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

[synechist]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

[URSAY]

Longenecker, your posts were deleted.

Here's why:

It is incorrect to think that you have some sort of say over what we do.

You don't.

Your complaining about the decisions of a professional developer is completely inappropriate. You are *not* entitled.

We are developing XC and the Blocknet. We have the funds, the team, and the time to do so.

How we do it is up to us. You don't get a say.

Buy, sell, and converse constructively. *Do not* bitch and complain here, ever.

You really do have a way with words and PR. 

[ib88]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

[synechist]

Thanks Ursay.

I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.

Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.

What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.

[synechist]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

[atcsecure]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Only approved projects get funded, approval is required from the board, and the intention is to fund blocknet related services/projects/tech

[ib88]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

[synechist]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

Basically, it's imperative that the Blocknet acquires a full set of valuable services early on.

Since coins provide services, it makes every bit of sense to incentivise them to develop services that are valuable to the Blocknet.

Hence we fund coins on a per-proposal basis.

[EvilDave]

Thanks Ursay.

I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.

Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.

What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.

A solid community is essential for the success of any large project, particularly in crypto, and you are saying that being dependent on yours is toxic?

(just assume that I start screaming insults about your unbelievably arrogant, dictatorial and condescending attitude from here on in. Full-on Spoetnik mode engaged)

OK, you can ban me now.

[atcsecure]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

The intent isn't to have XC use blocknet funds for its own [non-blocknet-related] development, blocknet funding is for blocknet related tech/services/features

[WhiteNotWright]

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

A good percentage of investor's are now the holdings of the coins that are part of the Blocknet. That is evident in the sharp decline before the ITO and the coingateway results. Thus, it stands to reason they get a little of the action to shore up their techs (when approved) in order to help the greater good. This is what coin community spirit and distributive instment is all about, helping the system, not taking a crap on it or throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[synechist]

Thanks Ursay.

I think we're all just exhausted by FUD. At a certain point one reassesses one's relationship to the community and decides that being dependent on them is just too toxic.

Personally I've concluded that I'd enabled a sort of dependency relationship with the XC community that had me nannying people, which is not respectful to them, and exhausting to me.

What I hope for in the middle-term future is a more dispassionate attitude from the communities here. Some XC people are as likely to proclaim XC's wonders as they are to turn paranoid and spread FUD. It's way too fraught.

A solid community is essential for the success of any large project, particularly in crypto, and you are saying that being dependent on yours is toxic?

(just assume that I start screaming insults about your unbelievably arrogant, dictatorial and condescending attitude from here on in. Full-on Spoetnik mode engaged)

OK, you can ban me now.

I won't assume you're pulling a "Spoetnik." And you're not banned either.

My point is entirely in agreement with yours: a solid community is essential for the success of a project.

What we lack is a solid community. The way I engaged with the community made it a pretty flaky community unfortunately.

Things need to change.

[ib88]

Be empathetic Longenecker. You're pitting your interests against an entire community's, and saying yours win.

That's ridiculous.

That's the problem. From a potential investors viewpoint it looks like Dan is putting his own interests before XC's. XC receives no benefit to Dan's involvement with utilitycoin, in fact it reduces Dan's focus on XC. (Which blocknet is also doing). He's gone from overseeing one project to overseeing 3 projects in the space of a month. Can you not see why XC investors are concerned?

Furthermore they get enough cash via IPO to hire few code masterminds to take care of dying coins

That is NOT how ITO funds should be used... seriously?

AFAIK ITO was meant to be used to fund development, as Synechist reply to one of my questions "Fund first, code later". For what else it have to be spend?? There are just few lines of code yet..

No. The ITO is to be used to fund development of the Blocknet only. Development of any one participating coin does not aid development of blocknet so would be astounded if funds were spent this way.

Blocknet funds are not just going to be used to fund Util. Util's funding is for Util.

This is how part of the Blocknet's funds can go to coins:
- Coins can submit proposals to the Foundation for funding.
- Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by a panel of people from different coins.
- Proposals are for a specific piece of tech, and needs to be relevant/beneficial to the Blocknet.

My understanding was that funds were solely for the development of the Blocknet. This, to me, includes; development of the X-bridge protocol, and development of blocknet specific services like file storage, an exchange etc.

From what you're saying it sounds like participating coins will be entitled to funds to develop their own coins features. This to me doesn't sound right as the blocknet's success doesn't depend on any one coin so why should its funds be used this way? As I understand it, if a coin has innovative and legit features it can join the blocknet. If it doesn't, it can't. Why should coins be entitled to funds to develop these features? Has it already been mentioned that participating coins are potentially entitled to funds for their own development because I think I must've missed that?

Yes it has been mentioned, in the FAQ (see the link in the new OP), and on the wiki.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I still disagree that funds should be spent this way. I personally believe that the people behind the coin should fund their own project. I, as an XC investor, don't believe that XC should be entitled to the Blocknet's funds to fund their development. But alas, if it was in the terms of the ITO then it's my own fault. It's more important than ever that it is fully transparent how all the funds will be spent as I'm sure you know!

The intent isn't to have XC use blocknet funds for its own development, blocknet funding is for blocknet related tech/services/features in any of the members

Ah okay, thanks for the answer. Well I'm sure we'll be kept informed with how funds are spent and it'll be transparent so I'm satisfied in that regard.

And Dan, I've been a staunch supporter of yours since the beginning and still am but posts of mine have been getting deleted by you in the XC thread for no reason. One such post was : "Would be good to get some clarity on upcoming milestones and when we can expect them. A few dates you're committing to in regards to rev 2.5 and rev 3 would be great to hear." If you don't want to respond that's your prerogative, but deleting is absolutely unnecessary.

[synechist]

Ah okay, thanks for the answer. Well I'm sure we'll be kept informed with how funds are spent and it'll be transparent so I'm satisfied in that regard.

And Dan, I've been a staunch supporter of yours since the beginning and still am but posts of mine have been getting deleted by you in the XC thread for no reason. One such post was : "Would be good to get some clarity on upcoming milestones and when we can expect them. A few dates you're committing to in regards to rev 2.5 and rev 3 would be great to hear." If you don't want to respond that's your prerogative, but deleting is absolutely unnecessary.

From my side, as far as I'm aware we're likely to steer clear of concrete dates because of the generally destructive reaction to delays.

On the other hand, I think that it would be good to put out some upcoming milestones.

For now though, just check out the OP on the old XC thread. Its timeline is pretty much current.

[dukeneptun]

Is Xcash part of the blocknet? 

[synechist]

Is Xcash part of the blocknet? 

Yup. Check out the OP.

[ib88]

Ah okay, thanks for the answer. Well I'm sure we'll be kept informed with how funds are spent and it'll be transparent so I'm satisfied in that regard.

And Dan, I've been a staunch supporter of yours since the beginning and still am but posts of mine have been getting deleted by you in the XC thread for no reason. One such post was : "Would be good to get some clarity on upcoming milestones and when we can expect them. A few dates you're committing to in regards to rev 2.5 and rev 3 would be great to hear." If you don't want to respond that's your prerogative, but deleting is absolutely unnecessary.

From my side, as far as I'm aware we're likely to steer clear of concrete dates because of the generally destructive reaction to delays.

On the other hand, I think that it would be good to put out some upcoming milestones.

For now though, just check out the OP on the old XC thread. Its timeline is pretty much current.

I completely agree about concrete dates, was just hoping for a rough estimate which included a bit of buffer time. I literally have no idea as to when we can expect the next major revision to come out. With the perception that Dan's workload is increasing a lot of people are wondering what we can expect from XC in the near future and beyond. A simple Q1 or Q2 2015 type answer would nip a lot of concerns in the bud. I don't think this is an unfair request, much less one that deserves to get deleted which further exacerbates people's concerns.

[edit] aaaaand the request gets ignored again.

[Levole11]

untrustworthy people beyond xc and blocknet.synechist where are the 900% gains you sold to us?
he will sepete it immediatly. fuck türk

What have Turks to do with this? and you're tiring man, ppl can make up their own minds, don't need a troll like you for it..

[neo666]

morning folks!

I think what we need is a little more patience...and let Dan and team do their magic!



Yelling and bitching will do us no good, only starts Fear, Uncertanty, Doubt-and that, as you probably all know, is like an avalanche...

cheers

[ProfX]

You all just gave 800+ btc to a panel of over promising, under delivering, shitcoin devs gj.

okay there shadowshit

youre just mad that blocknet will severely undercut any kind of pump u planned to make with your zero knowledge bullshit