Ok thank you for the clarification now I understand it more.
I think it is really Important to get an xbridge ready BTC wallet for the block-net exchange as this would be the reason for traders to go there and trade their bitcoins for another coin on a decentralised exchange for the first time.
Since BTC is open source can we expect this to be done ASAP?
This will be the true incentive as well for other coins to join the blocknet.
Thank you.
Yes I think that creating a Blocknet-enabled Bitcoin wallet would be awesome. We'll keep you posted on our plans in this regard. :-) |
|
|
|
Arlyn I truly respect you and the team behind XC and that is the reason I am still here trying to grasp something that I do not seem to be able to grasp.
Im seeying more your point if people do not need to buy tokens to trade on the exchange they will still need to buy in whatever coin that is inside the blocknet to be able to use the exchange and they will be able to exchange it just with coins in the blocknet.
what I had in mind was a 3.0 web service exchange build on top of the mesh network you see my point? noone would have need to buy in any coin of any network he would just go in the exchange and create an account and trade. the exchange would have been on top of the mesh network instead of servers.
I see your point that with the blocknet exchange people will be able to trade from day 1 the coins in the blocknet. what I think is you can see my point also. The users would have arrived once you would have build a new exchange.
Hey Cryptico A web 3.0 exchange built on top of the mesh network would not be something you'd log in to. Your app would receive bids and asks directly from other nodes, and it would trade directly with other nodes. If it were only on the XC network, then how would Xnodes accept other currencies? They couldn't, because they're just XC wallets. Alternatively you could build a traditional centralised exchange on XC's mesh network, offering different currency pairs as per usual. But this would be no more secure than Bittrex/Mintpal/Poloniex. Its owners could still freely abuse their position of power in myriad ways. What we're waiting for is a truly decentralised exchange. And for this to work, there needs to be an API in every currency's nodes that enable them to talk to nodes from other currencies. It needs an XBridge. It needs the Blocknet. You lost me big Time here. I thought The mesh Network was truly decentralised and that none could OWN or manipulate any of the Xnodes mixers in the Network. So at this point How do you see XC in web 3.0 development? and How do you justify the Xmixer to stay on-line to collect fees? will xmixer collecting fees from the Block-net. No. So there is no point to develop web 3.0 on top of the Mesh Network as there could be a third party Ownership of the Network? How? Please Explain how a website on web 3.0 on XC Network as it is in the road map and was promised to Investors is different from another website called exchange. Thank you. There's a difference between the network that communicates data to your node, and the data itself. You've been thinking that just because XC's web 3.0 network will be decentralised, the services ("data") that run on it will be decentralised too. That's not necessarily the case. XC's mesh network, as you correctly thought, is truly decentralised and no one party owns or can manipulate all the nodes. But a mesh network can transmit any kind of content - traditional websites or radically new things like a decentralised exchange. That's part of the usefulness of XC's web 3.0 architecture - it can do anything traditional network architecture can do, and more. So someone could build a traditional centralised exchange and serve it from XC's mesh. This would make it pretty hard to DDOS the site, but the site's owners could still do whatever they want with your account and not get caught. None of this changes XC's web 3.0 development plans of course. The sort of network architecture that XC will deliver is a major advancement and a valuable service. XC's mesh is well suited to support a web 3.0 content server, and users of it will still benefit from its robustness and cost-effectiveness. Xnode owners will still get paid to serve web content to customers. In fact, since we're part of the Blocknet, XC's web 3.0 content server now has an additional market for its web 3.0 service. That's pretty significant. |
|
|
|
I'm off to bed, but I'd like to ask:
Who's had any issues with the latest wallet releases?
Version 2.49.08 on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Seriously. If there are any issues outstanding, we want to straighten them out pronto.
There's been quite a bit of testing in this thread which is unresolved and not commented on. I started sending my issues directly to Dan but I haven't heard from him in a while. A few days left. Plenty of issues. I'm willing to help by testing and providing any info I can. It's been this way for a while. Hmm... I thought the issues had only to do with the group chat test releases. There's definitely an issue there, and it's with the Bitcoin code. Dan found a memory hole and will be building a new protocol to replace it. I'll take a look at the past few days and see what's come up with the latest stable release. Edit: having looked over the days since the last stable release, there hasn't been testing really. And minimal issues have been reported. Let's test things tomorrow. |
|
|
|
[ slippage ]
I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem. But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there. Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.
For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.
This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.
And what would this do to anonymity set? The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.
In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem. It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.
The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears. Let's just get some perspective here. There are 3 matters that have been raised: 1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it. Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it. But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer. This is where similar services compete for customers. 2) Slippage: Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage. Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above. 3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin. The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example: A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC. Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design) This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage. That's $0.000098 USD. Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen. Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it. It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue. The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now. P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!! This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building. I think the misunderstanding stems from you having made it sound like Blocknet was meant to solve these issues. There was no talk about "services" that will do the conversion until now. At first it was supposed to be as easy as having coin A and using coin B's features just because they both are in Blocknet. And when it's pointed out that it can't work like that, the responsibility is shifted to "services". Anyway, it's good it's cleared up sooner than later. You're right that I may have been unclear, and if so, my apologies. Just in case aspects of this aren't clear enough yet: the exchange is a core Blocknet function. Services may use it in any way they like (and Blocknet users can use it directly too). The conversion will always* be done on the Blocknet's exchange, and services will utilise it - so it's true that "services will do the conversion" in this sense only. *Come to think of it though, it's not infeasible that coins could build their own decentralised exchanges too, and offer them as services to all Blocknet-enabled nodes. That would be great (though their workings would be a fair bit more complicated). |
|
|
|
I'm off to bed, but I'd like to ask:
Who's had any issues with the latest wallet releases?
Version 2.49.08 on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Seriously. If there are any issues outstanding, we want to straighten them out pronto.
I'm using the latest stable Linux wallet together with a couple of other PoS wallets on an elderly dual core PC. I need to restart the XC wallet once a day because it is slowing down my system to a crawl. I would like to downgrade to the previous stable wallet but I deleted it and it doesn't seem to be available to download any more.  Do you have the wallet version you'd want to download? You could try looking in http://downloads.xc-official.com/testing/ and http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/A few older versions are there. |
|
|
|
I'm off to bed, but I'd like to ask:
Who's had any issues with the latest wallet releases?
Version 2.49.08 on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Seriously. If there are any issues outstanding, we want to straighten them out pronto.
Question - Does the wallet link always get updated into the opening post or some other consistent location? I don't always catch the new releases and acknowledge that sometimes they are test releases so it is not unusual for me to not be on the latest (and I would like to become more involved with providing feedback if it helps the development)... Hey hey, thanks for being keen to test new builds. The link on the OP goes to http://xc-official.com/xc-downloads/ - a generic page for all downloads. The latest releases will always be in http://downloads.xc-official.com/release/ |
|
|
|
|
I'm off to bed, but I'd like to ask:
Who's had any issues with the latest wallet releases?
Version 2.49.08 on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Seriously. If there are any issues outstanding, we want to straighten them out pronto.
|
|
|
|
NO ONE SHOULD Use Bittrex. Move to Poloniex or Bter.
poloniex cant be trusted either ( hosting there own scam ipo promoting it and then saying they had noting to do whit it < and shit like this ) and bter has problems to ( they steal money whit there system of trading ) craptsy ( has had innumerable problems sins day 1 * witch would have led to a insolvent exchange ) mtgox 2.0 ? bitturex is swamped whit scam ipo.s ( 1 worse then the other ) Don't really understand why XC is not jumping into this by announcing and focusing on a decentralised anonimous exchange. This is what all we want. But we have. What's better than a decentralised exchange that runs only on one coin (and thereby lacks the market penetration to have any kind of useable liquidity)? A decentralised exchange that runs on the Blocknet. The Blocknet will implement decentralised exchange as the second of its three core technologies. So it's coming soon. Please elaborate a bit more about the blocknet exchange and how you will be able to trade coins in there i mean BTC pairs and LTC pairs etc plus fiat. I mean a full exchange like bittrex but decentralised and P2P. Market penetration, if it was built on top XC meshnetwork, would be reached as everyone would have wanted to trade in this exchange as it is the most secure decentralized true P2P way of trading. I meant a true exchange where you trade all crypto on top of the mesh network in there you can trade everything so I do not understand why you will need the partecipation of blocknet coins for the exchange when you can have them and all the crypto Market place on top of the exchange. This off course would have boosted XC sales as Xmixers would have had a reason to be online to get fees now there is no reason to have an Xmixer and I have to buy in another product as well that could dump to 500 satoshi the day after I buy in. You won't need to own Blocknet tokens to use the Blocknet exchange. That's the whole point. It'll have as many currency pairs as there are participating coins. Why have it at the Blocknet rather than XC? - The user base is massively bigger - Users of the exchange won't have to have an XC app. Any XBridge-enabled wallet will work. Do you see the point? A decentralised exchange hosted on XC wallets will never work. It has to be cross-platform to gain any liquidity. Arlyn I truly respect you and the team behind XC and that is the reason I am still here trying to grasp something that I do not seem to be able to grasp. Im seeying more your point if people do not need to buy tokens to trade on the exchange they will still need to buy in whatever coin that is inside the blocknet to be able to use the exchange and they will be able to exchange it just with coins in the blocknet. what I had in mind was a 3.0 web service exchange build on top of the mesh network you see my point? noone would have need to buy in any coin of any network he would just go in the exchange and create an account and trade. the exchange would have been on top of the mesh network instead of servers. I see your point that with the blocknet exchange people will be able to trade from day 1 the coins in the blocknet. what I think is you can see my point also. The users would have arrived once you would have build a new exchange. Hey Cryptico A web 3.0 exchange built on top of the mesh network would not be something you'd log in to. Your app would receive bids and asks directly from other nodes, and it would trade directly with other nodes. If it were only on the XC network, then how would Xnodes accept other currencies? They couldn't, because they're just XC wallets. Alternatively you could build a traditional centralised exchange on XC's mesh network, offering different currency pairs as per usual. But this would be no more secure than Bittrex/Mintpal/Poloniex. Its owners could still freely abuse their position of power in myriad ways. What we're waiting for is a truly decentralised exchange. And for this to work, there needs to be an API in every currency's nodes that enable them to talk to nodes from other currencies. It needs an XBridge. It needs the Blocknet. |
|
|
|
[ slippage ]
I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem. But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there. Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.
For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.
This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.
And what would this do to anonymity set? The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.
In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem. It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.
The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears. Let's just get some perspective here. There are 3 matters that have been raised: 1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it. Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it. But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer. This is where similar services compete for customers. 2) Slippage: Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage. Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above. 3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin. The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example: A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC. Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design) This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage. That's $0.000098 USD. Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen. Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it. It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue. The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now. P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!! This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building. |
|
|
|
so, by going through coingateway...
will all the participating coins be automatically sold on a market to retrieve bitcoin-- thus crashing the price of all the altcoins that people are using to purchase blocknet?
No, the coins form part of the Blocknet's funding. They're not sold anywhere. The Blocknet will keep the funds and use them for development. |
|
|
|
NO ONE SHOULD Use Bittrex. Move to Poloniex or Bter.
poloniex cant be trusted either ( hosting there own scam ipo promoting it and then saying they had noting to do whit it < and shit like this ) and bter has problems to ( they steal money whit there system of trading ) craptsy ( has had innumerable problems sins day 1 * witch would have led to a insolvent exchange ) mtgox 2.0 ? bitturex is swamped whit scam ipo.s ( 1 worse then the other ) Don't really understand why XC is not jumping into this by announcing and focusing on a decentralised anonimous exchange. This is what all we want. But we have. What's better than a decentralised exchange that runs only on one coin (and thereby lacks the market penetration to have any kind of useable liquidity)? A decentralised exchange that runs on the Blocknet. The Blocknet will implement decentralised exchange as the second of its three core technologies. So it's coming soon. Please elaborate a bit more about the blocknet exchange and how you will be able to trade coins in there i mean BTC pairs and LTC pairs etc plus fiat. I mean a full exchange like bittrex but decentralised and P2P. Market penetration, if it was built on top XC meshnetwork, would be reached as everyone would have wanted to trade in this exchange as it is the most secure decentralized true P2P way of trading. I meant a true exchange where you trade all crypto on top of the mesh network in there you can trade everything so I do not understand why you will need the partecipation of blocknet coins for the exchange when you can have them and all the crypto Market place on top of the exchange. This off course would have boosted XC sales as Xmixers would have had a reason to be online to get fees now there is no reason to have an Xmixer and I have to buy in another product as well that could dump to 500 satoshi the day after I buy in. You won't need to own Blocknet tokens to use the Blocknet exchange. That's the whole point. It'll have as many currency pairs as there are participating coins. Why have it at the Blocknet rather than XC? - The user base is massively bigger - Users of the exchange won't have to have an XC app. Any XBridge-enabled wallet will work. Do you see the point? A decentralised exchange hosted on XC wallets will never work. It has to be cross-platform to gain any liquidity. |
|
|
|
any news to the XC inc. ito ?
will xc inc buy any blocknet tokens ?
in other words when im investing in xc inc token i also investing in blocknet ?
I dont want to fud only confused 2 weeks ago i want to buy some xc inc tokens with my xc coins
now i´m thinking about to buy some blocknet tokens with xc.
is there a date when the xc. inc ito release ?
Is it Possible to trade blocknet tokens later to xc inc tokens ?
Hey hey The last time the team discussed the XC Inc ITO, the calendar (of other major ITOs) seemed to suggest that Jan/Feb 2015 would avoid a clash. That's still provisional though. XC Inc doesn't exist yet, but in my opinion it would be prudent for it to buy Blocknet tokens. Doing so would also align its interests with the Blocknet's success. You'll be able to buy Blocknet tokens with XC, trade BLOCK with BTC after the ITO, and of course buy more XC with those funds too. XC Inc's ITO will probably support XC and BTC. Also supporting BLOCK is a possibility... interesting suggestion actually. I should bring it up with the team. Thanks. Nice one. |
|
|
|
NO ONE SHOULD Use Bittrex. Move to Poloniex or Bter.
poloniex cant be trusted either ( hosting there own scam ipo promoting it and then saying they had noting to do whit it < and shit like this ) and bter has problems to ( they steal money whit there system of trading ) craptsy ( has had innumerable problems sins day 1 * witch would have led to a insolvent exchange ) mtgox 2.0 ? bitturex is swamped whit scam ipo.s ( 1 worse then the other ) Don't really understand why XC is not jumping into this by announcing and focusing on a decentralised anonimous exchange. This is what all we want. But we have. What's better than a decentralised exchange that runs only on one coin (and thereby lacks the market penetration to have any kind of useable liquidity)? A decentralised exchange that runs on the Blocknet. The Blocknet will implement decentralised exchange as the second of its three core technologies. So it's coming soon. |
|
|
|
There are a couple of trustless escrow designs out there. I'm no expert on this, but one of the more interesting ones is Truthcoin. It's one of the most visionary ideas I've read in quite a while. More pertinent to a simple service provider might be Blackhalo and this concept. No doubt there are a lot of other ideas out there too. which again would mean that i have to exchange my coins to use truthcoin. i am out... if you want my money you need way more technical details instead just of promising returns. maybe i'll come back when you are finished... No you wouldn't have to exchange your coins. Do you know what Truthcoin is? It's not a "coin". It's a way of creating distributed prediction markets. |
|
|
|
I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.
Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.
For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.
This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.
The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.
It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.
i am just looking at the example you previously provided...which involved mutiple exchanges ok we'll see... edit: is there some kind of automatic (and possible trustfree) escrow possible with your design? There are a couple of trustless escrow designs out there. I'm no expert on this, but one of the more interesting ones is Truthcoin. It's one of the most visionary ideas I've read in quite a while. More pertinent to a simple service provider might be Blackhalo and this concept. No doubt there are a lot of other ideas out there too. |
|
|
|
What sort of transparency & accountability will be in place after the ITO in regards to the funds raised?
So then the Community suggestion by GER about a partial ITO funding at the beginning of the ITO and then milestones funding was not taken into account?
Can you clarify on that?
Did not gave credit to the ones that were saying that this project will dilute yours and Dan job with XC...guess I was wrong.
I've previously clarified (apologies for not linking to this... it might actually be on the OP though) that TheGer's suggestion is a good one and that we're looking at potential partners for a structured escrow service, potentially based around milestones. This isn't to say that we'll definitely find a suitable partner that we're completely comfortable we can trust, but it does mean that TheGer's suggestion is a good one. So, in terms of transparency and accountability: - spending will be reported by the Blocknet Foundation - budget and development plans will be published (before the ITO and periodically afterwards) - an escrow service structured around milestones (that includes an auditor) is being considered Since it's in our interest to build up as much trust as possible between us and the public, we have every interest to excel at all of the above. |
|
|
|
If, despite this, it's still an issue, there are lots of bot algorithms that can drive up volume and/or reduce the spread. These sorts of market maker bots - or, for that matter, regular ol' human scalpers – would remove the problem.
Finally, the Blocknet will support an entire economy of services; liquidity will be, at best, an initial problem.
the same market maker bots are working currently on all exchanges (i ran one on polo) and they dont solve the slippage problem. why do you think that this would be better with your p2p-exchange? seriously: i dont want to downtalk your project. i just want to see if it is useful (atm i dont think so: but PLEASE convince me  If exchanges are useful to you (and by the sound of things they are) then why would the Blocknet somehow not be useful, especially if it massive increases usage of coins, thereby reducing slippage? Also, the slippage problem only applies to transactions above a certain size. Microtransactions for services won't be affected. So *even* if the Blocknet doesn't increase volume and liquidity, there's still no problem for microtransactions (i.e. service fees). i like your exchange: but there are already other ones - and yes even p2p ones like nxt. your project is intersting to me because it allows me to use other coins features without actually holding them (eg the SMS send feature you mentioned). but this will require an automatic conversion from and to my base currency. this two exchanges will cost me money (spread) as no one will have a sell and a buy order at the same price (it isnt even possible btw as they would match each other) so i only can see this as an additional fee from the user perspective and as a way to get money from a market maker pov. and atm the spreads in altcoins are really BIG ( i have seen way more than 20% loss just for a back and forth conversion) if you have an incentive for a market maker to make the spread as small as possible this wouldnt be a big issue: but i dont see any (i mean any more incentives as with the current exchanges) I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem. Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet. For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better. This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it. The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem. It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile. |
|
|
|
1) How long will the ITO?
2) When we can to sell our tokens? When the ITO finish or when blocknet be released?
3) Blocknet ETA?
1) You can find this info at http://theblocknet.com/ : The Blocknet's ITO will begin on 5am EST Oct 29th and run until November 5th 23:59:00. 2) no info 3) no info @synechist I really want to invest in the blocknet, but you have to provide us more informations asap! Who controls that only 10 000 000 tokens will be generated? Will be the code completly open source? The Blocknet's ITO will begin on 5am EST Oct 29th and run until November 5th 23:59:00 The tokens will initially be created on a regular blockchain, only 10 000 000 tokens will be created After the ITO, any unsold tokens will be provably destroyed You will be able to withdraw your tokens to wallet which is to be released before the ITO starts The BLOCK/BTC pairs will stay on exchanges after the ITO and will be still tradeable For owning BlockNet shares you will be getting dividends/fees from BlockNet. Funds are used to develop a lot of next-gen software (i.e. the XBridge, decentralised exchange, application platform, etc.) Funds will be used to enter the B2B market for various services (expect an executive summary regarding this pretty soon, which will include budgetary information and a roadmap) BLOCK-holder profits come directly from the intrinsic functioning of the Blocknet - i.e. through the rendering of services Blocknet is a software platform development project, coupled with make-money-from-services model for token holders.
Here's a list of reasons why Blocknet tokens are worth buying.
Section 1: The Blocknet is the internet of blockchains; it provides what crypto needs most:
- a feasibly-sized userbase for coins, so their tech can actually get used
- a platform to turn coins' tech into services, so tech can generate revenue
- a method of converting all of crypto into a B2B services offering of incredible power
As such, the Blocknet stands to change the entire landscape of crypto, and become a foundational pillar of crypto for the indefinite future.
Section 2: shareholders get to profit from the Blocknet's status as a foundational pillar:
- holders receive income from fees
- holders profit if their tokens increase in value
Thank you for the answers. Could you please though state explicilty whether the code will be open source? (as it was asked in the initial qustion also). As far as I understood the Xbridge protocol will be open source. However the blocknet will be made of some other components as well? Will they be open source? Kind regards and looking forward to the reply on this question. Thank you. Hi Edward Yes the Blocknet will be open source. This is necessary for it to be an open and indefinitely extensible platform, like the internet. On the other hand, no participating coins (i.e. service providers) are required to be open source. |
|
|
|
|
McHammer, some of your posts were deleted either for being abusive or for ignoring my answer to your question and repeating your (abusively worded) complaint.
I answered your other questions though, and you're very welcome to continue discussing them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
