Topic: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework - page 13. (Read 32570 times)

https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/china-allows-evidence-authentication-through-blockchain/

Hi, guys!
I think this is a new but promising plan. the obstacle is the number of similar competitors of the idea, all offering great service. who's the good luck.

Great business among many! The business will achieve great victories and a lot of attention! This plan is one of the most creative and revolutionary among all other! With pleasure I'll watch out for him.

Thanks @radeba

We hope to finish the Core Update phase of our development cycle and move toward the most exciting areas of development, "Marking: A distributed reputation based ecosystem".

As usual, incompetence walks hand-in-hand with scams. What serious developer would want to work on a scam? And no I'm not using some weird definition of scam. The fork pushed by dbkeys does 2 main things:

1) Transfers wealth from new investors to old investors (total wealth depends on demand)
2) Reduces security for users

and it is advertised as an "improvement"

If this isn't a scam then what is?

The dependence of emission rate on value of Bitmark relative to other chains was never part of the protocol, and it's basically a parametrized if statement:

If wealth of current investors is x, then take 1/x wealth from new investors.

And by current investors I mainly mean the early investors. People who just bought yesterday can still benefit from fair prices tomorrow. The earlier you bought, the more benefit you get from this fork. x would have to be big (market cap of Bitcoin) for 1/x to be negligible, so once (if) dbkeys with his 1 million coins is a billionaire, then the algorithm will allow for an almost fair emission rate (though you can't reverse what is essentially a premine caused by a past unfair rate). This is precisely a pyramid scheme, marketed as a decentralized cryptocurrency.

Obviously dbkeys told his friends to buy bitmarks right before the June fork, and when the price went down they got mad, so he wants to "regain their respect" (together with his own profit). So he thinks that by lying and stealing from other people he will regain the respect of his friends? Good luck with that.

Uncorrupted bitmarks reached $0.30 last week. I predicted $1 within a year from August 2018, so actually I think that can be reached must sooner. With uncorrupted bitmarks, the destination is moon. With scam bitmarks, the destination is dbkeys' pocket, and the amount is dependent on how many fools buy in.

I had some good discussions going on about selfish/colluding mining in the Development and Technical Discussion board (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solving-selfishcolluding-mining-4998410). It is refreshing to talk to people who don't pretend to not understand what I'm saying. Though dbkeys / TeamBitmark did try to brigade it to push his agenda.

So if people want uncorrupted bitmarks, I can work on an exchange solution, but I need your support!

Another option InQuest "Deep File Inspection"

http://blog.inquest.net/blog/2018/02/12/deep-file-inspection/

The distributed storage idea and to get paid in Bitmarks for hosting the marked content is pretty attractive. It is a groundbreaking idea, like what Dash did with the masternodes, but it is pretty risky too. With no content control, Bitmark could become a network to share child pornography or something scary as that. Allowing the content to be controlled by a public community could not always avoid legal problems: In an hipotetical case where someone marks a leaked hollywood movie or some content DMCA protected, publishing it without authoritzation, then maybe the users in the comunity would like to keep accessing to the content because they like it but that would be illegal in the USA where many lawyers would take action.

From my point of view, the best way would be to keep it simple: Store the content in one server, in one legislation and managed by one entity. In one hand it would imply resources in terms of hardware and support but in the other hand that would make all the marking storage easy to acomplish with laws. The fees for marking could be higher than a normal transaction and destined to pay the server storage and support. By support I mean what could be review the content complaints and content removals.

A Bitmark association or fundation backing all the process would be nice and would provide confidence to the users.

We've added bitmark to our pool http://nlgpool.nl/pool/ as a merged mining coin ...
Feel free to join us

Those are good points.

We could look into the Firewall offerings (through the web server/services provider)

It is easy to block certain types of traffic, however files (with illegal content) gets a bit trickier.

https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/71/pan-os/pan-os/policy/create-best-practice-security-profiles

https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Management-Articles/Complete-List-of-PAN-DB-URL-Filtering-Categories/ta-p/129799

Not sure if google offers an API for this. That said it would be prudent to take a similar approach as services like reddit. Relying on the community is much more feasible, since we don't have the resources/assets for this at the moment.

The question of legality is always tied to jurisdiction. It's an interesting question, because what is legal in one place might not be legal in another. There should be a way to report questionable content, and for contributors to the storage federation to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

May be it could be a new tab intended explusively for marking, showing the available fields to fill, and when the user commits the action then it automatically do the transaction, marks the file and upload it to the bitmark storage.

A webpage having a "marked files explorer" that allows anyone to search and to check the marked files, additional data, timestamp and hashes would be very useful.

The main problem I can think on this is what happens when someone marks illegal content and it is stored on the bitmark servers or bitmark storage. There should be a way to report illegal content and a way to delete it.

Glad DBkeys posted this...We should have this update (v0.9.8.3) ready to go shortly....we will keep y'all updated, and thanks for the continued support!

Agreed, that would be a good way to implement Marking and leverage our "Bitmark Storage" solutions.  Thanks for the recommendation!  We will see if this is a feature the community would like/support, and if it is we can add it to our short term milestones list (after the completion of the code base upgrades).

I like your suggestion !

That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

Having the marking feature in the wallet would be nice. Like offering the option to select a file to be marked before you do a transaction and then, when it do the transaction, it hashes the file and stores the file hash into the blockchain.

If there were an option to set file name, file description and an optional storage of the file in the bitmark servers, allowing to publicty query the file, that would be very useful to many companies and entities.

The Bitmark project was started in July of 2014.

The key feature of our Blockchain is our focus on Marking. 

Marking is a broad term that encompasses many different uses and applications, most involving anchoring data sets on the blockchain via hashes embedded in transactions. It's a deep, fascinating topic that we can expand on to many useful areas.

We welcome your suggestions on how to improve our wallet and any others you may have too.

Many of these nodes on 0.9.8.3 will be changing to the latest stable version 0.9.7.2 ;
There was a coding error which was deemed significant enough ( Block Version Check ) to warrant postponing the fork.

"If some miner that didn't update to 0.9.8, mines a block with version 4 and sends it to the network.
Without this patch version check is done too late, and somehow network gets in temporary stall. chain active is updated, but new block isn't accepted."

My apologies for the inconvenience, but generating binaries for Windows & Mac on this short notice is not feasible.
(We will look into automating our build process down the road for greater agility....) , and so having miners  on different, incompatible versions than regular users is of course not a good option;


IMO the best option at this point is to revert to latest stable version, Release v0.9.7.2

Can you clarify the current plan (ideally before fork height is reached!) ?

Do I see this right, that at block # 518191 the people that were "tricked" into upgrading to 0.9.8.3 and did not stick with 0.9.7.x will be on their own (invalid) fork?

My node currently says that about 1/3 of bitmark network is on 0.9.8.3:

So these 24 nodes need to downgrade ASAP so that they do not fork off to an invalid chain that no exchange will recognize?