Thank you for your reply.

I must be honest in what I will have at my disposal:

• a) A development fund of the currency from the 0.250% block tax
• b) An amount of personal coins which I will be legitimately mining myself
• c) I'm a working man with an income which varies from month to month, some months it has more disposable income than others

I've calculated the cost of all resources needed to be about 0.6 BTC.

In return I could offer a portion of A for an agreed time.
Also, If required a percentage of B for an agreed time.
In the worst case, should the project have zero value I could recompense from my personal income.

A+B have an unknown value, which we must assume to be zero, but that we hope to be higher.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this is not a pump and dump with "10000% gains tomorrow!", it's a long term development project who's value will be earned rather than presupposed.

If it helps any, part of the project entails making a clone-able reference implementation available to the public so that we can have clones which at least use a stable new codebase, hopefully that alone has some value.

I'm running the Bitmark project, which should serve to benefit the crypto currency sector.

After taking feedback from the community I've worked out a fair long term development fund.

The project is currently in need of urgent (minor, one off) funding in order to keep momentum and pay for some resourses. I've already put out details and an alternative proposal to IPO funding.

Do any of you have alternative approaches that may be viable?

Is anybody willing to take a small punt on a legitimate project?

Thank you for any advice.

---

Clarifications

I must be honest in what I will have at my disposal:

• a) A development fund of the currency from the 0.250% block tax
• b) An amount of personal coins which I will be legitimately mining myself
• c) I'm a working man with an income which varies from month to month, some months it has more disposable income than others

I've calculated the cost of all resources needed to be about 0.6 BTC.

In return I could offer a portion of A for an agreed time.
Also, If required a percentage of B for an agreed time.
In the worst case, should the project have zero value I could recompense from my personal income.

A+B have an unknown value, which we must assume to be zero, but that we hope to be higher.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this is not a pump and dump with "10000% gains tomorrow!", it's a long term development project who's value will be earned rather than presupposed.

If it helps any, part of the project entails making a clone-able reference implementation available to the public so that we can have clones which at least use a stable new codebase, hopefully that alone has some value.

----

I could suggest a get out clause where if the bitmark supplied hasn't reached a valuation exceeding the investment by an agreed date and the donator feels uncomfortable holding them longer, I personally guarantee to pay back USD amount investment + xx% as a minimum return on that date, in return for the bitmarks back.

---

Give credits to donators somewhere in the client (in the about screen showing current version etcetra) and on the website.

Special thanks to CoinHoarder for his valuable contributions to the discussion

Most, certainly more than you, and if you didn't owe me over 10 BTC I would not be in the position of looking for work to fund this project.

Kindly let me get on with legitimately earning a living and supporting my own venture.

Thanks Duke,

What kind of wallet did you have mind, SPV client, browser based, web based, or?

Short answer is yes, and will be as part of the project I'm looking to fund. I'm wary about over committing my time, it may serve mutual purposes.

Can you expand on your requirements so we can discuss?

Update

• Work has been begun on preparing a clone-able reference implementation (RI) of Bitmark
• Ahmed Bodi has agreed to modify stratum-mining to support both the RI and Bitmark (issue)
• Plans for long term Bitmark support and devolved development to ensure longevity clarified

A dedicated server is urgently needed.

Request alternative proposals for an icon or logo for the Bitmark Project.

I hope that as the project grows more people will contribute and maintenance will be devolved. I have consulted the community and worked out a self supporting development budget so team members would be remunerated for their work done by the project itself.

I am aware of the pseudonym issue and have weighed it up. This is a programming project in beta mode, not an IPO or an organization seeking start up investment, looking to get on to exchanges, or anything like that. Merit of the project should be entirely based on work done and it's own value proposition. I am committed to the project completely, but I do not want it to define my identity forever.

To quote from the bitmark wiki:


Part of the Bitmark project also includes merging tagged releases of the Bitcoin project, I will be creating a semi automated patching process which allows the development team to sanely update the codebase. It must be semi automated as the codebase isn't a direct clone, it's a fork with alternative functionality and changes.

The RI release discussed in this thread will have patches pushed to it from both Bitmark and Bitcoin. I will automate this process as much as is feasible.

I'd like to thank you Graham for the work you have done for the alternative coin community, for your well thought out feedback regarding my own project, and for hosting a test node.

Mark Pfennig  

Ticket opened with every detail I could gather: https://github.com/Crypto-Expert/stratum-mining/issues/349

If you're working on it and need more input, just ping me here.

Thanks, I'll open a ticket on github with some logs for you.

That's a good enough reply for me.

Whilst you're here, the codebase requires a minor change to stratum-mining, is that under your control?
nHeight for v2 blocks isn't being created correctly and blocks are rejected, all other mining software like minerd, cgminer all works fine, only stratum-mining doesn't.

As part of the Bitmark project, I've essentially recreated a new scrypt code base, it's based on bitcoin 0.9.2.1, with scrypt support added, and done properly. This means every upgrade and improvement to bitcoin is included. Also all conditional BIPs are unconditionally supported from block 1 on all three networks (testnet, mainnet, regression network).

The project is currently at a stage where I could fork it and release the code for others to clone and use. Before I make Bitmark specific alterations.

My rationale is that people will clone coins anyway, so I may as well do what I can to ensure those clones are based on new tested and safe code, rather than old copied and modified code which hasn't been updated and has had god knows how many bugs introduced.

I'm seeking the alt coin communities guidance on this before I take any action.

Thank you

Some of you may have noticed that Bitcoin 0.9 launched with a separate bitcoin-cli application.

I'm wondering how people feel about using this instead of the usual daemon directly?

context: with the new bitmark code base we have the chance to 'start as we mean to go on', which means I can fastforward the codebase to where bitcoin will be soon, with the daemon just a daemon, and bitmark-cli to interface via the command line.

Update

• testnet and mainnet both on version 2 blocks, checkpoints added, regression network has no genesis yet
• mining tested with internal miner, minerd, cgminer, others

The "stratum-mining" project appears to be partially incompatible, it's passing block height through incorrectly, I will patch it when I have a chance, unless somebody beats me to it.

Thanks to gjhiggins there is a temporary testnet node up at 5.9.56.229.

update

• added a temporary main network genesis block in order to run unit tests
• have all quality assurance tests passing, except the miner_tests as new test blocks need generated for it
• added unconditional support for BIP16, BIP30, BIP31
• in progress, updating to version 2 transactions and block from genesis on main/test/regression networks
• ann updated for the tl;dr's

do build and test, do not mine, all chains will be reset before public launch

edit: also changed the client name to "Pfennig".

I'm building a new codebase and need volunteers to build nodes and run them on the testnet, generate test coins, and send some transactions.

The current build is essentially what you'd get if you created litecoin today, the latest bitcoin with scrypt added and some modifications - so it's a unique codebase that needs tested.

Please see the main bitmark thread for full details and links.

Requirements: somebody who can pull the source from github, build on the command line (autogen, configure, make), and use the cli/daemon.

Please reply on the main thread, or pm, thanks.

Update - First Test Released

The first release of the new code base is up on github, it's TESTNET only. Appears to work well.

Need to organize a dedicated server for a main test node, and some people to help test... run it, mine testnet coins, send transactions, break it.

This release is essentially what you'd get if litecoin was created today, the latest bitcoin code with scrypt added.

Tester Requirements: somebody who can pull the source from github, build on the command line (autogen, configure, make), and use the cli/daemon.

All details of the project and plans are on the wiki.

If anybody can help test, or feels confident enough to help raise funds (a small amount) for a development server+domain, it would be appreciated.

I've noticed a substantial refactoring to the code base, putting everything in to chainparams (great work!).

Any idea when the next release which includes this will be tagged?

Update

I've effectively forked the latest stable bitcoin, thoroughly renamed, configured with all proposed chain, config and port configurations, updated all supporting documentation, updated all tools, demos, dns seeder, build files for all targets, and importantly all tests.

bitmarkd and bitmark-cli compile with 113 QA tests passing, and no obscure references to bitcoin other than in license headers.

Next:
Change to scrypt PoW, create signing certificates for releases, configure alertnet.

Once ready I'll commit all code so we can test compilation and testnet.

technical needs:
1. soon, people interested in testing and building.
2. soon, dedicated server for main node and project websites
3. soon after, dns seeders

No, centralized checkpointing prevents against history rewrites, for instance no rewrites older than a month. That isn't consensus though and the attack could be done before checkpointing.

You have to trust the dev or whoever holds a large amount of the coin anyway (not 51%) as they can dump or manipulate the market as they please, a social 51% attack. Most PoS coins are susceptible to this with only a few holding the vast majority of coins.

The key is the number of repetitions, a single person taking a single action has no noticeable cost involved. Taking multiple actions the cost of production up, if the cost of production (time+electricity) becomes higher than the benefit of having say multiple accounts or spamming, then it doesn't become good business to do so.

It's that same as charging people to submit a form or send an email, there's a monetary value which makes spamming no longer viable.

note: just a random idea, to apply PoW to different problem spaces, could also be used for a voting system, where each vote has to be computationally harder than the last.