Bitmark

[Chris Sokolowski]

Just checked the block explorer with regard to all the orphans.
This is very strange for me:
http://btm.cryptocloudhosting.org/tx/a2bd15a9a74f7bd596794fc314c53d7c47dff5ce96d375a7d83d7ebeb1041dca
All the input addresses are the one getting the mined rewards, however they sent all the mined BTM to the same address. It looks like someone setup 15 different miners/pools to mine that doesn't make any sense to me (why not put all the hashes to one pool)?!?
Of course I could miss something and would appreciate any explanation.
Cheers

Yes, there is someone that is in control of the network which results in no one else but them getting new BTM. Forcing everyone else to gen orphans. It's likely why the price is going down too.

Sure, but what is the advantage having 15 independent pools? If the hash power is directed to one pool, they will get also all the blocks (almost).
Would be possible they run the pools with modified wallets even if they ere synchronised with other wallets?

The difference with Bitmark is that this is not just someone with a lot of hashrate finding a majority of the blocks; the group in control of the network is actively refusing to build upon blocks from any other pool.  So they have 51+% of the network hashrate but are mining 100% of the blocks because the chain height of all other pools can not keep up with their solo chain height.

This behavior is very risky - it's an all or nothing game.  Either you maintain 51% control and you get 100% of the blocks, or you drop to 49% control and you now have 0 blocks.  It makes the most sense to accept other pools' blocks and and go on to mining the next block; at least this way when you do find a block it's unlikely to get reversed no matter the distribution of hashrate on the network.

[1714057140]

1714057140

[1714057140]

1714057140

[psycodad]

Just checked the block explorer with regard to all the orphans.
This is very strange for me:
http://btm.cryptocloudhosting.org/tx/a2bd15a9a74f7bd596794fc314c53d7c47dff5ce96d375a7d83d7ebeb1041dca
All the input addresses are the one getting the mined rewards, however they sent all the mined BTM to the same address. It looks like someone setup 15 different miners/pools to mine that doesn't make any sense to me (why not put all the hashes to one pool)?!?
Of course I could miss something and would appreciate any explanation.
Cheers

Yes, there is someone that is in control of the network which results in no one else but them getting new BTM. Forcing everyone else to gen orphans. It's likely why the price is going down too.

Sure, but what is the advantage having 15 independent pools? If the hash power is directed to one pool, they will get also all the blocks (almost).
Would be possible they run the pools with modified wallets even if they ere synchronised with other wallets?

The difference with Bitmark is that this is not just someone with a lot of hashrate finding a majority of the blocks; the group in control of the network is actively refusing to build upon blocks from any other pool.  So they have 51+% of the network hashrate but are mining 100% of the blocks because the chain height of all other pools can not keep up with their solo chain height.

This behavior is very risky - it's an all or nothing game.  Either you maintain 51% control and you get 100% of the blocks, or you drop to 49% control and you now have 0 blocks.  It makes the most sense to accept other pools' blocks and and go on to mining the next block; at least this way when you do find a block it's unlikely to get reversed no matter the distribution of hashrate on the network.

With selfish mining, the attacker(s) does not need 51%, much less is necessary once the attackers private blockchain has some blocks mined in hidden. I guess somewhere between 30-40% (others argue it can be even less than that) of total hashrate are enough to constantly orphanize others blocks as soon as the attackers chain is a few blocks longer than the real/honest blockchain.

[Hellion93]

I have started own pool: sky-pool.com
Bitmarks ready to listing, but I am waiting  for orphans rate lowing

[dranster]

Soon BTM will be over 50k sats...

Lots of good things coming up

[verb]

Soon BTM will be over 50k sats...

Lots of good things coming up

Instead of FOMO spam, you should detail a little - if you truly have some info to share

[CryptoSporidium]

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

[monsanto]

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

That's the same Bitmark isn't it?

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bitmark-inc#/entity

Same symbol. Don't know the veracity though...

[dbkeys]

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

Perhaps it's time to assert that this coin has been using the name bitmark in relation to block chain technologies first. Perhaps Moss-Pultz and his Taiwanese partners have developed interesting technology, perhaps not. But there is no doubt, and this can be proven easily, that this Bitmark predates the use of the bitmark in relation to marking, a very broad certification and notarization application. Shortly before Bitmark started, Moss-Pultz was using the bitmark.com site (which had been registered in the late 1990's) first for web site hosting and then for coffee mugs and other memoriabilia ... nothing at all related to cryptography nor digital property systems nor blockchain marking technology.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111228191054/http://www.bitmark.com/
He then seems to have had a better idea and refocused as intelligencia.io
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516231923/http://bitmarq.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140813182641/https://intelligencia.io/

Then, around the time the bitmark cryptocurrency marking project was announced here on bitcointalk.org, the bitmark.com site starts showing a plain "philosophical" page, with quotes from Plato and Aristotle:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516235934/http://bitmark.com/

It's not until 2015 that anything related to blockchain technology / marking / digital property registration & notarization appears:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150801012258/https://bitmark.com/

So it's clear the group here is first; that said, it's worth listening to what the community here thinks, in regards to rebranding / renaming the project - (rather than asserting our right to the BITMARK name in relation to blockchain cryptocurrency marking, property and digital notarization technologies )

[CryptoSporidium]

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

Perhaps it's time to assert that this coin has been using the name bitmark in relation to block chain technologies first. Perhaps Moss-Pultz and his Taiwanese partners have developed interesting technology, perhaps not. But there is no doubt, and this can be proven easily, that this Bitmark predates the use of the bitmark in relation to marking, a very broad certification and notarization application. Shortly before Bitmark started, Moss-Pultz was using the bitmark.com site (which had been registered in the late 1990's) first for web site hosting and then for coffee mugs and other memoriabilia ... nothing at all related to cryptography nor digital property systems nor blockchain marking technology.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111228191054/http://www.bitmark.com/
He then seems to have had a better idea and refocused as intelligencia.io
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516231923/http://bitmarq.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140813182641/https://intelligencia.io/

Then, around the time the bitmark cryptocurrency marking project was announced here on bitcointalk.org, the bitmark.com site starts showing a plain "philosophical" page, with quotes from Plato and Aristotle:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516235934/http://bitmark.com/

It's not until 2015 that anything related to blockchain technology / marking / digital property registration & notarization appears:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150801012258/https://bitmark.com/

So it's clear the group here is first; that said, it's worth listening to what the community here thinks, in regards to rebranding / renaming the project - (rather than asserting our right to the BITMARK name in relation to blockchain cryptocurrency marking, property and digital notarization technologies )

All good points, but a new name does create a new beginning free from association with nathan rixham.

What about 'ByteMark'?

[micle222]

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

I do not agree with your suggestions, BTM already dgunakan in poloniex for gifts and until whenever BTM will not be removed in trade poloniex 

[Hellion93]

Bitmark enabled for mining on sky-pool.com
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1673242.0

[soyab0007]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

[crackfoo]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

no. the blockchain is under control of one person. any public pools can only generate orphans and the dev doesn't acknowledge or fix it.

[monsanto]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

no. the blockchain is under control of one person. any public pools can only generate orphans and the dev doesn't acknowledge or fix it.

Was looking at the block explorer:

https://prohashing.com/explorer/Bitmark/

Do some of those transactions in recent blocks look odd to you?

[dbkeys]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

<Grins>
To give some true perspective, (which is not biased as an investor already vested), we need other opinions on these things:

It's a limited edition, in the sense it has gone through some very (and I mean _VERY_) slow blockchain times. So the emission is still under 3 million.
We are definitely adopting better block chain growth regulation, to balance the need for reasonably fast transaction processing (under different usage scenarios) but with equal regard for actual demand for the coin in the exchange markets. The amount of work going into the chain has to satisfy several dynamic constraints which may be vectored to their limits (within the design envelope) to satisfy different policy constraints and policies.

Orphans at my Pool
With the spurty (is that a word ?) selfish mining going on now by a concern with reputedly over 200 GH/s in SCrypt power, there has been more emission as of late.
Our aim is to address that too by having a stakeholder mechanism for deciding on proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithms; Speedy adoption by stakeholders by organized, cryptographically secure, consensus (plurality and majority) of voted on policy-changes.

There are many great ideas on strengthening and properly balancing the needs of users and miners, while securing the chain and ensuring *relatively* speedy transactions that meet certain performance guarantees.

We do need the community's input and support, so firm decisions taken include going with Dark Gravity Wave v3 as the difficulty regulation algo; but a firm decision on going multiple-proof of work tangles as chain-advancement legitimating vectors and if then, what _algos_ has not been taken. SCrypt, of course, as our base algo is going to stay. But it might make sense to add a vector for SHA256d miners, as well as CPU-favoring algos which do not have firmware nor hardware implementations, such a CryptoNight, EquiHash, A
Best Regards,
dbKeys

[cyberhacker]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

<Grins>
To give some true perspective, (which is not biased as an investor already vested), we need other opinions on these things:

It's a limited edition, in the sense it has gone through some very (and I mean _VERY_) slow blockchain times. So the emission is still under 3 million.
We are definitely adopting better block chain growth regulation, to balance the need for reasonably fast transaction processing (under different usage scenarios) but with equal regard for actual demand for the coin in the exchange markets. The amount of work going into the chain has to satisfy several dynamic constraints which may be vectored to their limits (within the design envelope) to satisfy different policy constraints and policies.

Orphans at my Pool
With the spurty (is that a word ?) selfish mining going on now by a concern with reputedly over 200 GH/s in SCrypt power, there has been more emission as of late.
Our aim is to address that too by having a stakeholder mechanism for deciding on proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithms; Speedy adoption by stakeholders by organized, cryptographically secure, consensus (plurality and majority) of voted on policy-changes.

There are many great ideas on strengthening and properly balancing the needs of users and miners, while securing the chain and ensuring *relatively* speedy transactions that meet certain performance guarantees.

We do need the community's input and support, so firm decisions taken include going with Dark Gravity Wave v3 as the difficulty regulation algo; but a firm decision on going multiple-proof of work tangles as chain-advancement legitimating vectors and if then, what _algos_ has not been taken. SCrypt, of course, as our base algo is going to stay. But it might make sense to add a vector for SHA256d miners, as well as CPU-favoring algos which do not have firmware nor hardware implementations, such a CryptoNight, EquiHash, A
Best Regards,
dbKeys

thanks for the info

do you have any eta for the halving?

and what about bitmark usage? i mean the bitmark 2.0, decentralized storage, passport, and other features described in the roadmap.

is that roadmap serious?

[dbkeys]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

no. the blockchain is under control of one person. any public pools can only generate orphans and the dev doesn't acknowledge or fix it.

Was looking at the block explorer:

https://prohashing.com/explorer/Bitmark/

Do some of those transactions in recent blocks look odd to you?

Before I dive into it, could you summarize , like one executive sentence, what (in general ) you feel is wrong ..

http://explorer.bitmark.io/block/398164fb26f40730f15626a0ee37b7761d9267a3e5e461bbc78f66972306b042

This explorer is more accurate in the current total emission (money_supply)

[monsanto]

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

no. the blockchain is under control of one person. any public pools can only generate orphans and the dev doesn't acknowledge or fix it.

Was looking at the block explorer:

https://prohashing.com/explorer/Bitmark/

Do some of those transactions in recent blocks look odd to you?

Before I dive into it, could you summarize , like one executive sentence, what (in general ) you feel is wrong ..

http://explorer.bitmark.io/block/398164fb26f40730f15626a0ee37b7761d9267a3e5e461bbc78f66972306b042

This explorer is more accurate in the current total emission (money_supply)

I'm too dumb to know what an "executive sentence" is.  In lieu of that please accept this haiku:


much moves on dead coin.

same size. crackfoo say one man

owns chain. not "wrong." strange?

[cyberhacker]

there is a lot of uncertainty indeed.

but if the dev keep delivering, this porject is going huge.

all concept is ground breaking. 

[crackfoo]

The guy is legit and this is not just another altcoin. It's just that he doesn't care about marketing.

and doesn't care about the miners obviously, perhaps it's because he's controlling the blocks and/or polo has a play in it..

anyway, no trust left in this coin, I wouldn't waste your time or energy with it.