Topic: [ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure - page 361. (Read 1103311 times)
October 30, 2014, 11:05:37 AM
So you said at the beginning you have a part of the xbridge as code... How about publishing that on github?
October 30, 2014, 11:02:12 AM
I posted this questions a a few hours ago however never got an answer.
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
Just give it some time. I think it was about 6 hours before I received my first staking. I think normally its between 4-8 hours.
Thank you, will be checking again in a few hours again.
October 30, 2014, 10:57:55 AM
I'm confused 
I bought some BLOCK from the ICO on Bittrex yesterday and I was under the impression that there are still days to go before trading is live. Yet I just found out that the coin is being traded on Allcoin ?? It's even below ICO price atm How is that even possible?
https://www.allcoin.com/trade/BLOCK_BTC
Is this the same coin? If so can someone explain what's going on? Thanks.
I bought some BLOCK from the ICO on Bittrex yesterday and I was under the impression that there are still days to go before trading is live. Yet I just found out that the coin is being traded on Allcoin ?? It's even below ICO price atm How is that even possible? https://www.allcoin.com/trade/BLOCK_BTC
Is this the same coin? If so can someone explain what's going on? Thanks.
October 30, 2014, 10:50:31 AM
I posted this questions a a few hours ago however never got an answer.
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
Just give it some time. I think it was about 6 hours before I received my first staking. I think normally its between 4-8 hours.
October 30, 2014, 10:46:25 AM
Virus guard went off in Blocknets wallet. This wallet is by Dan correct?
October 30, 2014, 10:44:14 AM
I posted this question a a few hours ago however never got an answer.
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
''Synechist I have a question regarding staking in block wallet:
In my wallet it says ''Not staking because you don't have mature coins''. It's been less than hour I transferred my coins over, how many confirmations is needed for a coin to mature? Thanks''
October 30, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
.
People had to dump their participant coins because they found themselves with a lot of coins not being able to buy shit from coingate.
Or they bought coins in order to get the 10% discount and then they had to sell them at lower prices. Just crap.
People had to dump their participant coins because they found themselves with a lot of coins not being able to buy shit from coingate.
Or they bought coins in order to get the 10% discount and then they had to sell them at lower prices. Just crap.
People need to think for themselves sometimes. It was clearly stated what percent was going for ITO, thus if you bought coins and did not get in line for the release and failed to secure coins, that is not the fault of the ITO. Also, if you then "dumped" for a loss, that is poor trading technique. I do see your point however, you make valid claims, but seriously don't blame others for your inability to process information. We are all getting a little annoyed with the constant complaining about what is not right and not hearing enough of what IS right with the project. Otherwise, why even bother being involved?
October 30, 2014, 10:33:43 AM
[snip]
Is there something wrong with the wallet?
No?
Then it's a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether it's a fork of another coin or not because it works and therefore meets the criteria of the ITO. Its only purpose is to allow holders of BLOCK to store their tokens while the technology is developed to exchange them for NHZ assets which is the ultimate intention of the tokens.
It's not a non-issue because it shows lack of serious effort from development team, not to put single feature they are advertising in that wallet, rather they decided to release the simple clone. You have a responsibility to the community, that's what I was trying to explain. It's not the issue if you will walk away with 1M US$ of other people money and achieve nothing, problem is your failure will make every other attempt of funding the development this way much, much harder. You are not alone on this world, and your potential failure will have serious consequences. Show me on thing that was done about this project that required some effort, pretty graphics doesn't count. That's why the cloning wallet is an issue, even if it is working as it should.
I get your perspective.
On the other hand, I do not think we'd significantly lower the risk of failure by putting out a whitepaper.
Why? Because describing how you'd do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Projects can fail for multiple reasons, including unexpected oversights in the whitepaper. In fact, it may turn out that whitepapers can lead to overconfidence in a technical proposal. So, to summarise, I don't think we'd lower the risk with a whitepaper. Better to do what we've done and go with a track record (the Xnode protocol).
In any case, what's done is done. People seem to think the Blocknet is a great idea, and there's no changing the plan now.
Glad you see that I don't want you guys to fail, on the contrary. Problem is I've seen ambitious projects this size, even much better planed, failed before. Take a look at the BitMessage for instance, serious funding and serious efforts wasted only to conclude it is not doable, as many people claimed after seeing their whitepaper. You are underestimating this community ability to judge a project for it's documentation, there are many people who could easily see if Blocknet will succeed or not if some documentation about it is released. Lack of any specification/whitepaper speaks volumes for itself.
October 30, 2014, 10:28:39 AM
Good news: Bter has now disabled selling on the BLOCK:BTC pairing.
How is this good news? I want to be able to set a sell order if I want to.
Trading can be done after the ITO is over, also if you want to sell you need to sell under the ITO which won't give you profit anyway
October 30, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
We're pretty excited about this. When the Blocknet launches it will benefit both the participating coins and all of crypto.
HI I realize this has probably been asked a few times but how does it benefit the other coins?
It benefits Blocknet-enabled coins directly.
It benefits crypto in general by:
- making it hard for scams to compete, since they won't be part of the Blocknet
- providing an open framework for cryptocurrencies to deliver services
- other coins coming onto the Blocknet
October 30, 2014, 10:22:06 AM
So the project needs 850 BTC to get all the features developed
It would be wise to leave all the remaining BTC to be held in escrow by the exchanges. These extra funds should be released only if the project would need more funding then the initial 850 BTC. If these funds are not needed exchanges might use em to support the price by putting up buywalls later. This will not allow the price to drop below ICO (who in the right mind would sell coins cheaper if there's a guarantee he/she will be able to sell em for ICO price)
Not to mention extra funds held in escrow would be an additional guarantee that dev is around and not abandoning the project
It would be wise to leave all the remaining BTC to be held in escrow by the exchanges. These extra funds should be released only if the project would need more funding then the initial 850 BTC. If these funds are not needed exchanges might use em to support the price by putting up buywalls later. This will not allow the price to drop below ICO (who in the right mind would sell coins cheaper if there's a guarantee he/she will be able to sell em for ICO price)
Not to mention extra funds held in escrow would be an additional guarantee that dev is around and not abandoning the project
The entire amount, not just extra funds, will be escrowed and transparently spent.
Check out the document on the OP. Click on the contents page, download it, and go to the "Accountability measures" section.
I've red about it, but it isn't clear what person will be holding the funds? The entire dev team?
I would trust bittrex to hold the funds in escrow
Yes, we definitely won't leave the funds at Bittrex.
We'll announce the details of whatever escrow plan we go for asap.
The community will of course have opportunity to comment on our plan here, and maybe even improve on it.
why not let bittrex hodl the funds? These guys are the most trusted people in entire crypto scene
Personally I'd be happy with a multisig escrow deal with them. But as far as I know they don't do that. (I haven't been the person liaising with them directly though.)
October 30, 2014, 10:21:11 AM
We're pretty excited about this. When the Blocknet launches it will benefit both the participating coins and all of crypto.
[/quote]
HI I realize this has probably been asked a few times but how does it benefit the other coins?
October 30, 2014, 10:10:18 AM
It's not a non-issue because it shows lack of serious effort from development team, not to put single feature they are advertising in that wallet, rather they decided to release the simple clone. You have a responsibility to the community, that's what I was trying to explain. It's not the issue if you will walk away with 1M US$ of other people's money and achieve nothing, problem is your failure will make every other attempt of funding the development this way much, much harder. You are not alone on this world, and your potential failure will have serious consequences. Show me on thing that was done about this project that required some effort, pretty graphics doesn't count. That's why the cloning the wallet is an issue, even if it is working as it should.
To this I say:
I personally would not want the dev team to be wasting their time making a better BlockNet wallet. As others have said, BLOCKS are just representative of a stake in the total BlockNet assets. I would rather have them spend time focusing on the XBridge which is how BlockNet tokens are actually going to be useful.
It seems that perhaps you don't understand this project itod. Did you read all of the information?
This is an ITO to collect funds for development of the BLOCKnet. This was all laid out in the documentation available to you.
The code for the XBridge protocol is already underway and, last I heard, the team is considering opening up part of the half-completed source code before the ITO is over.
October 30, 2014, 10:09:23 AM
[snip]
Is there something wrong with the wallet?
No?
Then it's a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether it's a fork of another coin or not because it works and therefore meets the criteria of the ITO. Its only purpose is to allow holders of BLOCK to store their tokens while the technology is developed to exchange them for NHZ assets which is the ultimate intention of the tokens.
It's not a non-issue because it shows lack of serious effort from development team, not to put single feature they are advertising in that wallet, rather they decided to release the simple clone. You have a responsibility to the community, that's what I was trying to explain. It's not the issue if you will walk away with 1M US$ of other people money and achieve nothing, problem is your failure will make every other attempt of funding the development this way much, much harder. You are not alone on this world, and your potential failure will have serious consequences. Show me on thing that was done about this project that required some effort, pretty graphics doesn't count. That's why the cloning wallet is an issue, even if it is working as it should.
I get your perspective.
On the other hand, I do not think we'd significantly lower the risk of failure by putting out a whitepaper.
Why? Because describing how you'd do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Projects can fail for multiple reasons, including unexpected oversights in the whitepaper. In fact, it may turn out that whitepapers can lead to overconfidence in a technical proposal. So, to summarise, I don't think we'd lower the risk with a whitepaper. Better to do what we've done and go with a track record (the Xnode protocol).
In any case, what's done is done. People seem to think the Blocknet is a great idea, and there's no changing the plan now.
October 30, 2014, 10:01:17 AM
[snip]
Is there something wrong with the wallet?
No?
Then it's a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether it's a fork of another coin or not because it works and therefore meets the criteria of the ITO. Its only purpose is to allow holders of BLOCK to store their tokens while the technology is developed to exchange them for NHZ assets which is the ultimate intention of the tokens.
It's not a non-issue because it shows lack of serious effort from development team, not to put single feature they are advertising in that wallet, rather they decided to release the simple clone. You have a responsibility to the community, that's what I was trying to explain. It's not the issue if you will walk away with 1M US$ of other people's money and achieve nothing, problem is your failure will make every other attempt of funding the development this way much, much harder. You are not alone on this world, and your potential failure will have serious consequences. Show me on thing that was done about this project that required some effort, pretty graphics doesn't count. That's why the cloning the wallet is an issue, even if it is working as it should.
October 30, 2014, 09:55:02 AM
I personally would not want the dev team to be wasting their time making a better BlockNet wallet. As others have said, BLOCKS are just representative of a stake in the total BlockNet assets. I would rather have them spend time focusing on the XBridge which is how BlockNet tokens are actually going to be useful.
October 30, 2014, 09:54:01 AM
Good news: Bter has now disabled selling on the BLOCK:BTC pairing.
How is this good news? I want to be able to set a sell order if I want to.
It's good news because this is an ITO.
That is, this is the period in which we distribute funds.
It is not the period in which you sell BLOCK.
You can sell after the ITO is done.
October 30, 2014, 09:52:45 AM
[snip]
Is there something wrong with the wallet?
No?
Then it's a non-issue.
It doesn't matter whether it's a fork of another coin or not because it works and therefore meets the criteria of the ITO. Its only purpose is to allow holders of BLOCK to store their tokens while the technology is developed to exchange them for NHZ assets which is the ultimate intention of the tokens.
October 30, 2014, 09:50:45 AM
Good news: Bter has now disabled selling on the BLOCK:BTC pairing.
How is this good news? I want to be able to set a sell order if I want to.
October 30, 2014, 09:42:03 AM
This is just another clone of SC wallet,nothing new.
The wallet is indeed just a fork of some other coin. But that is irrelevant because the wallet only serves as a place to store the BLOCKs while the tech is being developed to exchange them for NHZ assets.
How is this irrelevant when the wallet is almost the only criteria if the ITO is successful or not. See:
Quote from: Bittrex
* Once the ICO is over we will verify there is working wallet, blockchain, and block explorer.
Block explorer is even easier to clone than a wallet, so this simple task of cloning some other wallet is what allows the funds of 0.3-1 million US$ to be spent or not. At least be honest about that it is relevant, when the dev team haven't troubled themselves to write the whitepaper what they want to develop. Pretty graphics with some marketing mambo-jumbo is far from optimal development starting point.
The wallet is *not* a criterion for the ITO's success.
How does an interim wallet have any bearing on the Blocknet's tech? It doesn't.
If you don't like what we offer, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. We've been very clear what we have and what we don't yet have.
How the wallet is not a criterion, when the only three things Bitttrex wants done to release all BTC to developers after the ITO are:
1) wallet,
2) blockchain,
3) block explorer?
They explicitly stated Bittrex will not check anything else before they send BTC to you. What are you talking about? It's easy to say "if you don't like it don't buy it", but that's not the answer. Everything you do with this ITO will reflect on the community, so when somebody in the future want's to do something similar, but to do everything right, people will always point to eventual failure/success of this project. That's the reason we try to reason with you guys not to do this without proper software specification or whitepaper, it should be bad for future projects if you fail spectacularly, and the way you are doing things you are on the path to do exactly that.
Jump to: