[ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure

[illodin]

[ slippage ]

I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.

But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there.

Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.

For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.

This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.

And what would this do to anonymity set?

The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.

In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem.

It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.

The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears.

[mxxxxxx]

the discount is only for coingateway?

Are there rewards for early investors? Or is it the same invest the first day or the last day?

Yes, you will be able to buy tokens with participating coins at 10% discount through coingateway only, unless some exchange does additional pairing but i don`t think so

10% discount through the whole ITO process

I thought bittrex would offer pairing for coins like BLOCK/XC for 10% discount, no?  Arlyn, is it only coingateway that you can get the discount?

I am basing on this for now

In other news...


The ITO will also be taking place on Bter!

Great!

Will I be able to buy using the coins listed or does it have to be Bitcoin?

You can buy Blocknet tokens using any participating coin.

At Bter and Bittrex there will probably only be a BTC:BLOCK pairing.

At Poloniex there will probably be a BTC:BLOCK and NHZ:BLOCK pairing.

At CoinGateway all the other coins will be paired to BLOCK.

After the ITO, only BTC:BLOCK pairings will be available (because it makes no sense for participating coins to trade against the Blocknet when they function to give value to the Blocknet).

[Prototyp]

Only with coingateway, then I need to register once as well.

[mxxxxxx]

Only with coingateway, then I need to register once as well.

You don`t have to register there , it is very simple to use, you're given an address to pay your participating coin to, and you enter an address to receive BLOCK tokens

[Prototyp]

Ok, that sounds good. The wallet comes in 29?

[dan7777777]

So will there be a BlockNet wallet at Bittrex then?  If so, when will it be available? Or do I somehow create a wallet in another currency to receive the Tokens?

[mxxxxxx]

Ok, that sounds good. The wallet comes in 29?

So will there be a BlockNet wallet at Bittrex then?  If so, when will it be available? Or do I somehow create a wallet in another currency to receive the Tokens?

BlockNet wallet will be available before the ITO , exchanges have to have it to receive the tokens and to sell them next

You will be able to create the address on exchange or in your personal wallet

[Jbanna]

so, by going through coingateway...
will all the participating coins be automatically sold on a market to retrieve bitcoin-- thus crashing the price of all the altcoins that people are using to purchase blocknet?

[synechist]

so, by going through coingateway...
will all the participating coins be automatically sold on a market to retrieve bitcoin-- thus crashing the price of all the altcoins that people are using to purchase blocknet?

No, the coins form part of the Blocknet's funding. They're not sold anywhere.

The Blocknet will keep the funds and use them for development.

[mxxxxxx]

so, by going through coingateway...
will all the participating coins be automatically sold on a market to retrieve bitcoin-- thus crashing the price of all the altcoins that people are using to purchase blocknet?

The Blocknet Foundation keeps the coins to fund development. There will be no dumping of coins. They will be paid to developers in little amounts over the duration of the project. Therefore the ITO won`t decrease the value of participating coins. It will increase actual usage of a coins and should increase its value.

[wasserman99]

Are there rewards for early investors? Or is it the same invest the first day or the last day?

[synechist]

[ slippage ]

I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.

But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there.

Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.

For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.

This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.

And what would this do to anonymity set?

The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.

In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem.

It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.

The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears.

Let's just get some perspective here.

There are 3 matters that have been raised:

1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it.
    Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it.
    But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer.
    This is where similar services compete for customers.
    
2) Slippage:
    Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage.
    Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above.

3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin.
    The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example:
    A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC.
    Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design)
    This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage.
    That's $0.000098 USD.
    Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen.


Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it.
It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue.
The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now.



P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!!
       This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building.

[illodin]

[ slippage ]

I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.

But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there.

Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.

For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.

This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.

And what would this do to anonymity set?

The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.

In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem.

It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.

The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears.

Let's just get some perspective here.

There are 3 matters that have been raised:

1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it.
    Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it.
    But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer.
    This is where similar services compete for customers.
    
2) Slippage:
    Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage.
    Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above.

3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin.
    The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example:
    A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC.
    Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design)
    This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage.
    That's $0.000098 USD.
    Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen.


Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it.
It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue.
The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now.



P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!!
       This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building.

I think the misunderstanding stems from you having made it sound like Blocknet was meant to solve these issues. There was no talk about "services" that will do the conversion until now. At first it was supposed to be as easy as having coin A and using coin B's features just because they both are in Blocknet. And when it's pointed out that it can't work like that, the responsibility is shifted to "services". Anyway, it's good it's cleared up sooner than later.

[synechist]

[ slippage ]

I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.

But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there.

Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.

For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.

This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.

And what would this do to anonymity set?

The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.

In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem.

It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.

The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears.

Let's just get some perspective here.

There are 3 matters that have been raised:

1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it.
    Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it.
    But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer.
    This is where similar services compete for customers.
    
2) Slippage:
    Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage.
    Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above.

3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin.
    The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example:
    A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC.
    Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design)
    This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage.
    That's $0.000098 USD.
    Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen.


Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it.
It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue.
The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now.



P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!!
       This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building.

I think the misunderstanding stems from you having made it sound like Blocknet was meant to solve these issues. There was no talk about "services" that will do the conversion until now. At first it was supposed to be as easy as having coin A and using coin B's features just because they both are in Blocknet. And when it's pointed out that it can't work like that, the responsibility is shifted to "services". Anyway, it's good it's cleared up sooner than later.

You're right that I may have been unclear, and if so, my apologies.

Just in case aspects of this aren't clear enough yet: the exchange is a core Blocknet function. Services may use it in any way they like (and Blocknet users can use it directly too). The conversion will always* be done on the Blocknet's exchange, and services will utilise it - so it's true that "services will do the conversion" in this sense only.


*Come to think of it though, it's not infeasible that coins could build their own decentralised exchanges too, and offer them as services to all Blocknet-enabled nodes. That would be great (though their workings would be a fair bit more complicated).

[WhiteNotWright]

Just looking at some numbers. Looks like XC market cap as of Oct 16th from 2.6m leaves about 1.3m USD$ displaced today. Let's be optimistic and assume that dump was well coordinated in order to shore up BTC for the ITO. This alone would purchase about 10% of the purse (assuming that perhaps even 20% is now going back in to other coins on the net). Starting to see the bigger picture here in my corner of the world. Hold those coins.

[Bobsurplus]

Cool video guys, also mentions BlockNet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJMszR6ttYc&feature=youtu.be

[burner2014]

Just looking at some numbers. Looks like XC market cap as of Oct 16th from 2.6m leaves about 1.3m USD$ displaced today. Let's be optimistic and assume that dump was well coordinated in order to shore up BTC for the ITO. This alone would purchase about 10% of the purse (assuming that perhaps even 20% is now going back in to other coins on the net). Starting to see the bigger picture here in my corner of the world. Hold those coins.

I hope you get your coins ready to buy the awesome Blocknet with 10% discount!

I love when Coins are in the SPOTLIGHT

Fibre Coin has no fancy video as Swift has yet, but therefore solid hard working Developers making this coin a success.

Looking forward to Wednesday!

[starblocks]

[ slippage ]

I think that an important point with regard to this matter is that its significance depends entirely on the service in question. Services that only require a one-way transaction will not have this as even a potential problem.

But yes they will, the problem is 50% less than when exchanging back and forth, but it's still there.

Equally important is the fact that the issue is entirely addressable by the design of any given service (i.e. by a coin, not by the Blocknet), and these services have not been designed/optimised for the Blocknet.

For example, if a service requires that coins be returned to the client, then they don't actually have to be exchanged, and so an escrow service might work better.

This would eliminate slippage and thereby present a competitive advantage to any service that offers it.

And what would this do to anonymity set?

The point is that you're worried about something that is (a) readily surmountable and (b) hasn't arisen yet. You're pre-empting an issue and then worrying about it as if it's a real problem.

In my opinion, you should've worried about it beforehand (if you want to portray a professional and competent image to potential investors that is), and not after some people start realizing it's going to be a problem.

It isn't. In a free market of coin-based services, there'll be competition on a new level. Coins will have no problem inventing clever ways of rendering quality services and rising to the top of the pile.

The issue of slippage should be something that blocknet solves, so every coin can benefit from it. If it isn't, then a whole lot of perceived usefulness of blocknet just disappears.

Let's just get some perspective here.

There are 3 matters that have been raised:

1) The remarks above are based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between the Blocknet and the services that run on it.
    Like the internet, it is the Blocknet's role to provide a platform for potentially any service at all to run on it.
    But it is not the Blocknet's role to also ensure that the services provided are all optimally designed. Imagine TCP/IP was supposed to ensure that websites never loaded slowly. No, that's the role of the web designer.
    This is where similar services compete for customers.
    
2) Slippage:
    Slippage is a natural and irremovable function of liquidity and trade size. It's downright weird to expect the Blocknet to eradicate slippage, when its role is to provide a framework or toolset, not a service. If a given service requires no slippage, well then its creators will need to have a way of avoiding slippage.
    Off the top of my head I've come up with a couple of ways in which slippage can either be removed or reduced to insignificant levels. To these (above), I'll add another, just for fun: services might want to use only the most liquid currency pairing in order to remove slippage. To do this and also accept any currency, they could receive payment, automatically sell/buy an equivalent unit of a very liquid currency, perform the service, buy/sell the liquid currency again if necessary, and then return/send an equivalent amount of the original currency to wherever it needs to go. Just throwing it out there. It's not really my problem, given section (1) above.

3) Cost of using the Blocknet vs. cost of personally just buying another coin.
    The commenters above have suggested that slippage somehow disincentivises users from using the Blocknet. Let's just set things straight: that's ridiculous. I'll give an example:
    A service is rendered. Microfee: 0.002 XC.
    Let's suppose a whopping 20% slippage (bad service design)
    This would require that the user pays a further 0.0004 XC for the service due to slippage.
    That's $0.000098 USD.
    Cost of buying another currency from a centralised exchange, downloading the wallet, figuring it out, and getting the service you want: umm... rather a lot higher. And you'd still have to *buy* the other currency, which would still involve slippage. So *zero*incentive there. Now try doing the same for the innumerable other currencies whose services you might want. Not gonna happen.


Finally, this is not a case of us somehow failing to think about this beforehand and then looking unprofessional when asked about it.
It's a case of people misunderstanding the nature of the Blocknet's function, then thinking up scenarios that don't pertain to the Blocknet (and aren't a problem anyway for Blocknet services), and then erroneously attributing incompetence to us for not addressing a non-issue.
The issue is one of understanding the Blocknet's function. I'm addressing it here, now.



P.S. The Blocknet will have a decentralised exchange. I mean, a decentralised exchange? And one that exists in an ecosystem of multiple (and potentially any) currency? Awesome!!
       This, in my opinion, is a realistic recognition of what the Blocknet is doing. It's an exceptionally well-positioned decentralised exchange. Best thing ever. Insufficient warrant to appear unhappy with what we're building.

I haven't had really time to research through all this but if this has been explained already please excuse

But what happens to all the altcoins that are used to buy blocknet coins

[mxxxxxx]

I haven't had really time to research through all this but if this has been explained already please excuse

But what happens to all the altcoins that are used to buy blocknet coins

The Blocknet Foundation keeps the coins to fund development. There will be no dumping of coins. They will be paid to developers in little amounts over the duration of the project. Therefore the ITO won`t decrease the value of participating coins. It will increase actual usage of a coins and should increase its value.

[starblocks]

I haven't had really time to research through all this but if this has been explained already please excuse

But what happens to all the altcoins that are used to buy blocknet coins

The Blocknet Foundation keeps the coins to fund development. There will be no dumping of coins. They will be paid to developers in little amounts over the duration of the project. Therefore the ITO won`t decrease the value of participating coins. It will increase actual usage of a coins and should increase its value.

Ah I see - that's a good move