Very good point Steve.

reasonable request for anybody to make, I wouldn't hold your breath though.

Perhaps an obvious question, but you can ping google.com from both virtual machines yes?

I'm not implying anything. Satoshi was online and discussing bitcoin ten years earlier, if you're familiar with his more recent mails from a few years ago, the series of mails to cypherpunks/cryptography back in 98-99 will be familiar, for example this. There are plenty more earlier and later. As Adam Back says those were the discussions when he first started speaking to Satoshi over the internet. Of course he was likely around long before that as you say, as his ideas are already maturing by 99.

Yes of course. Satoshi first started communicating about the project on cypherpunks around 98-99, discussing with Adam Back (hashcash), Wei Dai (b-money), RAH and others.

Check the archives yourself, look for mails from anonymous at replay

The original thread was 10 years earlier.

He worked on it for ten years, released it with a 40-50 year timescale to allow for transaction volume to grow high enough that the fees could support the network.

Did that whitepaper look like it had been somebody getting lucky, or the well planned product of a decades work?

Awap expected for hoped or designed.
Scale up following exponentially from where we are today. This is infancy.

start pc1 daemon, tail -f the debug.log
start pc2 daemon, see if any entry occurs in debug.log above

remember this is a big reason as to why we use bitcoin.. so we can send money from anywhere to anywhere, that's why we swap fiat for it..

The number of hashes per $ of mining hardware and per $ of electricity falls over time.
The cost of running the network
... must keep rising so that it isn't profitable for a single entity to take it over
... must be lower than the value of the transaction fees to stay profitable for miners and prevent the aforementioned
The value of the volume of btc transferred per day must then be at least 100x higher than the cost of running the network, based on tx fees lower than 1%.

throw in some variables to get valuation.

Bitcoin is over 15 years old.

ConspiracyMonger.

Should we ban freedom of speech?

funded, thank you.

I'm looking for a few people to comment, ask for clarifications, or give reasonable constructive feedback as they can:

• Bitmark Project Details
• ANN/Discussion

I'm more than prepared to do the work myself, some feedback / review  / engagement from time to time would be very useful.

Thank you in advance.

M

Update
I've started development on Bitmark late yesterday.

Bitmark is based on Bitcoin 0.9.2.1 with additions from the latest master branch of Litecoin, including of course scrypt support.
Bitmark will have mainnet, testnet, and regnet as bitcoin. It will also use a DNS Seeder.

Once the merge is complete and configured for Bitmark, I'll add it to the github repo for community testing.
Existing code tests will be updated for Bitmark.

Request for Funding
The total cost of resources for the first 3 months is 0.636 BTC, this covers:

• 3 months of dedicated server for the project.
• Domain name
• 2 base templates, a public facing informational template, and an "administration" style template similar to blackcoinpool.com/dashboard
• A small budget for leasedrigs to use on the testnet and to check block time generation as hashspeed changes rapidly, multipool diff drop mitigation

In return I can offer the first xx days (14?) of BTM from the development fund.

Alternative proposals are welcomed, as are btc donations to: 18rai2ichzUfXG6PVmUQLNPqBjtctnVRAD

edit: Thanks to whoever donated the 0.0159 BTC!

By https://blockchain.info/charts/miners-revenue I read the miners revenue at the last daily measurement was 2,438,905
By https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit I read the network deficit at the last daily measurement was -2,426,991

Am I then wildly wrong to conclude that the net profit for the entire day of mining was $11,914?

Or put another way, if there was 0 block reward, that the miners would have wasted $2.4m worth of hashing?

I'm hoping that I'm reading these charts incorrectly.

Today's Updates
1. Notes on the Bitmark, Block Reward, Monetary Supply, and (Network+Coin) Distribution: https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki/Currency
2. Requests for Community Discussion on Third Party Innovations: https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki/Third-Party-Innovations
3. Development Fund / Taxation in Detail: https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki/Development-Fund
4. Refinement of the main introduction and coin details https://github.com/coinsolidation/bitmark/wiki

Suggestion for Initial Difficulty
based on a network hashrate of: 50MH/s diff 1.4, 100mh/s: diff 2.8
working: (1.4*2^32/120 = 50,107,951) and (2.8*2^32/120 = 100,215,903)
reasoning: the first 720 blocks should require a reasonable amount of expenditure to generate before the diff changes.

mymenace, thank you for the vote and the concept logo

Pentamon, thank you for the feedback. I'd like to avoid Apple's i prefix if possible, especially when we can have the term "bitmark" pretty much exclusively without it. As you said, it rolls off the tongue
I like MARK, worry about confusion, if 1 mark equals 0.001 bitmark, then a currency code of "MARK" for bitmark may end up ambiguous and confusing over time, do you agree?

Markbit, I like this term, perhaps it could be the equivalent of either a "bit" (0.000001 Bitmark / 0.001 Mark) or a satoshi (0.00000001 Bitmark). Personally I think bitmark equivalent to bitcoins bits is useful and my preferred option.

Thoughts on term usage:

• The Bitmark: used to refer to the entire currency, as the dollar / the pound - usage: "... the Dollar was down again the Bitmark today at ..."
• Bitmark: used to refer to the overall project, or to a single coin. Context clarifies - usage: "somebody just sent me my first bitmark!" and "have you heard about Bitmark?"
• (future) Mark: used to refer to 0.001 bitmark, potentially a standard term for the currency - usage: "that tv is on sale for 250 marks" and "that will be one mark ninety-nine please"

Thoughts on short currency codes:

• (2) BMK: +1 unique within it's domain, +1 no financial usage
• (1) BTM: +1 unique within it's domain, +1 no financial usage, -1 possible confusion with a bitcoin atm (BTMs)
• (0) BMRK: +1 unique within it's domain, -1 existing financial usage (Benchmark Energy Corporation)
• (-1) MRK: -1 existing financial usage (Merck & Co.)
• (-1) MARK: +1 unique within it's domain, -1 existing financial usage (Remark Media), -1 confusion with 0.001 bitmark (1.00 mark)

On scoring BMK comes out top. I do not think I like it, but it serves a purpose and is unambiguous in terms of current and future usage.

Thoughts on a bitmark satoshi 0.00000001:

• no thoughts, does this even need named (yet), will it ever be used if we have bitmark, mark, and markbits covering names down to a precision of 0.000001?

I've decided on a name for the project and currency.

Bitmark

1 Bitmark, 3 Bitmarks.
1 Mark will equal 0.001 Bitmark.

Short Code: BTM or MRK undecided, feedback please

"Mark" Historical Usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_(money)
"Bitmark" Historical Usage: bitly used it to refer to public bookmarks, this seems to have phased out over 2012/2013.

Rationale: Unambiguous throughout the web and history, sense of money, easily used in common language, historical references, term already available for growth in value, reasonable, distinct from ****coin.

Feedback?