It's been analysed man. Satoshi was by far the biggest miner on the network until mid 2010.

You're way off on this. Even if it's not a million or more it's going to be within a couple of hundred thousand.

Alright.

*patiently waits eating popcorn*

Uh oh...

Any particular reason you're choosing to do this now?

How do you convince mainstream adopters of that when they don't know anything about Satoshi? Only that he's anonymous.

Probably not, but how do you convince your mom, or your friend at the bar that the anonymous creator who holds potentially billions or trillions simply won't sell and crash the market? Even if one single satoshi was moved from any of those known addresses today the market would shit itself. People would be in hysterics.

Good question. For me personally, I had just starting learning about all the new innovations in altcoins that had happened so far in the last 10-12 months or so, and I was reading the forum here and I came across coinsolidation making a few posts to discus the theory and ideas behind alternative currencies.

For a few weeks or so there were multiple threads where we discussed the ideas behind features, developer funding, and what matters and what doesn't when it comes to digital currency. When I started reading the alt forum here the last thing I would have ever expected myself to do is get involved with a project, but after talking with coinsolidation and hearing his ideas I naturally just kind of fell in to the project. Even though I personally was skeptical(not against, but just not sure) about a lot of his ideas of what would make an alternative currency work, it seems that thus far he's known exactly what parameters were optimal and how important it was to build value from scratch.

I wasn't the only one who noticed what he was doing, and over time more and more like minded people joined the project. We had ~70 pages of interesting discussion with none of the typical idiocy that comes with being here on bitcointalk. Luckily for us our project has already outgrown bitcointalk and it's very unlikely that you'll see much from Bitmark here on bitcointalk in the coming months and years ahead.

He deserves to be a billionaire, but his coins are also a massive liability for Bitcoin in general. A publicly annouced liquidation plan over x amount of time would go a long way towards helping the future of Bitcoin I think.

Confirming for the second week. Thanks.

Good post. It's important to remember that the cryptospace is general is still growing and it will likely take a while to really begin to reach it's full potential. As long as the product is solid though, over time things should work out.

Keeping expectations reasonable is a good thing.

I'm currently working on a FAQ that will hopefully help address some of the questions people have. I also intend to include links in to where people can read more to further understand what the project is about.

Hello. I remember you from the BTM launch I believe, back in July.

This one too.

http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246

BBR is pretty cool and hasn't really gotten much attention at all.

Awesome. Thank you.

Market making isn't really manipulation and is generally considered a healthy activity that adds liquidity to a market. The more people competing to make a market, the lower the spread generally is. Which saves both buyers and sellers money.

I think the details still need to be ironed out, no?

Marking is the manifestation of what pundits have been predicting 'web 3.0' to be. The semantic web, your actions(or marks in this case) convey actual meaning by having actual value inherently linked to each mark.

It's not really about the cryptocurrency. Satoshi has just given us the base on which interesting things like marking can be built upon and provide a stable base for.

But we're doing interesting things with the Bitmark the cryptocurrency as well: http://bitmarknews.com/2014/08/25/bitmarks-future-the-power-of-the-api/

I think NxtBlg said it best here:


If you think the accusations that you've made logically follow from the evidence that you presented, even in a loose sense, then no one is going to convince you otherwise. Because if you go from the spreadsheet to thinking that James is literally running a long con scam in which he intends to bilk massive amounts of money from people who invest in his assets, then you're obviously deriving that based on the assumption that his intentions have been bad from the beginning.

Where as I've come to believe that it's fairly unlikely that his intentions are bad in anyway(and are likely to be good), based on how I've seen him conduct his business dealing thus far and how he's dealt with people in matters related to money. That's my opinion of him at the moment, subject to change if I observe him doing things that might conflict with my current judgement of him as a person.

As time goes on we will see what happens and how James acts in relation to his business dealings. At this point all eyes are on him now in the crypto community. Not just the NXT community. So I'm certain this will not be the last of people accusing him of doing wrong. Everyone will be watching, everything is recorded on public ledgers for all to see as you've shown here with your break down of the asset cross ownership. So far i'm unconvinced of any of the claims that multiple anonymous accounts have made against him thus far, but I'm watching just as everyone else will be.

Except that Ethereum is not an investment fund that uses capital raised to invest on behalf of shareholders where as sharkfund0 is as far as I know. Distribution of an investment fund?

If I created my own investment fund named fishfund0 tomorrow and issued 10000 shares at 1 BTC each and only ended up selling 20 shares then I would have 20 BTC in capital to invest with. And if 10 of those share were either bought by me or issued to me through the terms of the fund then it wouldn't make any difference what so ever in how the fund operates. 9980 outstanding shares or 100000. It's not a cryptocurrency or anything like Ether, or even XRP.

"please abstain from stating things emanating out of it as facts." I have no idea what you're referring to here and if you'd like to give me an example of me claiming something to be a fact that's not just my supposition, please do.


I thought you might be surprised that we decided not to join superNET considering you've been portraying me as a "kool aid drinker" this whole time.

The speculative value of superNET comes from the potential profits that are expected to be paid as dividends to shareholders. The intention is to become a portal for every user of crypto. To the point where people won't need to use any other wallet than the one they have that has the superNET GUI integrated in to it. If crypto continues to grow and superNET works out how it's intended to it's not too hard to imagine that having a share in a service such as this might be profitable. It's definitely risky like every thing in this space, and no one is making any guarantees.


I don't understand what you're getting at here. You said specifically: "Where does it talk about him about sharkfund0 or jl777hodl's holding? No where."

He's putting in his assets, one of which include 4.46% ownership in jl777hodl. He owns the assets he's putting in. I don't see what sharkfund0 has to do with this exchange considering there's no purchase of shares as far I know. Only a transfer of asset between James and UNITY.

Where's the deception?

I don't think I flip flop. You've implied from the beginning that there has been some sort of intentional deception on James' part regarding his ownership in assets related to him. And you've also accused him of doing much worse than that based on absolutely nothing that implies any of the things you've accused. I've maintained from the beginning that I have not observed him to be deceptive at all in his communications regarding his assets. If you want to show me that I've been misreading or ignoring his posts feel free to show me where I'm wrong.


Again, please show me where I've used language that implies that I presented that as a fact. I try to specifically make sure that I don't do such things, so if you have an example please quote it. In this instance I said "seem to", but you keep insisting that I presented that as a fact when I think should have been fairly obvious that I was just making an observation that is probably right based on the amount of money that gets invested in these assets, but isn't something that I would ever try to pass off as anything more than 'likely'. The "wealthy" part comes from the fact that there are many holders of large amounts of NXT in the NXT community and the market value of their NXT is often significant. You can claim that you think that James is the on who holds all those other accounts that hold significant percentages in sharkfund0 or any other asset, but from what I can tell there are real people in the NXT community who do actively invest in the AE(and presumable some of James' assets as well considering their market caps). Someone more involved with the NXT community can elaborate more on this perhaps.

Please consider donating some BTM to the Bitmark Foundation. Funds are locked until July 13th 2015 and will enable the continued growth and development of Bitmark.

http://bitmark.co:3000/address/bQmnzVS5M4bBdZqBTuHrjnzxHS6oSUz6cG

Goal is 70k BTM by the release date. We need to get as much BTM in to the foundation as possible before the end of this year though in order to have a good chance of meeting that goal.

It's very simple. 1 TOKEN will convert to 1 UNITY. There's only one asset that will represent a share in the superNET and that is UNITY.

Regarding trust Bitmark's marking system which will integrate sirius' Identifi will be valuable in helping with that. Also I know James makes extensive use of multisig tech which will help mitigate those issues as well.


Because the intention is to provide something that concentrates users. And the developer will want people to use their technology/currency so if superNET works out how it's intended to work out then superNET will provide the users and the demand and developers will provide the technology and the supply.


I agree with you completely. And the whole point of superNET is to provide a portal for users so that individual currencies and technologies don't have go out and build their own user base, one will already be waiting for them. And developers can focus on building technology instead of wasting their time marketing.


That's why the idea behind superNET is so interesting, it challenges the idea that there necessarily has to be one dominant currency by attempting to bridge multiple currencies via technology.

Even if you don't believe in James, or his ability to build such a network, the core idea itself is something special I think.


Definitely, having experts review and advise is essential. I've seen James constantly searching for experts to help him review his code and discover exploits. I personally know of one person who has the knowledge to be able to help in this regard and he's already spoken with James regarding assisting in that area in the future. As time goes on I believe more people will assist in that area as well. Also, crypto_zoidberg is involved as well and he's widely regarded as an very knowledgeable and capable developer. It will definitely be in his and BBR's interest to do what he can to ensure the security of superNET so I would imagine he will help.