2) Anonymity
We can discuss this more in the future when anonymity tech gets ironed out more but while there is definitely a public relations downside that comes from unfortunate things like that, it's going to exist either way. Bitcoin was inaccurately reported as an 'anonymous' cryptocurrency for years and that label is not going to go away among the public anytime soon. So by association Bitmark is going to share that same label whether we have an option to send anonymously or not I think. We'll watch and see how things develop with regard to public perception of cryptocurrencies. Lets just be thankful we're not named Darkcoin.  Indeed! |
|
|
|
I have not quoted just too keep the 'volume' of text down a little... 1) Decentralization - this is very good news, I agree - miningpool.co has long been a favoured pool for me but the current situation needed to change. Excellent. 2) Anonymity - whilst I understand most aspects of the argument for / against anonymity, there is a backlash in terms of the 'laypeople' I referred to in my earlier post. Here in the UK, 600 plus paedophiles were arrested in a massive action by the National Crime Agency in the past few days. These included doctors, teachers, serving and ex police officers, social workers etc. One of the points cited in the Sky News bulletin on the matter was that 'Many used virtual or Internet currencies to pay...' and of course referred to the 'Dark Net'. The potential anonymity 'benefit' of cryptocurrencies appeals to many for perfectly reasonable motives - however, in the hyperbole of media representation and uninformed public opinion of cryptocurrency, many folks associate it with the 'underbelly' of on-line activity. I have argued the point most strongly to many that 'cash', which is of course thousands(?) of years old, has been the preferred currency of crime and corruption for as long as 'traceable' transactions came into being... I guess that I am cautious as to the level of importance attached to the benefit of anonymity. 3) consolidation - Authoritative certainly - not dictatorial, in my opinion anyway! All projects require drive, vision, inspiration and innovation. You provide these in abundance - this is already attracting the contribution of the community at whatever level each individual or group can contribute, and you welcome this. I think that is as inclusive and fair as one can hope for or expect. Onward and upward...  |
|
|
|
If you want to create a useable currency 'of value' for the 'average Joe' adopter ..
You must have a bullet proof easy to use wallet for payments and safe storage ..
It's all about the security and utility of the wallet ..
If you build it .. They will come ..
Triff ..
It's all about the security and utility of the wallet ..
If you build it .. They will come ..
Let's have many wallets built on Bitmark and competing with each other to offer utility. If they build things on Bitmark, they will bring others. Thank you Androidicus and Tiffen both for leading the conversation in this direction.
I will try to explain the best I can, what makes Bitmark distinct.
8<----- SNIPPED -------
Already we are on the fourth step of our foundation. Bitmark is very young, it is becoming strong. We have made good progress and we will continue to do so if we remain fair and reasonable with each other and share a common vision of what is ahead.
>>> Consolidation, thank you for this authoritative response! I have copied it out to a separate doc in order to digest it properly as time allows this morning.
This is indeed how the foundations are laid for progress...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to be devil's advocate a little now;
It's fair to say that the 'community' here are, to a greater or lesser degree, all involved in cryptocurrency in one way or another.
Now, true adoption is about people who, although they may have heard stories in the media (mostly about Bitcoin) be it positive or negative, have next to no knowledge about what they call 'virtual currencies', 'digital money', whatever...
Forget miners, developers, coders, spotty faced script-kiddies, thick skinned IT pros, speculators, whales, day-traders et all.
If one was preparing a presentation to a group of 'laypeople' from a broad cross section of society and commerce, to extol the virtues of adopting Bitmark as a useable currency 'of value', can we find half a dozen or hopefully more salient points that would form the bones of such a presentation?
I know someone who is preparing a crypto-for-dummies style paper and 'talk' that they want to 'take on the road' at some point this year in the UK. It might be good to have some considered content using Bitmark as a shining example to include?
Answers on a postcard please... I'm going to be AFK until tomorrow (who said good?!) but just thought I would throw this out there...
|
|
|
|
Nice!  |
|
|
|
Hi was wondering is there's only one pool mining this?
also can i solo mine it if so what's the config for it?
one last thing why did you choose scrypt when everyone moving away from it because of the scrypt asics flooding the market right now?
Best read: https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I'm back.....For those of you unaware, I was banned for posting the Guess the Amount post. This post was removed (and your pots relating to the competition were also removed) and I was banned for 7 days.
It would have been nice to have a warning off BitCoinTalk regarding the post but no worries.
I have been working on and writing a Crypto guide (Its about 30% complete) and I will be setting up a panel to review the guide at set points. This is a basic guide which I will fund myself and will be given out free - along with me offering 'Basics In CryptoCurrency' courses (Thanks to all the interest from a local poll) - The courses are still in planning and I will probably be asking the same panel for advice on content aswell.
I am nearly finished with my paper wallets - just now onto the design / make-up any suggestions then PM me - All advice will be welcome and greatly appreciated
Ah ha, yes... Responded to your email btw (eventually!) |
|
|
|
Mark, On Github IPM doc: 1,2,3 correlating to 20, 20 and 5 BTM respectively. Is 20, 20 and 5 correct or s/b 20, 15 and 5? |
|
|
|
We cannot have an open stratum port as this could push the pool over 35% of the network hashrate. Of course - that was nagging me as I posted... Doh |
|
|
|
What if the bitmark foundation ran its own pool? Mining fees go straight into the foundation fund to support the pool and the project as a whole.
the best idea I have heard all day. +10
Our proposal for an Investor Public Mining (IPM) Pool. Currently in development, the model can be applied to any currency. I would be very happy to hear any feedback you have about this. But this will take BTC > Mining? Simple enough / in scope of aims to have open stratum port for public mining? Man this is too difficult on phone..! |
|
|
|
|
Difficult to contribute as AFK and on phone...
Just did some numbers on last 24 hours and cost of the BTM earned equated to 454 Sat / BTM
That's loss of direct BTC that would have been earned plus fairly low power costs.
Take from that what you will...
|
|
|
|
8<-----SNIPPED-----------
Valid points but
a) what is the average time from any coin launch to an exchange?
b) during the period in a) above, how do people normally 'get involved'?
c) early adoption is always by mining?
d) the power costs together with the loss of exchangeable coin mining = the current perceived 'value' of BTM (short or long term) to miners
e) buying hashing power to mine is surely no different to buying a coin on an exchange - the 'price' of the mined coins being set by cost of mining against the coin rewards?
Of course, e) is different but in the period between launch and first exchange listing, is this not the only way?
Ultimately, no one controls the 'community' - they will either vote at exchanges for the coin to be added or they won't...
I would say average time to an exchange does not matter too much, as long as it happens. Many coins are listed at launch. Some at a later date. The way people get involved with bitmark before an exchange is the same way they get involved after an exchange. They see the coin and they like or they don't. The exchange just makes the coin more visible and simplifies the process of acquiring them. Mining is all well and good but its inferior to straight up buying coins on an exchange. No running costs, down time, or hardware price drops. If i was going to mine I would rather contribute to the IPM instead of buying scrypt hardware. This has turned into a situation where everybody thinks I'm pushing hard for an exchange. Its not really that important as of today, day 4 of Bitmark. But if we expect the community to grow it has to happen eventually. I think listing the coin on an exchange is free publicity, something that bitmark could use. I see the longer term implications of your views and do not disagree - and you are right; day 4 is rather early to be concerned about exchanges! Your point regarding the IPM is right - I should have mentioned that and my item e) was more about hiring than buying scrypt hashing capability - so the IPM when available would be a good route in the absence of exchange or hardware. |
|
|
|
How do you guys expect new people to get involved with bitmark if they can't even get coins? Not everybody is a miner. I had to rent my hash power because I don't have scrypt hardware and I know I'm not the only one. So how do people like me who are interested in bitmark acquire coin without an exchange?
This is why exchanges are important, The actual price is irrelevant. People need a place to get Bitmark, and yes that means they need a place to sell it too.
Comparing us to bitcoin in the early stages is like apple to oranges. Bitcoin wasn't listed on any exchange because they didn't exist yet! There are dozens of them now.
the same way people did in the beginning with bitcoin, did you not read my post. here is the link. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg7874858#msg7874858I read it and addressed it clearly. We are not Bitcoin. Comparing us to bitcoin in its infancy is naive. Bitcoin was a revolution and the first real solution for a decentralized p2p system. People were jumping to be a part of it. Not the case here. Bitmark is one of many coins in an already established crypto field. Exposure is important to help seperate us from other alt coins. Exposure also brings more people in who have something to contribute. Otherwise people ignore Bitmark and it falls by the wayside. Bitmark will end up on an exchange one way or another. The sooner it happens the easier people can get involved. Valid points but a) what is the average time from any coin launch to an exchange? b) during the period in a) above, how do people normally 'get involved'? c) early adoption is always by mining? d) the power costs together with the loss of exchangeable coin mining = the current perceived 'value' of BTM (short or long term) to miners e) buying hashing power to mine is surely no different to buying a coin on an exchange - the 'price' of the mined coins being set by cost of mining against the coin rewards? Of course, e) is different but in the period between launch and first exchange listing, is this not the only way? Ultimately, no one controls the 'community' - they will either vote at exchanges for the coin to be added or they won't... |
|
|
|
In the long run it's not going to matter whether some exchange lists Bitmark or not. Coinsolidation is committed to developing Bitmark long term at this point so it shouldn't have any effect on what happens over the next year at least.
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole exchange situation. On one hand we want to stick to the general mantra of 'no hype, let the project speak for itself' and let things happen naturally. On the other hand I can sympathise with people who want to offset some of their mining costs.
The important thing to to keep in mind is that we're all thinking long term here. So whatever happens now in the short term really should have any lasting effect on Bitmark.
Ultimately Este, your point crystalises everything said so far - BTM will go on an exchange in 10, 100, 200 days whatever - it is the commitment of consolidation and the community to BTM's long term goals that really matter. |
|
|
|
how long did it take for bitcoin to make an exchange ?
we are three days into mining. no problem.
EDIT: cryptozim - I think that there may have been a hint of kind sarcasm in my question! I missed the sarcasm. I actually thought it was a good question. With 1000+ altcoins trying to go "to tha mooon" on launch day, I like the community stance to follow Satoshi's lead on the development of Bitmark. And while I wasn't around in 2009, I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is not 3 days. Ah - to avoid any confusion - my sarcasm was in my question: 'In my ignorance - How do you fix the price?'! tdokta's point about BTC > Exchange was spot on - we're all on the same page with that one... certainly NOT 3 days! Oh that phrase - "to da moon" Aghhhhh! |
|
|
|
how long did it take for bitcoin to make an exchange ?
we are three days into mining. no problem.
Seriously. We talked for weeks about letting things grow organically, and not push to get on an exchange prematurely. Now, we're three days in, suddenly people have BTM in their wallet, and they immediately want to sell it. Sell it for what? I don't know. BTM doesn't have any value right now. Literally none, because right now it's just a three-day old coin with no merchants or special features. I say the dev should leave exchanges to the community. Instead of working on working on maximizing short-term dumper profits, he should be working on the coin. If the community wants the coin on an exchange, we would be responsible for that part. Petition/vote/whatever to get BTM on an exchange. That's the only way to prove that a coin has real value anyway: A mass of people wanting to buy/sell it. Premature exchange listing is how we get shitcoins with 20sat value, and .023BTC volume. Is that the coin we want to be? +10! EDIT: cryptozim - I think that there may have been a hint of kind sarcasm in my question! |
|
|
|
how long did it take for bitcoin to make an exchange ?
we are three days into mining. no problem.
long term covering of machine costs is the issue at stake from my perspective, not short term profit.
am working one machine in bitmark as the other machines that are running multipool are keeping the energy cost covered. ideally mining bitmark with all machines, but not yet feasible. this will come in time as the coin develops or other options are explored, similar as discussed in the IPM document
My sentiments entirely I do agree with what everyone is saying, however the reality is the launch was very discreet compared to other coins. Fudders and trolls will use whatever leverage they can find to bring a coin down.
I'm sure we have all seen good coins destroyed by fudders and trolls, and I dont want to see that happen to BM.
I guess what i'm really trying to say is the trolls and fudders will flock to this threat once BM gains attention, and we need to be ready for whatever they throw at us.
Makes a sad but all too accurate a point - the trollarians will come and the FUD I'm certain that the community will rise above them... We do not want to see "exchange hacked, bitmark was the target", so somebody secure is needed, perhaps who has been hacked previously and been through the process of making things secure.
It must also be an exchange that gives currencies a fair chance, but one that recognises when they haven't worked out and prune their list of supported currencies regularly.
Which are the fairest or most reasonable?
These questions are worth considering as we will face them soon whatever we do.
Bittrex and Cryptsy are up to the standard in my experience. Maybe we can fix a price for bitmark at the start, because anything less than 150k sats as of now will hit mining costs as I am currently mining it at a rate very slightly lower than this. I am sure other miners would agree with me about the cost. EDIT: I also like the idea of postponing the exhange idea, maybe when the difficulty is a bit high, so that we don't get the dumping situation. But again we could let the market decide the price. In the end I want to hold Bitmark longterm and support the project. In my ignorance, how does the price get 'fixed'? I think your edit says it all iaminitnow06 - the way forward imho |
|
|
|
The project has progressed well since the OP was created, all I have done is update it since then. It would be reasonable to rewrite some sections so that they are more applicable to the current status.
Our OP must be crafted in a way that inspires people like you who all ready here, not marketed to everybody with hype and speculation.
Between the lines of these posts I see a message coming through: many want to support the project and mine to keep some bitmarks, but often people have running costs and unless they are supported in their running costs they cannot support bitmark.
Something could be crafted so those with money could support those with hashing power, and the proceeds split between them. Maybe this feels centralized and is not so open to the wider community, or maybe it is fair.
Or perhaps exchanges of some kind are a necessary part of the organic growth.
A fair balance must be struck while we earn our value.
Is this the area which we need to address first as a community? I feel it is becoming important.
consolidation - Bitmark is caught between polarised mindsets; short term profit - long term reward. I am stating the obvious, but the first may be necessary to support the second - I am not entirely certain. Perhaps there is a natural and unavoidable evolution from one to the other? Our OP must be crafted in a way that inspires people like you who all ready here, not marketed to everybody with hype and speculation. Absolutely - and when bitmark.co is ready, hopefully it will strike that exact chord. Of course people have running costs - but it is their call how they control and direct these in proportion to their mining efforts and 'perceived' value. I have certainly mined coins that I was 100% convinced would do well only to be left with a bag of useless 'dust'... my call. EDIT: Just to add - I have considerable fiat investment that absolutely needs to ROI - but I split my mining between daily BTC returns and long-term goals over short-term profit. You cannot hold the hands of others. |
|
|
|
I don't see how it could be a stealth launch. It was announced here 3 weeks before launch. I do think the OP need a rework though to grab some attention. It's really uninspiring. I'm not suggesting bullshit just for the sake of it but first impressions are important. Maybe someone here with some marketing experience could help the dev with it. Just a suggestion.
It is quite a bit different than the average ANN page on this forum, but to me the straight up facts no nonsense approach is inspiring. The tl;dr at the top there sums it up quite nicely I think. I'm not against marketing or anything. I just think it's easy to come off the wrong way in the altcoin world and sometimes things can just speak for themselves. And I can't see anyone making any sort of argument that it could be a stealth launch considering discussion has been going on here for weeks spanning multiple threads. I thought I would right now just re-read the ANN and in doing so, answered my own question; "What made me stop and read all 10 pages (at that time) about Bitmark, whilst skimming through all the X11, Scrypt-N, X13, Hybrid PoW/PoS, Save the World, Blah Blah Blah, ANNs?"I agree, the OP needs a bit of refreshment and I am not selling a single bitmark for less than 150k sats.
I will not be selling any BTM, period..! Certainly not until the foundation has grown some roots, branches, leaves, flowers... and, above all else, fruit! |
|
|
|
I don't see how it could be a stealth launch. It was announced here 3 weeks before launch. I do think the OP need a rework though to grab some attention. It's really uninspiring. I'm not suggesting bullshit just for the sake of it but first impressions are important. Maybe someone here with some marketing experience could help the dev with it. Just a suggestion.
+1 re stealth launch response I agree that the original ANN could benefit from a little aesthetic attention - but there have been a stack of coins launched with superbly wordy OPs peppered with exciting graphics - have they faired any better for this? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
