Topic: Bitmark - page 124. (Read 622213 times)

It is my fault for not being clear.

With this approach you could set the BTC donation to 0-100% and do as you say.

A typical pattern may be to mine at a multipool, have the BTC exit to the IPM, with your donation amounts set up, so that you get BTM and donate and profit and mine. All entirely automated.

Risky that lot of people will set it to 0 unfortunately. Because in a world full of money (and cryptocurrency world is most certainly it) it is hard for people to donate something.
However they can decide to donate if it will cause their potential ROI from this invest to be higher.
Hence it needs to be clear that moving the slider into donate direction contributes to Bitmarks grow in value.

I think this is a great idea - but, here's the thing; I have a relarively small amount of hash power - a few months ago it would have been impressive, six months ago; collosal!

I can split this hash power because of the hardware - approx 60/40 - ok, I'm earning BTM, not stacks but more than happy. Becasue I don't have BTC to use the IPM but can point some of my hash power at a multipool I can direct some BTC to the pot in that way instead of my BTC address...

I am tired - is my thinking skewed?

 

Risky in what way? Please clarify.

We have also started to have a one year long Bitmark Foundation conversation. Join in at any point.
https://trello.com/c/UjdtmLw9/29-bitmark-foundation-defining

Sounds risky but reasonable at the same time.

I think I have a solution, completely optional and variable donations.

For the IPM Pool I will add the following interface instead:

percentage BTC donation to current development [slider 0-100]
percentage BTM donation to future development [slider 0-100]
enter btm address [ ]
[ place btm order ]

This is simple.

Each person when using the IPM pool to acquire BTM at production cost, can slide a % amount to contribute - with no pressure, and anonymously - to either current development (BTC for now), or future development (BTM to the foundation)

This is not an immediate fix to pressing matters, it does potentially solve the funding issue for say next month onwards.

Firstly, I am not going to quote every community member's worthy comments around the value of this project's success and the question of funding.

Mark has said it all;


I have faith in this community and sincerely believe that we will not let it come to that; losing everything.

This project is massive; Huge; Groundbreaking.

I've read so many of the 'trollbox' comments at various locations, aimed at the scammers and 'run away' devs; the premines, the instamines, IPOs etc. etc. Do you know what is interesting? I have scanned through this section of Bitcoin Talk and NOT ONE THREAD has drawn my attention since I first stumbled upon this thread. Ok, so I might have missed out on some cracking pump n dump opportunities - so what?

This project is important; It must succeed; It will succeed.

I am quietly working in the background to prise open some doors... who knows? I am also working closely with another community member on some Marks related projects - again, who knows?

In the meantime, a thought; if any members of the community have 'spare' haspower in the form of a couple of G-Blades here, Zeus ThunderX3 there, some GS Dual 5 Chip units kicking around - instead of dipping into their 'precious' Bitcoin wallet, what if Mark was to publish an additional BTC Donation address? One that everyone could use at clevermining.com or wafflepool.com etc? The reason I suggest an alternate address is purely for identification of the income stream.

Collectively, a few KH/s or MH/s here and there would generate some satoshi for the pot; something towards the bills; the rent; perhaps even a day-trip for the family to consolidate the support Mark must be getting at home else he would not be able to do this.

It's just a thought - sometimes pointing a rig at a pool for a few hours just isn't as immediately 'painful' as a 'send funds' click of the wallet button...

Respect to all of you.

There has been a misunderstanding.

I, the developer, am saying that the seed node list in the client included a node which was no longer active. It has since been removed and replaced with a stable one.

The nodes listed above, are all active on the network currently, useful if anybody using code compiled before the I made the change has problems.

Thank you for your suggestion to the community, it is useful.

Mark

If this is the case, you could try commenting out each addnode one at a time, and then re-starting the wallet, until you find the "guilty" node.

Simply comment out one node by adding # to the front of the line (#120.34.97.168:7206), and re-start the wallet. If that doesn't help comment out the next addnode line in the same way, and re-start again. I would leave each line commented out until the wallet syncs, and then if you want, you can uncomment the ones that didn't seem to help (again - one at a time) to make sure that they don't cause the problem to recur. Or - if it syncs, you can leave the ones that were commented out alone, or just remove them from the conf file altogether.

No difference. I think I may know what this is actually, one of the 'stable' nodes provided was not stable, if your client tries to connect to that one it'll stall for 100 attempts.
I will remove it from the seed list - complete
... and do another release as soon as I can.

can some one post the working nodes as i have problem in connection got the network.

Thank you for your kind words and support.

This project is described in reverse, because of the forum we are in, and also described inadequately because of shortfalls in my own editorial and marketing skills.

The project is to create a scalable and massively viral reputation backed monetary system which increases the fluidity of money via off chain micro-transactions between individuals based on the value of their every day actions. A system who's usage is already an every day concept used by everybody on the web, and who's implementation and integration leads to simple adoption by anybody willing, technical or not. The concept is sound and described in detail with innumerable applications to multiple avenues of every day life and business. Underneath that is the boring but required cryptographic currency part (Bitmark).

Instead the project is described as a currency with some side projects, hardly inspiring.

The problem with funding, is that I believe in the merits of the system with such conviction that I am prepared to lose everything in order to see it come to fruition - although I would prefer not to. The project has it's own momentum and I am committed to that, and must move with it, albeit moving faster than I had anticipated. Once the seed is planted and everyday people see how the simple system affects them, it will change things positively for people around the world.

It is worth doing, and will be done at any cost. If anybody wants to help in any form, then that is precisely what it is, help, which is always appreciated.

We have tried all approaches to ethical funding that have been proposed. Unless there are any more novel ideas, all that remains is for an ethical philanthropist with some belief in what is proposed, to sponsor the next round of work alleviating some pressure, and optionally acquire some of the base currency. By doing so they would secure the project's momentum, my personal well being, and their own investment.


They are all baked in to the client, consider checking your firewall or any software which can block the application first. If that doesn't fix it, please send me your debug.log through pm.

any working addnode ip's please?

Great to see continued support of the Bitmark Foundation.

Yes, I think we all know that it's in all of our best interests to do whatever we can to keep Mark working full time on Bitmark. It's a huge project with a bright future. Right now we're getting an amazing developer working non stop all day everyday for close to free. In San Francisco he could walk in the door somewhere and start out with a minimum of 120k per year(likely much more).

A lot of coins do presales or IPO's to raise funds, but Mark doesn't believe in doing it that way so he's decided rely on the community instead of premining a bunch of BTM for himself. A lot of community members have been very generous so far and I hope that everyone at least considers how much value we gain by having Mark working on Bitmark and getMarked.

There are some new people in the community now and there will be even more shortly. So I wanted to make sure everyone is clear that this is a donation driven project that intends to have a fully sustained Bitmark Foundation with multiple developers one year from now. In the mean time to get us to that point anyone that is interested in seeing Bitmark become what we all want it to become, I'd ask you to consider supporting the development effort. Which right now is just Mark doing it all single handedly, full time, with a family.

Here is the funding BTC address: 18rai2ichzUfXG6PVmUQLNPqBjtctnVRAD   (or better yet check it on the first page of this post since you shouldn't trust someone else posting a BTC address on behalf of someone else )

Let us understand that without the appropriate Funding the Projects will never get off the ground properly. GetMarked & Bitmark may not be reach their full potential, and all our work will be marginalized.

We understand that you may choose to invest your BTC into mining Bitmark instead of investing BTC into the Project. If this Project fails to reach its stated goals, then the Bitmarks in everyone’s wallets may lack the value they would have otherwise.

It also looks good to me...I agree that we should move forward with this.

We have one issue:

Mark (coinsolidation) has put all his time and effort into the creation of Bitmark - Bitmark.co & GetMarked.org. Yet, the Project Requires additional, Funding

Looks good to me. Seems to have everything we need right now.

That's correct. From their page: