BitBay |Decentralized Marketplace|Smart Contracts|IoT Tech|Markets Open

[ebite]

No functional wallet, no ICO please.

[Piston Honda]

Okay so we know that David Zimbeck has been contracted as the lead Dev but what about other members of the team?

You should give us identities of those responsible for the project.More transparency is warranted when doing a 3000 btc ICO.

Whats stopping you from just running away with the funds? We won't even know who to point fingers at if it happens! What's the incentive for further developing the project once you get the btc?

I am really interested in the project but you have to understand my skepticism.There are rampant scams all around us and one should rather be overly cautious than greedy.Hope you will do well to prove the legitimacy of the project and deliver us with the goods.                      

I'm right there with you.  I bought a couple BTC worth at open, and could have purchased quite a bit more, but that was what I decided I could write off without concern.  If things progress as expected with this project - I'm also prepared to write off the additional profits I'll miss out on by waiting to make a more substantial investment later on.

However, a couple of points I would make in addition to those mentioned by others:
1) If Mt.Gox, Mintpal, Moolah, etc., etc. have taught me anything - it's that knowing the identity (or at least thinking you do in Mintpal/Moolah's case) doesn't really provide any insurance against fraud.  While it might provide a target for hatred and futile attempts at legal action, thus far no such action has resulted in the return of funds to my knowledge.
2) Risk=Reward applies significantly in crypto.  When BTC was an unknown commodity, people "threw away" money buying them at exorbitant (at the time) prices... which have now seen multi-thousand percent gains.  That kind of reward isn't possible in real estate, 99.9% of the stock market, commodities, etc.  It goes hand in hand with the fact that those are regulated markets and this is not.
3) Startups require funding, and self-funded ones don't allow for others to share in the profits (to a great extent at least).  Public access to the ICO provides greater opportunities for "the little guy" - where as a VC lump-sum only benefits the VC firm/angels themselves.

Your skepticism is well warranted, and it's possible that David is being used in this instance.  It's also possible that this is going to be the 'ebay of crypto' and then some.  Unfortunately, we'll only know which is the case after it's too late either way... but that's not unique to this project, or this market even for that matter.

Invest accordingly and don't risk more than you can comfortably stand to lose - that's kept me profitable for the past 2 years in crypto land.  I've definitely lost coins to scams or fraud, but I've also seen small investments turn into 10,000% gains... it's the financial wild west after all.  To be honest I've lost far more bagholding losers than I've ever lost on an ICO/early buy-in.

Similar to what I was thinking/mentioned earlier - it's like all the steps can be taken to provide anything/everything you want about the 'dev' but it doesn't mean anything concrete.  Given the more recent posts from Zimbeck I'm still feeling trustworthy, and taking a "we'll see" approach to those behind it is fine with me...it's all we can really ask for, for now at least.  Given the wide acceptance and backing of this coin it appears to be in good hands.  People need to also watch their investments into such coins and don't get greedy.

+1 for bagholding loser / older coins vs. losing in good ICO's lol.

[threecats]

Just checking in here, lots of good stuff the last couple pages. One thing that occurs to me, in today's climate there are some good reasons for investors in a large-scale decentralized market to wish to remain in the backround. Very good reasons.

I definitely understand people who have concerns about this; investing is serious business. And for the people who are not comfortable establishing their confidence on the basis of the project goals, the tech, the market niche & potential user base - it may well be a good decision to wait. Personally, given the turn-key licensing of Halo & a January release of the marketplace, I do not think the ico price will occur again. So probably a risk / reward situation for sure.

[altcoinUK]

I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?

I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.

I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.

This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.

Thanks for your reply.

I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened?  In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service?

If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-))

[threecats]

No functional wallet, no ICO please.

Read the OP. Wallet is condition of ICO.

[threecats]

I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?

I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.

I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.

This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.

Thanks for your reply.

I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users uses their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened?  In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device perform the service?

If you say so you worked out and willing to explain this I am sure that's the case that you will have a working solution :-))

Seems to me that is more of an automated payment system than the first wave of IoT - which is person-centric, that is connecting the devices around an individual to that individual's lifestyle. Or the second wave, which would be connecting the devices around a person to each other and outside suppliers. All the these things presuppose more familiarity than what you are proposing.

[dzimbeck]

we are in a sustained process of ramping up the staff according to the project requirements with both coding teams and project managers in several different countries. It's a substantial investment that is being made here, and it is not a charitable one.

Hi, has David for example received any payment from you yet? Has any manager or coder received any money yet?

Yeah I got a deposit. If there wasnt a deposit I would not talk. Let me talk a little bit with the guys and see if/when they would like to be public. This seems to be a concern (I don't blame you guys). However one one hand for me at least, there is about 4 others and if this funds, it would trivial to pay me the rest of my fee. They would not really want to abandon this project simply because they have a stake in seeing it succeed and we are going to attempt to peg it to a major currency such as dollar or RMB.

It is a little nerve wrecking at times but I just try to keep calm and code my markets.

That's why I decided to invest actually (though less than if all this information were disclosed initially).  Although I don't know them, and I can even understand a reason for them to want to be anonymous to a large extent, it is somewhat scary.  On the other hand, you are risking much more than a few BTC - as your reputation is definitely worth much more than that - so if you feel cautiously optimistic... then I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be as well.  After all I'm only risking a few BTC, which I fell confident will see a positive return...

Keep up the good work!

Yeah well I have never been afraid of growing and facing new frontiers. My reputation is at risk mostly by association. Under-capitalization is a serious problem in crypto. This is one reason why I regret not selling at the peak of LTC or BC. I missed out on millions by not doing that. If I had millions, this entire crypto space would be a different story because I could work alone with my own dev team and keep it all in house. It would not be necessary to even license at that point.

But instead of giving up, I just take a new approach. BC was lagging for a while and most of us certainly didnt have the resources. So this deal made sense to me. I'm pretty certain by the ICO, that I would not have been able to do this without them.

One thing I can say to set people at ease is this: I'm already coding these markets for BlackHalo and BitHalo. So adding this coin is not so much of a challenge here. The rest of the road-map is very practical for me. If they like making money, they would obviously want to follow this road map because its the difference of money to be made with by following it is astronomical. Also, BitBay is an obvious and solid brand name. Why not be in first position?

[altcoinUK]

I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?

I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.

I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.

This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.

Thanks for your reply.

I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users uses their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened?  In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device perform the service?

If you say so you worked out and willing to explain this I am sure that's the case that you will have a working solution :-))

Seems to me that is more of an automated payment system than the first wave of IoT - which is person-centric, that is connecting the devices around an individual to that individual's lifestyle.

Yes, it is  :-))) Since we are talking about a digital currency  ... I thought it means paying for device services with digital currencies. The authentication capability of the blockchain without payments doesn't justify IoT integration into the blockchain in my opinion.

[RJF]

Okay so we know that David Zimbeck has been contracted as the lead Dev but what about other members of the team?

                     

David Zimbeck has an excellent reputation which was enough for me.
As for other team members I don't know but David is the head guy
and I seriously doubt he would get involved in anything that wasn't
genuine.

Question is not about about David and his excellent developing reputation .The question is who should be held accountable for the whole project. Don't u find it odd not even a single other identity has been revealed. What's stopping them from piggybacking on David's reputation and fool him and the investors to pull off a great con.Just trying to be vigilant here.     

I also invest outside Crypto. Such information isn't always available for many reasons. Lets say a Fiat world company I have invested in went under, its game over. Its not good when it happens (and it has) but thats the risk. I cant hold anyone responsible even if I did know who they were.  I get where your coming from but I think the nature of Crypto means a lot of people will remain in the shadows.   Case in point:  James the dev of BTCD/Supernet etc. No one has seen him or knows who he is. Didn't stop people investing hugely in his projects and he has backers as well who remain in the shadows.
I dont particularly like it the anonymous side of the Crypto world my self but thats the risk and lets face it when things go well in Crypto the profits can be exceptionally good.

Agree 100%, there is no profit without risk, anywhere. At least we have a well respected Dev in the mix here, trust him and invest or, don't trust him and don't invest, period. It's a simple formula folks...

[choeymethod]

Very interesting read and really good questions. Glad this thread has been trollfree for the most part. I already have bought some, but I like what Im reading, so maybe Ill grab some more.

[godzirra]

Well I know DZ is not directly responsible for the funds but I hope he understands that the community is relying on him and his reputation here. I like what I'm seeing but holding my breath because this world is a scammers paradise.

The thing is so many folks would be willing to purchase so much more if there was some kind of accountability in regards to the ICO funds. Oh well. I'm in for a few btc.

[arklan]

haven't had time to read the whole thread, but the initial post does look ...interesting. an actual decentralized market could be huge. complex though, to say the least. i'm gonna read up on this.

[dzimbeck]

I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?

I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.

I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.

This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.

Thanks for your reply.

I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened?  In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service?

If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-))

One working solution is to have your funds locked before you get to the gate(lock the outputs with checklocktimeverify). Different companies that issue services can partner with IOT manufacturers to have a series of second keys to hold for gates. Thus your primary account would have locked funds set aside for public events and interaction with IOT. This you could contact the manufacturer at any time to spend the funds (this could be automated even). So they cant hold your money hostage because the funds are set to convert back to a regular account on the expiration of the lock. Only the gate could unlock the funds so the raw transaction is valid. The gate only signs with parties that were confirmed in advance to be honest. Those parties would hold a double deposit contract with the manufacturer too. So a double spend at the gate would harm the party involved and reveal who double spent. It would also be highly unlikely because the spender would need to know the manufacturers key which they would always keep secret. Most definitely they would secure insurance for this too. Since they stand to profit much more than trying to trick a stupid gate for 10 bucks. Furthermore, the manufacturer would probably also put scripts in their outputs so their key would constantly be changing. It could be a hash to a secret or a key. This starts boiling down more to logistics. Manufacturers would eventually be part of a network and there would be a series of things that could be done to make the hash. Different manufacturers could use zero knowledge proofs to arrive at similar solutions to equivalent problems without revealing the secret.

Of course zero knowledge proof is not necessary at first to grow the industry. This is just an example of how this would work.

My multisignature exchange uses similar theories. Holding the second key for zero confirmation, but time locking in the outputs so hostage situations are impossible. Just add the layer I explained above where unlocking your funds is fairly easy as long as you have contact with their servers and if you cant unlock its not a problem because the funds revert back to you in the future. The gate can prove this on the block chain well in advance because most likely, your funds wont revert back for a while! If the gate sees you are at the block where you revert or past it, the gate declines your transaction for fear of doublespend.

[dzimbeck]

haven't had time to read the whole thread, but the initial post does look ...interesting. an actual decentralized market could be huge. complex though, to say the least. i'm gonna read up on this.

Did you see the flow chart i posted a few pages back? Please read up on bitmessage channels and whitelists. Then realize im adding a burn layer to bitmessage(but the first version of markets will not have the burn layer because I want the nodes)

[altcoinUK]

I think, I also decided not to invest - except if the DEV answer my questions about real time hardware control and outlines how that will be possible at all with the Blackhalo solution?

I am mainly interested in the IoT offering, but it seems to me the IoT concept does not even exists on conceptual level. If there is not even conceptual solution, I can't see how this project will release a working, blockchain enabled, peer to peer Internet of Things software that controls hardware in real time.

I believe I already answered this, im not able to monitor this thread constantly because I'm usually working. But yeah you can do zero confirmations with multisig because your device or you hold the raw transaction. It depends on the application/hardware. Best that you give me some example or use case and I can explain to you how I would approach it.

This isnt dissimilar from NightTrader multisig engine which I have made. I just dont have any front end for it. Controlling hardware in real time is fairly easy when you know multiple signatures are involved. Add this to checklocktimeverify and you can have outputs convert to different things based on blocks. Handling raw transactions where you hold the other signature can leave you secure with the fact that you can do zero confirmations.

Thanks for your reply.

I am familiar with the green address concept of Bitcoin that requires a third party and allows instant transactions and I believe you are not referring to that. So if your solution conceptually is not that, let see a concrete use case: open a gate in a sport venue where users use their wallet to enter the venue and the gate controller device charges 10 BitBay coin for opening the gate. My understanding is, prior to opening the door the device must know if the 10 BitBay Coin is available for the buyer. The device must ensure the balance is available, it's not a double spending and it's a legitimate transaction, otherwise the door cannot be opened. Once the gate controller device is satisfied the balance is available, and only in that case it opens the gate. How long it takes for the device to verify if there is a sufficient balance on the address, because prior verifying the balance the gate cannot be opened?  In other words, how long the user must stand for waiting the device to perform the service?

If you say so you have worked this out and willing to explain this, I am sure that's the case, and you will have a working solution :-))

One working solution is to have your funds locked before you get to the gate ...  Thus your primary account would have locked funds set aside for public events and interaction with IOT ... So they cant hold your money hostage because the funds are set to convert back to a regular account on the expiration of the lock ... The gate only signs with parties that were confirmed in advance to be honest. Those parties would hold a double deposit contract with the manufacturer too.

All due respect David, this solution isn't practical and such implementation would make the use case completely uncompetitive to existing FIAT or even digital currency payment solutions. Currently payment systems, even the Bitcoin network with green addresses works in ad-hoc manner: you pay at the time of the purchase. In order to buy a pizza, hotel room, concert ticket  there is no requirement to lock the fund to the seller prior to the transaction, not even with Bitcoin. I think such system that you have suggested wont be adopted at all.

I understand your solution would be still anonymous and decentralized, but having so much complication to make a payment to IoT devices would make the solution impractical in my opinion.

This starts boiling down more to logistics.

I disagree. This is not a logistical but a conceptual issue. What you have described is a workaround by asking users to comply with your work around in order to have the luxury of involving with a very-very complicated process.

Anyway, thanks for answering, apart from the IoT part, your solution will be great and I have no doubt you will roll out an excellent smart contract system. I suggest don't involve the IoT it at all. Firstly people have no idea what is it so it doesn't mean anything :-)) and no one is investing in this because the IoT feature, but once someone take a closer look at it, the reaction will be that it is not acceptable for businesses and that reaction could cause more harm than good for the project. Your decentralized market solution is flawless, it is obviously a viable use case, but the hardware industry and hardware integrators will be taking apart the IoT concept and such publicity will hurt your and the project's reputation.

[BitcoinBaBa]

Went through the last threads and i have become more confident now .Thanks dzimbeck for your insight.

The thing is if the project is legit and the bitbay team delivers even half of what it has envisioned then this could easily break into the top 5 coins list.

Lets look at the top coins in market cap after bitcoin.
(These are just my opinions)

Ripple is a scam with artificially bloated market cap.

Litecoin- Just look at the charts it is well past its "silver to the bitcoin hype".Not much developing happening.

BitShares is in a critical phase of transition with major rebranding and lots of changes happening .The Chinese money is fleeing away now with all the uncertainty and confusion about what bitshares is actually supposed to be.They are even trying to redefine and modify the meaning of DAC , a term they themselves coined.Its a good project for the long term but for now it may go further down until things get resolved.  

Dogecoin-Well it had the community effect ,its past its hype and will not be adopted by serious institutions.

NXT- They are having some good developments but they'll be stuck with the tag of having an ipo with very uneven distribution. Whenever it tries to rise in price an early adopter relieves his large bag and spoils the party.

The point being the top altcoin post is there for the taking and Bitbay can be a serious contender for it. It has all things going for it may it be branding or chinese backing,top developer and the great plans to look forward to.

For me personally the secret sauce is nubits like pegging.If they can pull it off and successfully peg close to a dollar or equivalent renminbi well then it makes one hell of an investment for the ico buyers and a stable easily usable currency for the masses.(Easier said than done)

Considering the risk to reward to ratio here I am buying into the ico but just with money I can afford to lose.
Am a BitBayer now and wish Bitbay Team all the best

 



 
  

[zoata87]

0.00000266  5695488.718  15.15000

well...

[threecats]

I disagree. This is not a logistical but a conceptual issue. What you have described is a workaround by asking users to comply with your work around in order to have the luxury of involving with a very-very complicated process.

Anyway, thanks for answering, apart from the IoT part, your solution will be great and I have no doubt you will roll out an excellent smart contract system. I suggest don't involve the IoT it at all. Firstly people have no idea what is it so it doesn't mean anything :-)) and no one is investing in this because the IoT feature, but once someone take a closer look at it, the reaction will be that it is not acceptable for businesses and that reaction could cause more harm than good for the project. Your decentralized market solution is flawless, it is obviously a viable use case, but the hardware industry and hardware integrators will be taking apart the IoT concept and such publicity will hurt your and the project's reputation.

I have been reading your posts most of the last two hours now, and I really do think you have a different conception of how IoT will evolve than most people.

As stated elsewhere, IoT is in the  1st instance about connnecting the Things around one into ones lifestyle without having to manage them.The second phase is when these Things can begin to do your bidding with each other, ie the electric system keeps an eye on the floating electric spot price in the market and negotiates 24 hour leases - and pays with a IoT enabled architecture.  Again a level of trust already there.

The reasons for the blockchain - which you say is unnecessary - include among other things verifiable payments made, tax receipts etc.

Your warnings to stay away from IoT escape me, why should anyone stay away from trying out innovative solutions on an enormous market?

[chipmadness]

David is a developer here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLACK COIN FTW!!!!! ILL BE IN THIS COIN FOR SURE THEN!

[arklan]

haven't had time to read the whole thread, but the initial post does look ...interesting. an actual decentralized market could be huge. complex though, to say the least. i'm gonna read up on this.

Did you see the flow chart i posted a few pages back? Please read up on bitmessage channels and whitelists. Then realize im adding a burn layer to bitmessage(but the first version of markets will not have the burn layer because I want the nodes)

i looked for, but did not find the flowchart.

been glancing through this thread. i'd read previously about bitmessage. i kinda feel like i did when i first heard about bitcoin. which is best summed up by the following: