[ANN][NOTE]DNotes - Celebrating DNotes 3rd Birthday - Forum Now Open

[Chase]

Quick up date:

We have been working very hard to finish the work by the end of March - with a complete draft for final editing before publication. The cover design has been completed and approved. Everything is coming together very well. I am increasingly more confident that this will turn out to be an amazing book and a great help for many small business owners. I appreciate all the encouragement and help I have been getting from our team.

There are many great chapters but here is a sneak peek of Chapter 8 - Delegation:

Chapter 8 Delegation

“No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it.” - Andrew Carnegie

“Among all the tools available to you as an entrepreneur, there are few more powerful than the ability to delegate. In fact, delegation is considered by most experts to be one of the most effective ways to maximize productivity and optimize return on your limited human resources. It can also be the best vehicle through which you can train your employees for future leadership positions within your firm. When exercised properly, delegation can enable you and your managers to accomplish more with the same amount of available human resources. Moreover, by assigning others to do various parts of your job, you can free yourself up to focus on more important tasks, duties, and responsibilities  …..

……… Sadly, however, managers who fail to properly delegate can upset the entire structure of any company’s operations. After all, the very reason for having a manager is to ensure that other employees are better organized in a way that ensures smooth operational efficiency and maximum productivity. When managers attempt to inhibit delegation of tasks and responsibility, they short-circuit that structure and the processes that make it work. Instead of cooperating with others in management to develop plans for improvement, creating new strategies, or developing their own skill sets with new technologies and innovations, these managers end up wasting their time doing work that they should be leaving to others.”

Very thought provoking Alan!

I absolutely love the book cover! I know the contents will become the 'Small Business Bible', so it is nice to see the perfect packaging for it!!

[wiser]

I like the book cover too

[infovortice2013]

Wow this book looks like great !! Congrats Alan    remember plant a tree too.

yesterday mining get burned jack conectors of gridseed blade :S just working at 750 mhz can go to 850 with no problems . so strange. But i got another 2 burned time ago.. i buy 4 at same time, maybe is the quality of conectors i dont know but dig for months without problems, so i need to buy new ac conectors
just keep mining at 1.4 mhash for the while with other asic.

[Chase]

This is pretty cool - The first Blockchain World Expo will be held in Toronto, Canada in September.


World's Largest Blockchain Trade Show to Debut in Toronto, Sept. 19-21

Decentral and Ethereum Canada are pleased to announce their upcoming Blockchain World Expo. The trade show --­ the largest of its kind in the world ­-- will be held in Toronto on Sept. 19­-21, 2016, and will feature more than 50 exhibitors and 60 speakers from across North & South America, Europe and Asia.

Sponsored by TMX Group, whose subsidiaries include Toronto Stock Exchange and Montreal Exchange, the three-day trade show will provide an engaging environment for financial market players, blockchain companies, investors, regulators, developers, academics and curious individuals to come learn about this breakthrough technology that is quickly entering the mainstream...

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/worlds-largest-blockchain-trade-show-to-debut-in-toronto-sept-19-21-2107191.htm

[DNotes]

Wow this book looks like great !! Congrats Alan    remember plant a tree too.

yesterday mining get burned jack conectors of gridseed blade :S just working at 750 mhz can go to 850 with no problems . so strange. But i got another 2 burned time ago.. i buy 4 at same time, maybe is the quality of conectors i dont know but dig for months without problems, so i need to buy new ac conectors
just keep mining at 1.4 mhash for the while with other asic.

If it goes as well as we plan for, we'll have to plant a forest.

Sorry to hear, what's the anticipated lifespan any idea?

[CryptoBroker79]

If it goes as well as we plan for, we'll have to plant a forest.

Strange you should mention this, a while back I had the idea of planting trees to offset the carbon emissions of our blockchain. I guess great minds think alike!

[DNotes]

For anyone interested who has not seen the introduction to the book, we have posted it on CryptoMoms:

http://cryptomoms.com/forum/dnotes/28/book-the-four-pillars-of-business-success/1306/msg6472#msg6472

[IMZ]

If it goes as well as we plan for, we'll have to plant a forest.

Strange you should mention this, a while back I had the idea of planting trees to offset the carbon emissions of our blockchain. I guess great minds think alike!

Morning, Crypto Broker! Ask me about 'Guerilla Fruit-Tree Coin.'

And tonight’s top story:

“And if all else fails, Praet says the ECB could even embark on ‘helicopter money’ and physically press cash into the public’s hands . . . “

http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/mar/18/markets-2016-highs-dollar-draghi-leaders-oil-business-live?page=with:block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820#block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820

[CryptoBroker79]

If it goes as well as we plan for, we'll have to plant a forest.

Strange you should mention this, a while back I had the idea of planting trees to offset the carbon emissions of our blockchain. I guess great minds think alike!

Morning, Crypto Broker! Ask me about 'Guerilla Fruit-Tree Coin.'

And tonight’s top story:

“And if all else fails, Praet says the ECB could even embark on ‘helicopter money’ and physically press cash into the public’s hands . . . “

http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/mar/18/markets-2016-highs-dollar-draghi-leaders-oil-business-live?page=with:block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820#block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820

I read the brief overview, it sounds like an extremely worthwhile initiative that could have a huge impact on the lives of less fortunate people. Could you email me more information?

[Dyna]

If it goes as well as we plan for, we'll have to plant a forest.

Strange you should mention this, a while back I had the idea of planting trees to offset the carbon emissions of our blockchain. I guess great minds think alike!

Morning, Crypto Broker! Ask me about 'Guerilla Fruit-Tree Coin.'

And tonight’s top story:

“And if all else fails, Praet says the ECB could even embark on ‘helicopter money’ and physically press cash into the public’s hands . . . “

http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/mar/18/markets-2016-highs-dollar-draghi-leaders-oil-business-live?page=with:block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820#block-56ebcb29e4b0989a6e878820

"Helicopter money" is a new term but an old practice. Politicians and central bankers never run out of ideas or "tools" since they can make money out of thin air.

"Yes, all central banks can do it. You can issue currency and you distribute it to people. That’s helicopter money. Helicopter money is giving to the people part of the net present value of your future seigniorage, the profit you make on the future banknotes. The question is, if and when is it opportune to make recourse to that sort of instrument which is really an extreme sort of instrument.

There are other things you can theoretically do. There are several examples in the literature. So when we say we haven’t reached the limit of the toolbox, I think that’s true."

[IMZ]

http://cryptomoms.com/forum/cryptomoms-com/5/crypto-kindergarten/537/585

[Think back on the political dynamics of Europe in the 1930's: no one wanted to countenance what might happen, so they just ignored it. I experienced exactly the same thing during the revolution I was involved in. People went their merry ways until the system literally imploded.]

Mark

[yavuzc78]

Play Coin Wheel Earn Dnotes

http://altcoinix.com/games/dnotes/

[DNotes]

Digital Currency Weekly Recap 3-20-2016

Alleged Cryptsy Deal with Hacker to Resolve Stolen Bitcoin Issue
African FinTech 100 and Awards Set for October 2016
Coincheck Now Supports Ether Trading
New Bitfinex Policy for Law Enforcement Requests
Uphold Platform to Support Ethereum and LiteCoin
Coinbase Exchange Adds Stop Order Option
Russia’s QIWI Claims BitRuble Safe from Government Money Surrogate Ban

http://dcebrief.com/digital-currency-weekly-recap-3-20-2016/

[DNotes]

Digital Currency Weekly Recap 3-20-2016

Alleged Cryptsy Deal with Hacker to Resolve Stolen Bitcoin Issue
African FinTech 100 and Awards Set for October 2016
Coincheck Now Supports Ether Trading
New Bitfinex Policy for Law Enforcement Requests
Uphold Platform to Support Ethereum and LiteCoin
Coinbase Exchange Adds Stop Order Option
Russia’s QIWI Claims BitRuble Safe from Government Money Surrogate Ban

http://dcebrief.com/digital-currency-weekly-recap-3-20-2016/

The Cryptsy story is pretty crazy.

[DNotes]

I thought this article was interesting and a good topic of discussion.  Proposal To Give 45% of Block Reward To Bitcoin Node Operators Is Silly

At this point, there are over 6,000 Bitcoin nodes in existence, and none of these operators are getting paid for doing so. No one is complaining about that either, even though some people might prefer to have some monetary incentive attached to being a Bitcoin node operator.

For some unknown reason, people in the Bitcoin community assume these people should get paid for supporting the network. While there may be a certain logic behind that idea, it is not feasible in the Bitcoin world by any means. Bitcoin nodes help broadcast transactions to miners, but they are not producing any proof-of-work to make this happen.

That does not mean running a Bitcoin node is free of charge, though, as the computer used will need electricity, and there will be a slight strain on computer resources such as the CPU and hard disk speed. Should users be compensated for voluntarily dedicating a part of their resources to securing the Bitcoin network? Probably not.

One user on Reddit posted how it would be an interesting idea to change the Bitcoin protocol and reward node owners with 45% of the current block reward. That would mean that miners, who spend a lot of money to generate blocks on the network, would close to half of their earnings in favor of people who voluntarily run a bitcoin wallet on a device. While such a solution can easily be opened up to the general public, there will be a significant backlash from Bitcoin miners to this idea.

It’d be good if there were a way to incentivize people running a Bitcoin Node, but such a situation would only bring more centralization to the ecosystem. Nothing would stop a collective of individuals to deploy thousands of Bitcoin nodes and take the lion share of the reward for themselves, rendering the entire point of incentivizing node owners completely moot.

What do you think? This article focuses on one side of the story, and I think there is much more to it. As the article keeps mentioning, incentivizing the nodes will lead to centralization, but is it also possible not incentivizing the nodes could lead to centralization as well? Node operators are undoubtedly performing a critical task for the network, while it's also true miners are doing the work of solving hashes, without those nodes the miners would have much more problems such as latency and potentially working on blocks that are already solved. As the blockchain continues to grow, it will become more burdensome and less attractive to run a node.

[wiser]

That is a very interesting question, actually. I know that NEM (which for all practical purposes was a completely premined coin--all the coins got put into circulation at once through the Genesis block--allocated a certain amount of coin to reward node operators. Of course, there's really no mining, so there wouldn't be competition with miners. I don't know what kind of plan is in place for NEM node operators once the original allocated funds run out, but it's possible that isn't for many years, depending on how much was set aside.

I believe in principle it is a good idea to figure out a way to compensate anyone who is involved in securing the network in some way. The problem with Bitcoin is that this wasn't thought about right from the beginning (OK, the mining was, but not the nodes), and because of the current leadership politics, it's very hard to actually make any changes that could add it into the code after the fact. I mean, the Bitcoin people are having a difficult enough time deciding on how to enlarge the block size to handle increasing transactions.

DNotes wouldn't have this issue, because there is a "the buck stops here" actual leadership team. I'm pretty sure that if Alan in six months were to decide to turn DNotes into an X11 minting coin which kicked off both mining rewards and minting rewards, and had a special increased minting reward for node operators, and he was able to convince the DNotes core team that this is a good development, and then keep those of us who follow this thread duly informed and seek out our feedback, then I'm sure it would happen with little or no fuss. This is not a suggestion, by the way, just a random example off the top of my head

For an example of a coin which changed its algorithm midway, Diamond is a good example. I believe it began as a Scrypt coin, then switched to Groestl. I'm not sure of the reasons. It's also a dual mining/minting coin, and the core team recently held an auction for ten special addresses which will mint at an increased rate. The coin Neucoin recently made a decision to destroy half of its current coin supply (the part held by board members and initial investors, not coins in general use), and reduce its timeline for general distribution by a number of years. The reasons for this decision had to do with how the core team saw the coin being adopted as well as feedback from the community.

So I know all of this is technically possible.

My point is that from a technical point of view, Bitcoin could alter its code in order to continue to fairly compensate miners and also reward node operators. It could decide to increase its total supply (not cap it at 21 million). It could even code in a way where "lost" Bitcoins get recovered in some way (you know, those Bitcoins lost because someone wiped their hard drive and didn't retain private keys to the wallets). Those recovered Bitcoins could be used to provide rewards to node operators, or even add to the mining rewards. I mean, the sky is the limit as to what could be accomplished. But since Bitcoin is so widespread and basically developed as a leaderless currency, it's going to be very difficult to make even minute changes to the protocol because there will rarely if ever be sufficient consensus to allow any changes to get implemented.

On the other hand, with a currency such as DNotes, which has a leadership team which is willing and able to make unilateral decisions, it's not going to be technical difficulty that limits what can be accomplished. It's really a matter of the leadership clearly communicating the vision, seeking feedback from the community when needed, sticking to its vision, and not making hasty decisions about drastic changes, and then when changes are necessary, clearly communicating the reasons and the path forward so that all can easily adjust and get on board.

I thought this article was interesting and a good topic of discussion.  Proposal To Give 45% of Block Reward To Bitcoin Node Operators Is Silly

At this point, there are over 6,000 Bitcoin nodes in existence, and none of these operators are getting paid for doing so. No one is complaining about that either, even though some people might prefer to have some monetary incentive attached to being a Bitcoin node operator.

For some unknown reason, people in the Bitcoin community assume these people should get paid for supporting the network. While there may be a certain logic behind that idea, it is not feasible in the Bitcoin world by any means. Bitcoin nodes help broadcast transactions to miners, but they are not producing any proof-of-work to make this happen.

That does not mean running a Bitcoin node is free of charge, though, as the computer used will need electricity, and there will be a slight strain on computer resources such as the CPU and hard disk speed. Should users be compensated for voluntarily dedicating a part of their resources to securing the Bitcoin network? Probably not.

One user on Reddit posted how it would be an interesting idea to change the Bitcoin protocol and reward node owners with 45% of the current block reward. That would mean that miners, who spend a lot of money to generate blocks on the network, would close to half of their earnings in favor of people who voluntarily run a bitcoin wallet on a device. While such a solution can easily be opened up to the general public, there will be a significant backlash from Bitcoin miners to this idea.

It’d be good if there were a way to incentivize people running a Bitcoin Node, but such a situation would only bring more centralization to the ecosystem. Nothing would stop a collective of individuals to deploy thousands of Bitcoin nodes and take the lion share of the reward for themselves, rendering the entire point of incentivizing node owners completely moot.

What do you think? This article focuses on one side of the story, and I think there is much more to it. As the article keeps mentioning, incentivizing the nodes will lead to centralization, but is it also possible not incentivizing the nodes could lead to centralization as well? Node operators are undoubtedly performing a critical task for the network, while it's also true miners are doing the work of solving hashes, without those nodes the miners would have much more problems such as latency and potentially working on blocks that are already solved. As the blockchain continues to grow, it will become more burdensome and less attractive to run a node.

[DNotes]

That is a very interesting question, actually. I know that NEM (which for all practical purposes was a completely premined coin--all the coins got put into circulation at once through the Genesis block--allocated a certain amount of coin to reward node operators. Of course, there's really no mining, so there wouldn't be competition with miners. I don't know what kind of plan is in place for NEM node operators once the original allocated funds run out, but it's possible that isn't for many years, depending on how much was set aside.

I believe in principle it is a good idea to figure out a way to compensate anyone who is involved in securing the network in some way. The problem with Bitcoin is that this wasn't thought about right from the beginning (OK, the mining was, but not the nodes), and because of the current leadership politics, it's very hard to actually make any changes that could add it into the code after the fact. I mean, the Bitcoin people are having a difficult enough time deciding on how to enlarge the block size to handle increasing transactions.

DNotes wouldn't have this issue, because there is a "the buck stops here" actual leadership team. I'm pretty sure that if Alan in six months were to decide to turn DNotes into an X11 minting coin which kicked off both mining rewards and minting rewards, and had a special increased minting reward for node operators, and he was able to convince the DNotes core team that this is a good development, and then keep those of us who follow this thread duly informed and seek out our feedback, then I'm sure it would happen with little or no fuss. This is not a suggestion, by the way, just a random example off the top of my head

For an example of a coin which changed its algorithm midway, Diamond is a good example. I believe it began as a Scrypt coin, then switched to Groestl. I'm not sure of the reasons. It's also a dual mining/minting coin, and the core team recently held an auction for ten special addresses which will mint at an increased rate. The coin Neucoin recently made a decision to destroy half of its current coin supply (the part held by board members and initial investors, not coins in general use), and reduce its timeline for general distribution by a number of years. The reasons for this decision had to do with how the core team saw the coin being adopted as well as feedback from the community.

So I know all of this is technically possible.

My point is that from a technical point of view, Bitcoin could alter its code in order to continue to fairly compensate miners and also reward node operators. It could decide to increase its total supply (not cap it at 21 million). It could even code in a way where "lost" Bitcoins get recovered in some way (you know, those Bitcoins lost because someone wiped their hard drive and didn't retain private keys to the wallets). Those recovered Bitcoins could be used to provide rewards to node operators, or even add to the mining rewards. I mean, the sky is the limit as to what could be accomplished. But since Bitcoin is so widespread and basically developed as a leaderless currency, it's going to be very difficult to make even minute changes to the protocol because there will rarely if ever be sufficient consensus to allow any changes to get implemented.

On the other hand, with a currency such as DNotes, which has a leadership team which is willing and able to make unilateral decisions, it's not going to be technical difficulty that limits what can be accomplished. It's really a matter of the leadership clearly communicating the vision, seeking feedback from the community when needed, sticking to its vision, and not making hasty decisions about drastic changes, and then when changes are necessary, clearly communicating the reasons and the path forward so that all can easily adjust and get on board.

I thought this article was interesting and a good topic of discussion.  Proposal To Give 45% of Block Reward To Bitcoin Node Operators Is Silly

At this point, there are over 6,000 Bitcoin nodes in existence, and none of these operators are getting paid for doing so. No one is complaining about that either, even though some people might prefer to have some monetary incentive attached to being a Bitcoin node operator.

For some unknown reason, people in the Bitcoin community assume these people should get paid for supporting the network. While there may be a certain logic behind that idea, it is not feasible in the Bitcoin world by any means. Bitcoin nodes help broadcast transactions to miners, but they are not producing any proof-of-work to make this happen.

That does not mean running a Bitcoin node is free of charge, though, as the computer used will need electricity, and there will be a slight strain on computer resources such as the CPU and hard disk speed. Should users be compensated for voluntarily dedicating a part of their resources to securing the Bitcoin network? Probably not.

One user on Reddit posted how it would be an interesting idea to change the Bitcoin protocol and reward node owners with 45% of the current block reward. That would mean that miners, who spend a lot of money to generate blocks on the network, would close to half of their earnings in favor of people who voluntarily run a bitcoin wallet on a device. While such a solution can easily be opened up to the general public, there will be a significant backlash from Bitcoin miners to this idea.

It’d be good if there were a way to incentivize people running a Bitcoin Node, but such a situation would only bring more centralization to the ecosystem. Nothing would stop a collective of individuals to deploy thousands of Bitcoin nodes and take the lion share of the reward for themselves, rendering the entire point of incentivizing node owners completely moot.

What do you think? This article focuses on one side of the story, and I think there is much more to it. As the article keeps mentioning, incentivizing the nodes will lead to centralization, but is it also possible not incentivizing the nodes could lead to centralization as well? Node operators are undoubtedly performing a critical task for the network, while it's also true miners are doing the work of solving hashes, without those nodes the miners would have much more problems such as latency and potentially working on blocks that are already solved. As the blockchain continues to grow, it will become more burdensome and less attractive to run a node.

Great post wiser.  Thank you.  Virtually anything is possible and I tend to agree it would be difficult to make this kind of change at bitcoins  level.

[Dyna]

That is a very interesting question, actually. I know that NEM (which for all practical purposes was a completely premined coin--all the coins got put into circulation at once through the Genesis block--allocated a certain amount of coin to reward node operators. Of course, there's really no mining, so there wouldn't be competition with miners. I don't know what kind of plan is in place for NEM node operators once the original allocated funds run out, but it's possible that isn't for many years, depending on how much was set aside.

I believe in principle it is a good idea to figure out a way to compensate anyone who is involved in securing the network in some way. The problem with Bitcoin is that this wasn't thought about right from the beginning (OK, the mining was, but not the nodes), and because of the current leadership politics, it's very hard to actually make any changes that could add it into the code after the fact. I mean, the Bitcoin people are having a difficult enough time deciding on how to enlarge the block size to handle increasing transactions.

DNotes wouldn't have this issue, because there is a "the buck stops here" actual leadership team. I'm pretty sure that if Alan in six months were to decide to turn DNotes into an X11 minting coin which kicked off both mining rewards and minting rewards, and had a special increased minting reward for node operators, and he was able to convince the DNotes core team that this is a good development, and then keep those of us who follow this thread duly informed and seek out our feedback, then I'm sure it would happen with little or no fuss. This is not a suggestion, by the way, just a random example off the top of my head

For an example of a coin which changed its algorithm midway, Diamond is a good example. I believe it began as a Scrypt coin, then switched to Groestl. I'm not sure of the reasons. It's also a dual mining/minting coin, and the core team recently held an auction for ten special addresses which will mint at an increased rate. The coin Neucoin recently made a decision to destroy half of its current coin supply (the part held by board members and initial investors, not coins in general use), and reduce its timeline for general distribution by a number of years. The reasons for this decision had to do with how the core team saw the coin being adopted as well as feedback from the community.

So I know all of this is technically possible.

My point is that from a technical point of view, Bitcoin could alter its code in order to continue to fairly compensate miners and also reward node operators. It could decide to increase its total supply (not cap it at 21 million). It could even code in a way where "lost" Bitcoins get recovered in some way (you know, those Bitcoins lost because someone wiped their hard drive and didn't retain private keys to the wallets). Those recovered Bitcoins could be used to provide rewards to node operators, or even add to the mining rewards. I mean, the sky is the limit as to what could be accomplished. But since Bitcoin is so widespread and basically developed as a leaderless currency, it's going to be very difficult to make even minute changes to the protocol because there will rarely if ever be sufficient consensus to allow any changes to get implemented.

On the other hand, with a currency such as DNotes, which has a leadership team which is willing and able to make unilateral decisions, it's not going to be technical difficulty that limits what can be accomplished. It's really a matter of the leadership clearly communicating the vision, seeking feedback from the community when needed, sticking to its vision, and not making hasty decisions about drastic changes, and then when changes are necessary, clearly communicating the reasons and the path forward so that all can easily adjust and get on board.

I thought this article was interesting and a good topic of discussion.  Proposal To Give 45% of Block Reward To Bitcoin Node Operators Is Silly

At this point, there are over 6,000 Bitcoin nodes in existence, and none of these operators are getting paid for doing so. No one is complaining about that either, even though some people might prefer to have some monetary incentive attached to being a Bitcoin node operator.

For some unknown reason, people in the Bitcoin community assume these people should get paid for supporting the network. While there may be a certain logic behind that idea, it is not feasible in the Bitcoin world by any means. Bitcoin nodes help broadcast transactions to miners, but they are not producing any proof-of-work to make this happen.

That does not mean running a Bitcoin node is free of charge, though, as the computer used will need electricity, and there will be a slight strain on computer resources such as the CPU and hard disk speed. Should users be compensated for voluntarily dedicating a part of their resources to securing the Bitcoin network? Probably not.

One user on Reddit posted how it would be an interesting idea to change the Bitcoin protocol and reward node owners with 45% of the current block reward. That would mean that miners, who spend a lot of money to generate blocks on the network, would close to half of their earnings in favor of people who voluntarily run a bitcoin wallet on a device. While such a solution can easily be opened up to the general public, there will be a significant backlash from Bitcoin miners to this idea.

It’d be good if there were a way to incentivize people running a Bitcoin Node, but such a situation would only bring more centralization to the ecosystem. Nothing would stop a collective of individuals to deploy thousands of Bitcoin nodes and take the lion share of the reward for themselves, rendering the entire point of incentivizing node owners completely moot.

What do you think? This article focuses on one side of the story, and I think there is much more to it. As the article keeps mentioning, incentivizing the nodes will lead to centralization, but is it also possible not incentivizing the nodes could lead to centralization as well? Node operators are undoubtedly performing a critical task for the network, while it's also true miners are doing the work of solving hashes, without those nodes the miners would have much more problems such as latency and potentially working on blocks that are already solved. As the blockchain continues to grow, it will become more burdensome and less attractive to run a node.

Just drop in for a few minutes to say Hello to everyone. Hope you all had a great weekend. Amazing work is done behind the scene. This will be a great year.

Thank you, Wiser, for an exceptional post and your kind words. We take it as a privilege that our community has been very supportive of our efforts and will likely be very supportive of major technical  improvement to DNotes in the future. However, we are mindful that to preserve the great value of a totally decentralized system we should not take any thing for granted. Ideally, we want to make one major change with a long wish list, to be equal to or better than anyone else. We are committed to be best in class. Our community may start coming up with a wish list. We expect to kick into high gear in development the second half of this year.

[IMZ]

' . . . major technical  improvement to DNotes in the future.'

The interplay between the ethos of anti-centralisation and what can be achieved with a little management is fascinating. Dnotes' core community and its devs will triumph if they can strike the right balance. (Heck, the Bitcoin guys can't even paddle their coin of a lee shore!)

Mark

[Dyna]

' . . . major technical  improvement to DNotes in the future.'

The interplay between the ethos of anti-centralisation and what can be achieved with a little management is fascinating. Dnotes' core community and its devs will triumph if they can strike the right balance. (Heck, the Bitcoin guys can't even paddle their coin of a lee shore!)

Mark

That is correct, Mark. My commitment is to help guide DNotes to strike the right balance to the extent that within three more years DNotes will be and remain as a technology leader in our space. The leadership part is most crucial at the formative stage. That is the primary reason why we believe in taking our time to build a solid foundation and a trusted brand while waiting for the technology to become more matured.

Strategic planning and execution at the right time are vital to business success.