Bitmark

[leathan]

IMO it's the matter of style. (and manners maybe) I marked you first to say thanx and then replied to doug. It's much unlike the Polo box marking since we're trying to be conscientous here and join usualy more than one reply in a single post. Therefore, my two marks: marking should be applied to all +'s in a single post: (+_amount) for the poster above and (+ amount_@username) for all quoted only if it's in "+_amount_@username" format just to be sure to avoid any unintentional markings.
One esspresso later my thoughts are: ok, where's flexibility in such strict rule? Dang!
Other oppinions please.

+10 Thanks;

I have not worked on the script for i think a week now, I have to much reading that needs to be done and lots of other projects im doing that all meet up in the end.

But thanks to your advice I will add marking before quotes, and I will add the ability to add multiple people in the same post. Should be able to do it all in a day.. but i may not work on it for a two weeks.

I will however try to keep the syntax as flexible as possible. the /mark <username> <amount> <reason> is IMO extremely unfreindly to the user. People like my mom would NEVER use it where even my grandma would use just +100. I understand that the raw +100 approach cant be applied to chat channels. I still think +100 <name> <reason> can. I recommended this to polo and said they could turn the +100 <name> <reason> pink to show the server had acknowledged the request and on the back end process it however they please even utilizing the same methods that /mark uses. Anyway they had reasons not to do this and i respect that highly. But I still do not like strict syntax. People of younger generations already use +100 everywhere. In fact with option 2 (see bellow) users could even do -100. and then at the end of the discussion process the total and conduct the transaction.

Trust me it makes my regex's much harder to have the syntax be so flexible.. but in the end if there is a problem with accidental markings i will switch default method to 2. or simply limit the max amount that is sent.


The two options:

1.) default - auto sends marks.

2.) user selected - sends= marks to an array for later processing at the users request.



P.S. New ledger location -> http://www.bitmarking.net/cgi-bin/x.cgi

Also the character ; will be used to terminate the reason for the marking. As you can see on the ledger its not implemented yet.

[1715193953]

1715193953

[1715193953]

1715193953

[1715193953]

1715193953

[1715193953]

1715193953

[buckrogers]

x-hash seems to be stuck for weeks now on any coins moving into confirmation mode. i've literally had coins just sitting there for a few weeks now in unconfirmed mode.

Is it time to call the a scam site yet, or can someone explain why they aren't communicating a response to this issue.

For now I would not mine anything to them , as they are not paying out.

they need to be held accountable if they are stealing or scamming! 

[johndec2]

Buck. It's not xhash's fault.  The coins take 720 blocks to confirm and this current round of 720 has taken a few weeks.  Everybody is in the same boat.  In a day or so we will move to the next round of 720, the diff will drop and the whales and multipools will move in and 720 blocks will disappear in a few hours... Then everyone will sit back and wait for the painful process to repeat.

I keep asking about the scheme that was supposed to avoid this situation by supporting the nethash and I'm still waiting for a reply.

[Este Nuno]

x-hash seems to be stuck for weeks now on any coins moving into confirmation mode. i've literally had coins just sitting there for a few weeks now in unconfirmed mode.

Is it time to call the a scam site yet, or can someone explain why they aren't communicating a response to this issue.

For now I would not mine anything to them , as they are not paying out.

they need to be held accountable if they are stealing or scamming! 

Woah, woah, woah. Xhash is not a scam site. This is simply due to the Bitmark protocol requiring 720 blocks for block maturity.

I keep asking about the scheme that was supposed to avoid this situation by supporting the nethash and I'm still waiting for a reply.

That's a valid question and worth discussing if you'd like. Not sure now much demand there would be for people to fund the IPM at this point.

Hashing should increase as demand increases though and right now there are multiple projects being worked on that are focused on increasing adoption via marking.

The holy grail for a difficulty algorithm would be one that could restrict supply and lower the difficulty based on price(demand). That way we would get all the benefits that we get now, but without the very slow network. I guess most people think such an algorithm would be too easily exploitable. But maybe one day with DACs or something similar something like that could happen.

[82ndabnmedic]

hi can i have some coins  here my wallet :bPwGLHj2km5NPJBrQr6UB82Nr7g4GJdnu7

I would be more than happy to to send you a few Marks. I will stress to you that Marks are a unit of reputation+currency which should be earned.
You can also log on to Poloniex's Troll Box, there you may be Marked for having something positive to contribute.


Thanks for stopping by, if you have any questions about our project please feel free to ask.

[pa]

Hi, this is my first visit to this thread. This is a fascinating project. I don't have time to read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if these are dumb questions.

First, is there any way to punish trolls? Internet trolling is such a scourge. We need a way to engage in altruistic punishment (see http://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/ethol/files/shared/documents/Fehr_Gaechter_altruistic_punishment.pdf). Perhaps you could have a way to burn one's own marks but simultaneously burn those of a designated troll. This punishment should be public (non-anonymous) so that the mark-rich who might abuse the system would be risking retaliation from large groups of the mark-poor.

Second, do site-owners need to do something to implement marking? For example, would the NY Times need to cooperate with Bitmark in order to enable its commenters to mark one another? Could this be done in a permissionless manner, perhaps using a browser plugin?

[coinsolidation]

First, is there any way to punish trolls? Internet trolling is such a scourge. We need a way to engage in altruistic punishment (see http://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/ethol/files/shared/documents/Fehr_Gaechter_altruistic_punishment.pdf). Perhaps you could have a way to burn one's own marks but simultaneously burn those of a designated troll. This punishment should be public (non-anonymous) so that the mark-rich who might abuse the system would be risking retaliation from large groups of the mark-poor.

We've been through several scenario's.

Spam 1: User marks a link which is classed as spam.
In this scenario the user has burned their own marks, and people tend not to mark (read: upvote, like, share, tip) spam content, so in any ordered list it simply falls to the bottom out of view, and only clutters up their own account.

Spam 2: In a marking powered community, say forum, a user submits spam content.
In this scenario we have discussed a spam button, when another user clicks it some of their marks are staked against the action, if enough people click the spam button the content is automatically binned, and the marks staked on the spam button are returned to the users who clicked it. This acts as democratic semi-automated moderation, and whilst the people clicking the spam button are not rewarded monetarily, they have no increase in balance, they do gain reputation from the action since the marks are sent back to them. Conversely if somebody tries to be a bad moderator and mark legitimate content as spam, they have burned their own marks by doing so.  Note this is many people agreeing something is spam, as opposed to pay to class something as spam.

Network: A troll starts trolling via web-scale marking.
The system I am working on models a federated social network, with social connections and public channels. This means that generally you only see public markings from people you view as reputable (or watch), and markings in generic public categories, or specific categories you follow. The system focuses on curating via marking, and passing reputation, there is no content creation or message channels to speak of. Therefore limit places to troll.

It appears that the marking system promotes good actions, since everything is attached to reputation, reputable actions are rewarded.  In some ways it codifies altruism. We must however stay vigilant to ensure the system cannot be gamed.

Hopefully much more will be written on this topic, and each implementation will advance different approaches to common problems, then share what they have learned between systems.

Thank you for sharing the link, I will enjoy reading it later.

Second, do site-owners need to do something to implement marking? For example, would the NY Times need to cooperate with Bitmark in order to enable its commenters to mark one another? Could this be done in a permissionless manner, perhaps using a browser plugin?

They may implement marking, or integrate marking from another service.  Where they have chosen to implement then they will have their own marking system working in their web applications, on their website.  When they have chosen to integrate marking from another service, then we can expect the system to work in the same way as clicking "like", "share" or "tweet this", nothing complicated required.  Hopefully with the passing of time comment systems such as disqus, and sharing services such as add this, will add mark-this buttons.

However, we can also enable marking via browser plugins, bookmarklets, and apps, so there's really no shortage of approaches, anything can be bootstrapped, both in real life and on the web.

Thank you for the well thought questions, and we look forward to discussing with you further in the future.

[Este Nuno]

There are some Bitmark pokerchips now available at http://cryptochips.net

https://twitter.com/Yakpimp/status/525709295909089280

[batesresearch]

There are some Bitmark pokerchips now available at http://cryptochips.net

https://twitter.com/Yakpimp/status/525709295909089280

I like these chips! I have contacted them for UK delivery.

[Este Nuno]

There are some Bitmark pokerchips now available at http://cryptochips.net

https://twitter.com/Yakpimp/status/525709295909089280

I like these chips! I have contacted them for UK delivery.

They do look quite nice. Ceramic polymer plus the ink injection should mean that they're good quality similar to real casino chips and not the plastic ones that are common.

[dbkeys]

Blocks are being found at a rate of 1 or 2 per hour, when the target rate should be 30 blocks per hour. Clearly, this is because the network hash rate is far below what the current difficulty is demanding for a block to be found every 2 minutes.

 Bitmark's block maturity and the difficulty retarget are set the same, at 720 blocks.  Would it make sense to keep the block maturity at 720 blocks, but shorten the difficulty retarget so that the block production rate is more responsive to the real network hash rate ?

 It makes sense to me that the difficulty should more closely follow the actual network hash rate in order to produce blocks at the desired 2 minute rate.

[Este Nuno]

Blocks are being found at a rate of 1 or 2 per hour, when the target rate should be 30 blocks per hour. Clearly, this is because the network hash rate is far below what the current difficulty is demanding for a block to be found every 2 minutes.

 Bitmark's block maturity and the difficulty retarget are set the same, at 720 blocks.  Would it make sense to keep the block maturity at 720 blocks, but shorten the difficulty retarget so that the block production rate is more responsive to the real network hash rate ?

 It makes sense to me that the difficulty should more closely follow the actual network hash rate in order to produce blocks at the desired 2 minute rate.

Well, there's little to no usage of Bitmark yet, while all of the projects that will enable adoption are being created now, there is not much demand yet for BTM. Only non-speculative demand now is from people buying BTM to purchase hosting on http://cryptocloudhosting.org and Poloniex's and our own local marking integrations. With CCH they'll probably get you set up on zero confirms if you ask them(if they're not doing so already). With Poloniex, since it's entirely off chain the slow network doesn't affect peoples ability to mark.

If we change the difficulty algorithm to increase supply when there's very little market demand then there will just be more downward pressure until some of the new marking platforms are released and people have a good way to purchase marks. It's a bit inconvenient for now, but supply following demand is not such a bad thing in the long run. When usage increases supply will follow with more miners mining on the network.

[dbkeys]

Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was such demand that blocks were being found every 30 seconds (4x the target rate) so that 720 blocks were generated by the time 6 hours went by. Would the difficulty then re-adjust after those 6 hours and throttle the production down to a block every two minutes ?

[johndec2]

I'm just wondering if people realise how rare BTM is?  If the coin had stayed strictly to the 2 minute schedule since inception, there would be around 1.5 million coins in circulation, however in reality only a little over 900,000 have been minted.  Unless the hashrate explodes to LTC levels, it is highly unlikely that the blockchain will ever catch up to the planned release schedule.   

[johndec2]

If you look here: http://bitmark.co/statistics/health  you will see that that has already happened several times but unfortunately the hashrate drops off after the diff change, hence the long rounds.  I think the nethash hit 200gb/s during the last low diff round.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was such demand that blocks were being found every 30 seconds (4x the target rate) so that 720 blocks were generated by the time 6 hours went by. Would the difficulty then re-adjust after those 6 hours and throttle the production down to a block every two minutes ?

[Este Nuno]

Hypothetically speaking, let's say there was such demand that blocks were being found every 30 seconds (4x the target rate) so that 720 blocks were generated by the time 6 hours went by. Would the difficulty then re-adjust after those 6 hours and throttle the production down to a block every two minutes ?

Yeah, the algorithm works quite well on that end of the spectrum. We will never see an extended over production of BTM. It's when the profitability compared to other scrypt mining oportunities is seen as "less profitable" that it slows down. And I use the term "less profitable" very loosely, as BTM doesn't really conform to the standard profit calculations with the 720 block maturity.

I'm just wondering if people realise how rare BTM is?  If the coin had stayed strictly to the 2 minute schedule since inception, there would be around 1.5 million coins in circulation, however in reality only a little over 900,000 have been minted.  Unless the hashrate explodes to LTC levels, it is highly unlikely that the blockchain will ever catch up to the planned release schedule.  

Yeah, I don't think too many people have much of idea of what's going on in general. Part of that is my fault as I don't really go around talking too much about everything that goes on in slack(it's all public though, anyone is more than welcome to join and see what's going on for themselves). Basically there's a lot of development going now from four devs working hard on their individual marking projects and recently two major third party projects being explored right now that look very promising.

[dbkeys]

I'm just wondering if people realise how rare BTM is?  If the coin had stayed strictly to the 2 minute schedule since inception, there would be around 1.5 million coins in circulation, however in reality only a little over 900,000 have been minted.  Unless the hashrate explodes to LTC levels, it is highly unlikely that the blockchain will ever catch up to the planned release schedule.  

Yes. One bitcoin buys about 2 days worth of bitmark minting.  

In US dollar terms, the bitcoin blockchain is minting about 50,000 USD worth every 24 hours. The bitmark block chain is minting about 175 USD worth every 24 hours

One idea to meet the planned BTM coin release schedule and also incentivise more hash power to join the network would be that the block reward be variable. Examples: if an hour has gone by when the next block is found, that block could get 600 BTM instead of 20. If two real-time hours separate blocks, then that last block could be rewarded 1,200 BTM. If it takes 10 minutes to find the next block (instead of the target 2) then that block would be awarded 100 BTM, etc.

The idea is that the 20 BTM reward per block would accrue 'virtually' every 2 minutes, whether a block was found or not, and the sum of all the 'virtually accrued block rewards' would be 'physically' awarded on the next block actually found to the node who found it, whenever that is.  

[dbkeys]

Are there any SVG vector images of the bitmark logo and "bitmark accepted here" type graphics ? I've only found pixel-based formats.

[batesresearch]

With CCH they'll probably get you set up on zero confirms if you ask them(if they're not doing so already).

We definitely will, we have trust in BTM and its community.

[batesresearch]

There are some Bitmark pokerchips now available at http://cryptochips.net

https://twitter.com/Yakpimp/status/525709295909089280

I like these chips! I have contacted them for UK delivery.

They do look quite nice. Ceramic polymer plus the ink injection should mean that they're good quality similar to real casino chips and not the plastic ones that are common.

Placed an order for 1 of these, looking forward to receiving it.