Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2018, 10:08:48 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 170 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitmark  (Read 602305 times)
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 01:35:01 PM
 #141

Goodbusy  Grin I might say!
Finally a scrypt coin for the modern scrypt miner with some great thoughts behind it and some real knowledge.
+1

Thank you for your kind words. We are moving ahead with development and have almost secured enough budget to launch the main chain with stable nodes.

In the next few days we'll have real Bitmarks being mined.

I cannot specify an exact date yet, as after further development we will need to do one more pre-release.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
1540030128
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540030128

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540030128
Reply with quote  #2

1540030128
Report to moderator
1540030128
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540030128

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540030128
Reply with quote  #2

1540030128
Report to moderator
1540030128
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540030128

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1540030128
Reply with quote  #2

1540030128
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 03:57:33 PM
 #142

Bitmark has upgraded to use QT 4.8.6 when cross compiled for linux, rather than 4.6.4 which is now two years old.

This now allows bitmark-qt to be used on CentOS 6.5 without error, and also improves general rendering.

This is a deviation from Bitcoin which uses 4.6.4, we have opened an issue on the bitcoin repository to suggest they may consider upgrading qt4 in the release process.

I'd like to thank macbackfat for his extensive help in testing on various platforms.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
Allow
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 04:31:26 PM
 #143

Hi coinsolidation, i want give you just an advice, "BM" is literally too "anonimous" how brand. Sad

Instead "MARK" is so cool, I invite you to reflect on this change. Wink

I love this:


Cool

ADD Today i'm in good form:



Keep it up!

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 06:08:45 PM
 #144

Hi coinsolidation, i want give you just an advice, "BM" is literally too "anonimous" how brand. Sad

Instead "MARK" is so cool, I invite you to reflect on this change. Wink

I love this:


Cool

ADD Today i'm in good form:



Keep it up!



That does look pretty sharp. I'm not sure what type of branding consolidation has in mind though. I know he's put a lot of thought into his vision though.
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 06:42:40 PM
 #145

I did not put in a vast amount of thought in to branding.

I did think the term "Mark" was good and could be used commonly, it is the unit of measurement for 0.001 Bitmarks, equal to "1 Mark". https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Currency

So the term Mark is used by the project, but reserved for future usage. When one mark is equal to one dollar, and beyond Tongue

One constraint I do wish to apply to the logo, is that it must be identifiable at 20x20 and 32x32 pixels, as this is used commonly.

This variation of logo does look sharp, and Allow raises a valid argument against the use of "BM". I could argue that "B" is also anonymous, and that an icons usage in relation to a project creates the brand identity. We could also argue that if people do not feel it is reflective of Bitmark or the project from the start, then it may be incorrect.

I would seek feedback from the community on this matter. I do feel that we will be stuck with whatever we use at the start, changing logo half way through is probably not a good idea.

Refine yes, change no. I conclude then that any change should be before launch.

It is very good to see thought being put in to buy buttons, there is a thread here to discuss merchant and integrator needs.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 07:20:19 PM
 #146

I would say that the current tilted 'BM' is good as a logo. Especially as a small icon. But as a brand in the context of purchasing something the 'bitmark accepted here' button is good as a brand image.

If there were a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 07:26:42 PM
 #147

I would say that the current tilted 'BM' is good as a logo. Especially as a small icon. But as a brand in the context of purchasing something the 'bitmark accepted here' button is good as brand image.

If there we're a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.


Agreed.

What you propose can be done simply.

"Bitmark" the word, currently does not have a logo representation.

If we take the stylized "Bitmark" from Allows design, and prefix it with the "BM" logo we currently have, the solution is found.

The two font styles may, or may not, work together.

Can we proceed by merging the two, then Allow and mymenace can work together until both are happy with the end result, if the feel so inclined.

In a few minutes I will be posting an important update to the project, an issue we must discuss.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 08:02:38 PM
 #148

CRITICAL ISSUE

  • 1. A priority for Bitmark is to keep compatibility with the existing infrastructure which has been built around Bitcoin and the alternatives.
  • 2. Another priority is to ensure long term development for Bitmark, the proposal was the developer fund

The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees.

Prior discussion can be found here and here

Issue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1).

Here are the proposals:
  • Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
  • IPO: no, it conflicts with the natural growth principal of Bitmark and will create an expectation or rush to acquire unnatural value.
  • Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.

I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected.

Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready.

Please discuss and propose.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
cryptozim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 08:06:16 PM
 #149

Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.


Can you be more specific about how taxation breaks backwards compatibility. What changes would have to be made, and what effects will it have on existing infrastructure?

BTC: 15h26g3SUu6iXUi1phv5FHmASc5hDeGHpJ | LSK: 840098997497226041L | CSC: cMsbRGMLzu7Ss8L7Vv6osksUyt5P322uxS
Allow
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 08:13:23 PM
 #150





32x32


PS Guys, "MARK" is very cool, I'm a good designer and I still think it's the better choice brand oriented. :/
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 08:24:40 PM
 #151

CRITICAL ISSUE

  • 1. A priority for Bitmark is to keep compatibility with the existing infrastructure which has been built around Bitcoin and the alternatives.
  • 2. Another priority is to ensure long term development for Bitmark, the proposal was the developer fund

The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees.

Prior discussion can be found here and here

Issue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1).

Here are the proposals:
  • Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
  • IPO: no, it conflicts with the natural growth principal of Bitmark and will create an expectation or rush to acquire unnatural value.
  • Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.

I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected.

Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready.

Please discuss and propose.

Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.

Can you be more specific about how taxation breaks backwards compatibility. What changes would have to be made, and what effects will it have on existing infrastructure?

Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain. There are many ways to implement it, but each one requires a specific transaction or output to be present. This requirement means that mining software, pool software, and potentially anything that reads the block chain would need to be modified to be Bitmark compatible, or face having blocks rejected. As an example, see Freicoin.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
cryptozim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 08:35:52 PM
 #152

Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain. There are many ways to implement it, but each one requires a specific transaction or output to be present. This requirement means that mining software, pool software, and potentially anything that reads the block chain would need to be modified to be Bitmark compatible, or face having blocks rejected. As an example, see Freicoin.

Got it. I see how that's a problem.

BTC: 15h26g3SUu6iXUi1phv5FHmASc5hDeGHpJ | LSK: 840098997497226041L | CSC: cMsbRGMLzu7Ss8L7Vv6osksUyt5P322uxS
macbackfat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:00:36 PM
 #153

  • Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.

I generally dislike IPOs (and you'll get trolls telling you it's illegal but that's besides the point) so I'm good with NO IPO.

However, premining, when it's small and explicitly detailed in its purpose, is accepted as the cost of doing business.  It incentivizes the development team, sets aside monies for bounties, resource acquisition and general petty cash.  I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%) and are vague in their usage as this is generally seen as a move to get-rich-quick.

Just a thought...
PondSea
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:01:19 PM
 #154

CRITICAL ISSUE

  • 1. A priority for Bitmark is to keep compatibility with the existing infrastructure which has been built around Bitcoin and the alternatives.
  • 2. Another priority is to ensure long term development for Bitmark, the proposal was the developer fund

The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees.

Prior discussion can be found here and here

Issue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1).

Here are the proposals:
  • Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
  • IPO: no, it conflicts with the natural growth principal of Bitmark and will create an expectation or rush to acquire unnatural value.
  • Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.

I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected.

Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready.

Please discuss and propose.

When i was about to make my alt coin i had looked into this issue too.

The idea i came up with is to have a "official" pool.

The Dev would own/control it in so the mining fee 0.25% would be taken on that basis.

Other pool owners can set it up but have to agree to pay 0.25 back to the dev.





░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀█████████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████
░░░░▄███████▄░░░░████████
░░░░███████████░░░░██████
░░░▀███████████░░░░████░░
███▄░░░░░░░░░░▀████░░░███░░██
█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████░░░██░░██
█████████████▄░░████░░░░░
░░█████████████░░█████
░░░░█████████▀░░░██████▌
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░▄████████▌
░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄███████
SuperNET.org
..BarterDEX..
.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
DECENTRALIZED CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE
Developed to Unite Coin Communities | ✔ SECURE ✔ FREE ✔ VISIBILITY ✔ EASY INTEGRATION |

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:02:08 PM
 #155





32x32


PS Guys, "MARK" is very cool, I'm a good designer and I still think it's the better choice brand oriented. :/

I don't think there is a problem with 'MARK' in general but it's more of an issue with 'BM' being better suited for the 32x32 icon for visibility reasons.

As far as the other issue that's been brought up related to compensation I'm not sure. I'm going to think it over a little and I'll see if I can add anything to the discussion.
cryptozim
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 181
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:04:49 PM
 #156

I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%)...

I disagree. There's a lot of people out there who scream about even a 1% premine.

BTC: 15h26g3SUu6iXUi1phv5FHmASc5hDeGHpJ | LSK: 840098997497226041L | CSC: cMsbRGMLzu7Ss8L7Vv6osksUyt5P322uxS
coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 09:17:00 PM
 #157

The idea i came up with is to have a "official" pool.

The Dev would own/control it in so the mining fee 0.25% would be taken on that basis.

Other pool owners can set it up but have to agree to pay 0.25 back to the dev.

A good suggestion, but I am uncomfortable with it for some reason.

I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%)...

I disagree. There's a lot of people out there who scream about even a 1% premine.

I wish to avoid anything which could be used against the project later. The fund would have been 0.25%, the entire block taxation would have amounted to 70,000 BTM over the full block schedule.  Up front that is too much of a proportion, so I have to reject the pre-mine idea.

Perhaps there is another option.

1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.


Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
schnötzel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000

Bitcoin is a bit**


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:31:21 PM
 #158


I would say make 0.05% taxation but : "...Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain..."  - right?


So i think best would be:



Perhaps there is another option.

1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.







coinsolidation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250

Bitmark Developer


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2014, 09:36:31 PM
 #159

So i think best would be:

Perhaps there is another option.

1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.

I am +1 to this approach, as it is simple, reasonable and fair.

Let us resolve this quickly, with +1's.

Bitmark (reputation+money) : Bitmark v0.9.4 (release)
schnötzel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000

Bitcoin is a bit**


View Profile
July 09, 2014, 09:37:50 PM
 #160

+1  Grin
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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 170 »
  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!