◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 204.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 10:25:26 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 10:12:55 PM

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

I think the funds should remain in escrow with a trusted third party if they are not burned.

There is always two sides to a coin.

I can see the benefits of burning as well as the benefits of not.

I am merely generating ideas for the community to ponder.

And to address your edit, It is my understanding the the masternodes on this network will be banknodes.

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 10:12:55 PM

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Another thought: If the requirement for bank nodes was reduced by 50k (200k buy in), it would accomodate for around 6 more nodes at current supply levels.

This would allow more people to get in on the action while still requiring significant skin in the game.

It could potentially increase reserve ammounts held in banks.

More banks would help further stimulate the economy around this coin.

By slightly increasing the number of bank nodes at this level, it would also increase the likelyhood of users actually getting approved for loans.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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".

Jesse Livermore

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 10:06:31 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PM

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

Whatever you decide, as long as it's transparent and is for the right reasons.

Agreed.

hack_

hero member

Activity: 501

Merit: 503

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 10:04:50 PM

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

Whatever you decide, as long as it's transparent and is for the right reasons.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: hack_ on March 26, 2015, 09:59:29 PM

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

hack_

hero member

Activity: 501

Merit: 503

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:51:16 PM

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.

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.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 09:41:21 PM

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 09:32:41 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 08:56:54 PM

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 08:30:11 PM

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

I say you keep a portion that was going to be used as an IPO to fund your development.

Yeah, having them in an exchange poses risks. Not sure how people would feel about the dev holding that much coin.

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.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 09:32:41 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 08:56:54 PM

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 08:30:11 PM

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

I say you keep a portion that was going to be used as an IPO to fund your development.

Yeah, having them in an exchange poses risks. Not sure how people would feel about the dev holding that much coin.

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 08:56:54 PM

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 08:30:11 PM

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

I say you keep a portion that was going to be used as an IPO to fund your development.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 09:15:14 PM

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 09:05:13 PM

2 more BTC in buys and the cost of a MN will have doubled. if you have any hopes at all of running a node, i strongly suggest you stock up on coins now. lost opportunities never present themselves again in this industry.

a piece of advice to those who would pay attention.... people who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 100 satoshi, are regretting now.

Those who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 1000 satoshi, are regretting now.

I'd rather not be bothered in future by those who procrastinate, don't buy, or panic and sell at sub 10000 satoshi... they will regret it.

I'm sure people might help fund development if you meet your masternode implementation deadline Tongue

that's actually a small concern, because while I will likely meet the date we would not have had much time to test. that's what i'm trying to beat if we can at least have 2 days testing full on. I can be a lot more confident.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcreditscc on March 26, 2015, 09:05:13 PM

2 more BTC in buys and the cost of a MN will have doubled. if you have any hopes at all of running a node, i strongly suggest you stock up on coins now. lost opportunities never present themselves again in this industry.

a piece of advice to those who would pay attention.... people who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 100 satoshi, are regretting now.

Those who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 1000 satoshi, are regretting now.

I'd rather not be bothered in future by those who procrastinate, don't buy, or panic and sell at sub 10000 satoshi... they will regret it.

I'm sure people might help fund development if you meet your masternode implementation deadline Tongue

I recall the user MyFarm stating that several people are watching from the sidelines several pages back. I believe this to be true.

If you produce, and you want to be a top coin, people will invest in YOU.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

2 more BTC in buys and the cost of a MN will have doubled. if you have any hopes at all of running a node, i strongly suggest you stock up on coins now. lost opportunities never present themselves again in this industry.

a piece of advice to those who would pay attention.... people who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 100 satoshi, are regretting now.

Those who procrastinated and didn't buy, or sold at sub 1000 satoshi, are regretting now.

I'd rather not be bothered in future by those who procrastinate, don't buy, or panic and sell at sub 10000 satoshi... they will regret it.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quick correction, it's not 11 coins. it's actually 10. The extra is likely going to the block finder on p2pool.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: antonio8 on March 26, 2015, 08:30:11 PM

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

it starts at 25% and slowly rises ... just like DRK. you can view that in the source.

Yes, that % is hardcoded and will only removed when the system is completely self sufficient.

Development is both capital and labor intensive, developers seldom work for peanuts and as you can see from the attempts to have a donation system...noone really likes to fund development, even if they like the idea. There is still a lot of work to be done before I can say that banking is now completely viable. Then i'll have to start worrying about decentralized exchange, fiat trading deposit and withdrawal, mobile clients, web based banking and so many more ideas. And note, this doesn't include the colored coins research, development and implementation.

If this idea fails, i'd be very depressed and everyone will look to me, that's why i am very insistent on being able to pay for work should the need arise.

bitcreditscc

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 501

Quote from: dbt1033 on March 26, 2015, 08:14:46 PM

2,250 BCR a day for each bank node? Where do these fees come from?

Oh, and where did you come up with 250k for each bank node? This seems steep, although I'm sure you have your reasons.

The distribution is similar to drk, i just made a calculation based on those numbers.

250K is the magic number because it signals one's commitment to actually running a node, and because you invested that much, you'd do your best to make it profitable, which in turn stimulates the ecosystem.

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Masternodes getting more expensive by the minute

antonio8

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1000

@bitcreditscc

So when the MN start, what will b the payout for that? I mean will the Bank Node still get the current 11 coins per block and then another portion for the Master Node?

dbt1033

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

2,250 BCR a day for each bank node? Where do these fees come from?

Oh, and where did you come up with 250k for each bank node? This seems steep, although I'm sure you have your reasons.

Topic: ◈◈Bitcredit ◈◈ Migrating to UniQredit◈◈ - page 204. (Read 284545 times)