◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈

[bitcreditscc]

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.  

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

I say you keep a portion that was going to be used as an IPO to fund your development.

Yeah, having them in an exchange poses risks. Not sure how people would feel about the dev holding that much coin.

[dbt1033]

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.  

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

I say you keep a portion that was going to be used as an IPO to fund your development.

Yeah, having them in an exchange poses risks. Not sure how people would feel about the dev holding that much coin.

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

[hack_]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

[bitcreditscc]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Actually i have a better idea. Some people will want Bank nodes but not have enough. So i could set up a bunch of nodes, then people can each contribute to a node, then they own it collectively, with a script that pays out to them all the fees. This will foster more nodes.

Then we can do all the rest. I'm wary about burning anything though, because there is no predicting the future, and the last thing i want is to be caught without adequate funding to complete a task. Project security first before any other consideration. It would be most disappointing to have any failures.

[hack_]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Actually i have a better idea. Some people will want Bank nodes but not have enough. So i could set up a bunch of nodes, then people can each contribute to a node, then they own it collectively, with a script that pays out to them all the fees. This will foster more nodes.

Then we can do all the rest. I'm wary about burning anything though, because there is no predicting the future, and the last thing i want is to be caught without adequate funding to complete a task. Project security first before any other consideration. It would be most disappointing to have any failures.

Whatever you decide, as long as it's transparent and is for the right reasons.

[Jesse Livermore]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Actually i have a better idea. Some people will want Bank nodes but not have enough. So i could set up a bunch of nodes, then people can each contribute to a node, then they own it collectively, with a script that pays out to them all the fees. This will foster more nodes.

Then we can do all the rest. I'm wary about burning anything though, because there is no predicting the future, and the last thing i want is to be caught without adequate funding to complete a task. Project security first before any other consideration. It would be most disappointing to have any failures.

Whatever you decide, as long as it's transparent and is for the right reasons.

Agreed.

[dbt1033]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Well, the dev said a masternode will generate around 2250 bcr a day.  

So let's do the math.  If the coin trades around 10k satoshi (which I fully expect if the dev pulls through), the dev would make .225 btc a day from fee generation alone.  

That's 1.575 btc/week at this level (around $400), and that's the bare minimum the node can generate.

Let's say 3 months from now, the coin is trading at 100k satoshi due to a robust feature set, diverse community, and the presence of market makers.  That would pay the developer $4000 a week (once again, at the minimum).  

If the funds in escrow are not burned, I think they would be a great tool to attract VC investors and hire additional developer talent.

I like this solution because it gives the developer the ability to "give himself a raise".

[dbt1033]

Another thought:  If the requirement for bank nodes was reduced by 50k (200k buy in), it would accomodate for around 6 more nodes at current supply levels.

This would allow more people to get in on the action while still requiring significant skin in the game.

It could potentially increase reserve ammounts held in banks.

More banks would help further stimulate the economy around this coin.

By slightly increasing the number of bank nodes at this level, it would also increase the likelyhood of users actually getting approved for loans.

[antonio8]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Well, the dev said a masternode will generate around 2250 bcr a day.  

So let's do the math.  If the coin trades around 10k satoshi (which I fully expect if the dev pulls through), the dev would make .225 btc a day from fee generation alone.  

That's 1.575 btc/week at this level (around $400), and that's the bare minimum the node can generate.

Let's say 3 months from now, the coin is trading at 100k satoshi due to a robust feature set, diverse community, and the presence of market makers.  That would pay the developer $4000 a week (once again, at the minimum).  

If the funds in escrow are not burned, I think they would be a great tool to attract VC investors and hire additional developer talent.

I like this solution because it gives the developer the ability to "give himself a raise".

Just curious,

So are you saying now to have the dev get a free MN (I have no problem with that) plus keep all the coins for the IPO now.

EDIT: I might be getting lost between the Bank Nodes and Master Nodes.

[dbt1033]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Well, the dev said a masternode will generate around 2250 bcr a day.  

So let's do the math.  If the coin trades around 10k satoshi (which I fully expect if the dev pulls through), the dev would make .225 btc a day from fee generation alone.  

That's 1.575 btc/week at this level (around $400), and that's the bare minimum the node can generate.

Let's say 3 months from now, the coin is trading at 100k satoshi due to a robust feature set, diverse community, and the presence of market makers.  That would pay the developer $4000 a week (once again, at the minimum).  

If the funds in escrow are not burned, I think they would be a great tool to attract VC investors and hire additional developer talent.

I like this solution because it gives the developer the ability to "give himself a raise".

Just curious,

So are you saying now to have the dev get a free MN (I have no problem with that) plus keep all the coins for the IPO now.

I think the funds should remain in escrow with a trusted third party if they are not burned.

There is always two sides to a coin.  

I can see the benefits of burning as well as the benefits of not.

I am merely generating ideas for the community to ponder.



And to address your edit, It is my understanding the the masternodes on this network will be banknodes.

[bitcreditscc]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Well, the dev said a masternode will generate around 2250 bcr a day.  

So let's do the math.  If the coin trades around 10k satoshi (which I fully expect if the dev pulls through), the dev would make .225 btc a day from fee generation alone.  

That's 1.575 btc/week at this level (around $400), and that's the bare minimum the node can generate.

Let's say 3 months from now, the coin is trading at 100k satoshi due to a robust feature set, diverse community, and the presence of market makers.  That would pay the developer $4000 a week (once again, at the minimum).  

If the funds in escrow are not burned, I think they would be a great tool to attract VC investors and hire additional developer talent.

I like this solution because it gives the developer the ability to "give himself a raise".

Interesting math, i'd like to work and make it a reality. Even now, i can see we are holding at 1900 sats, a 3 BTC push would alter the landscape drastically...

Tell you what guys, we are already on track to have a democratic voting system, i think that is the best way to decide how to handle this without seeming to continue to make arbitrary decisions. It's important for the community as a whole to be engaged in such sensitive topics, it creates a sense of involvement and trust in our systems.

I'd love VC funding, but i also dislike what they do when they get involved. I like autonomy, i decide my targets and work my own way to reach them. When someone invests a lot of money they like to see results on THEIR tie table, which at times..most times is different from the project leaders. i'm not saying investors are not entitled to a say.... but i'd love it if a VC that invests, chose to do so by buying coins, then they can use our voting system to propose things. It connects them to the community while also maintaining the transparency i have been trying to have.

[bitcreditscc]

They should really be burned.  

I would suggest to the community that the dev be given a free masternode from the funds in escrow before the burn takes place.

This would secure the funds given as part of the node for a specific period of time (incentivising ongoing development) and provide the dev with a daily stream of coins through fees.  If the developer can increase the value of the coin through his work, then his salary would increase proportionally this way.

that depends on whether that will be enough to incentivize him and pay for whatever he pays for. This project has had my eye from the start and it's nice to see he is around and working.

I'd say do the ICO, it was planned to be delayed anyway. Sell 3 million in an ICO, it may help get more Master Nodes since they are so steep.

Burn 1.5 million then give the dev 1.5 million. He can put a million into master nodes and have 500K to help with development.

Well, the dev said a masternode will generate around 2250 bcr a day.  

So let's do the math.  If the coin trades around 10k satoshi (which I fully expect if the dev pulls through), the dev would make .225 btc a day from fee generation alone.  

That's 1.575 btc/week at this level (around $400), and that's the bare minimum the node can generate.

Let's say 3 months from now, the coin is trading at 100k satoshi due to a robust feature set, diverse community, and the presence of market makers.  That would pay the developer $4000 a week (once again, at the minimum).  

If the funds in escrow are not burned, I think they would be a great tool to attract VC investors and hire additional developer talent.

I like this solution because it gives the developer the ability to "give himself a raise".

Just curious,

So are you saying now to have the dev get a free MN (I have no problem with that) plus keep all the coins for the IPO now.

EDIT: I might be getting lost between the Bank Nodes and Master Nodes.

I actually like the coins where they are right now. If i need a huge influx say a million, i'd tell the community first, lay out the issues and we'd discuss it, if we agree, then the mill would be released and each transaction would be recorded and made extremely transparent. Hopefully this would encourage more users to engage in our processes since they will realize that we are an open society, not just open source code.

[bitcreditscc]

Quick note....has anyone noticed how the other "bitcredit" has multiple members with negative trust ratings?

Please, avoid that wallet. if you feel so inclined to try it..use a vm.

I'm doing my best to warn people so that when things go upside down there we will not have whiners coming here.

[dbt1033]

Current Market Cap of Coins in Circulation

13,195,486 total coins - 6,000,000 held in escrow = 7,195,486 coins in circulation

7,195,486 coins in circulation x 0.00001900 btc/coin (last traded price) = 136.71 btc market cap.

At current btc price levels ($248), the current market cap would be around $33,904.

Guys this is the bargain of the century.

[roadbits]

Any block explorer available?

[bytezero]

Any block explorer available?

http://bitexp.net/explorer.php?coin=Bitcredits

[roadbits]

Any block explorer available?

http://bitexp.net/explorer.php?coin=Bitcredits

Thanks for your reply!

[roadbits]

Current Market Cap of Coins in Circulation

13,195,486 total coins - 6,000,000 held in escrow = 7,195,486 coins in circulation

7,195,486 coins in circulation x 0.00001900 btc/coin (last traded price) = 136.71 btc market cap.

At current btc price levels ($248), the current market cap would be around $33,904.

Guys this is the bargain of the century.

+1 Still massively undervalued

[tokyoghetto]

dev should IPO some bank nodes below market value, or lower the amount required. Even spreadcoin only requires 15,000 coins (this is if all the coins are in circulation and you want to be one of the 1440 masternodes)

250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.

[Jesse Livermore]

dev should IPO some bank nodes below market value, or lower the amount required. Even spreadcoin only requires 15,000 coins (this is if all the coins are in circulation and you want to be one of the 1440 masternodes)

250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.

IPO would only serve to bring market price immediately down to IPO price, IMO.
And I like masternode requirement that high actually. I don't think you want hundreds or thousands of banknodes at this early stage. And lack of liquidity is only here now at this price point because many here onboard since masternode announcement are refusing to part way with coins so cheaply.
Liquidity will increase when price correctly reflects the 'true' market value.
JL