Bitcoin Forum
September 17, 2019, 02:01:12 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework  (Read 28094 times)
onelineproof
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2018, 05:26:48 PM
Last edit: August 31, 2018, 11:36:39 PM by onelineproof
 #241

Let me clear up some loose ends first

@Matiel
The discussion between psycodad and dbkeys about selfish miners is just a side topic, and I don't disagree with any of that. There truly were selfish miners present before the June fork, which fixed that. I would give psycodad merit for his comment, but I would have to confirm for myself the 30-40% number, as I don't give merit without fully confirming the claim. Not sure why dbkeys gave psycodad merit (maybe to bribe him?), but it doesn't really matter. The merit system is a bit flawed because people can just say "I will merit you if you merit me". That's why we need a more robust reputation system.

@dbkeys says:
Quote
But, if by chance instead, you were to accept the premise that  a reduced emission rate is not sinful per se, and and may happen for good reason, such as:
A)  Work should be rewarded according to effort
       [and *not* according to "need", a là communist style, or what was written in some holy book long ago, a là religious dogma style] and
B) Merged mined blocks require orders of magnitude less effort than native-mined blocks to produce  

     and that
C)  A reduced emission rate may even have positive side effects
      (and no, I don't mean an easy exit for some theoretical investors you keep being paranoid about),   such as:
       1)  Mining viability much longer into the future
       2)  Part of the emission still available to mine, should new & more democratic mining algos be developed in the future
       3)  Possible a rise in MARKS/BTC rate, which should make for happier native-miners, even happier merge-miners and  investors and holders of the coin. ¿ What could possibly be wrong with that ?  
           (Yes, yes I know, the central bankers, the bitcoin people would never reduce their reward (but they don't have merge-mining by the way) blah blah blah.    Did you ever stop to think that the bitcoin protocol was thought of, and developed, in one central point ? Heresy ! Oh yes, it was !! the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto, yes, one central point: that one brilliant mind, whoever he / she / they are.)  

He keeps editing this post, hard to keep up...
A & B) Work should be rewarded according to effort. Yes it is actually rewarded according to effort. If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine. I already explained all of this more completely in my posts about merge mining economics on page 11. And no, I am not a communist. In fact I would consider myself the opposite of a communist. And the point still remains that reducing merge mining rewards does not need a change to the overall emission rate.
C) 1) I already explained why you can't just change the emission rate, but let me explain it in a different way. Say you are renting something to someone and they agree to pay you $100 every month for next 3 years. After 6 months they come to you and say "actually I will now pay you $20" every month for for the next 2.5 x 5 = 12.5 years. You will still get the same amount in the end, so why not? It will help you to stay disciplined and not blow your money all at once on booze and hookers!" I don't know about you, but I would say "Sorry buddy but we agreed to $100 a month for 3 years, changing it to $20 for the next 12.5 years is a violation of our agreement. Pay up according to the agreement or I will blacklist you and never do business with you again". So think of yourself as the miners or new users and think of that guy who wants to now pay $20 as the early investors. That is what is happening in his fork. And when dbkeys asks me "what miner reduction do you want?", what he is asking me is how much am I willing to steal from people? The answer is none. I want us (the protocol) to pay as agreed. Also, there is a reason why banks charge interest. The value of money received in the future is LESS than the value of money received now. So actually the claim that the total sum of emission is constant is wrong.
2) is just a variant of 1, already explained above.
3) I explained in my last post
Yes Satoshi came up with the emission rate but whatever he came up with, people stuck with. Each coin may have a different emission rate and different schedule that changes the emission rate after certain intervals, but the schedule needs to remain as originally agreed or it is clear there is central manipulation happening. I never said there is only "one true emission rate" as dbkeys keeps saying.

The picture is clear. Bitmark was created in mid 2014. The original developer left after 6 months. It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository. During the 2014-2016 "low hanging fruit" season of Bitmark, dbkeys mined a large number of coins (maybe 1 million?). He even told me himself that he was the only one mining at some point. Then in 2016, the selfish miners came and made mining really hard for him. They also made it hard for users to use Bitmark (Poloniex put the wallet in maintenance mode). He then came up with a plan to fix that. He hired me in 2017 and I developed the changes needed together with other security improvements (2017-2018). At this point he was strongly invested in Bitmark (mining rewards, purchases on exchanges, payments for marketing/development). When the fork happens in June 2018, he makes an important realization: By design, a decentralized system makes it very hard for 1 person to get very rich by investing in it (how surpising!). His goal is to make a profit. Cryptocurrency and decentralized reputation is "cool" for him, but his priority is to make a profit, and he doesn't want to lose all that he invested. At this point he also has gained control of the code repository and is an official contact for exchanges. Instead of being grateful that he has a significant early mover advantage in a currency that has great potential (especially with my improvements), he decides to promote his "fork" with the most deceptive marketing tactics possible. He purposely lies about the purpose and effects of the fork. He misquotes me. He uses sophisticated language to appear of high social status and unlikely to be a scammer (he toned that down a bit now). He preys on uninformed people to gather support, bans me from slack...I gave him many chances to explain himself (privately and publicly) but the picture is clear and I can back everything up with evidence. There is also that link I posted of that guy talking about how Melvin Carvalho is scamming people, and that guy has plenty of merit on this forum.

So @dbkeys, do you want to continue doubling down or admit to your mistakes and make it easier for you? While I think non-violent scams should be legal and fall under free speech, real-world law enforcement may think otherwise. Remember what happened to the pyramid scheme scammer pirateat40? You know exactly what you are doing. You have intent. No I will not take legal action, as I think the legal system is corrupt itself. But others may, and how can people do business with you after that? It's a total loss of reputation for you.

His sidekicks 82ndabnmedic and Melvin Carvalho should also show their faces. I don't see any possible way how these people could be approved as official contacts for exchanges trading in Bitmark. The original vision of Bitmark was clearly laid out in the original announcement thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.0
Quote
Project Bitmark is an initiative to create an every day use alternative currency. No premine, no IPO, nothing unfair, no scam, no clone, no old code bases, no untested code, no token features, just what you need.

These people clearly don't follow that vision and the original developer is not present. They want to hijack the protocol for their own pyramid scheme. So who has authority of Bitmark for the purpose of providing updated code to exchanges?

The uncorrupted Bitmark protocol: https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark
Email <my username>@gmail.com 0xB6AC822C451D63046A2849E97DB7011CD53B564
1568685672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568685672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568685672
Reply with quote  #2

1568685672
Report to moderator
1568685672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568685672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568685672
Reply with quote  #2

1568685672
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568685672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568685672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568685672
Reply with quote  #2

1568685672
Report to moderator
dbkeys
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 413
Merit: 101


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 07:15:03 PM
Last edit: September 07, 2018, 07:34:29 PM by dbkeys
 #242

Tiresome, but necessary to refute

Quote
If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine.

The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less.  The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS, our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support.   So Yes, Fact #1)  MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
 Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?

    Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion, it's painful to watch....  Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on.  Fact #2) The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered.  So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved.   Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
    In fact,  @onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!   it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)

 <humourous sarcasm>Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? </humorous sarcasm>.... \

    but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.

So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered again for good reason.  

  Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic, algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times.  And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.


 Oh and a few more things ...

"Steal from people",  Andrew ?  You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".  

With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.  This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
 And we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks.  We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
 We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners  and merge-miners,
But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach!  All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given !  Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters)  LOL Smiley    
   "Unlikely", I hear you say ?       Right, and it doesn't matter.... that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much,  and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
 I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain:  what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus.  This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.

My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.



Quote
It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository.
 What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights.  Elementary, AK.

Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.

And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. That's quite a reach.

BTC: 3Bx5YR6ZTs65DH7nHXMXQAfjrz38fixUit      Bitmark (MARKS): bDiDt82NMNcQVTnmmfxegaEMPiWCq7Duvn
jidenko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 34
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 07:20:05 PM
 #243

According to the map i see you have beta application ready.Is it possible to try it out?
dbkeys
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 413
Merit: 101


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 07:31:48 PM
 #244

According to the map i see you have beta application ready.Is it possible to try it out?

We're still working on v0.9.8 - the code is available to see and we certainly appreciate all feedback and comments. But not to worry, when it is ready, we will make the announcement and have binaries (wallets) for Windows, MacOS, Ubuntu & Raspbian.

BTC: 3Bx5YR6ZTs65DH7nHXMXQAfjrz38fixUit      Bitmark (MARKS): bDiDt82NMNcQVTnmmfxegaEMPiWCq7Duvn
Dwyer-Prov
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 35
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 07:41:04 PM
 #245

if you go through the Whitepaper of the plan, you will see that there’s a system to ensure stability, no matter what market does. It'sreally good designed system and makes a lot of sense.
onelineproof
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100
Merit: 14


View Profile WWW
August 30, 2018, 10:53:53 PM
Last edit: August 30, 2018, 11:19:25 PM by onelineproof
 #246

Tiresome, but necessary to refute

Quote
If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine.

The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less.  The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS, our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support.   So Yes, Fact #1)  MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
 Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?

    Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion and fractures, it's just painful to watch....  Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on.  Fact #2) The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered.  So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved.   Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
    In fact,  @onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!   it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)

 <humourous sarcasm>Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? </humorous sarcasm>.... \

    but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.

So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered again for good reason.  

  Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic, algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times.  And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.


 Oh and a few more things ...

"Steal from people",  Andrew ?  You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".  

With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.  This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
 And we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks.  We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
 We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners  and merge-miners, ( no thanks to you AK !)
But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach!  All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given !  Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters)  LOL Smiley    
   "Unlikely", I hear you say ?       Right, and it doesn't matter.... that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much,  and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
 I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain:  what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus.  This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.

My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.



Quote
It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository.
 What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights.  Elementary, AK.

Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.

And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. Quite a reach for a guy who turns on their employers cause he thinks he knows better.

So dbkeys decided to double down and continue lying. If anyone (other than him) thinks his explanations are valid, then ask me, and I will explain. Additionally, the claim about Melvin Carvalho needs proof and more details. I said enough.

The uncorrupted Bitmark protocol: https://github.com/bitmark-protocol/bitmark
Email <my username>@gmail.com 0xB6AC822C451D63046A2849E97DB7011CD53B564
dancingAce
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 11:15:03 PM
 #247

Geo coordinates will show your current location?
nyuon christopher
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 11:25:40 PM
 #248

Invested in your plan a pretty big sum of money, it looks amazing and I can’t wait for the creators to reveal even more ‘bout it. Кeep the good work! I will sta tuned for your updates!
dbkeys
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 413
Merit: 101


View Profile
August 31, 2018, 12:55:02 AM
Last edit: August 31, 2018, 09:17:01 PM by dbkeys
 #249

Quote
So dbkeys decided to double down and continue lying. If anyone (other than him) thinks his explanations are valid, then ask me, and I will explain. Additionally, the claim about Melvin Carvalho needs proof and more details. I said enough.

The senseless, unsubstantiated statements. The FUD in full regalia.  Oh well ... ¿ qu'est ce qu'on va faire ?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

BTC: 3Bx5YR6ZTs65DH7nHXMXQAfjrz38fixUit      Bitmark (MARKS): bDiDt82NMNcQVTnmmfxegaEMPiWCq7Duvn
Matiel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 01, 2018, 06:52:14 PM
 #250

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
TeamBitmark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 03:32:48 AM
 #251

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?

Yes, Without a doubt...we should see a persistent increase in volume, once we stabilize a bit more and transition into the most sought after phase of development (Marking & Implementation, then scaling).

So, I (WE) have, and always will, persuade users to do their own research. This is not investment advice, and honestly we have been around long enough for users to gain substantive insight on the project.
dokegeki
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 03:43:43 AM
 #252

Can you explain about the staking a bit.Will wallet be out before the end of the ICO for the desktop or will we be able to stake on mobile devices also?
alarmod
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 04:08:01 AM
 #253

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
Wallet disabled
82ndabnmedic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 250
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 04:50:51 AM
 #254

Can you explain about the staking a bit.Will wallet be out before the end of the ICO for the desktop or will we be able to stake on mobile devices also?

No Stacking has been implemented within the current system nor the upcoming 0.9.8.3 update.

Short answer:  Bitmark is AuxPoW (not PoS). 

CISSP | PMP | CEH

Bitmark: Project Manager & PR Coordinator


BTC: 1FEi8MSP3ccoqLah8EcxfGZVHUViEmQfvQ

BTM: bNidDXnRu5fuD8Th7cPFh7jnPdyAhMh7Nr
82ndabnmedic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 250
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 04:57:03 AM
 #255

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
Wallet disabled

Yes, this is solely due to the fact that we informed Cryptopia of the update to 0.9.8.3 (which should be released here shortly, I think within the next week or so).

- Quick Note: We simply wanted to do a better job of announcing the update this time around.


CISSP | PMP | CEH

Bitmark: Project Manager & PR Coordinator


BTC: 1FEi8MSP3ccoqLah8EcxfGZVHUViEmQfvQ

BTM: bNidDXnRu5fuD8Th7cPFh7jnPdyAhMh7Nr
Matiel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 08:55:56 PM
 #256

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?
Wallet disabled

Yes, this is solely due to the fact that we informed Cryptopia of the update to 0.9.8.3 (which should be released here shortly, I think within the next week or so).

- Quick Note: We simply wanted to do a better job of announcing the update this time around.


Can you tell me how long it will take to finish after the update starts?
Watson_Goshi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 03, 2018, 09:00:43 PM
 #257

It seems to me this it a plan with clear defined roadmap and whitepaper. to be honest with you nowdays I rarely see such solid plans. just my opinion...
dbkeys
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 413
Merit: 101


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 05:28:23 AM
Last edit: September 12, 2018, 05:01:32 PM by dbkeys
 #258

     Bitmark is a Proof-of-Work (PoW) coin, started as single Scrypt PoW when introduced in 2014, and now has eight PoW algos, a very succesful evolution to 8mPoW, governed by an effective difficulty algo, Dark Gravity Wave v3, DGWv3 and, with an emission control policy dubbed "Coin Emission Modulation", in its first version, CEMv0.1
     All algos have the Auxiliary chain Proof-of-Work submission (AuxPoW) feature: they are "merge-mineable".    Bitmark was probably the first coin to offer as many, 8 PoW algos and all merge-mineable.

     But, there have been calls for some algos to go back to native-only, and for the distinction between the production cost of merge-mined blocks and native-mined blocks be taken into account in general.
@onelineproof coded most of our vision for the current v0.9.7.2, and it is certainly a very solid, secure blockchain, flowing well, producing blocks regularly and promptly

     That said, I thinks we can add some natural improvements. With the drive to keep building on our success, for example, CEM v0.1 which has been well received in general, can be improved.  Let's give it authority over a larger part of the epoch base reward; it's warranted. CEM v0.2 will act on 80% of the epoch base block reward, instead of on 50%. The lookback time window has been softened a bit: instead of "remembering" back a whole year, we only look back 3 months, because it seems rather harsh to punish loyal miners for hashrate peaks that happened more than 3 months ago. This  will have the effect of restoring full emission that much quicker after a high hashrate event, while still deploying the "CEM Effect" for a substantial amount of time.

For the Road Map:
     I propose an additional, 9th PoW algo, Groestl (or Grøstl) as a native-only algo, and also revert Argon2d and Yescrypt to native-mined only. This would make the individual algos' target block time 18 minutes (for a combined production of a block every 2 minutes) . Code for this is taking shape in the 0.9.9 branch of the project-bitmark github repo.
     This would mean 2/3 of the algos are merge-mineable, and 1/3 are native-mined only. This will have the effect (that @onelineproof should like) of keeping to a larger emission and making it so that (I like this ...) it goes to miners who prize them a bit more, as they are the mainline, and not merely a bonus.
As I've argued in previous posts (and been pilloried by @one lineproof) I do believe that merge-mined blocks should be rewarded at a lower fraction than native mined blocks: currently Fork#2 v0.9.8.3, will map native CEM to the range 10% - > 20% for merge-mined block rewards. But I am open to reasoned arguments and discussions about what fraction of the CEM-modulated full epoch block reward merge-miners should receive and any other aspects.

All are welcome to comment, and now's the time.

We would like to hear all opinions and viewpoints,
 expressed respectfully and bringing solutions & shedding light on issues.

 

Dev Time Frames : we will release 0.9.8.3 today. Bitmark v0.9.8.2 only has a small change, but it's an important and a forking change affecting consensus rules. We have run testnet4 and are satisfied.

Our dev team is picking up the slack and continues advancing. The Bitmark project is getting code contributions and moving forward with development and the next version,  v0.9.9  You can help by taking a look at the code, compiling and playing with it.  Do have fun and give us some feedback !

BTC: 3Bx5YR6ZTs65DH7nHXMXQAfjrz38fixUit      Bitmark (MARKS): bDiDt82NMNcQVTnmmfxegaEMPiWCq7Duvn
TeamBitmark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
Last edit: September 06, 2018, 09:37:57 PM by TeamBitmark
 #259

Bitmark v0.9.8.3

Official Release

Ubuntu Long-Term Server (LTS) -  Full Nodes

14.04 LTS "Trusty Tahr"
bitmarkd_Ubuntu-14
bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-14

16.04 LTS "Xenial Xerus"
bitmarkd_Ubuntu-16
bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-16

18.04 LTS "Bionic Beaver"
bitmarkd_Ubuntu-18
bitmark-cli_Ubuntu-18


MacOS & Windows Wallets in the next couple days.

Fork #2 set to happen at block height 518191.
prinkingle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 10:07:40 PM
 #260

Great devs, great community, and a chance to have a slice of a massive global industry? Yes, please. Wish the developers only good luck and success!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!