open stratum port as this could push the pool over 35% of the network hashrate. A second foundation mining pool could be created for miners, with the same cap of 35%, but somebody else would need to manage it. Otherwise I personally would be responsible for too much hash power. In the interests of security and decentralization we should have more pools, managed by different entities, with a lower hash rate on each. This is discussed more hereI think its a good idea, but my question is how will the IPM guarantee a hash rate close to 35%?
What if a few months into the launch of the IPM somebody recognizes the value of bitmark and throws a few th/s at the network?
Also how will payouts be handled? if I send the IPM 1 BTC for example, I can expect 95% of the investment back in the form of BTM correct?
Is that paid out immediately or over time like the actual mining process?
The IPM Pool has a cap on the hashrate, it's real hashrate can be from 0-35% depending on investments sent. The IPM Pools hashrate is calculated as 35% of the target-network-hashrate according to difficulty every time it changes. Is somebody throws a few th/s, then the difficulty goes up on the network, the IPM pool has a target of 35% of the target-network-hashrate and the investments to reach 35% are higher. Because the IPM Pool's hashrate is variable and percentage based it can mitigate against attacks when the difficulty goes up. If the th/s then leaves the network the IPM Pool cushions the drop in difficulty. This only works if the IPM Pool has enough queued investments purchase the hashrate required to reach 35%. Socially, investors help miners to stabilize the network in times of need, this strengthens their investment and reflects well to users who experience a more consistent average block time even when bad actors join or leave the network. BTM payouts are calculated every time the difficulty changes (720 blocks, or 1 day) and the next lot of investments start. Bitmark requires a block reward maturity of 721, so payouts would be in full the following day. For the IPM Pool payouts are simple to calculate, the total number of BTM minted - 5%, divided proportionately between the investments that were active during that round of 720 blocks. |
|
|
|
What if the bitmark foundation ran its own pool? Mining fees go straight into the foundation fund to support the pool and the project as a whole.
the best idea I have heard all day. +10
Our proposal for an Investor Public Mining (IPM) Pool. Currently in development, the model can be applied to any currency. I would be very happy to hear any feedback you have about this. |
|
|
|
The problem I see with waiting, is what happens if an exchange begins trading bitmark and then turns out to be a bad player?
This is also my concern, we should recognise that exchanges and mining pools will often be the first point of contact people have with Bitmark, in a way they are part of our public face. If they are incompetent or a bad player it will reflect badly on the efforts of all of us, the first place people will come to complain is here. It is responsible for us to consider our future users best interests, whilst remaining as neutral as possible. Due Diligence. We should also remember that mining pools and exchanges are also Bitmark adopters, to be in communication with them and consider their needs will help. We may need to change some code, or ensure that checkpoints are created regularly, or other steps. |
|
|
|
|
Videlicet,
I would like to tip you with 80 Bitmarks out of respect for your hard work and approach to the development of, and communication about, your CoinShield project.
This represents 4 full blocks and is 1/3rd of the coins I own, hopefully one day it will serve to be of some value to you.
If you pass me a Bitmark address I will send you the coins.
Keep up the good work, innovation and hard work are to be admired.
Mark
|
|
|
|
I would support BTM being on an exchange only in the following manner...(an exchange come to us here in this community, get to know us a community, become so moved by the support and establish base of the original ideas of this project that the exchange then says I see great potential in this community and the support there to: I will list this currency on my exchange.
If this happens or a situation very close to this, then the merits of the community would be a represented in the perceived value of our currency and the exchange would see that and act accordingly.
What if a user base of adopters vote with such conviction that an exchange decides to add bitmark? Personally I feel the ideal is a mix of both, the exchange comes to the community and is moved to add it, while adopters also back up the decision with votes of confidence. Let me ask this question...How many people that have BTM so far has went to someone and asked them to accept BTM in a trade other then a currency trade, like "would you accept 10 btm to babysit my kids? Or , I will trade you 100BTM for 2 dozen eggs? Something to this effect? It is a good question, three services that I know of 1. ethought accepts BTM for the use of his mining service (1%) 2. Allow has accepted BTM payment for his graphic design services 3. All of my own work and future work done for the bitmark foundation Now let me ask you a question, after reading the How to Order section of your website, if I were to email you with an order for one "Natural Beef Jerky Slab Original 3.25oz Bags", and offered to pay with BTM, would you accept the order? If so what price would you specify today, and how would you calculate it? How do you calculate the price for the other currencies you accept? If not, why not, what would it take for you to accept BTM as a payment option? I would guess your own answers will be fairly indicative of the answers of any potential business adopters, perhaps with some bias on your own part since you are involved in bitmark. |
|
|
|
I would support BTM being on an exchange only in the following manner...(an exchange come to us here in this community, get to know us a community, become so moved by the support and establish base of the original ideas of this project that the exchange then says I see great potential in this community and the support there to: I will list this currency on my exchange.
If this happens or a situation very close to this, then the merits of the community would be a represented in the perceived value of our currency and the exchange would see that and act accordingly.
What if a user base of adopters vote with such conviction that an exchange decides to add bitmark? I feel the ideal is a mix of both, the exchange comes to the community and is moved to add it, while adopters also back up the decision with votes of confidence. Should we be inviting the input of reasonable exchange owners, or should we wait until the come across bitmark? Notice I say input here to discuss any merits of bitmark, not to discuss adding it to an exchange. |
|
|
|
Can you tell us why you want the process of adding Bitmark to an exchange to begin now? I think your reasons would help those who feel it is too early.
To be honest I have mixed feelings. In one side I don't want an exchange now, because I'm here to hold longtime. I am not going to let go of my bitmarks atleast for a minimum of 6 months. But on the other side the bitmark community consists of very few members at the moment. It is known and supported by very few members. I know that early adopters of a cryptocoin should have the advantage but there is also an idea of fair distribution. I am new to crypto and I am also new to mining. So many people don't know how to mine or even rent one. I don't know why but I think this coin has a great future. The more the coin is distributed, the more it is advertised and the more exposure it gets. Greater number of supporters and FUDers  , the more famous a coin becomes. More people will come who will develop third party apps and maybe also lend you a hand in the future. In short it will be widely adopted if it gets an exchange. By the way even if we add a request for adding Bitmark to an exchange, I think it'll take a minimum of 20-30 days for it to get added. Valid points, I respect them all. Your final point, that it will take time to be added is good to remember. Perhaps your suggestion answers our questions, if we agree that Poloniex is a reasonable exchange, then it is fair for us as a community to say 'if you want an exchange for Bitmark then we recommend it be this one'. Whether Bitmark is added or not, and when it is added, then rests with those who would find it useful to be there. I am okay with this approach, it feels balanced, and resolves the issue. I feel it is important to hear what deepcoreotc feels about the above. On a different topic [18:36] <EsteNuno> if all people were just hoarding them and not giving them [Bitcoin] away as freely as people used to we might have never reached this point
[18:37] <EsteNuno> people like to make fun of the guy who bought the pizza, but that was the first thing that i remember circulating around the internet among regular people
[18:37] <EsteNuno> the white paper was around for a while
[18:37] <EsteNuno> but the pizza was something that actually made it real
[18:44] <MarkPfennig> it was certainly a positive landmark which enabled people to think of the digital currency as having real world value and utility. I was very pleased on that day.
[18:45] <MarkPfennig> Sadly Bitmark can have no similar landmark, we can perhaps create our own.
[18:45] <MarkPfennig> That is a good question, what are some milestones for the project?
[18:45] <EsteNuno> hmm, i'll have to think on that
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
Can you tell us why you want the process of adding Bitmark to an exchange to begin now? I think your reasons would help those who feel it is too early.
|
|
|
|
All of the information is available on the first post, under the section 'Some Links'. On the previous page I added to the conversation about this issue We must be tolerant of each other and balance our needs.
Most are in agreement that they are in no rush to list Bitmark on an exchange, and if it is listed they are not particularly interested in selling.
Most were also in agreement that there was no rush to have a mining pool yet we had one on launch and most of you used it.
It is wise to recognise that when Bitcoin launched there were no exchanges and no pools, and there was little demand, cryptographic currency was new. Bitmark does not belong to that time, it belongs to this time.
With that in mind, we can establish that exchanges exist, and that we will find ourselves on an exchange whether we like it or not, people will speculate, some will buy and some will sell BTM.
Some will see these as negative things, but they are to be expected and cannot be stopped.
We can offset this with the fact that exchanges make Bitmark more visible and simplify the process of acquiring it. It will also encourage more participation from a larger community.
Let us also consider that if Bitmark is not seen as being actively engaging the outward community, they will presume a group of people have slowly pre-mined a large amount of Bitmarks before exposing it properly. That would damage our efforts, and we need to be fair to those who are not with us yet.
I mentioned earlier that people are mining with their own hardware and worry about covering their costs, and others are hiring mining rigs because there is no exchange. The two parties could help each other by investors helping to cover the costs of mining then splitting the BTM between them fairly.
If you are already mining in some way then you must accept that you are speculating and hope to acquire some Bitmarks with the expectation their value will rise, you must be inclusive to others who wish to do the same, that is fair.
Mining pools will join, exchanges will join, people with short and long term interests will join.
Let us together identify which are fair reasonable pools and exchanges, for they will be part of our public face.
The sooner we do this, the sooner we can turn our conversations back to our work.
I cannot stop you requesting Bitmark to be added, and do not mind either way, and Poloniex is one of the better exchanges. Can you allow some time for the community to discuss the issue further, so that we are all comfortable with the needs of each other and feel balanced. |
|
|
|
|
We must be tolerant of each other and balance our needs.
Most are in agreement that they are in no rush to list Bitmark on an exchange, and if it is listed they are not particularly interested in selling.
Most were also in agreement that there was no rush to have a mining pool yet we had one on launch and most of you used it.
It is wise to recognise that when Bitcoin launched there were no exchanges and no pools, and there was little demand, cryptographic currency was new. Bitmark does not belong to that time, it belongs to this time.
With that in mind, we can establish that exchanges exist, and that we will find ourselves on an exchange whether we like it or not, people will speculate, some will buy and some will sell BTM.
Some will see these as negative things, but they are to be expected and cannot be stopped.
We can offset this with the fact that exchanges make Bitmark more visible and simplify the process of acquiring it. It will also encourage more participation from a larger community.
Let us also consider that if Bitmark is not seen as being actively engaging the outward community, they will presume a group of people have slowly pre-mined a large amount of Bitmarks before exposing it properly. That would damage our efforts, and we need to be fair to those who are not with us yet.
I mentioned earlier that people are mining with their own hardware and worry about covering their costs, and others are hiring mining rigs because there is no exchange. The two parties could help each other by investors helping to cover the costs of mining then splitting the BTM between them fairly.
If you are already mining in some way then you must accept that you are speculating and hope to acquire some Bitmarks with the expectation their value will rise, you must be inclusive to others who wish to do the same, that is fair.
Mining pools will join, exchanges will join, people with short and long term interests will join.
Let us together identify which are fair reasonable pools and exchanges, for they will be part of our public face.
The sooner we do this, the sooner we can turn our conversations back to our work.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, it is fair and inclusive. We do not want to become a closed community supporting each other, it is more productive, beneficial and enjoyable to speak with others about Bitmark and see what they think.
Let us agree that exchanges are needed, our value will be earned and any price tag will reflect that. Our focus is on earning value and considering our steps.
We should work out which exchanges are the most beneficial to us, before we are added to one without our knowledge.
We do not want to see "exchange hacked, bitmark was the target", so somebody secure is needed, perhaps who has been hacked previously and been through the process of making things secure.
It must also be an exchange that gives currencies a fair chance, but one that recognises when they haven't worked out and prune their list of supported currencies regularly.
Which are the fairest or most reasonable?
These questions are worth considering as we will face them soon whatever we do.
As Este Nuno suggests we could do spreadsheet trading at any time.
I do not feel anybody really wants to sell their BTM, but that some feel they need to sell a portion from time to time in order to keep supporting the project and creating more.
Unsavoury people will come to this thread, some will be reasonable and just concerned, Chronikka started out this way and now is offering valuable help. As a community we can keep things in line.
|
|
|
|
|
The project has progressed well since the OP was created, all I have done is update it since then. It would be reasonable to rewrite some sections so that they are more applicable to the current status.
Our OP must be crafted in a way that inspires people like you who all ready here, not marketed to everybody with hype and speculation.
Between the lines of these posts I see a message coming through: many want to support the project and mine to keep some bitmarks, but often people have running costs and unless they are supported in their running costs they cannot support bitmark.
Something could be crafted so those with money could support those with hashing power, and the proceeds split between them. Maybe this feels centralized and is not so open to the wider community, or maybe it is fair.
Or perhaps exchanges of some kind are a necessary part of the organic growth.
A fair balance must be struck while we earn our value.
Is this the area which we need to address first as a community? I feel it is becoming important.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
