You got me there. I guess I do get involved in other projects on a volunteer basis, I hope that is acceptable?

I want to address the issue of "competition with zcash"
There is none.

open source projects are open source in the hopes that other projects utilize it, build on it, maybe even grant back improvements. That is exactly what komodo is doing. Utilizing zcash, building on it and we will of course gladly give back any and all improvements zcash team deems worthy. They are not going to be doing GUI for a while, so maybe we can contribute a dual ZEC/KMD GUI. And if they want to, they can even just strip out the KMD part of the GUI, but they dont strike me as that type.

I have also extended an offer for the 5% staking revenues from the zkp protected funds as there is no way to calculate anything but the aggregate amount in protected form. So this interest can either just extend the coin emission, or it can be donated to the zcash team. So far no interest in this from them. Probably since they are well funded and will be making a ton of money with the ZEC, which I expect to be a game changer in crypto.

The history of zcash starts with zerocoin that Dr. Matt Green wanted to have bitcoin adopt. Well, that didnt get very far... So there is now a zcash company that is creating a bitcoin compatible + zcash combo. Are they doing it with a profit motive? It doesnt look like it to me, they want the zkp tech to be disseminated far and wide. And they are only making money if ZEC becomes worth a lot. Money is nice and pays the bills, but that does not appear to be the primary motivation.

Being adopted by major projects is exactly what creates the big value to the original fork. And being adopted by major projects disseminates the zkp tech far and wide. After komodo's example, my guess is that there will be many other zcash forks so komodo will just be the first of many.

The cryptocard has been completed for over a year as much as it ever would and even paid out a few dividends. while it is true is has been a disappointment, everybody had the chance to convert cryptocard into WAVES. That was public knowledge and available for all.

I had no insider knowledge of the status of coinomat and in fact I still hold millions of coinomat assets. My understanding is that coinomat business is being converted into a WAVES oriented one, which makes sense to me and why I continue to hold millions of coinomat assets. This is not any bailout behavior.

I think it is quite unfair that you accuse me of wrongdoing for swapping a disappointing asset using the same method available to everyone. Was I supposed to not do the swap? If so, then other people would accuse me of not doing what I should have. I believe all the amounts raised would have been recouped via the WAVES swap, at least very close to it, so a disappointment, but not a disaster.

I would say that Lisk was used as a validation of the swap method.

I did propose a way for BTCD long time holders to get a bonus, which could be in the 300 BTC range. That is actually within your 5% to 10%, but actually would be a lot more for the long time holders.

The requirements to get this bonus are that the BTCD community come to a consensus on how to calculate the bonus. For obvious reasons, I will not be involved in that process.

And komodo needs to raise the higher end of the goal. This amount would come from the 10% allocation for ICO costs so it doesnt affect the ICO structure.

If only 1000 BTC comes in then there is no issue at all for BTCD hodlers, so if that is the expectation, then why all the fuss.

The early birds get a better price in exchange for more risk. The more time passes, the less the risk, so the higher the price. Even the last day ICO investors are taking more risk than first day exchange buyers.

There are people arbitraging below the ICO prices, though you will note the volumes are not very big, even compared to your 1000 BTC estimate. Though people who are convinced to invest will get the best price possible via BTCD below the arbitrage price.

I am not doing the marketing of the ICO, I am taking time out from coding to answer questions. That being said, I am fairly well known across all of crypto, from NXT to bitshares to bitcoin. I have volunteered my time to the zcash project and also the btcforks project and many others if they are asking me a question.

Also, please why do I have to keep repeating that 30K is a maximum, there is no expectation to raise the maximum. If there was it would be called the expected amount and the maximum would be higher. We are expecting 10,000+, but of course you could be right and it is 1,000. There is only one way to find out

I think you misunderstood it to be 1 KMD for 1 BTCD, that is not possible under any scenario. Even in the max raised case, it would be more than 10 KMD per BTCD

What is being kept 1:1 is the value of BTCD against the value of KMD.
conversion price is approx 188 BTCD per BTC, so for 188 BTCD you get 1 BTC worth of KMD.

In the event the max 30,000 BTC are raised that is 3000 KMD per BTC, so my rough calculations are 3000/188 = ~16 KMD per BTCD, in the so called max dilution scenario. And that is for the unlikely maximum raised scenario, if less is raised the ratio goes higher. My calculations are probably off by a bit as things need to be offset for BTCD allocation, but hopefully you get the idea.

I hope this clears things up as I too would be upset if we were talking about 1 KMD for 1 BTCD!

USSA is pushing for backdoors into encryption: http://thedashtimes.com/2016/09/06/fbi-announces-post-election-attack-encryption/

What we are working toward is to protect people from losing all their privacy, with the best technology possible.

Clearly, I could have set things up to pump the BTCD price to personally make a lot of money. I didnt. That is not my goal.

They say that actions speak louder than words.

komodo will raise potentially a lot of money, that's true. However, compared to the resources the real opponents of crypto have, it is a rounding error on the passive interest they can make in a day.

To me, money is a tool. A tool that can be used to get things done. I have been in a position to run away with millions of dollars worth of crypto, for years. I havent.

The crypto world is fragmented and getting worse, this is by design. Of the opponents. iguana brings all the bitcoin compatibles into the same technical platform. dPoW will bring all participating blockchains to be in harmony with bitcoin, to extend bitcoin's domain.

Build from strength. In crypto, Bitcoin is the strongest and most secure, but it is slow to evolve. dPoW allows Bitcoin to continue its slow pace, while allowing an entire ecosystem of innovative crypto solutions to benefit from its PoW expenditures.

seems his sockpuppets got tired or something.
but I chose to not make a moderated thread as my believe is that intelligent people will be able to sort through the opposing views.

On the one hand, "jl777 never finishes anything"
on the other hand, screen shots from GUI that is open source and anybody can run and verify for themselves.

On the one hand, "jl777 abandons his projects"
on the other hand, there is a migration path for BTCD holders and all the projects tie into SuperNET.

I know you must be worried about XMR future with all the zcash tech about to hit the market. Still is it too much to ask of you to stick to the facts?

How many dozen ICO's am I supposed to have done? How many projects did I start?

Komodo is a continuation of BTCD, it is part of SuperNET

also iguana core is done and even a GUI is in beta test now, how can that be true if I never finish anything? How long should it take to write a bitcoin protocol daemon from scratch, that does parallel sync and also supports multicoins?

and you do know most of the assets in that list have never raised any funds at all, many of them are proxy assets used by MGW, internal holding assets.

Please stick to factual statements

I know you must be worried about XMR future with all the zcash tech about to hit the market. Still is it too much to ask of you to stick to the facts?

How many dozen ICO's am I supposed to have done? How many projects did I start?

Komodo is a continuation of BTCD, it is part of SuperNET

also iguana core is done and even a GUI is in beta test now, how can that be true if I never finish anything? How long should it take to write a bitcoin protocol daemon from scratch, that does parallel sync and also supports multicoins?

and a revshare snapshot asset to preserve that part of the BTCD value

Good points. We certainly dont want to get into making any specific market predictions, but I think it makes sense to do a few hypothetical "dilution" scenarios.

For example at the max raised, over any other scenario, the BTCD holders arguably are "diluted" the most. Of course if the .0053 price is considered a fair price, there is absolutely no dilution, but there seems to be a sense that some massive price boost would have happened absent the conversion price.

Why?

Probably the general price increases of many other privacy oriented cryptos, you know what I am talking about. OK, so which komodo has a better chance to achieve 50% marketcap of the highest marketcap privacy crypto? The komodo which raised the max or half the max?

It is worth to note that if 50% of the highest marketcap can be reached, then it is indeed more than 3x gain from the max amount.

How likely is this? Well, that is a probability evaluation investors will have to make, especially if the funds raised starts growing toward the max amount.

What chance does komodo which uses the zcash zkp tech secured by bitcoin of achieving half the market cap?

And investors can wait to see a working testnet, working iguana GUI, to get a better handle on the technical risk. BTCD holders further get an entire year before making the conversion decision.

We have tried to make things as fair as possible for everyone and they say a good sign of a fair deal is that everybody is complaining.

There is absolutely no guarantee that full 30K BTC is raised, and even that would be $18 mil not $30 mil.

If 6000 BTC is raised, certainly possible, then indeed it will be split evenly between BTCD holders and ICO investors.

relevant post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16173131#msg16173131

The BTCD swap price will only be adjusted by the -5% per year to compensate for staking relative to the initial conversion price. One possibility would have been to stake for 11 months 29 days and collect 5% more, but if everybody did that there wouldnt be enough komodo

So there is no benefit to holding beyond the conversion period due to the 5%, it is neutral though, so no cost either.

This 1 year conversion option allows each BTCD holder to decide when to convert.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16171231#msg16171231 explains things a bit better than that graphic. Looking for someone to translate the reality into a graphic

Over time some of the details are changed, but the overall goal is still the same. What couldnt be done to unite all the coin communities via cooperating agreements, iguana does via technology. Currently over a dozen coins are iguana compatible and there could well be quite a few more.

GUI is now in beta testing for iguana, I think you will like it
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16173430#msg16173430

I wouldnt paint everyone with the same brush used to paint icebreaker. I dont see him volunteering to be the new lead dev.

Still I have heard enough complaints that I decided to formally address them. I have been doing my best with limited resources and I feel the results achieved with iguana are quite significant, but that is just the start of things. The problem of course is that as things go from being in the pure development stage that pays no dev costs, to rolling out products to the public, it will necessarily incur ongoing costs. If not money, then time.

I do see people helping out with support questions, but even for something like that, often I need to be the one that posts the answers. So what happens when we release a product? Am I to end up doing all the customer support for all the end users? What happens to the development schedule then?

I hope the people who initially came to the conclusion about how unfair the komodo conversion is, will after considering the constraints will understand that it is not unreasonable. In any case, it was the best I could do and it does provide a path toward completion of my vision, which has evolved and improved over time. Now I can describe in detail the entire structure, however if I do, then trolls will come out and say I am working on too many projects!

I cannot help that I am used to managing a dozen+ top caliber devs and so I am used to thinking in terms that a team like that can create. Without the dev team, I have to code it myself, but I can still get it done, it just takes a bit longer.

Took me 9 months to write iguana, the first multicoin parallel syncing bitcoin protocol daemon, including RPC, that compiles to 2MB. Is that slow? Not sure, but I know if I tried to find someone to do that, they would ask to fund a full dev team for at least that long. People dont realize the scale and difficulty of creating working backward compatible improvements to the state of art.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about basically everything, from the finances to the tech. Please read the following links to get up to speed:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16149001#msg16149001

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16171231#msg16171231

For some reason the BTCD community feels entitled to 100% of all the results from all the work I have done and what SuperNET has paid for. How much has BTCD community actually donated to me or SuperNET for iguana?

Answer: 0

I know people have put money into the BTCD, I have too, but that doesnt pay for the expenses. I am working without getting paid, but it turns out that few others are willing to do that and servers they always cost money.

There is actually the ability for me to stop volunteering my time for BTCD and just say goodbye, and use the GPL codebase in any other project. Now that would be a betrayal, even if I refunded all the BTCD funds I received for all the development work: 0

So maybe the price will go up after the iguana release, or maybe the 'buy the rumor sell the news' crowd will sell and the price goes down. The market is unpredictable so it is hard to base future expenses based on potential market prices. Plus to take advantage of any price increase, BTCD would need to be sold and after that, then what?

The reality is that if I came begging for 500 BTC to fund expenses, it would have brought in how much? With effort we probably could have raised 10,000 BTCD or so. However, that means I need to stop coding and become a fund raiser? And how long does the 10,000 BTCD last, especially if it has to be sold to pay for expenses?

Also, the full solution with BTC fees and notary nodes would have ongoing costs and I would need 10 years worth to make sure it is funded for long enough to get self-sustaining revenues from transaction fees. With 500 BTC as the max possible that could be raised and likely much less, this means BTCD could not afford dPoW.

However dPoW is needed for the full SuperNET solution of interoperating chains loosely coupled via atomic swaps. The reason is weak chains are too insecure for storing large amounts of funds, so it is not a viable long term solution.

SuperNET investors have put in thousands of BTC worth of crypto and if you read the link above, you will see that it hasnt been exactly the carefree path of infinite money. To have to pay for operating expenses from portfolio gains is ok in a bull market, but what happens when this bull market gets tired?

If there are no more trading gains, then even the SuperNET workforce becomes reduced back to just me.

Contrary to the FUD there has NOT been dozens of ICOs for all the assets. Most of them were dividended out for free to establish a trading market, no funds were raised from any ICO type of sales for anything other than SuperNET which operates as a hybrid fund. I have paid more for pangea assets than I have received from selling it. So without this fantasy ICO funds from all the assets, many of which are projects from other devs, where does the money come from?

I could have come here and asked for thousands of BTC, but instead I designed the komodo ICO to allow a decent conversion into the ICO. A smaller piece of a larger pie.

yet, the feeling is that there is some giant betrayal that there is a fixed price conversion into komodo. In order to offer a conversion right, there has to be some sort of fixed price. In order to get a market based price uncontaminated by the ICO knowledge, we used a 50% bonus from trailing month. Not perfect, but better than any alternatives that exist.

That was my assessment. However maybe I was wrong and the community prefers to not have a conversion right for the ICO? That seemed like nonsense, so I didnt even bother investigating such things.

Maybe one way to look at it is that instead of having to come up with new funding to pay for expenses, the contribution from BTCD is to convert into the komodo?

Is that really too much to ask for?

I have asked for some solution to the "unfairness" to long term holders and finally there was a post with a possible solution:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.msg16170817#msg16170817

people have expected me to do everything as evidenced by the lack of active contributions. how many of you have installed iguana? tested it? helped in any active way?

That is fine, I dont complain. I do what I have to do, but it does take longer if I am the only one doing things. (I do get help from the SuperNET project, which is paying for servers, testers, config managment and GUI devs). But that means I am forced to make executive decisions and in this case knowledge of the future would have contaminated the result. I decide that is not the right way.

Some have said it is in BTCD holder's interest to have the komodo ICO raise as little as possible. If you understand tech, then you will realize that is not the case at all, as without enough funding, BTCD might end up with 80%+ of komodo, but there wont be enough funds to properly do dPoW and pay for continued development.

It is a fine balance, if the terms are too preferential to BTCD holders, then it is against ICO investors. As a large BTCD holder, I had to err on the side of being conservative to avoid conflict of interest and maybe I went a bit too far, though using what is near the 1 year all time high price and 50% premium doesnt seem such a big sacrifice.

That being said, I am open to a bonus payment to long time BTCD holders based on a community agreed formula and data as per the third link above. If the community cannot agree on how to allocate any bonus, then I certainly dont feel that I can just decide it after the reaction to my recent decision.

Now the bonus would be earned only at the higher end of the ICO result as clearly if no funds come in and BTCD already ends up with all of komodo it makes no sense to bonus out more. However, until I get an idea of whether the community can even agree to any bonus plan, I really cant make any decisions. The bonus amount would come out of the 10% reserved for ICO expenses.

Remember there is also the revshare asset snapshot, so it is not like I have neglected the BTCD, I had to make a determination of a fair exchange rate to be able to offer an exchange. If the requirement to have an exchange to komodo is removed, then this problem goes away. I have been and continue to work on my single project, which is to create the tech that allows crypto to go mainstream. I have done my best to enable BTCD -> komodo to be a key part of this solution at a decent conversion price. It seems many do not like this at all and so I am open to alternate proposals.

If the BTCD community does not want this future path, then we need to figure out an alternate plan. I can help bring a new dev team up to speed to take over the BTCD 1.0 development without dPoW and LP nodes, but of course the community would need to find/fund such a dev team.

What is needed is a solution and not just a general complaint of unfairness.

Let me know what you decide, I will honor the community decision. And if there is any alternate solution that solves the issues presented, of course I am open to that.

James

hint?

I am saying that iguana is functioning at the command line level for a while now with most of the bitcoin rpc http://docs.supernet.org working, and about a dozen coins can be parallel synced. Though if you are syncing 5 coins at once there seems to be some issue. So if an iguana can sync 1 coin in parallel, but not 5, is it "completed"?

Also, we are right now testing a pure HTML/JS GUI and it is open for anybody to see it in action. There is no need to trust me on this. Both the iguana core and GUI are open source and can be built and run.

For making it noob friendly, we are working on installers, though for the type of tech we are making I hope people are not basing their decision on the presence or absence of an installer?

Also, please keep in mind that until zcash runs on windows, it is unlikely komodo will. However, we do have iguana working on some variants of windows, but it still has some issues for other versions. Since Win10 is able to run unix natively, this should be less and less of an issue, especially if the zcashd can run in the unix mode of Win10

If a project doesnt work with all versions of windows, but works on unix, osx and some versions of windows, is it "completed"?

We are working on making a end user testing version for iguana to be made available before the ICO starts. Given a wide coverage and bug reports, we can iterate that to make it more and more solid. All of the millions of projects that I supposedly started are in my 100,000 line codebase, ie. its one single project with a lot of functionality.

If a single project has many use cases, is it dozens of different projects? I think maybe the confusion is that I am making something that is similar to an OS. But what is an operating system without any applications? How to even know if the OS is working without any applications? So to make an OS, you need to make a few reference applications. And if an idea for a new application happens, does that fit within the framework of the OS, or does it somehow fragment the OS?

My assessment is that crypto needs a common framework for efficient development, if not all of crypto, at least I do. If a solution is being created to be able to build many different solutions, then many different solutions needs to be created on that system to make sure it can handle it. Otherwise you end up with limited scope speciality solutions that dont handle one or more types of problems that need to be handled.

I have a platform level solution that allows efficient solving of all the crypto's bottlenecks toward mainstream adoption. THAT is what I have been working on all this time. And dPoW is a vital part for this as it enables securing otherwise weak chains that wouldnt be secure enough to store any significant value.

Combined with iguana that speaks bitcoin protocol and can interface to many coins at once and atomic cross chain exchanges, a network of bitcoin secured chains that can atomic swap with any other is created. In order to reduce the friction of these cross chain swaps, funded Liquidity Provider nodes are needed. The advantage is that instead of having to wait for a day (or more) for side chains, the swaps can be done within a few coin confirmations (even less for low value swaps)

Maybe someone with graphic skills that can understand the overall architecture can present this information in a graphic? I do not have these graphics skills.

factom's factoids allow anybody to store data in BTC chain via using a data layer, which is a nice thing to plug into existing corporate infrastructure.

however it is not decentralized so you have the problem of whose data do the other nodes rely on. The elected notary nodes solves this issue and as a group they are writing data to the BTC blockchain.

So in a way it is similar, komodo is using a consensus based notary group writing to the BTC blockchain directly. I have no need of a data layer to write to the BTC chain.

Close.

The BTCD swap process is different, so we want to deploy a modified ICO site that handles redeems to a different address. This allows privacy oriented people to just combine all their outputs to one of their addresses and then redeem from that address to receive komodo at the corresponding address.

In order to support withdrawing from an exchange address and get credit at any specified address, you are correct, we would need to make a login site to handle this. This might not be available immediately after the ICO, but it has most usefulness after exchange trading has started as then you can register your exchange deposit address, get a redeem address and withdraw from exchange to the redeem address and get back komodo in the exchange. All without any local wallet or blockchain.

Since there is a one year redemption period, there isnt the extreme time urgency for this, so it will likely be done as we can get it done without impacting the time critical things. This means if you want to swap in the fastest way, please use your local BTCD address.

staking uses up all the coinage, so all active stakers wont have any long coinage.
however, this is a good idea. It would be possible to trace back to how long the funds have been in an address.

Unfortunately I dont have time to work on such analysis, so if people continue to expect me to do everything including this, then it will cause delays. If there is just an analysis, we can consider allocating a long term holder's bonus in the event the ICO sells out.

However, until there is such an analysis made, it is a moot point and without the analysis we cant even evaluate the amount of funds that would be required. The biggest time will be how to allocate rewards based on this long term holding. Clearly I am not the one to determine this.

So, if BTCD people want something like this there needs to be an analysis done, and a proposed way to allocate X amount of bonus. Then and only then can I assess it with the understanding that it has to fit into the ICO process, which means to be triggered at the high end of funds raised.