|
Hey everyone, what if we called Blocknet tokens "blocks"?
(Ticker: BLOCK)
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
Interested in buying in with a supported currency. How will those currencies have a 10% discount if tokens are just sold on Bittrex?
Prices of participating coins fluctuate relative to BTC. If Token/BTC price will be fixed at 25k satoshi, how will you fix the rate between Token/participating_coin given that participating_coin/BTC fluctuates? When tokens are available, coin pricing will become relative to the token's price. While this won't lock the coins' prices absolutely, the potential for arbitrage will have the effect of converging prices relative to the token's price. |
|
|
|
You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic. It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value. You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI. And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you...  There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet: - XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol - There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this - Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled Shame on you I want to clarify, that although without some sort of tangible proof-of-concept I believe this is purely a vehicle for market manipulation, I also fully support this project and will be following it closely.  Personally I'd love some proof-of-concept code to be released prior to the ITO. Part of the XBridge code is actually completed so this might be possible. Regardless of that, the XBridge protocol is based on the Xnode protocol that XC uses. If anyone is worried about development talent or the ability to deliver, take a look at XC's timeline. Now pool all the developer talent from all the participating coins. This code will get nailed down good and proper. I have to agree with mxxxxxx overall, However, I believe having one currency as the central core or group of currencies that compose the core would be better than, "There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this"Keep in mind this statement isn't true. SuperNET doesn't rely on BTCD. BTCD is simply the flagship coin that offers the Teleport technology. SuperNET can be run standalone and will do that along with being embedded into the core coins wallets. SuperNET actually runs on the NXT blockchain Hmm... thanks for that. Brevity demanded a fairly inaccurate summary of SuperNET's centralisation. Perhaps I should try expand on it to refer to NXT too... Brevity is not excuse when you're asking for $1,000,000. Ha ha. Neither would a clunky and inordinately long essay. ;-) |
|
|
|
I have to agree with mxxxxxx, a central core or group of currencies that compose the core however, might be best.
What advantages do you see in a centralised approach? The Blocknet is open and democratic (non-centered) because it needs to be an open and indefinitely extensible framework. After all, why go through a core currency network when all of them will work just fine? I though of that after a while in the future(having a core group of currencies), in the blocknet would become diluted? If every currency was equal, then ones without features could be added and not provide any extra service that coins with features(XC) would provide. Also having a core woul act as an incentive o obtain those currencies. Maybe it could go by a decentralized ranking system, where currencies that contribute the most are placed in a higher pecking order in the blocknet, solving the issue of incentive to buy those currencies and dilution? Personally I'd just opt for a non-centered approach with good service-finding features (i.e. the equivalent of Google search for the Blocknet). Works fine for the internet... |
|
|
|
You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic. It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value. You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI. And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you... There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet: - XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol - There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this - Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled Shame on you I want to clarify, that although without some sort of tangible proof-of-concept I believe this is purely a vehicle for market manipulation, I also fully support this project and will be following it closely. Personally I'd love some proof-of-concept code to be released prior to the ITO. Part of the XBridge code is actually completed so this might be possible. Regardless of that, the XBridge protocol is based on the Xnode protocol that XC uses. If anyone is worried about development talent or the ability to deliver, take a look at XC's timeline. Now pool all the developer talent from all the participating coins. This code will get nailed down good and proper. I have to agree with mxxxxxx overall, However, I believe having one currency as the central core or group of currencies that compose the core would be better than, "There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this"Keep in mind this statement isn't true. SuperNET doesn't rely on BTCD. BTCD is simply the flagship coin that offers the Teleport technology. SuperNET can be run standalone and will do that along with being embedded into the core coins wallets. SuperNET actually runs on the NXT blockchain Hmm... thanks for that. Brevity demanded a fairly inaccurate summary of SuperNET's centralisation. Perhaps I should try expand on it to refer to NXT too... |
|
|
|
I have to agree with mxxxxxx, a central core or group of currencies that compose the core however, might be best.
What advantages do you see in a centralised approach? The Blocknet is open and democratic (non-centered) because it needs to be an open and indefinitely extensible framework. After all, why go through a core currency network when all of them will work just fine? |
|
|
|
|
Kenji, kindly refrain from posting unconstructive and abusive remarks.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for looking into that Synechist Re: the monetary aspect of this...
Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?
If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?
Yes, spending will be made transparent - but investors will still need to trust the Blocknet Foundation, and foundation members are from each participating coin. You're right that this doesn't make it a money grab. I'm quite tempted by TheGer's suggestion of staggered funding separated by milestones... will see what the team thinks. Sure. Of course. Speaking of this stuff, there's another factor that might alter people's perceptions: It's not necessary for all the tokens to be sold. If less sell, the rest are destroyed and each token represents a larger portion of the Blocknet. So it's not as if there's this enormous amount hanging over our heads. It's better to think of it like a lovely amount of headroom for its value to grow into. After the ITO the tokens will trade normally regardless of how many are sold, so it comes to the same thing risk-wise. No-one needs to spend more so that all the tokens can be sold. |
|
|
|
Re: the monetary aspect of this...
Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?
If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?
Yes, spending will be made transparent - but holders will still need to trust the Blocknet Foundation, and foundation members are from each participating coin. You're right that this doesn't make it a money grab. I'm quite tempted by TheGer's suggestion of staggered funding separated by milestones... will see what the team thinks. |
|
|
|
|
Cryptoleak, kindly engage constructively and non-abusively.
That post of yours was of negligible benefit to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Ah man. Don't tempt me to get that OnePlus One! Ah! too late Invite is expired...fukers sent me a 24 hour one Ah it's ok. I'm a Windows fanboy so I would've bought it with a Lumia 930 in mind at best. Ha ha. Perhaps I should just start suggesting that we make a Windows Universal App - runs on phones and PCs. |
|
|
|
I get what you are saying Synechist. The issue is that in the mean time you've got $1,000,000 up front. You see where I'm going with this right? $1,000,000 and no contractual obligations to produce anything, because "this is crypto". Personally I see $1,000,000 as a little over the top for development funds(2500 x $400 BTC). Half that would be stretching it, but would not be as hard a pill to swallow. I would suggest an share offering capped to 1250 BTC @ .000125 per share. And to those who are apologists for not having a demonstrable product for 2500 BTC up front by saying "this is crypto man", sorry that's a pathetic point of view. "Here's a million bucks man... No no don't worry man it's crypto just tell us when you're done..." FFS can you imagine living life like that?  I have faith this project can succeed but man... "this is crypto... here you go!" /hands over bag of money --> Yoink! Yes I agree completely about making solid investment decisions. So, in addition to personally hoping for proof-of-developer and some sort of proof of concept, the following facet of this situation is significant: All participating coins stand to benefit hugely from the Blocknet. Therefore their devs (and communities) have a strong incentive to get things done. And since our developer pool is uniquely strong, there's a very high chance that we'll deliver. Yes I see what you mean. But ultimately this is a big and far-reaching project that simply won't be feasible without proper funding. Secondly - and perhaps more significantly - investors make a decision based on their calculation of risk-to-reward. This is no different to any other investment. Thirdly - and perhaps most significantly - investors aren't locked in to their investments. They can buy and sell on any timescale, so they do not bear the risk of the project even launching, never mind developing fully. Lastly though, it's in our interest to lower this risk as far as possible, and we will do so - perhaps with some sort of structured escrow contract that returns portions of funds to investors if milestones are not met. |
|
|
|
You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic. Now now, be civil. It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. Perhaps, but that's not what was asserted. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. Did you actually read the press release? Out of respect I'll not repeat it here. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value. No it centralised coins' money supply. With that kind of money you can pump or suppress a coin at will. And it doesn't give it intrinsic value anyway. At best it's extrinsic value, since the asset is *backed* by something outside of it. Its intrinsic value is in its utility, nothing else. You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Sure. But a cursory summation of the fundamentals is not advice, and does not require proof. You've very welcome to disagree. It was removed anyway, so what are you still complaining about? And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you... Glad you have some positive regard for the Blocknet after all that. |
|
|
|
Personally I see $1,000,000 as a little over the top for development funds(2500 x $400 BTC). Half that would be stretching it, but would not be as hard a pill to swallow. I would suggest an share offering capped to 1250 BTC @ .000125 per share. And to those who are apologists for not having a demonstrable product for 2500 BTC up front by saying "this is crypto man", sorry that's a pathetic point of view. "Here's a million bucks man... No no don't worry man it's crypto just tell us when you're done..." FFS can you imagine living life like that? I have faith this project can succeed but man... "this is crypto... here you go!" /hands over bag of money --> Yoink! Yes I agree completely about making solid investment decisions. So, in addition to personally hoping for proof-of-developer and some sort of proof of concept, the following facet of this situation is significant: All participating coins stand to benefit hugely from the Blocknet. Therefore their devs (and communities) have a strong incentive to get things done. And since our developer pool is uniquely strong, there's a very high chance that we'll deliver. |
|
|
|
Ah man. Don't tempt me to get that OnePlus One! |
|
|
|
If you are going to escrow for large amount of BTC please get a reputable third party to escrow. Don't just use bittrex, use a 3 way BTC address or something
So we don't have a moopal 2.0
Yes, for sure. Who would you personally recommend? |
|
|
|
Basically they are replacing btc as a median and using blocknet shares in its place. Thats what it looks like to me when its all boiled down. Rather than pay tx's fees to miners using btc and an exchange fee. You use blocknet shares and the fee is split up among the holders of the shares.
Hm... Should I pay twice to use, say, VPN provided by some node then? Once - to the node itself for the service, and second - to the Blocknet for being able to communicate with the node. This way? And those Blocknet shares are distributed to share holders, right? And is the Blocknet protected with kinda PoS? No you don't pay twice. You pay the service provider, and the service provider pays the Blocknet fee. Yes, Blocknet fees are distributed to holders. My guess is that the Blocknet will have a PoS system, though I haven't been informed of the specifics yet. Hm again... This way the service provider will have to continuously refill his BS supply driving its price up. With lots of providers it will soon become pretty high. How would you regulate the fee so that it wouldn't cause the price of the service itself to go up (to keep it reasonable for provider to keep on working)? Given that any node on any currency can provide a service, it will not be necessary for that node to somehow store Blocknet tokens in addition to whatever currency it's from. The node would simply render the service, and a fee in its own currency will be deducted from the tx and automatically exchanged for a small amount of Blocknet tokens by the decentralised exchange. This has the advantage of the fee levels automatically adjusting even if the price of Blocknet tokens skyrockets. In fact, we could pick a baseline price in the most stable currency (or by a smart index tracking USD, or whatever....) and use it to measure the rest by - or even exchange for this currency initially before converting to Blocknet tokens. |
|
|
|
What decentralized stock platform will the Blocknet Shares be based on? Nxt, counterparty, BitsharesX, Mastercoin or some new platform?
How will the destruction of the unsold Blocknet shares be proven? proof of burn, or something else?
Will the usage of the gathered funds (2500BTC) be transparant and visible on the blockchain with regular Proof of Reserves?
The project looks amazing and i really hope you guys can pull it off, but the above questions need answering to access and gain the trust of a large market.
kind regards
Bytas
Good questions. Thanks. Blocknet tokens will initially be sold on Poloniex, Bittrex, and CoinGateway. Then, once the Blocknet gains the capacity to pay fees to holders, tokens will be redeemable for assets on the NHZ asset exchange. After the ITO, any unsold tokens will be provably destroyed. The Blocknet's funds will always be publicly visible. Furthermore the Blocknet Foundation will give public account for expenditures. You didn't answer the core of the questions.  The tokens, on what blockchain technology will they be issued? The exchange doesn't really matter for me, decentralized consensus about their whereabouts does. what does "Provably destroyed" mean (method and technicalities please  )? A public account of expenditures sounds good! We'll also need the Blocknet Dev's to make themselves known (proof of identity) before the ITO starts, so we can make a reliable decision and a certain measure of due diligence is present. I'm looking forward to this.  Oh sorry, I misinterpreted your previous question. For simplicity the tokens will initially be created on a regular blockchain (its own one - PoS I think). Once the Blocknet's technology has been created these tokens will be redeemable for assets on the NHZ asset exchange. "Provably destroyed" pertains to proof-of-burn. I've not been briefed on any further specifics on this though. Sorry :-) I agree entirely about developers making their identities know before the ITO. It's important to us and to the public that trust is established. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
