If you are not having to go through an exchange, then ~1% is not a terrible deal. Most exchanges charge 0.2% for each trade transaction. Then again to withdraw it to your wallet.
Sure, and as I said earlier, I don't have a problem if this information is published for the user to make a decision about. People are happy to pay for convenience. I couldn't find any info about fees, and so asked the question. It's interesting being able to receive answers direct from a developer, and I appreciate the feedback. |
|
|
|
As for VeriBit, there is a large buffer of BTC we have donated by a large investor (not in Black Hand) to block any market disrupting uses of it. For now we will limit maximum sends of 1 BTC until we can ensure we will not manipulate the price greatly. We are leveraging the optimal buying algorithm to recover the BTC after a VeriBit transaction and it's been seamless so far. There are no "fees" per se, but the conversion rate is constructed using price levels and often leaves us with ~1% extra BTC after. That BTC goes to boost the buffer to reduce potential damage from sends in the future. Nobody is getting rich of VeriBit. It's designed to help the community, not make much profit.
That's useful, and very pertinent information that needs to be layed out clearly for people, so that they can decide whether they are happy to pay the ~1% premium. It's an interesting development, I look forward to seeing how it's received. It's not a 1% premium when the market goes down. The system just calculates the lowest price required to ensure it can buy back the BTC. We trained it so it will be minimal. Really, it's just a price. The % depends on how much BTC you want. The more BTC, the higher the rate-- it's just how the market works. If you're often left with ~1% extra BTC, then that's a premium on top of what I would have paid to go through an exchange. I don't have a problem with that if the info is laid out for people. Many users will be happy to pay something for the convenience. But that's a side issue. I don't understand the '% depends on how much BTC you want' part. Why is this ? When trading on an exchange, I am not presented with a different rate according to the value I am trading. Am I missing something ? We'll list that there's some fees to cover the exchange. Imagine the following scenario: There's buy orders for 0.1 BTC at 30k sat. and 1.5 BTC at 29.5k sat. If you want to send a 0.05 BTC transaction, it will use the value as 30k sat + 2 VRC as the fee. If you want to send 1.0 BTC it will use a weighted average of the 0.1 BTC and 1.5 BTC orders. Make sense? It does this because it needs to recapture enough BTC to keep the buffer alive. The fee is 2 VRC right now plus actual exchange rate. Why do you choose to use an actual rate for one transaction, and a weighted average for another ? Why does the larger transaction benefit from the reduced fee ? It can't be an actual rate for the transaction because 0.1 BTC doesn't cover the entire 1 BTC. It has to use both rates to get the "true" rate. Sure, and by using the weighted average for the larger transaction, that transaction is processed with a better rate. Why not simply use weighted averages for all transactions, so as to create a more even playing field ( at that time ) ? It would surely be a bit more efficient programmatically, too, no ? |
|
|
|
As for VeriBit, there is a large buffer of BTC we have donated by a large investor (not in Black Hand) to block any market disrupting uses of it. For now we will limit maximum sends of 1 BTC until we can ensure we will not manipulate the price greatly. We are leveraging the optimal buying algorithm to recover the BTC after a VeriBit transaction and it's been seamless so far. There are no "fees" per se, but the conversion rate is constructed using price levels and often leaves us with ~1% extra BTC after. That BTC goes to boost the buffer to reduce potential damage from sends in the future. Nobody is getting rich of VeriBit. It's designed to help the community, not make much profit.
That's useful, and very pertinent information that needs to be layed out clearly for people, so that they can decide whether they are happy to pay the ~1% premium. It's an interesting development, I look forward to seeing how it's received. It's not a 1% premium when the market goes down. The system just calculates the lowest price required to ensure it can buy back the BTC. We trained it so it will be minimal. Really, it's just a price. The % depends on how much BTC you want. The more BTC, the higher the rate-- it's just how the market works. If you're often left with ~1% extra BTC, then that's a premium on top of what I would have paid to go through an exchange. I don't have a problem with that if the info is laid out for people. Many users will be happy to pay something for the convenience. But that's a side issue. I don't understand the '% depends on how much BTC you want' part. Why is this ? When trading on an exchange, I am not presented with a different rate according to the value I am trading. Am I missing something ? We'll list that there's some fees to cover the exchange. Imagine the following scenario: There's buy orders for 0.1 BTC at 30k sat. and 1.5 BTC at 29.5k sat. If you want to send a 0.05 BTC transaction, it will use the value as 30k sat + 2 VRC as the fee. If you want to send 1.0 BTC it will use a weighted average of the 0.1 BTC and 1.5 BTC orders. Make sense? It does this because it needs to recapture enough BTC to keep the buffer alive. The fee is 2 VRC right now plus actual exchange rate. Why do you choose to use an actual rate for one transaction, and a weighted average for another ? Why does the larger transaction benefit from the reduced fee ? |
|
|
|
As for VeriBit, there is a large buffer of BTC we have donated by a large investor (not in Black Hand) to block any market disrupting uses of it. For now we will limit maximum sends of 1 BTC until we can ensure we will not manipulate the price greatly. We are leveraging the optimal buying algorithm to recover the BTC after a VeriBit transaction and it's been seamless so far. There are no "fees" per se, but the conversion rate is constructed using price levels and often leaves us with ~1% extra BTC after. That BTC goes to boost the buffer to reduce potential damage from sends in the future. Nobody is getting rich of VeriBit. It's designed to help the community, not make much profit.
That's useful, and very pertinent information that needs to be layed out clearly for people, so that they can decide whether they are happy to pay the ~1% premium. It's an interesting development, I look forward to seeing how it's received. It's not a 1% premium when the market goes down. The system just calculates the lowest price required to ensure it can buy back the BTC. We trained it so it will be minimal. Really, it's just a price. The % depends on how much BTC you want. The more BTC, the higher the rate-- it's just how the market works. If you're often left with ~1% extra BTC, then that's a premium on top of what I would have paid to go through an exchange. I don't have a problem with that if the info is laid out for people. Many users will be happy to pay something for the convenience. But that's a side issue. I don't understand the '% depends on how much BTC you want' part. Why is this ? When trading on an exchange, I am not presented with a different rate according to the value I am trading. Am I missing something ? |
|
|
|
As for VeriBit, there is a large buffer of BTC we have donated by a large investor (not in Black Hand) to block any market disrupting uses of it. For now we will limit maximum sends of 1 BTC until we can ensure we will not manipulate the price greatly. We are leveraging the optimal buying algorithm to recover the BTC after a VeriBit transaction and it's been seamless so far. There are no "fees" per se, but the conversion rate is constructed using price levels and often leaves us with ~1% extra BTC after. That BTC goes to boost the buffer to reduce potential damage from sends in the future. Nobody is getting rich of VeriBit. It's designed to help the community, not make much profit.
That's useful, and very pertinent information that needs to be layed out clearly for people, so that they can decide whether they are happy to pay the ~1% premium. It's an interesting development, I look forward to seeing how it's received. |
|
|
|
In alpha phase, I've successfully sent VRC to my BTC wallet with no middle man. Actually that's pretty huge but we do need better info on what rates are being used and whether there are limits to the number of coins that can be sent this way. For instance, if someone was holding 100BTC-worth of VRC that they needed to send to someone as BTC, could they, when the service is fully released, do so without affecting the overall rate of exchange? The equivalent of a 'dump' of VRC to BTC normally has an effect on the market but I'm assuming that the currently centralised nature of VeriBit has these transactions taking place outside of the normal exchange conditions. If VRC can achieve this degree of liquidity without the rate of exchange applied being negatively affected for large transactions, then it really will become harder to justify being in BTC at all, given that one can earn interest while staking VRC. No middle man ... except the Veribit service. Agreed that this could be a big deal if we can get some clarity about fees, and a response to cryptodevil's query |
|
|
|
Can you also use Veribit to 'pay' yourself? So if you want to exchange VRC to BTC?
That'd be pretty cool.
And how about a reverse system, BTC to VRC?
In alpha phase, I've successfully sent VRC to my BTC wallet with no middle man. Plus VeriBit Beta is now as fast as a BTC transaction. As for now, there's no reverse. Who knows.. At which rate was it converter? Current exchange rate with cover fees. I believe it was Polo in alpha, but they were somewhat slow. Beta I haven't tried yet, but it's available for donors and it will be public today. Any idea what the 'cover fees' amount to ? |
|
|
|
Hey guys is vericoin a centralized coin ? I just got reemed by a friend saying its no good cause its centralized.. give me some ammo
No, the coin isn't. We've added some features which are currently centralized because we are testing them. We don't want to release stuff until it's working 100%. And those centralized things are a SMS wallet and VeriSend, an anon system. Otherwise, the coin is much like Litecoin or Blackcoin. Awesome thank you NOS I been taking a beating from crypto friends for that. Keep up the good work I believe in you. Also thank you for the beta hope you enjoy your trip  Hi Patrick, Sorry if this was answered before, I googled it but couldn't find an answer: How exactly does VeriBit convert VRC to BTC? Will these VRC be sold on the open market in order to pay the BTC request? If so, this would be (semi-)centralized due to the use of centralized exchanges, right? Or did you implement a decentralized exchange? But if so, then somebody would need to buy these VRC for the BTC amount so you can use them to pay the BTC transaction. Also, "who" exactly makes the VRC / BTC conversion? Will the wallet send a request to some server that will do the job? The general idea is pretty sweet, but couldn't somebody come up with an auto trading engine that allows this for basically every coin out there? Most exchange APIs already provide the general functionality that would just need to be wrapped within in the wallet. But maybe I didn't understand the whole thing completely, so I would appreciate some technical details as far as you agree to share them. Thanks so much and great work! VeriBit is a centralized service run by the Dev team. I hope that explains everything. The wallet will poll our service. Other questions would be: What exchange does the Veribit use as a reference for the prices ? Also, are you using an additional fee on the top of the current price listed on the exchange ? Or Veribit calculates the average/mean value from all the exchanges and uses that price ? Or it's just a manual and a steady value that you use ? I'd be interested in an answer to the question regarding charging a fee for VeriBit transactions ( adding interest to an average exchange rate ). If no fee is charged, it would be beneficial to have this stated very clearly, but if one is being levied, then this needs to be declared. The white paper - http://www.vericoin.info/VeriBit.pdf - answers most questions, but makes no mention of fees. |
|
|
|
Don't know if this has been discussed earlier: But the CRYPT scam brought up the idea of why BLK/BC isn't listed on one of the "serious" platforms ?
I know that btc-e.com doesn't want more alts , but BLK has to get out of the slavery of MintPal's P&D "We add a coin every day" bullshit. And Blackcoin is not "one of these coins".
Anyone any Info's for me?
A couple of months ago I contacted https://www.kraken.com/ support. At that time, they replied to say they were not actively considering adding more alts, because of the time required to do so. I have just emailed again, pointing out recent developments ( BlackHalo, CoinKite etc ) Response from Kraken: Thank you for following up on this issue. While we are well aware of BlackCoin, I'm afraid our position remains the same currently with regards to adding new currencies. As mentioned in our reply to your previous request, at Kraken we do not add a new currency without doing an extensive valuation of the code first which can take significant time. We are putting resources into other major projects and developments for Kraken, but we are definitely not opposed to adding new currencies in the future. |
|
|
|
Don't know if this has been discussed earlier: But the CRYPT scam brought up the idea of why BLK/BC isn't listed on one of the "serious" platforms ?
I know that btc-e.com doesn't want more alts , but BLK has to get out of the slavery of MintPal's P&D "We add a coin every day" bullshit. And Blackcoin is not "one of these coins".
Anyone any Info's for me?
A couple of months ago I contacted https://www.kraken.com/ support. At that time, they replied to say they were not actively considering adding more alts, because of the time required to do so. I have just emailed again, pointing out recent developments ( BlackHalo, CoinKite etc ) |
|
|
|
By the way, i had a brief chat with rat4 and he does not like the idea of having this feature in the official wallet too much (security concerns). I will try to look into this myself and maybe create a concept how it could be done efficiently and safe since i do not share his concerns
Thanks for the info. If you are able to think of a way to execute this it'd be great, so that we can put it forward as a serious doable proposition for wallet holders to think/vote on. |
|
|
|
Following on from the above.
Current market cap is $10,371,296.
If, today, we had a voted-on to-do list, and everyone contributed 1% of their holding towards paying for X work to be carried out, we would raise $103,713.
For that amount of money, we could get a fair amount accomplished. Enough, such that upon release, the new work would raise the market cap by comfortably more than 1%. That would represent a decent ROI.
Now, let's say we do this every couple of months ( to take into account administering the process and doing the work - some work will take longer than 2 months, some less ). The value of BC will increase at regular intervals, for very good, solid reasons, without P&D.
Such a process would allow us to invest a small percentage of our holding with reasonable certainty that we will get a good return. Many of us will choose to sell some BC at the point of release of the work that has been paid for, to recover our investment and turn a profit. This builds good liquidity, brings in new money, etc.
It would mean we could see very good return at regular intervals, would erase the need for large numbers of people waiting for the big pump to make a quick buck, dumping in the process.
This leads on to the following possibility.
As the value of BC ( and BTC ) increase, so does the value of that 1% voluntary contribution.
Not everyone will be willing to voluntarily contribute even 1%. Not everyone will be aware of it. However, let's say that, instead of the 1% staking interest being paid back to the address that generates it, it is paid to an address that serves as a 'development' kitty.
Not everyone keeps their wallet open to stake, but as the value of BC increases, the 1% generated by those that do stake will cover for those that don't. It will probably, over time, generate an excess. In this case, the stake could be split between dev kitty and the generating address. Or, the excess could be donated somewhere ( towards education centered around this type of technology, for instance ).
A thought ............
This is a great idea. Instead of donate 1%. We should call it Donate your Stake or Stake for Developers. Now we spin it around so you're not losing anything from your original stash. This way it will be less than 1% I have added a post to reddit : http://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin/comments/28s7fm/using_1_stake_as_development_fund/It'd be great to get some feedback about whether people would be willing to automatically contribute their 1% stake by diverting it to a separate address, but also, more importantly, whether this is technically possible. |
|
|
|
|
Following on from the above.
Current market cap is $10,371,296.
If, today, we had a voted-on to-do list, and everyone contributed 1% of their holding towards paying for X work to be carried out, we would raise $103,713.
For that amount of money, we could get a fair amount accomplished. Enough, such that upon release, the new work would raise the market cap by comfortably more than 1%. That would represent a decent ROI.
Now, let's say we do this every couple of months ( to take into account administering the process and doing the work - some work will take longer than 2 months, some less ). The value of BC will increase at regular intervals, for very good, solid reasons, without P&D.
Such a process would allow us to invest a small percentage of our holding with reasonable certainty that we will get a good return. Many of us will choose to sell some BC at the point of release of the work that has been paid for, to recover our investment and turn a profit. This builds good liquidity, brings in new money, etc.
It would mean we could see very good return at regular intervals, would erase the need for large numbers of people waiting for the big pump to make a quick buck, dumping in the process.
This leads on to the following possibility.
As the value of BC ( and BTC ) increase, so does the value of that 1% voluntary contribution.
Not everyone will be willing to voluntarily contribute even 1%. Not everyone will be aware of it. However, let's say that, instead of the 1% staking interest being paid back to the address that generates it, it is paid to an address that serves as a 'development' kitty.
Not everyone keeps their wallet open to stake, but as the value of BC increases, the 1% generated by those that do stake will cover for those that don't. It will probably, over time, generate an excess. In this case, the stake could be split between dev kitty and the generating address. Or, the excess could be donated somewhere ( towards education centered around this type of technology, for instance ).
A thought ............
|
|
|
|
Problem is that many thing are just unclear what we are doing and what needs founds ext. If eg. dzimbeck is working on his stuff 5 months it cab be even longer before we will see effects of those people work. Development take time its not like week and ready. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Generally i was thinking about something like that: - ONCE per month or two we vote for feature to develop and which we can afford to do it. - We wote on it using BC just send BC to project name adress - Winner gets all BC from voting. - We contack IT companies / talented people who can make job we chose one he gives back price and approx delivery time - We rise founds till we get all to pay developers ______________________________ If gets popular we can revive developers start ups in future we can create something like Blackstratup. And we vote on one of them and found it. Money are payed in escrow when job is done. Real IT companies will have different rules i expect but they are more reliable. If people wont donate to get enough BC to move project into development phase they can blame only them self for leack of development  In such scenario we have ALLWAYS sure feature in progress once per month and open to public with some ETA... and progress measure. PS: I know one thing if people demand features they should pay for job and make talented people bagholders and "mayby" later they will make something for bc for free. I like this idea a lot, think that it would have the following benefits : 1. BC investors use their investment proactively to increase the utility of BC, thus increase the value of their investment, instead of sitting waiting for 'someone' to develop something. Many of us are in this latter position. I don't say that in a negative way, it's simply the case that most of us don't have the skills/time to contribute practically to development, but could willingly contribute funds. 2. Employing skilled people to work on the project means 'real world' interaction. It means economic benefit being passed on to the wider community, who will engage with the project, talk about it, spread word naturally by speaking with colleagues about the cool new work they're involve with, and, as interest gathers pace, may well take part payment in BC. |
|
|
|
im not sure try asking in the irc  Requests for donations were published here and on reddit, and so an update about whther the funds are being used, or likely to be used for the purpose for which they were given, should be posted here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
