One of the best things you could do for merchant adoption is to get your coin on coinpayments.net. They already have extensive plugins and modules that make integrating crypto payments extremely easy for online merchants.
That's quite an interesting service. I hadn't seen this site before. That is a very extensive list of currencies there. Fees seem reasonable too. I was also suitably impressed by the service. Would it be fair to question if this encourages the use of crypto currencies as a proxy currency? I cannot tell if this is a good thing encouraging adoption and accessibility, or something which encourages the notion of alternative currencies having no long term value. Specifically the part about merchants immediately exchanging to btc, and then potentially fiat. |
|
|
|
0.125% of block reward and a halving transaction tax would do it.
This cannot be done.We are back to the original question. |
|
|
|
CRITICAL ISSUE- 1. A priority for Bitmark is to keep compatibility with the existing infrastructure which has been built around Bitcoin and the alternatives.
- 2. Another priority is to ensure long term development for Bitmark, the proposal was the developer fund
The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees. Prior discussion can be found here and hereIssue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1). Here are the proposals: - Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
- IPO: no, it conflicts with the natural growth principal of Bitmark and will create an expectation or rush to acquire unnatural value.
- Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.
I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected. Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready. Please discuss and propose.
|
|
|
|
I would say that the current tilted 'BM' is good as a logo. Especially as a small icon. But as a brand in the context of purchasing something the 'bitmark accepted here' button is good as brand image.
If there we're a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
Agreed. What you propose can be done simply. "Bitmark" the word, currently does not have a logo representation. If we take the stylized "Bitmark" from Allows design, and prefix it with the "BM" logo we currently have, the solution is found. The two font styles may, or may not, work together. Can we proceed by merging the two, then Allow and mymenace can work together until both are happy with the end result, if the feel so inclined. In a few minutes I will be posting an important update to the project, an issue we must discuss. |
|
|
|
I did not put in a vast amount of thought in to branding. I did think the term "Mark" was good and could be used commonly, it is the unit of measurement for 0.001 Bitmarks, equal to "1 Mark". https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/CurrencySo the term Mark is used by the project, but reserved for future usage. When one mark is equal to one dollar, and beyond  One constraint I do wish to apply to the logo, is that it must be identifiable at 20x20 and 32x32 pixels, as this is used commonly. This variation of logo does look sharp, and Allow raises a valid argument against the use of "BM". I could argue that "B" is also anonymous, and that an icons usage in relation to a project creates the brand identity. We could also argue that if people do not feel it is reflective of Bitmark or the project from the start, then it may be incorrect. I would seek feedback from the community on this matter. I do feel that we will be stuck with whatever we use at the start, changing logo half way through is probably not a good idea. Refine yes, change no. I conclude then that any change should be before launch. It is very good to see thought being put in to buy buttons, there is a thread here to discuss merchant and integrator needs. |
|
|
|
|
macbackfat kindly provided me with a copy, I've uploaded it to a github release in case anybody else needs it.
removed, it's not redistributable.
|
|
|
|
Try to use wallet, i have this error mesage :
./darkcoin-qt
./darkcoin-qt: symbol lookup error: ./darkcoin-qt: undefined symbol: _ZN10QTextCodec11validCodecsEv
We experienced the same problem on centos with our own project. Upgrading the build process to use a newer qt4 for linux resolved the problem, we have swapped to qt-4.8.6 when gitian building. |
|
|
|
|
Bitmark has upgraded to use QT 4.8.6 when cross compiled for linux, rather than 4.6.4 which is now two years old.
This now allows bitmark-qt to be used on CentOS 6.5 without error, and also improves general rendering.
This is a deviation from Bitcoin which uses 4.6.4, we have opened an issue on the bitcoin repository to suggest they may consider upgrading qt4 in the release process.
I'd like to thank macbackfat for his extensive help in testing on various platforms.
|
|
|
|
Goodbusy  I might say! Finally a scrypt coin for the modern scrypt miner with some great thoughts behind it and some real knowledge. +1 Thank you for your kind words. We are moving ahead with development and have almost secured enough budget to launch the main chain with stable nodes. In the next few days we'll have real Bitmarks being mined. I cannot specify an exact date yet, as after further development we will need to do one more pre-release. |
|
|
|
The comment are interesting, for example
"Silicon Valley should be able to develop an easy app to accessible at somewhere other than a bank, possibly at the post office, the library, the pharmacy, or Walmart, to allow funds to be dropped off somewhere in the US and picked up somewhere in Mexico or other countries. "
Newsflash: There already is. Bitcoin (It's as if they are begging for bitcoin to be mentioned somewhere) Whilst that is a valid point, we could also read it to say that Bitcoin needs to be accessible "at the post office, the library, the pharmacy, or Walmart", offline if you will. |
|
|
|
I am definitely interested in Kora's approach. About the distribution: What about: One stake per Human? Is that fair? What does that mean, anyway? I wonder if there is any way to do this without opening the can of worms that is called Biometrics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiometricsConsider this approach: It has to be designed in such a way that it propagates itself, but does not reward the initial starting group. Any IPO process is inherently unfair, since it is occurring in a certain point in time, and everyone entering later, is at an disadvantage. First create the coins, and the distributed network, similar to NXT or Qora, but do not "populate" them with owners. The coins only take on value, if they have "owners" and the owners get added in in such a fashion: Start with an initial group: a network of humans that know, and vouch for each other. Every person who has received a stake, can mature into a "banker" - that is an account that has the capability to identify and recruit 10 more individuals. "Mining" or "forging" occurs that moment when a new stakeholder has been appointed by an existing one. (just like current banks create the value out of thin air). Any stakeholder can do that only 10 times in his/her life. (One for each fingerprint?) So the coins are "pre-created" but not "pre-mined". Mining or Forging occurs when new owners are populating (taking ownership of) the coins. I think there are smart individuals out here, who can work out how many coins should be in the total pool, and how many should be in a stake, so that all the (future) humans on this planet can have an adequate supply of usable coin units. The coins, once given value by being owned by new stakeholders, of course can be used and traded like any other currency. But... this will not work, because nobody here can let go of their greed to get in on the original creation of value. Nobody will want to spend energy on something that might empower the ones that follow us. Nobody wants to be a 'banker' without getting rich through it. Maybe we can have another three-letter-acronymn: PoP - Proof of Person?? Pentamon Great post Pentamon, thanks! You raise some very interesting points. 'One stake per Human' is my goal for Kora, and I think for many people interested in seeing crypto currencies thrive and do good in the world, it is the high water mark for coin distribution. For me 'One stake per Human' *should* mean that I can register a stake for my children, and my elderly parents, and other 'dependants'. Please note that I said *should*, because I know setting up a system where people could register a stake on behalf of another person would be a red rag to a bull as far as sockpuppeters is concerned, so preventing abuse by multi-account scammers would become a major effort. I think it is possible to setup such a system, but very difficult without requiring people to upload identity documents. I believe eventually someone will propose a coin with 100% POS free distribution, and they will try to airdrop to a particular community based on 'One stake per Human' using some form of identity checking. Many financial institutions are required already to collect identity documents for AML & KYC purposes, so I think eventually a big player will try and bootstrap a coin on a mass scale using existing document collecting & verification procedures. Many people in the crypto community NOW obviously value their privacy, so many would be against a coin that asked for identity documents, but I think it is almost inevitable somebody will do this, and they'll probably be very successful - 'free money if you upload 2 identity documents and install an app on your phone' - It is inevitable. As for your suggestions regarding the problems with distributing all the coins at the beginning, I like the idea of issuing larger amounts to people who acts as 'redistribution agents', and then those people distribute to new people etc etc It has a lot of appeal. I think the problem is 'trust' - how can you force the people to distribute and not hoard? It's the 'tragedy of the commons' (similar to game theory), and everyone has a strong incentive to NOT distribute to the next level, and hope everyone else does so the coin survives but they have more coins. Many would argue that the best means of distribution is selling for profit by the first batch of stakeholders, and then as the price slowly goes up, new entrants sell/distribute to the next wave of users, and then the price goes up a little more so they sell to the next wave etc etc. I can see problems with both approaches, (i.e. distribute via selling for profit vs trusting the 'distribution bankers' to honestly distribute and not cheat), but the goal of saving coins for later distribution is very worthwhile. I am a big believer in the potential of DACs (distributed autonomous corporations), which in my mind are software that has been programmed to perform all the functions of a business. Many businesses, especially ones involving money *could* be programmed into software without the need for human intervention. The functions of Banking, insurance, stock issuing, bond issuing etc could be fully automated one day, and eventually I think DACs will revolutionise many industries, in the same way the internet already has. I believe in the not too distant future it would be possible to program a 'coin distribution DAC' that was capable of distributing coins over a long period of time using identity checking in some automated secure way, that would allow coins to be distributed slowly, so later generations of people could still get a fair share. Instead of having people act in the role of 'redistribution bankers' as you called them, the DAC could be programmed to perform that function. If the DAC was programmed 'correctly' the coin distribution could happen over years, and it would not require 'trusting' anybody, and everything would be transparent on the coin's blockchain. I think a DAC distributed 100% POS coin is the long term answer for crypto currencies - POW is flawed, but 100% POS coins have the 'how do we distribute fairly' problem. NXT & Qora had very poor distributions, NEM was better but still not very wide, and it doesn't allow for any distribution to late comers. The long term fair distribution is obviously to use your suggestion and NOT distribute all the coins to the first wave of users so you can keep coins for later users, but who can we trust to safe keep the coins and honestly perform the 'One stake per Human' check? Answer, a distribution DAC! Crypto is evolving. Bitcoin was like the first early human ancestor who climbed down from the trees in Africa. NXT is like the first human ancestor to use a stone tool. Qora, NEM & Kora can all make evolutionary progress, but if we're honest they're still basically hairy man-monkey creatures walking around - they're like homo erectus & neanderthals, and not the equivalent of a modern human. A 100% POS coin distributed by a DAC using identity checking would be very close to a 'fully evolved crypto' IMO We must be careful not to confuse things. When you speak of a DAC (see Bootstrapping A Decentralized Autonomous Corporation) you may mean to refer to an Autonomous Agent. Agents have been developed in the AI field for many years. Two courses to pursuing 'One stake per Human' which could be actively developed at this time are bootstrapping trust based IOU systems, or bootstrapping the social graph. These are by no means inclusive of everybody on earth, but they would be a reasonable start to distribution. In both of these scenarios people have unique identifiers, either as UUIDs or URLs, they can be hashed to a common format for such a distribution system. Plug in a crawling agent, and an agent which is armed with crypto currency, and you perhaps have the makings of a viable system. |
|
|
|
A total of 0.4 BTC has now been donated. We now only need 0.2 BTC to reach our goal  |
|
|
|
another 0.1 BTC has been donated, thanks to Pentamon. Only 0.2 left to raise |
|
|
|
Update- The pre-release has been tested successfully on all platforms now, we are moving on with development (Pending confirmation CentOS).
- A further 0.1 BTC has kindly been donated by PondSea on behalf of the Qora Community, we are half way to our development budget goal. 0.3 BTC remaining.
|
|
|
|
|
The comment are interesting, for example
"Silicon Valley should be able to develop an easy app to accessible at somewhere other than a bank, possibly at the post office, the library, the pharmacy, or Walmart, to allow funds to be dropped off somewhere in the US and picked up somewhere in Mexico or other countries. "
|
|
|
|
I saw that, which is what I was going for with the 'f.' Unfortunately, almost no fonts have that unicode symbol built into them.
Very nice. To me, I like the last version on each row My preference is the monochrome version of the first version. I would like to hear what you and others think. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I can do that. I originally started with the letters lined up, but thought that particular combination of letters looked weird.
If it helps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfennig .. there is a lot of historical usage, including a previously used currency symbol which has it's own unicode symbol. |
|
|
|
Thank you, this is a good start. I don't want to feel like an omnipotent leader here, but can we try white instead of yellow, and a second variant with "Pf" non-italicized with bases aligned, and finally, a monochromatic version (black and white). |
|
|
|
Talk to me more about the Fedora task.
I'm more of a CentOS man but the core is, literally, the same thing.
You need someone to build the server and client components on it?
Yes, I currently don't have an rpm based linux distribution setup as vm or physical machine as I've migrated to debian across the board. Building is of secondary concern, of primary concern is ensuring the cross compiled binaries provided for linux available under the pre-release work on either fedora or centos. If you have a headless distro then fire up bitmarkd and see if it works. If a gui variant then bitmark-qt. Thank you for your extensive testing macbackfat. |
|
|
|
wait wtf
Sometimes when I want a break I check Truong's post history, it always brightens my day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
