Topic: [ANN][NOTE]DNotes - Celebrating DNotes 3rd Birthday - Forum Now Open - page 230. (Read 814542 times)

Thank you kanus1113, please do try it out and let us know if you have any suggestions on making it easier.

Haven't had a chance to check out the CRISP for employee yet, but the press release is excellent. Love it.

I certainly wouldn't compare it to gov fiat.  I am not a fan of gov fiat money either, but though the ethos of DNotes seems commendable, I don't think it can successfully become a money.  Because any premined currency is in essence a fiat.  Though without the gov backing it.  (just that of a community or a company). 

That is great wheelz1200, glad to hear the sales are going well!

Officially sent out 8 genesis DNotes physical coins.  2 left before they are sold out.  Accepting DNotes for payment.  Have a great weekend all.

Wheelz1200

Is anyone interested in helping to create a general write up that can be used for CRISP Programs on the DNotesVault homepage? This can be a general description of the CRISP programs, maybe with a little about each program in no more than 2 paragraphs.

"DNotes is the only digital currency invited" - what an honor indeed!  This fact is also very telling. 

TeeGee, your post was PERFECT!!

I come from a financial background and if I had the kind of valuable information contained in this forum on each one of my investments when they were first being developed, I would be a very wealthy woman.  Maybe the key is to start reading this book backwards.

As far as DNotesVault vs Coinbase goes...  Does Coinbase have interest paying retirement accounts?  Does Coinbase allow me to set up timed send contracts to all my favourite charities over whatever time frame I want (daily, monthly, yearly) and for as long as I want?

There is probably a thousand reasons to choose DNotes, but an investor needs to do their own research beyond the bullet points.

Hi digitsu,

I thought I might spend a small sum of time addressing your comments. For one you are correct that the onus is on DNotes to provide a summary as a sticky, this is something I will work on over the following week. Over the last month I have made some rather large draft posts to later draw content from, but my uni and work commitments have left me with not as much time as I like. I have been a member of this community since ~June last year, and I have personally gained a lot by focussing my attention on this meaningful project, rather than what I was doing beforehand - philosophical / political discourse and argument on social media. The following is my personal opinion of possibilities.

Like many here have said, the information, mantra and strategic goals of DNotes have frequently been posted on this forum. The onus is on prospective investors to analyse data and get in early on pilot programs before they become mainstream. A Digital Currency in its incipient form, will struggle to maintain stability if it markets itself aggressively too early. This has been observed with many former 'top tier' cryptos' that are now long gone. I'm sure the DNotes team loves more attention and growth, but the team has prudentially flown DNotes under the radar until the ecosystem's infrastructural capability meant an intrinsic value supporting the price at the exchanges. Your questions surrounding DNotesVault versus Coinbase are valid, but again, ecosystems take time to build, and I'm sure many new features will grace DNotesVault and other DNotes owned properties in the coming months and years. You appear to be attacking pilot programs on the grounds that they are newer, and hence, not as far developed. What you miss I believe, is that competing for technology is an expensive endeavour at this stage - the technology has not 'settled' yet, and why spend millions developing technology that can 1. be superseded by many competitors and 2. does not contribute any benefit to serving the functions of money? Currently, the blockchain is the only innovation worth keeping, the rest can be developed later. This is a strategy of long-term survival.

"I don't believe any altcoin which is based solely on a philosophy or a mindshare will stand the test of time.  Money doesn't have an opinion in the market.  It just facilitates it."

Bitcoin has a mindshare of decentralisation, efficiency and escaping reckless Central Banking policy. Bitcoin appealed to philosophically consistent adherents and now that it is accepted as a transfer of value, it has gained more mainstream attention.  Money doesn't have an opinion, its users do, and whatever its users' thinks is money, becomes money. What you currently call money (fiat), is backed by government mandated violence should you use anything that they can't print more of... What I believe Dyna meant by 'competing for mindshare' - is to separate the long-term investors from the short-term speculators; to make clear that self-interest lies in mutual benefits; to attract the consumer that they want. DNotes is choosing its consumers just as much as consumers choose DNotes. Again, this is my personal insight and not representative of those of anybody who constitutes DNotes.


digitsu - "It can also be said DNotes is stable because the total traded daily volume is little more than 500 USD, an asset which is barely traded is by definition going to be stable."

Nope, daily trading volumes change frequently, an asset barely traded is NOT a definition, nor a character of being stable, this would better be described as the trading volume compared to order depth... A less well known currency will have less order depth, and generally lower trading volumes. This also means that when people come to buy or sell a meaningful stake of a small currency, it will cause significant changes. I'm sure you know this, so I'm not sure why included it in your post. You said you believe in markets, and clearly, if people want to buy, there are going to be upswings. That is another reason why DNotes talk about 'reliable appreciation' re- the earlier message about flying under the radar and not outgrowing your shoes.


"That being said, I just did a bit of research and it looks like the price of DNotes has risen in the last month from 0.00004 to 0.00005.  That is a 20% increase in less than 2w.  If this kind of move were to happen in the forex markets, I don't think the word 'stable' can be used to describe it."

It does happen in the forex markets: Euro, Ruble, Swiss Franc... in the last year... The only thing that prevents these crashes more often, is the Government makes all other tender 'illegal' that they can't print more of themselves. This will be an interesting obstacle for Digital Currencies. It is also interesting that you first say "of course DNotes is (more easily) stable with low market cap / traded volume", but then contrasted it with massive market cap forex markets to highlight 'instability'... you should know as an accountant that forex markets are only stable because the market caps are many billions, and the trading volumes in the many millions. The order books are large, and even when an actor comes along with $10 or $50 million, it doesn't make too much of a difference in exchange rate value (but hey, setting interest rates / Official Cash Rate sure does!). I therefore call to question what you actually think? Is it the markets with small daily traded volume more stable, or the large ones that you contrasted against? Its not unreasonable to presume that if any Digital Currency had the same market cap / order depth of a nation states government backed currency, there would be similar stability seen as with Government backed currencies. This shouldn't be too difficult considering a Digital Currency has the entire planet as potential users. Large market cap currencies are stable, smaller ones are not.


"Additionally, arguing that something is stable "because it has shown to be in the past" is not quantitative reason.  It is in fact the kind of reasoning that we explicitly warn readers about on mutual fund prospectuses. "Past performance should not be used as a basis for future expectation"."

Have you ever traded using technicals? what about news? (ECB and FED announcements / predictions based on economic conditions?)

"ive me once again, for I mean no personal offence, but you probably would make a much bigger difference to students if you just gave them some equivalent fractional amount of Bitcoins. (I see DNotes trading at 0.00005-6BTC today)."

Not really, such a plan would presume that the team are bullish on Bitcoin, which much of the forum content here includes the obstacles Bitcoin faces and its shortcomings. DNotes has gone up some 60 times against Bitcoin since it was first traded. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion, but the student CRISP goal is for capital appreciation and eventual transactional value for money exchange, something many in this forum are not confident Bitcoin is addressing.

"I do not mean any offence, for obviously you have some stake in this, but this is the classic definition of a ponzi scheme.  All schemes start out with "Just and Honourable Causes and Ideals to Serve the Public Good".  And even if it is categorically NOT a ponzi scheme, which I will for the time being assume, then it is at the very least nothing more than a proverbial printing press churning out valueless coupons, and handing them out (or worse) selling them, to people.  There is a fine line between ponzi/pyramid scheme and a real digital money, and that fine line is drawn on whether or not the token is mined (requiring work) or instantly created. "

Thank you for the effort you have put into your post. If it's a ponzi, it's not a very good one - there is a blockchain ledger any forensic accountant can easily look through, and the pre-mine was a well orchestrated (albeit not well received method at the time) to launch a crypto that allowed funding of its nascent ecosystem. DNotes is doing great for itself, enjoying lots of press attention, and many world firsts in this innovative industry - with CRISP plans, cryptomoms, Smokey's and other goals. At the end of the day, most people don't believe in crypto, or know about it full stop! so I'm glad you stopped by. I respectfully disagree with you on conclusions that you drew and would encourage you to read more of the forum if you are ever interested.

It looks like either the marketing wagon for CRISPS have gone ahead of the horse and started selling a product before it is even fully formed, or I misunderstood your description of how owning a (essentially worthless) digital token is going to really help students with the costs of their education, or help them in any way to learn the value of saving.

You can read more about the particulars for the CRISP for student program here: https://dnotesvault.com/crisp-for-students.php

I'm not so sure what you mean by 'essentially worthless digital token', I don't tend to agree with empty appeals to opinion/authority without substantiation that answers 'why'. From where I'm sitting, students can sign up to get a first hand experience with (~$10) Digital Currency at no cost to them, and DNotes wins the main crypto using demographic... Who knows how that freebie will pan out for them? I wouldn't have minded $10 worth of Bitcoin 3 years ago!

I'm with DYNA, we will need to let history be the judge. If you don't like it, don't invest. DNotes promotes prudential investment strategies in all of its promotional material.

Added an employee request form, which will allow employees to engage the DNotes to work with their respective companies.

Also, working on a way to incorporate the DNotesVault registration form with the employer registration form, to make it more seamless for users who do not currently have a DNotesVault account.

Then we will be looking into a couple of the suggestions we have received.

Source: http://bitcoinist.net/smokeys-daylily-gardens-dnotes-bitcoin/

Here is one of the best interviews I read in a long time. It is definitely worth reading. I will be posting my comments later today.


Allen Scott
Cointelegraph:
2015-05-27 07:56 PM
 http://cointelegraph.com/news/114401/cato-institutes-mark-calabria-expect-another-crisis-within-the-next-decade

Cato Institute's Mark Calabria: ‘Expect Another Crisis Within the Next Decade

CoinTelegraph spoke with Mark A. Calabria, the Director of Financial Regulation Studies at Cato Institute, about the institute’s views on Bitcoin and the impact of burdensome regulations on cryptocurrencies and the U.S. economy as a whole.

“I don’t think the Bitcoin community should be complacent about the current regulatory environment. The potential to get a lot worse is definitely there.”
— Mark A. Calabria, Cato Institute

CoinTelegraph: What do you think about Bitcoin and its underlying blockchain technology?
Mark A. Calabria: While I’m an economist, not a tech guy, I’m very excited about Bitcoin, as I am about alternative currencies in general, and perhaps even more interested in the blockchain. Whether Bitcoin succeeds or not, the decentralized ledger offers tremendous potential in a number of areas, from land title to electronic payments. I am optimistic that both Bitcoin and the blockchain technology offer avenues to disrupting our current financial system, which I believe is badly needed.

CT: Many would argue that the mission of Cato Institute is almost identical to that of many Bitcoin advocates. What is Cato’s position on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies?

MC: Well Cato itself does not take positions, its scholars do. But that said, pretty much everyone at Cato, to varying degrees, is supportive of Bitcoin. A number of Cato staff own Bitcoin, as well as a few other alt-currencies. Sure there’s some skepticism about whether Bitcoin is “the one” but there’s a strong desire to see it given a chance and a concern that the financial regulators may hamper its further development.

CT: What was the reason for the ‘08 crash, in your view? What do you see as the fundamental problem in today’s financial system?  

MC: The ‘08 crash was certainly large by any measure, but its causes were not that uncommon as far as crises go. At the risk of oversimplification, we had an asset boom, largely but not exclusively in the property market, driven by loose monetary policy in the U.S. and large global flows of capital into the U.S. As those funds increased demand in an environment of relatively inelastic supply, particularly in housing markets like California, prices shot up. As with any boom, the momentum attracted fraud and resulted in a general reduction in underwriting standards.

“I certainly expect another crisis within the next decade or so.”

All of this was made especially fragile by government guarantees, both explicit and implicit, that increased leverage and reduced market discipline. While booms occurred across property types, U.S. housing policy resulted in our single family housing market being far more leveraged than other property markets. So while office, retail and apartments boomed to the same degree, they were not as leveraged and not as interconnected to our capital markets as was single family housing. Lots of really bad policy choices over the years, few of which have been reversed, some of which have been made worse. I certainly expect another crisis within the next decade or so. The fundamental problem facing our financial markets today is a lack of market discipline.

CT: What do you see as the potential solution?

MC: Foremost we need to eliminate the various government guarantees of risk-taking in our financial markets, including deposit insurance, Federal Reserve rescues of too-big-to-fail companies, and guarantees in the mortgage market, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We need to deregulate our land markets, so that housing supply becomes more elastic, reducing the size and frequency of booms and busts. It is not a coincidence that California was ground zero for the crisis, while prices didn’t move much at all in Texas. You only get booms and busts when demand and supply can become disconnected. And last but not least, we need a rational, rules-based monetary policy.

“Most members of Congress have little understanding of financial markets or even basic economics. Perhaps even worse, they don’t want to even have that knowledge.”

CT: You have a lot of experience working in Washington DC, having served as a senior staff member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. How was that experience, and is there interest within the government to reform the financial system?

MC: Working in the Senate was certainly educational, if not a little disheartening. Most members of Congress have little understanding of financial markets or even basic economics. Perhaps even worse, they don’t want to even have that knowledge. You have a large contingency in the middle that feels the status quo is mostly OK, and sizeable minorities on the left and right that feel the current system is deeply in need of reform.

The problem, of course, is that those who feel the system is broken do not necessary agree on how it is broken and what the appropriate remedies are. Hence, the mushy middle continues to set policy. Ultimately one reason I left the Senate was I felt there was not a lot of leadership there. Politicians are understandably risk averse. They are essentially followers. You have to get the public there first, which in a democracy, is a good thing, even if a little frustrating sometimes.

“[R]egulators have so far been relatively restrained. That may well change if regulators start to see cryptocurrencies as a real competitive threat to banks.”

CT: How much interest in cryptocurrency is there within the government?

MC: At this point it is really more a curiosity than anything else, with a few exceptions. Bitcoin has benefited with an association with the tech community — that’ll help insulate it from attacks from the left (with a few exceptions like Paul Krugman). While there’s been some concern expressed by banks, regulators have so far been relatively restrained. That may well change if regulators start to see cryptocurrencies as a real competitive threat to banks.

On the right the concerns have mostly been about terror finance and money laundering, but since neocons have far less influence than they used to, these concerns have largely been checked. All of the proceeding can change and hence it is important for the Bitcoin community to engage and educate policymakers. I wished we lived in a world where that didn’t matter, but we don’t.

CT: Are you working with any Bitcoin organizations in DC (e.g., the Digital Chamber of Commerce)?
MC: Cato tends to have a, not surprisingly, “go it alone” culture.  So we do occasionally interact and work with Bitcoin organizations but I’d say we aren’t as deeply involved as some of them and we do not, yet, have any staff committed to these issues exclusively. That said, we did launch in the fall our Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives and plan to become far more engaged with policy issues surrounding cryptocurrencies.

CT: What’s your take on the IRS’s classification of bitcoin as a taxable commodity?

MC: I’m not a fan of it. It’s obviously not a commodity in the strictest sense. There is an argument for subjecting it to capital gains taxes, in the same manner you’d apply to a stock or bond, but I do worry that the IRS’s decision will complicate and slow acceptance. If its value relative to the dollar stabilizes, this becomes less of an issue. Of course if lots of users start to use any capital losses to offset other income, I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS reconsiders. I hope with a future administration this gets reversed.

“I should be clear that even under our expansive securities laws: I don’t see Bitcoin as a security. I’m far more worried about what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau might do.”

CT: What about the SEC’s position?

MC: Not as bad as I’d normally expect, but then the SEC is deeply divided at the commissioner level, and Chair Mary Jo White has been more restrained that I might have initially feared. You don’t quite have as much curiosity among SEC commissioners as you do with, say, CFTC Commissioner Mark Wetjen. I should be clear that even under our expansive securities laws: I don’t see Bitcoin as a security. I’m far more worried about what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau might do.

CT: Do you think the government is following a planned strategy here, or are they scratching their heads with regards to this disruptive tech?

MC: It’s more a head scratching. There’s no coordinated DC approach to Bitcoin. Some of that is a result of the fact that regulators still have their hands full with Dodd-Frank. Some of it has arisen from a lack of pressure from Congress. There’s also been little public demand, so far, to “do something” about Bitcoin. So far, it has really been driven by distinct individuals in key policy roles.

There’s still a lot of opportunity, and need, to educate policymakers. Those individuals will move on at some point. There’s no guarantee that future appointees will not be hostile. I don’t think the Bitcoin community should be complacent about the current regulatory environment. The potential to get a lot worse is definitely there.
CT: What do you think about regulating Bitcoin? Should or can it be regulated, under the NY BitLicense, for example?

MC: Setting aside any practical politics, as an economic matter, I’d prefer we not regulate Bitcoin at all. My experience has been that regulation generally just creates barriers to entry and protects established incumbents. That said, private exchanges should adopt rules that protect users. We do not know ex-ante what the right set of rules are going to be, so I think it's critical we have some room here for experimentation. Does that mean some people will lose some money? Absolutely. But then Bitcoin isn’t for the faint hearted, at least not yet.

CT: You studied how policy changes in Washington affect low- and moderate-income households. What kind of impact have recent policies had on these households, compared to the higher classes? Do you think cryptocurrency has the potential to democratize money and offer a more egalitarian financial system for the public?

MC: The post-crisis financial reforms have unfortunately raised the costs of credit to lower income families, while also reducing its availability. If these reforms resulted in a more stable economy, then that might be a tradeoff worth making, but unfortunately they do not. And of course the post-crisis monetary policy we’ve had has largely benefited higher income families, as easy money has driven up the stock and property markets. Regulatory changes, for instance, have done tremendous harm to the flow of remittances, which for many emerging economies are a crucial source of capital and income.

“Misguided and harmful regulations almost always weigh heaviest on the poor, as they are least able to avoid them.”

Cryptocurrencies already helped there, but have considerable potential to do more. The same is true for other types of payments. Of course, like most technologies, the first movers have been and will be the non-poor. That’s best, since these first-movers are able to shoulder any losses. But as we build to greater scale and separate out the good from the bad, there can be a tremendous benefit for moderate and low income families. It’s especially for that reason that we need to be cautious on the regulatory front. Misguided and harmful regulations almost always weigh heaviest on the poor, as they are least able to avoid them. The rich can always move to Monaco, or transfer their dollars into Swiss Franc.

Technology can be a great disrupter of the establishment, toppling entrenched incumbents. Accordingly I hope we allow cryptocurrencies considerable room to develop.

DNOTES is helping to educate and inform newbies and others into the intrinsic value of and future of digital currency..The fact that it is encouraging long term saving as opposed to gung ho speculative practices is very commendable in my books.. The markets can be pretty fickle and that's why I believe DNOTES will hold a lot more value in the future..More people who value and trust DNOTES and the Ethos behind it will easily be able to drive up its value..Fiat has a crap load of value purely build on the brainwashing of govts and banks yet is is built from fresh air the fractional reserve banking system dumped on us by some peeps in Venice a few hundred years back..So why should DNOTES be put down? Just my 2 NOTES..

Sometimes it is best for history to be the judge and this is one of those times. I certainly do not agree with your opinion but I place a high value on everyone's right to respectfully disagree.

Thanks for your response.



You would be correct.



I think the onus is on DNotes to post a summary of such things as a sticky post at the beginning of this thread.  Expecting someone to have to read through 200 pages of posts to eek out bits of information makes for a very poor prospectus, and I doubt many people will have the time nor inclination to do so.  Myself included.



I think the reason why Bitcoin works is because it is neutral and completely agnostic.  I don't believe any altcoin which is based solely on a philosophy or a mindshare will stand the test of time.  Money doesn't have an opinion in the market.  It just facilitates it.  What are the bullet point selling features of the DNotesVault over any old web wallet, say Coinbase? Or Blockchain.info?


It can also be said DNotes is stable because the total traded daily volume is little more than 500 USD, an asset which is barely traded is by definition going to be stable.  That being said, I just did a bit of research and it looks like the price of DNotes has risen in the last month from 0.00004 to 0.00005.  That is a 20% increase in less than 2w.  If this kind of move were to happen in the forex markets, I don't think the word 'stable' can be used to describe it.

Additionally, arguing that something is stable "because it has shown to be in the past" is not quantitative reason.  It is in fact the kind of reasoning that we explicitly warn readers about on mutual fund prospectuses. "Past performance should not be used as a basis for future expectation".



Forgive me when I say that that is a wonderfully eloquent way of saying... "we can't do any better than Bitcoin at this point, but when we can, then we will".


I do not mean any offence, for obviously you have some stake in this, but this is the classic definition of a ponzi scheme.  All schemes start out with "Just and Honourable Causes and Ideals to Serve the Public Good".  And even if it is categorically NOT a ponzi scheme, which I will for the time being assume, then it is at the very least nothing more than a proverbial printing press churning out valueless coupons, and handing them out (or worse) selling them, to people.  There is a fine line between ponzi/pyramid scheme and a real digital money, and that fine line is drawn on whether or not the token is mined (requiring work) or instantly created. 



Forgive me once again, for I mean no personal offence, but you probably would make a much bigger difference to students if you just gave them some equivalent fractional amount of Bitcoins. (I see DNotes trading at 0.00005-6BTC today).

It looks like either the marketing wagon for CRISPS have gone ahead of the horse and started selling a product before it is even fully formed, or I misunderstood your description of how owning a (essentially worthless) digital token is going to really help students with the costs of their education, or help them in any way to learn the value of saving.


They have been very helpful, and I sincerely thank you for them. 

As it stands I see the DNotes project as has having very little substance to it, and it seems like the only value it has presently is a wealth of extremely well spoken, and well meaning marketers and journalists working in its community.  Being a firm believer in the markets, I would read this as evidence of why the DNotes price is less than a US penny at this point.

 

#   Source   Pair   Volume (24h)   Price   Volume (%)   Updated
1   Poloniex   NOTE/BTC   $ 651   $ 0.014237   68.29 %   Recently
2   AllCoin   NOTE/BTC   $ 248   $ 0.014705   26.02 %   Recently
3   C-CEX   NOTE/BTC   $ 54   $ 0.016302   5.69 %   Recently

In what exchanges are DNotes traded?

Interesting article here on the environmental impact of bitcoin. Though maybe a little too aggressive in the estimations, with many considerations not accounted for.

Think Tank Reignites Debate Over Bitcoin Mining's Environmental Effects

Debate about the environmental effects of bitcoin mining has resurfaced following claims by an Australia-based sustainability think tank that bitcoin could eventually consume 60% of annual global electricity production.

According to the Long Future Foundation's website, its calculations are based on the assumption that 1 BTC is valued at £1m, the cost of mining this resource is $500,000 and 3,600 bitcoins are produced every day.

"Bitcoin miners can get power cheaply for $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh) which means that they get 20 kWh per dollar spent," notes the website.

By multiplying these numbers (500,000 x 20 x 3,600 x 365) on its Bitcurrent calculator – an interactive spreadsheet – the foundation arrives at the conclusion that bitcoin mines would consume 13,140,000,000,000 kWh – or 13,140 terawatt hours (TWh) – per annum, or the amount of energy required to power 1.5bn homes.

[...]

http://www.coindesk.com/think-tank-debate-bitcoin-mining-environment/

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/prnewswire/press_releases/Georgia/2015/05/26/NY16848?ana=prnews