Bitmark

[subSTRATA]

Project Status / Request for Funding
We have now achieved the amount needed to launch the project, 0.6 BTC.

True that, crap clone coin costs around that much at Coingen or some similar coin-creation service.

So when can we expect to see this one on an exchange?

Why add this crapcoin to exchange? It seems most here fell for thousands of lines of nicely written yet slightly retarded stories but this coin is Coingen-made scrypt clone.
There is absolutely nothing special about it and all signs of bullshit are present. Instamining was massive, to start a new scrypt coin with difficulty 1 this days equalls either
complete lack of mining hardware and cryptocoin scene awareness or deliberate scam - it was later case, just in case you are still wondering. Using blockchain explorer it is
easy to realise how it all went:

http://cryptexplorer.com/chain/Bitmark?hi=770&count=100

Scroll down to block 720 and observe block times while difficulty was 1.0 and after it changed to 4.0 there is very little difference, blocks were mined just few seconds apart.
Situation went slightly better after next retarget from 4.0 to 16.0 (maximum possible upward change which means hashrate for blocks 720 to 1440 was at least 4 times higher
than desirable) but at that time 28,800 coins were already instamined, out of 45,100 coins in existence (based on latest data from blockchain explorer at time of this post).

As for other things, if you belive this crap clone has a future you are truly retarded.

Happy mining, investing or whatever other shit you are after for here.  

[1713585928]

1713585928

[1713585928]

1713585928

[1713585928]

1713585928

[Len]

I think someone missed the launch.

[subSTRATA]

I think someone missed the launch.

I think someone needs an update on current time, a year is no longer 2012. but 2014.

[Len]

I think someone missed the launch.

I think someone needs an update on current time, a year is no longer 2012. but 2014.

good one

[Este Nuno]

I think someone missed the launch.

I think someone needs an update on current time, a year is no longer 2012. but 2014.

Right, so that's why Bitmark is using a brand new original implementation of the latest Bitcoin release forked and recoded to use scrypt.

It is 2014 so we start with a full updated stable codebase and go from there. Every other coin has been forking old code.

I'm guessing you haven't read any of what has been going on here.

[powersup]

Project Status / Request for Funding
We have now achieved the amount needed to launch the project, 0.6 BTC.

True that, crap clone coin costs around that much at Coingen or some similar coin-creation service.

So when can we expect to see this one on an exchange?

Why add this crapcoin to exchange? It seems most here fell for thousands of lines of nicely written yet slightly retarded stories but this coin is Coingen-made scrypt clone.
There is absolutely nothing special about it and all signs of bullshit are present. Instamining was massive, to start a new scrypt coin with difficulty 1 this days equalls either
complete lack of mining hardware and cryptocoin scene awareness or deliberate scam - it was later case, just in case you are still wondering. Using blockchain explorer it is
easy to realise how it all went:

http://cryptexplorer.com/chain/Bitmark?hi=770&count=100

Scroll down to block 720 and observe block times while difficulty was 1.0 and after it changed to 4.0 there is very little difference, blocks were mined just few seconds apart.
Situation went slightly better after next retarget from 4.0 to 16.0 (maximum possible upward change which means hashrate for blocks 720 to 1440 was at least 4 times higher
than desirable) but at that time 28,800 coins were already instamined, out of 45,100 coins in existence (based on latest data from blockchain explorer at time of this post).

As for other things, if you belive this crap clone has a future you are truly retarded.

Happy mining, investing or whatever other shit you are after for here.  

A truly narrow sighted post.

The dev has been working on this for weeks.  take a look at his post history.  Dev asked the right questions of the community to produce a coin to his liking and that of the community.

I don't see why the dev would have committed to so much work to "instamine" the coin, when he could have just set an IPO or pre-mine and dumped it like any other scam dev.

From what I can see the coin had a fair and smooth launch.  Yes the diff algo isn't prefect, but I do like the long confirm time to deter multipools.  I think in time though the diff algo may change to something more dynamic.

I know there is nothing new to this coin, but a committed dev is rare thing these days and so that is why is see good potential in this coin.

regarding arguments about scrypt and ASIC.  well mining competition is only relative to who you mine against.  What I mean is I wouldn't expect to see any GPU miners on this coin unless they have free power.  GPU miners have moved on from scrypt and are mining against other GPU mines on other algos.

Anyway, Good luck dev.  Stay true to yourself and this coin.  It will flourish and you will earn the respect of this community.

[Este Nuno]

Project Status / Request for Funding
We have now achieved the amount needed to launch the project, 0.6 BTC.

True that, crap clone coin costs around that much at Coingen or some similar coin-creation service.

So when can we expect to see this one on an exchange?

Why add this crapcoin to exchange? It seems most here fell for thousands of lines of nicely written yet slightly retarded stories but this coin is Coingen-made scrypt clone.
There is absolutely nothing special about it and all signs of bullshit are present. Instamining was massive, to start a new scrypt coin with difficulty 1 this days equalls either
complete lack of mining hardware and cryptocoin scene awareness or deliberate scam - it was later case, just in case you are still wondering. Using blockchain explorer it is
easy to realise how it all went:

http://cryptexplorer.com/chain/Bitmark?hi=770&count=100

Scroll down to block 720 and observe block times while difficulty was 1.0 and after it changed to 4.0 there is very little difference, blocks were mined just few seconds apart.
Situation went slightly better after next retarget from 4.0 to 16.0 (maximum possible upward change which means hashrate for blocks 720 to 1440 was at least 4 times higher
than desirable) but at that time 28,800 coins were already instamined, out of 45,100 coins in existence (based on latest data from blockchain explorer at time of this post).

As for other things, if you belive this crap clone has a future you are truly retarded.

Happy mining, investing or whatever other shit you are after for here.  

Actually, I'd appreciate it if you could expand a little on why you think what happened is going to be a critical issue going forward. It wasn't intentional. But it happened. So I'm not really sure what we can do about it. A few people have access to a lot of hashing via ASICs and they pointed them at Bitmark and there was a short period where blocks were being solved much faster than the target.

So, some people who have invested a lot of money in hardware or at least paid to rent a large amount of hardware have more coins than the rest of us for now. Since Bitmark is a long term project unless they keep pointing all that hash at the network people will continue mining and will be able slowly accumulate some more coins over time. There are no plans for Bitmark to be listed on any exchange anytime soon and it wouldn't really matter either way if it were. Someone dumping some coins doesn't really change the goals(long term) of the project.

If you think differently I'd like to hear some specifics on why you think what happened is such a critical issue. I'm not saying your wrong, I don't know if it is or not but at the moment I don't really see it as a huge problem. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Also , if anyone else has any opinions or comments I'd be interested in hearing those too.

[johndec2]

subSTRATA, what's your angle?  Why the FUD?  Was it just a public service announcement?  If you are so sure it's a scam, why warn us poor simple fools? Isn't the coin drawing hash rate off other "proper" coins making it easier for you to mine them?  Why warn us and then as a consequence make it harder to mine your favourite coin?

As far as the "instamine" goes, I'm yet to see a launch without easy coins at the start.  If you'd taken any time to look, you would have seen that the pool has had the vast majority of hash from block 1.  After all the launch was hardly a secret, people had plenty of time to prepare.  

[Este Nuno]

Also, just remember that no one here is claiming Bitmark has any value yet.

And no one is telling anyone to buy Bitmark.

It's a long term project. This thread is here in the spirit of openness so that the public can track what coinsolidation(Mark Pfennig) and others are doing on here and on GitHub. Also so that we can discuss issues that come up in an open and transparent manner.

At this point the network is very healthy and that's a good thing too.

[subSTRATA]

If you are so sure it's a scam, why warn us poor simple fools?

Shepard job is to take care of sheep but I don't want to rob you off your free will. If you decide to not listen and afterwards end up eatten by wolf, well, it is natural selection.

I won't be posting here anymore, no more free bumps. Have fun!

[powersup]

If you are so sure it's a scam, why warn us poor simple fools?

Shepard job is to take care of sheep but I don't want to rob you off your free will. If you decide to not listen and afterwards end up eatten by wolf, well, it is natural selection.

I won't be posting here anymore, no more free bumps. Have fun!

Some Shepard have been known to lead sheep to the cliff face when they cant see in the dark  

[ethought]

Hi ethought. Is your luck statistic broken? It just seems to throw up random numbers. 2 blocks can be solved with roughly the same amount of shares at the same diff and one will say 45% and the other 200% ??

Yes, its broken. Its on the list..

[coinsolidation]

Developer Analysis

I am very pleased with the launch of Bitmark. No bugs have been reported.

Mining has been interesting, the opposite of what normally happens when an alternative coin is launched.

Normally alt coins are hash-raped by people with mining hardware, ready to be dumped on 'investors' at an exchange. Mine a coin to dump for BTC.
Instead with Bitmark we find investors hiring mining rigs, with no exchange planned. Burn BTC to mine and keep Bitmarks.

0.1% of all bitmarks are now distributed fairly between early adopters.

The network has strengthened so that when the difficulty next changes, which we project to be Wednesday, 3 days will have past, 3 days of block rewards will have been mined, and the network will settle at a projected difficulty of 26 and a hash speed of 1GH/s.

The block reward does not half for 3 years, with an interim drop in 18 months. We can conclude that 3 days of coins will be fairly mined by both miners and investors over the first 3 days.
We could not hope for anything fairer.

The wiki article on the supply and distribution of bitmark reads:

We suppose that this is greatly determined by the number of rewards per day, as such Bitmark's expectation is to achieve a healthier, fairer, and more balanced distribution of rewards and therefore hashpower ...
This should ensure that in the majority of cases (and as Bitmark adoption grows) no single miner can achieve more than 1 Bitmark from a successfully mined block, with the average being measured in Marks, rather than Bitmarks. This should do much to mitigate hoarding, dumping, market manipulation, and all those things entail. Since Bitmark is designed to be a daily use currency, this fair distribution and flow of money is of vital importance.

Our next step for network health is to pursue the distribution of hashing power between more pools. We hope for Bitmark to have 8 major pools at a minimum as it the project earns value.

As quoted we suppose that the number of rewards per day has a strong impact on distribution.
Yesterday with a network speed of ~2GH/s I solo mined 6 blocks out of 1440 with only 0.45% of the network hash power. I received ~0.45% of the block rewards for that period.
I pointed the same amount of hashing power at the miningpool.co pool, I received the same amount of bitmarks as reward.

We can conclude that our block configuration is such that however you point your hashing power, you will receive a fair reward. This will do much to ensure a healthy secure and distributed network.

Hashing power was much higher than anticipated, it proved Bitmark's block chain configuration to be good.

Hashing power has halved, and still the average block time is only 4 minutes, which is reasonable for a working network, this bodes well for our future.

I am therefore also happy with the way the coin has been mined over the first days.

On average it is fair and reasonable. That is our goal.

The network will see to itself, our work on ease of use, ease of integration, ease of adoption will not see to itself. We should return to our discussions and work on bitmark.

I will conclude by saying that if I were to be offered a gift of BTC or a gift of BTM, I would choose the BTM. Perhaps many of you reading feel the same.

Thank you all.

[johndec2]

subSTRATA. Don't leave so soon!  Your coingen theory blown out of the water: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg7485632#msg7485632  Seriously, your trolling skills need work

[powersup]

[coinsolidation]

I noticed that Execoin just released a forked and modified electrum with a 'stealth' option.

Not sure on any of the technical details yet on how their stealth option actually works. But since we we've been discussing forking Electrum at some point anyway, perhaps it's worth looking in to their implementation for Bitmark at some point in the future if it's well done.

https://github.com/fukukami/electrum-exe-stealth/

http://www.electrum-exe.org/stealth/

I can imagine that we'll be examining lots of different features similar to this as time goes on. Although I guess this would fall under the 3rd party category since I don't think this has anything to do with the core protocol, no?

Thank you for pointing this out. I have been looking at electrum and electrum server. If we are to do this, we should address two issues:

1. Electrum-Server knowing which addresses are controlled by which users
2. Electrum-Server reliance on IRC to find other nodes.

A solution to 2 will likely solve 1.

Consider that we could replace electrum server with a network of bitmark nodes which also store transactions, and which have certain api methods exposed to the public.

If we do this, we can bootstrap thin clients like electrum on to the existing p2p bitmark network.

This will allow for a number of thin clients to compete with innovation and usefulness, which would be good for our users. Many different people working on thin clients can provide a much better user experience than we can possibly hope to ourselves.

That would be better, to allow thin clients to work on established public bitmark nodes instead of custom servers.

[coinsolidation]

Which resources do you feel are missing from the project?

We should prioritise which work to do this week.

Some I would prioritise are:

• the IPM pool
• block explorer?
• begin API design and architecture discussions (above post)
• website?
• identify potential adopters, good pools, existing crypto currency services which add value to users

[Este Nuno]

Which resources do you feel are missing from the project?

We should prioritise which work to do this week.

Some I would prioritise are:

• the IPM pool
• block explorer?
• begin API design and architecture discussions (above post)
• website?
• identify potential adopters, good pools, existing crypto currency services which add value to users

I think the order you listed them is a good order of priority. Although I would put the block explorer in fourth position and move the API and website up to second and third respectively. Since we already have a working block explorer for now we can afford to wait a little before adding another one I think.

[Allow]

Website is ready, but is a temporary version. (one page, only home with usefull links)

By the way is better than an empty page.

[nikos64]

Developer Analysis

I am very pleased with the launch of Bitmark. No bugs have been reported.

Mining has been interesting, the opposite of what normally happens when an alternative coin is launched.

Normally alt coins are hash-raped by people with mining hardware, ready to be dumped on 'investors' at an exchange. Mine a coin to dump for BTC.
Instead with Bitmark we find investors hiring mining rigs, with no exchange planned. Burn BTC to mine and keep Bitmarks.

You forgot the small miners.
I was the one who mined the first block (thank you for the honor and I mean it   ).
The next second I saw 2Gh/s and guys with 600 Mh/s mine it.
I said to my self, another failed launch.
You know, small miners like to earn some coins too, and they are the basis of a community.
This is not gonna be happen with me, with 0.001 coins per round.
Make your community with the 20 guys who mine with 30-500 Mh/s and earn all the coins.
When they gone maybe I will return.