Topic: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework - page 15. (Read 32317 times)

if you go through the Whitepaper of the plan, you will see that there’s a system to ensure stability, no matter what market does. It'sreally good designed system and makes a lot of sense.

We're still working on v0.9.8 - the code is available to see and we certainly appreciate all feedback and comments. But not to worry, when it is ready, we will make the announcement and have binaries (wallets) for Windows, MacOS, Ubuntu & Raspbian.

According to the map i see you have beta application ready.Is it possible to try it out?

Tiresome, but necessary to refute


The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less.  The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS, our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support.   So Yes, Fact #1)  MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
 Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?

    Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion, it's painful to watch....  Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on.  Fact #2) The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered.  So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved.   Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
    In fact,  @onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!   it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)

 Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? .... \

    but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.

So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered again for good reason.  

  Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic, algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times.  And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.


 Oh and a few more things ...

"Steal from people",  Andrew ?  You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".  

With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.  This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
 And we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks.  We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
 We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners  and merge-miners,
But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach!  All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given !  Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters)  LOL    
   "Unlikely", I hear you say ?       Right, and it doesn't matter.... that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much,  and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
 I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain:  what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus.  This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.

My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.



 What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights.  Elementary, AK.

Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.

And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. That's quite a reach.

Let me clear up some loose ends first

@Matiel
The discussion between psycodad and dbkeys about selfish miners is just a side topic, and I don't disagree with any of that. There truly were selfish miners present before the June fork, which fixed that. I would give psycodad merit for his comment, but I would have to confirm for myself the 30-40% number, as I don't give merit without fully confirming the claim. Not sure why dbkeys gave psycodad merit (maybe to bribe him?), but it doesn't really matter. The merit system is a bit flawed because people can just say "I will merit you if you merit me". That's why we need a more robust reputation system.

@dbkeys says:

He keeps editing this post, hard to keep up...
A & B) Work should be rewarded according to effort. Yes it is actually rewarded according to effort. If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine. I already explained all of this more completely in my posts about merge mining economics on page 11. And no, I am not a communist. In fact I would consider myself the opposite of a communist. And the point still remains that reducing merge mining rewards does not need a change to the overall emission rate.
C) 1) I already explained why you can't just change the emission rate, but let me explain it in a different way. Say you are renting something to someone and they agree to pay you $100 every month for next 3 years. After 6 months they come to you and say "actually I will now pay you $20" every month for for the next 2.5 x 5 = 12.5 years. You will still get the same amount in the end, so why not? It will help you to stay disciplined and not blow your money all at once on booze and hookers!" I don't know about you, but I would say "Sorry buddy but we agreed to $100 a month for 3 years, changing it to $20 for the next 12.5 years is a violation of our agreement. Pay up according to the agreement or I will blacklist you and never do business with you again". So think of yourself as the miners or new users and think of that guy who wants to now pay $20 as the early investors. That is what is happening in his fork. And when dbkeys asks me "what miner reduction do you want?", what he is asking me is how much am I willing to steal from people? The answer is none. I want us (the protocol) to pay as agreed. Also, there is a reason why banks charge interest. The value of money received in the future is LESS than the value of money received now. So actually the claim that the total sum of emission is constant is wrong.
2) is just a variant of 1, already explained above.
3) I explained in my last post
Yes Satoshi came up with the emission rate but whatever he came up with, people stuck with. Each coin may have a different emission rate and different schedule that changes the emission rate after certain intervals, but the schedule needs to remain as originally agreed or it is clear there is central manipulation happening. I never said there is only "one true emission rate" as dbkeys keeps saying.

The picture is clear. Bitmark was created in mid 2014. The original developer left after 6 months. It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository. During the 2014-2016 "low hanging fruit" season of Bitmark, dbkeys mined a large number of coins (maybe 1 million?). He even told me himself that he was the only one mining at some point. Then in 2016, the selfish miners came and made mining really hard for him. They also made it hard for users to use Bitmark (Poloniex put the wallet in maintenance mode). He then came up with a plan to fix that. He hired me in 2017 and I developed the changes needed together with other security improvements (2017-2018). At this point he was strongly invested in Bitmark (mining rewards, purchases on exchanges, payments for marketing/development). When the fork happens in June 2018, he makes an important realization: By design, a decentralized system makes it very hard for 1 person to get very rich by investing in it (how surpising!). His goal is to make a profit. Cryptocurrency and decentralized reputation is "cool" for him, but his priority is to make a profit, and he doesn't want to lose all that he invested. At this point he also has gained control of the code repository and is an official contact for exchanges. Instead of being grateful that he has a significant early mover advantage in a currency that has great potential (especially with my improvements), he decides to promote his "fork" with the most deceptive marketing tactics possible. He purposely lies about the purpose and effects of the fork. He misquotes me. He uses sophisticated language to appear of high social status and unlikely to be a scammer (he toned that down a bit now). He preys on uninformed people to gather support, bans me from slack...I gave him many chances to explain himself (privately and publicly) but the picture is clear and I can back everything up with evidence. There is also that link I posted of that guy talking about how Melvin Carvalho is scamming people, and that guy has plenty of merit on this forum.

So @dbkeys, do you want to continue doubling down or admit to your mistakes and make it easier for you? While I think non-violent scams should be legal and fall under free speech, real-world law enforcement may think otherwise. Remember what happened to the pyramid scheme scammer pirateat40? You know exactly what you are doing. You have intent. No I will not take legal action, as I think the legal system is corrupt itself. But others may, and how can people do business with you after that? It's a total loss of reputation for you.

His sidekicks 82ndabnmedic and Melvin Carvalho should also show their faces. I don't see any possible way how these people could be approved as official contacts for exchanges trading in Bitmark. The original vision of Bitmark was clearly laid out in the original announcement thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitmark-660544

These people clearly don't follow that vision and the original developer is not present. They want to hijack the protocol for their own pyramid scheme. So who has authority of Bitmark for the purpose of providing updated code to exchanges?

More FUD @onelineproof, proving nothing, just opinion & a lot of unfounded accusations. Tired of this. Andrew K, oh defender of the one true emission rate !  You won't be a team player, so why don' t ya... focus on your Fork or sidechain or whatever you want to call it, and prove that your strategies and policies are so  much better, secure, uncorrupted, honest, glorious, blah blah blah.  All the best.

@dkeys says:

Fees go to miners. To mine costs energy. No cheating the system this way. With stake you cheat the system as you can keep throwing your stake around and the vote will just favour the rich investors, not those who actually use the system (i.e. make transactions).

@dbkeys says:

Melvin is the owner of the github repository. These questions need to be answered. How did he become the owner? What is he working on? Why can't he come here to explain himself?

@dbkeys says:

I like this new excuse. Native miners will remain with the same reward, not really happier. Merge miners less happy since a 5 times decrease in their reward does not translate to a 5 x increase in price. Yes old investors may be happy, but not the new ones. The new investors and users will have to buy at an inflated price because the old ones wanted to change the rules for their advantage. What it does is effectively create a pre-mine for the old investors and miners, since before the fork there was a much higher (5 times higher) reward per unit peak hashrate, and then after the fork it suddenly drops. That's how an instamine / premine works. And of course the 5 times drop is just for merge miners, but most miners will still be merge miners, so it's still a close to 5 times drop. My other explanations on the subject of modifying the emission rate still stand as well, and I encourage others (except for dbkeys) to ask me for clarification.

So if you want a blockchain where a certain group of investors is placed ahead of users, then why would users want to use Bitmark instead of a blockchain that strictly adheres to the interest of users? What gives Bitmark value? Maybe you can get some gamblers buying, or people just relying on the network effect of Bitmark, since it is already established for a few years. But that won't last long. Or maybe people will buy because they will have faith in king dbkeys (and perhaps new followers) to steer their investments to the moon as he has steered the investments of the old investors. Remind you of a pyramid scheme?

Adhering to the emission rate is not a hard thing to do. It doesn't require the stars of the galaxy to align. Bitcoin has done it, Litecoin has done it, Namecoin (merge mined) has done it, all during their lifetimes, which are longer than that of Bitmark. So not adhering to it shows that Bitmark is not the cream of the crop, and rather far from it. I think the stars are quite well aligned for Bitmark. The protocol until now (to my best knowledge) is completely honest. With the June fork, the protocol is very secure against many attacks (even more secure than Bitcoin I would say). Distribution is not that bad (Bitcoin had 1 million coins mined by Satoshi). The community is quite organically grown and leaderless, and last but not least: marking - a powerful new idea that can be very valueable (at the same level as Bitcoin). But with dbkeys' fork, this could all be ruined.

If exchanges (like Poloniex) accept the addition of the centralization elements dbkeys' fork adds, then they must also establish who is the centralized group that controls these elements, and why do they get to control it and be listed on their exchange. After the original owner Mark Pfennig (Nathan Rixham) disappeared, I do not know the exact history of events, but it seems Melvin Carvalho (of questionable credibility) took control of the code repository (somehow) and then passed on ownership rights to dbkeys (so they both have ownership rights). 82ndabnmedic also has some leadership involvement as he was able to ban me on the projectbitmark slack channel, and I think he is an official contact for exchanges as well. So what gives these people the right to control what version of Bitmark will be running on exchanges? 82ndabnmedic said there was some kind of vote, which I've never seen, and then that warrants some evidence that the vote actually happened, what security measures were put in place (possibility of ballot stuffing?), who voted, how many people, what gives them the right to vote on this...There are many questions and they really need to be clarified.

An original idea. The project aroused interest. I will follow the development of the project. Plus that the passport of this kind is more truthful and it can not be faked.

@1LineProof:
Why are you so concerned with Melvin ?  Let him do his work.

I have been focused for a long time on ensuring the fundamentals of the Bitmark blockchain, that its dynamics and functioning are solid platforms on which to build Marking. (Long before we employed you; before you knew about Bitmark.)
I think we are close to this goal, finally (yes, thanks in some part to your coding skill & effort).  

Once that is done,  then it will be time to move on to the actual marking and reputation systems, and interact more actively with Melvin and others in that area.

OK, so maybe there could be a bi-cameral system whereby users could vote with fees and stakeholder with signed messages.
But, I think voting with fees could be gamed by stakeholders bouncing coins around to themselves anyway, so in my mind at least, it's back to stakeholders. If you have "skin in the game" you hold coins, you have stake, then your vote should be proportional to that stake. Simple.

Alright, so you still want to characterize rewarding merge-miners honestly as a "scam". You and I clearly have different definitions of this word. Fine. Then just fork already. Go in Peace.

I never said native mining is a scam. I recommended to let users vote with fees (not stake) to determine the ratio. So please try to be more accurate as anyone can verify your errors.

And now rationalizing your scam as "real-world"...Ya I know in the real world idiots get fooled by scammers and scammers make money. Doesn't mean I will support it, especially when it interferes with my vision, which I believe others would like as well.

There is still the questionable nature of Melvin Carvalho. According to the claim in my link, he is just auto importing commits from other repos to make it look like he is actually active on Github? I did notice that there was a lot of commits that don't make sense together, and a lot of the things he writes on slack don't make sense as well. And this is the "lead developer" and official contact for the project?

This was discussed as an idea once , as many things are, promptly nixed by Melvin and never brought up again. As were other things you keep trying to mischaracterize. I've said Proof of Stake has interesting aspects, but can be implemented many different ways. I have not advocated for Bitmark to implement any particular form of Proof of Stake. I have only said that voting, and weighting votes according to stake held, to decide different issues, might be an interesting feature. You said you would code up a system to allow the kind of voting, which you proposed for the dynamic ratio of merged:native. Still waiting.

And again with the name calling and insinuations of fraud and crime. If you were willing to :
then, in your definition of things, you are willing to accept a mix of "uncorrupted" and "scam" mining ?  How odd. So stop pretending to be oh so very honest and better than anyone.

I told you many times that if you didn't agree with reducing merge-miners rewards as much, we should engage in a dialog and come up with a reasonable compromise number. But oh,  rejoice, believers of the one true emission rate and its defender, (PBUH !), he would have none of it !  
  LOL  

 AK, of course you must follow your conscience and principles, I do commend you for that. So you've issued your dire, paranoid, pious warnings, you've done what you could.
Now,  if you can't compromise, just fork already, announce your new ANN thread, follow your beliefs and take your faithful to the promised land, of perfect incorruptibility,  and let those of us who live in the real world and have to make decisions and balance issues do our work.   I believe you'll learn a few lessons soon enough.

But, if by chance instead, you were to accept the premise that  a reduced emission rate is not sinful per se, and and may happen for good reason, such as:
A)  Work should be rewarded according to effort
       [and *not* according to "need", a là communist style, or what was written in some holy book long ago, a là religious dogma style] and
B) Merged mined blocks require orders of magnitude less effort than native-mined blocks to produce  

     and that
C)  A reduced emission rate may even have positive side effects
      (and no, I don't mean an easy exit for some theoretical investors you keep being paranoid about),   such as:
       1)  Mining viability much longer into the future
       2)  Part of the emission still available to mine, should new & more democratic mining algos be developed in the future
       3)  Possible a rise in MARKS/BTC rate, which should make for happier native-miners, even happier merge-miners and  investors and holders of the coin. ¿ What could possibly be wrong with that ?  
           (Yes, yes I know, the central bankers, the bitcoin people would never reduce their reward (but they don't have merge-mining by the way) blah blah blah.    Did you ever stop to think that the bitcoin protocol was thought of, and developed, in one central point ? Heresy ! Oh yes, it was !! the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto, yes, one central point: that one brilliant mind, whoever he / she / they are.)  

   It's not like there are too few coins out there, already emitted. With nearly 10 million MARKS emitted ( Thats nearly a BILLION Bitmark "satoshis"   [should we call them "markoshis" ?] emitted ) There are plenty to use for all sorts of Marking and Reputation uses already.

 So what do you say, ¿ can we reach a compromise mergeReduction percentage figure you can live with ? (currently Jarr0s' code maps full CEM value for merge-mined rewards to the range 10%-20%)    
     I realize that merge-mined blocks have security value far above their producer's production cost, and that's why I to agree to reward them at what I consider a very healthy 10% to 20%, far above their real production cost, instead of the basis-points ranges ...      

 The only other blockchain basics that I think Bitmark needs is to remove AuxPow from 2 algos, add a third native-only (for a total of 6 merge-mineable, 3 native-only)  and then.... we can finally be done with the blockchain mechanics / blockchain dynamics part and move on to the Marking / Reputation aspects of the project, which I believe you will agree, are much more interesting.



Kindest Regards !

dbKeys

Is anyone actually starving to death or are your children starving because of the Bitmark price? Send me a receipt for food purchased and your Bitmark address and I'll reimburse you. It is in my interest to have bitmarkers alive and healthy and I hope others can pitch in because I may not be able to feed everyone.

But I definitely have no sympathy for those who are worried that their purchase of Apple computers, Google self driving cars, or other such centralized malware is delayed. I am a user and investor of Bitmark and it is my full right to protest the reduction of security and corruption being placed on the blockchain I use.

Working with dbkeys was fine until around the time of the June fork, where he started telling me he wants to make the Bitmark protocol send a certain percentage of miner rewards into a hardcoded developer fund controlled by the "official team". I told him straight up then that I will continue to work on Bitmark (even for free whenever I have time), but if it includes centralized elements like that, I will promptly create my own fork that continues the current smoothly functioning and uncorrupted protocol.

I have worked with other clients who wanted premined coins, and I had no problem doing it for them as it was a good way to learn the Bitcoin code while making some money to cover my cost of living. I didn't say anything bad about them because it is clear what they are (premined ICO type coins), and I have no investment or interest in them.

I actually had a lot of hope for Bitmark and that's why I am trying my best to wake up whoever is left in the community. Of course I have to call dbkeys' fork a scam because that is how I see it, and I want potential investors to be well informed of the difference between my fork (the current protocol) and his (the corrupt one). And I will continue to call it a scam even after his fork is activated. As long as I am working on a decentralized reputation system, I will inform people of any other fake reputation systems that exist.

He keeps trying to paint me as obsessed with merge mining, while it's not true. As I said, I was always willing to accept a mix of native and merge mining. I talked about the economics and opportunity cost involved in merge mining as well (page 11). Then he asks me questions which I am very sure he knows the answer to and is just acting to not know as I have explained these things to him an enormous number of times, so I will only answer them if someone else echoes these questions. He is also mixing selfish mining with timestamp attacks, and timestamp attacks have been well taken care of already. (not to mention Harding is Bitcoin Cash/ Bcash proponent)

This kind of dishonesty presented by dbkeys makes me want to look deeper into the history of Bitmark and do a full audit of the modifications to Bitcoin that Mark Pfennig did. I did find a bug with signatures earlier, but it turned out to not be that significant and not relevant in a post-quantum-cryptography world. One question that should be answered is: How did Melvin Carvalho become the administrator of the project-bitmark github repository after Mark Pfennig disappeared?

Edit: Here are some interesting claims about Melvin Carvalho: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18731714. Needs confirmation.

Hello to everyone! A question to you: are you going to use token sale platform provided by TokenGet which is one of the most advanced ICO platform in the world???

In short: 9509391.96671310 (MARKS)
 

For a more detailed answer ....  

It is easy to determine how many Bitmarks have been mined to date; this is the "money supply" figure given by the "getinfo" (or "gi" command) :


"moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310
so the answer is, a little bit over 9.5 million MARKS       (9509391.96671310  MARKS, to be exact)    
That is the total number of Bitmarks in existence at the moment.

Every day, no more than about 720 * 15 = 10800 MARKS are added to this number.  Usually less, because CEM v0.1 is already on the job, modulating the block reward down for algorithms where the hashrate is not at peak.

There never was an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) for Bitmark. It has always been generated by mining exclusively.

The exchanges that trade Bitmark (Poloniex.com, Cryptopia.co.nz, qTrade.io and TradeSatoshi.com among other) may have all-time volume figures on Bitmarks traded inside their platforms, but these numbers would only indicate how many Bitmarks have changed hands on those exchanges... Understand that one Bitmark (or any fraction of it) may have changed ownership many, many times, so those volume figures may be quite a bit larger than the absolute number in circulation.


With the proposed enhancements in Bitmark v0.9.8.3 (Fork #2) it is almost certain that the daily emission of MARKS would be less than the present theoretical maximum of 10800 MARKS. How much less would depend on factors beyond anyone's control. How many miners kept on mining through the merge-mining enabling AuxPoW feature, whether a steady hashrate was maintained or high peaks observed, etc.

Good Project.. But How we can check that How many tokens have already been sold? Good luck guys!

 
This is good advice.