Mr Spead is that you
And you win the off-topic post of the day award
Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 203. (Read 284527 times)
And you win the off-topic post of the day award
Mr Spead is that you
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
Simply it would be spitting in the faces of those who have committed themselves to support this project by buying their way to a bank node at fair market price. I value my supporters, no way in hell would i disrespect them like that. 250K is a bargain,all you need to do is commit to having one. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but honestly if we make it too easy to get a BN we will have trouble makers.
What's funny is that you chose to compare with SPR...conviniently avoiding DRk....what is the cost of a DRK node?
20 BTC right?..... and you say 4 BTC is steep....
The overall perks of a BN will overshadow a MN in a few weeks especially with my current cook book.
Let me elaborate, all you can do with a MN is collect fees. A BN can for example fund an incubator and get profits, it can leverage it'self as collateral for a transaction. A BN can employ people, hell a BN can spawn another BN in a few weeks/months.
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.
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".
This.
God I'd love to invest in a coin where there is real business acumen. I'm sick of all the amateur mistakes other coins are making due to their lack of business skill.
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
I like it that high actually. I don't think you want hundreds or thousands of banknodes at this rally 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.
so instead of hundreds of banks competing, you would rather have 20? or even 5? And liquidity won't increase, only price will increase. Monopolies aren't healthy for competition. Imagine if DARK/DASH only had 20 masternodes? That is worst than the 2 million premine.
The only people supporting this 250k Masternode buy-in are people who managed to buy in at sub 1k SAT prices.
If its only going to be a circle jerk of 5 banknodes, then it would be hard for newcomers to support it, especially when the dev is sitting on 6 million coins.
The Dev isn't sitting on 6 million coins, they are in escrow at a public address.
And around 2.16 million coins per month are being generated through PoW, allowing for an additional 8 bank nodes per month.
Right now, only a few banks will be allowed to exist, but in the future, there could be hundreds.
Exactly, we're churning out BCR pretty fast here, so it wouldn't take long for banknodes to start forming pretty quickly if the initial ones are met with any kind of success.
And Dash/Darkcoin needs as many masternodes as possible because it increases overall Darksend anonymity, which is Darkcoin's point of existence.
Right now having 1,000 banknodes is somewhat akin to China building massive ghost cities with no inhabitants... It'll just create a glut of supply without any demand. Let's instead create a handful of good, solid banknodes, see if the demand for bank nodes' services is even there and then decide to increase them by maybe lowering the minimum requirements if the demand is there.
I'm guessing that's what dev s envisioning in making minimum requirements so large.
JL
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.
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.
I also think this is a fantastic idea. For those who either don't have the funds or risk tolerance to buy up a whole masternode, allow partial shares to be bought up.
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
I like it that high actually. I don't think you want hundreds or thousands of banknodes at this rally 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.
so instead of hundreds of banks competing, you would rather have 20? or even 5? And liquidity won't increase, only price will increase. Monopolies aren't healthy for competition. Imagine if DARK/DASH only had 20 masternodes? That is worst than the 2 million premine.
The only people supporting this 250k Masternode buy-in are people who managed to buy in at sub 1k SAT prices.
If its only going to be a circle jerk of 5 banknodes, then it would be hard for newcomers to support it, especially when the dev is sitting on 6 million coins.
The Dev isn't sitting on 6 million coins, they are in escrow at a public address.
And around 2.16 million coins per month are being generated through PoW, allowing for an additional 8 bank nodes per month.
Right now, only a few banks will be allowed to exist, but in the future, there could be hundreds.
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
I like it that high actually. I don't think you want hundreds or thousands of banknodes at this rally 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.
so instead of hundreds of banks competing, you would rather have 20? or even 5? And liquidity won't increase, only price will increase. Monopolies aren't healthy for competition. Imagine if DARK/DASH only had 20 masternodes? That is worst than the 2 million premine.
The only people supporting this 250k Masternode buy-in are people who managed to buy in at sub 1k SAT prices.
If its only going to be a circle jerk of 5 banknodes, then it would be hard for newcomers to support it, especially when the dev is sitting on 6 million coins.
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
I like it that high actually. I don't think you want hundreds or thousands of banknodes at this rally 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.
Well said Jesse.
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
The point is to only have a limited number of banks.
Owning a banknode has significant perks and will generate significant income.
The buy in should be steep, although I agree that maybe 200k or 150k might be more reasonable.
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.
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
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.
250k coins is too steep considering the lack of liquidity. If prices keep rising no one will even bother.
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.
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
Thanks for your reply!
Any block explorer available?
http://bitexp.net/explorer.php?coin=Bitcredits
Any block explorer available?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: