Thought that they've done this a couple of times already. Also I think I remember this most recent printing happening a while ago, longer than two weeks. Might have had something to do with I3 winding down or whatever? I don't really follow it too much so it's kind of hazy for me. Should probably pay more attention though. I guess the main problem is that they're all at bitsharestalk. At least Stan posts here though too, so I get to read some BTS related content sometimes.

I don't think too many people care about the printing as I haven't seen many people complaining here. And I'm going to assume their own community is ok with it as I don't see any signs of suicide as you predict.

Some really bad reporting here. Off by an order of magnitude.

It should be around 38 million, not 380...

It's gross revenue in general. As to who would maintain the accounting I'd imagine someone would be hired to fulfill that position when the time comes. But that's quite a ways away before any sort of revenue based on fees is generated, as I believe the plan for the near future is to offer most services free of charge to drive adoption and build a user base.

I don't think there is any more specific documentation yet, but I think there should be. Especially as there was already an issue with interpretation of an incentive bonus structure that wasn't paid out, but could have been had the criteria been met.

And I'm pretty sure there's not much desire from people to establish any sort of legal entity yet. The goal is to decentralise things as much as possible as time goes on. Perhaps there will be some demand for someone to start an arbitration service or something though.

SuperNET is based around the idea of alts combining resources and working together towards a greater goal. Each currency is unique though so it's not quite the same as your proposed idea of similar coins working together, but similar in spirit.

As an investment anything which continues to increase in supply negatively effects the price. A truly deflationary asset is something special, as I don't know of many systems which have managed to incentivize network participants without rewarding them with tokens through inflation.

As a currency you could argue that deflation isn't ideal, but when investing in cryptocurrency it's pretty clear that people are primarily concerned with the expected growth of their holdings. Supply being fixed is a huge advantage.

Bitcoin and other cryptos that inflate at a predictable rate are self limiting. The higher the price goes, the more money it takes to sustain the price. Monero is a good example of a legit project that's performed poorly as an investment despite a big community and a huge amount of investment. Their emission schedule that they were stuck with after taking over the project is incredibly steep for the first three or four years.

This is why I expect crypto assets to become more popular over time too. As there's really very little point to people pumping out these currencies based around a certain niche when they could use those resources and create a organization that offers shares and a clear path to value for shareholders. No inflation, no wasted money on mining, perfectly secure. Making coin after coin is just silly when there is a far better alternative available in many cases.

I guess no one actually believed that BCNext was actually making what he claimed.

All I know is that when I first saw the NXT website and read the features, my first thought was 'too good to be true'.

Does it work in a way that if BTS starts to crash, people holding bitUSD would be incentivized to buy BTS to prevent a margin call/liquidation event? And conversely, are there any incentives for people to dump their BTS during this time to somehow take advantage of that event? People shorting BTS only maybe? 

markpfennig: Okay, plan to move forward:

I'm going to start stubbing out each full system we need in github this week, and documenting them in markdown documents and inline comments in code.
This will provide everything needed for others to join in, some paid help has been organized, and any community members who want to help can just join in and add in functionality to methods as they can or as they feel confident that it isn't a wasted exercise.
From my own side, this will effectively lock down and make public the specification for all parts of marking, and stop me making endless revisions, design changes, new techs and so forth, and create measurable public progress.
It's no good me putting out disparate parts which nobody can use or see how they fit together, so this approach will be more agreeable to anybody who wants to join in or keep up with what's going on. It'll also remove the bottle-neck of "me" from the project whilst enabling me to work on it.
Once the stubbed applications are added, I'll start dropping in working code where I have it, and adding tests to important parts.
I'm not going to set any deadlines, but conversely will be starting this process tonight or tomorrow morning, and following it daily from there.  Will reach end deliverables as they are done.

[01:44] markpfennig: As  I get these stubbed projects in to github - which equates to the architecture and outer classes/functions of each application with test data, we'll have a clear "to-do" of components/files which are complete or not.  For each one of those we'll be able to split it in to tasks which can be open for community to do (community includes me), or they can be assigned to paid help where needed.



With zmark and such I'm not sure. Here's some chat from the #pfennig channel though:

tdokta: kgw could work fine, its seems to work well in the GMC network, blocks flow, BTM profit over litecoin is down at the moment so not as likely on the radar of large hashing,

potential to change the block time to reduce numbers produced per day ?

----- January 30th, 2015 -----

[08:37] dbkeys: Yes, changing the target block interval time makes sense. However, it should be dynamic, ie, now when hashrate is quite low on the network, we could target 10x slower blocks (ie, 20 minutes) and as the hashrate builds up, eventually target the "normal" 2 minute blocktime

[09:45] dbkeys: cause if the demand & hashrate climb up again alot, would rather not have to hardfork again, right ?

[11:55] tdokta: yes, do it once and do it right so there is not a problem. but who knows, before then it may just pick up by itself with users (edited)

[19:52] emdje: Chance that it fixes itself is quiet low I guess

----- January 31st, 2015 -----

[02:27] tdokta: at this point in time i agree.

[06:18] dbkeys: I looked into emdje's suggestion, and I think I have a fairly straightforward answer. Poisson random events have an exponential probability function between events, such that the probability that an event takes longer than _t_ minutes is  _e^(-L*t)_ where L=1/Expected_Interval_Time

[06:22] dbkeys: So that, for example, the probability that a block is found (assuming well adjusted difficulty for the hashrate available) in the target time (2 minutes for bitmark) is P(X <= t) = 1 - P(X >t) = 1 - e^(-L*t)

[06:23] dbkeys: which, plugging in the number for Expected blocktime interval = 2 minutes  is:

[06:24] dbkeys: 1- e^(-0.5*2) = 1-e^(-1) =0.63212 or 63.212 % chance

[06:26] dbkeys: if we want to say something like, if a block hasn't been found in "y minutes" that means that there is only a 0.1% chance that its due to the variability of the Poisson random process, (rather than decreased hashrate), then we can set an arbitrary threshold, say  that 0.1% = 0.001 = e^(-0.5 * t) and solve for t

[06:29] dbkeys: t = -[ ln (0.001) / (0.5) ] = 13.816 minutes

[06:30] dbkeys: In other words, if 13 minutes 49 seconds go by without a block, we can be 99.9% certain that it is due to a change in hashrate, if the blocks had been coming fairly regularly at the set difficulty

[06:31] dbkeys: If we wanted to be 99.999% certain, then the calculation would be:

[06:33] dbkeys: .00001=e^(-0.5*t), yielding t= -[ ln (0.00001) / 0.5 ] = 23.026 or 23 minutes  1.5 seconds

[06:37] dbkeys: A practical heuristic might be, if a block has not been found in 20 minutes, adjust difficulty downwards (how to make sure that peers on network are on same clock and how much to adjust to be determined)

[06:42] dbkeys: Emdje suggest that the most recent block interval time be used relative to the target block interval time to adjust difficulty.  A heuristic rule could be develped that measures how far off in terms of multiples of 13.8 or 23 minutes this blocktime is and adjust accordingly.

[07:49] leathan: very nice !

[07:50] leathan: cant wait to try them i i bet 13.8 is more practical but i have no idea

Haha!

What do you mean by this? Metacoins like Mastercoin and Counterparty?

Organize and get people working on different parts of the project.

There's many reasons people dislike Bitcoin. This is probably not even in the top ten.

I think people's primary concern is whether or not their 'investment' (if you want to look at it from that perspective) is going to appreciate in value over time or not(this only being in the context of using this as an investment, not using crypto as a platform with actual utility). That alone is going to far outweigh any sort of negative feeling towards 'making people rich'. It would be completely irrational to forego a profitable investment out of spite. Now of course there's no guarantee that any investment is going to make a return, but I can't think of many cases where making an investment in anything, be it a company, buying gold through a ETF or a dealer, or any sort of interest baring contact isn't providing financial benefits to the people behind that investment. Whether they're the CEO of a company, or just a financial advisor. It's pretty much a fundamental part of any sort of market based investment.

I do think it's silly though that so many people who aren't early adopters in Bitcoin reject all the new technologies in favour of the first one. I understand that it has the network effect going for it, but if the market were truly rational people would be open to moving towards better technology rather than trying to make sure the world sticks with the first iteration.

I'd guess he either genuinely means good luck, or means that you're not going to see it drop under a dollar. Unfortunately we're all tied to the price of Bitcoin to a certain extent for now. Hopefully we'll break free from that eventually.

I don't think it's near as bad of a distribution as you think. Especially compared to most alts. Now I'm not sure, but from what I've observed the community has grown and it continues to be distributed through the open market. I'm not a NXT expert or anything, but they definitely have a solid community and things like SuperNET are helping to expand it and continue the distribution.

Also, mining favours economies of scale and not the individual miner ideal which is long gone. And it is inefficient and wasteful. I don't think there's a perfect distribution model yet, but as long as there's a somewhat liquid market and people can buy the currency, it's better that they do it that way than wasting money and energy mining imo.

Yeah, there's always coins that have more liquidity. But NXT has been trading for over a year now so while scams like Paycoin will pop up and get a ton of volume in a short period of time, a year from now NXT will still be trading while Paycoin of course won't be.

NXT volume still could be a lot better, and it's no where remotely near LTC or anything but it's reasonably consistent and a lot of NXT has changed hands in the past year. A few days ago someone sold 3 million NXT on Poloniex. I just think that it appears to have done a reasonably good job of distribution since it was released. It still has a long way to go to be a top 5 volume currency or something, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon and the same thing can't be said for lots of other alts.

Might have started out somewhat small, but over a year of being one of the most liquid alts seems to have distributed it pretty well. Definitely has a pretty wide range of holders and a good sized community.

Maybe Leathan's new bot is an evil twin and has sabotaged Klaranet.

Good to see people giving credit where credit is due.

I lost a lot of respect for Jeff Garzik when he went on that poorly researched tirade on twitter. That was ridiculous.

That worked. Thanks!

That's correct, 720 confirmations is how Bitmark is configured. And in a situation like this where the difficulty is stuck too high it takes a very long time for those BTM to mature. We're working on fixing the network issue though one way or the other, so hopefully your BTM will mature in the near future.