Topic: Bitmark - page 161. (Read 622228 times)
Can we mine this coin now?How?
I gave it a deep thought
I was unable to think of any other viable method to secure future development funding other than donations. The taxation idea was good but cannot be adopted for reasons described by keyboard-mash and consolidation.
In this case where brutal fairness is of utmost importance [has to be, to grow in this chaos] i go with donations.
The down side about donations is that they rarely meet the total needed funding [if] there is no incentive for an individual. If we can offer something in return, i can see healthy donations incoming
For ex - bitcointalk has a lot of members who donated BTC for developent of the forum, they all have a donator tag after their handles. Maybe we can decide something like this later on.
For now +1 from me
I was unable to think of any other viable method to secure future development funding other than donations. The taxation idea was good but cannot be adopted for reasons described by keyboard-mash and consolidation.
In this case where brutal fairness is of utmost importance [has to be, to grow in this chaos] i go with donations.
The down side about donations is that they rarely meet the total needed funding [if] there is no incentive for an individual. If we can offer something in return, i can see healthy donations incoming
For ex - bitcointalk has a lot of members who donated BTC for developent of the forum, they all have a donator tag after their handles. Maybe we can decide something like this later on.
For now +1 from me
So i think best would be:
Perhaps there is another option.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
I am +1 to this approach, as it is simple, reasonable and fair.
Let us resolve this quickly, with +1's.
That works but I've read a few times on here that donation based projects often have a really hard time in Bitcoin at least. Maybe it will be different here though(hopefully).
On the topic of mining: I've never done any serious mining and don't have a rig capable of mining anything significant. I just rent scrypt hash through a website and point it at a Bitmark pool when the time comes, correct? Is it that simple?
Yes, when there is a pool. Otherwise to your own RPC enabled Bitmark instance, many scrypt rigs do support solo mining, but some do not.
I also do not have any mining equipment, ironically, I wish I did have a scrypt rig now.
I am hoping that since the value should be low to start, reasonable donations should be easy to achieve. Remember 10000 BTC bought a single pizza at one point, to achieve even 35,000 BTM over the next 18 months should be achievable, that's only 2.5 days of mining rewards.
We need a few more +1's before this is agreed.
Also a gentle reminder that we still need 0.2 btc to secure everything needed to launch the coin properly. Due to this change, the code is ready and we can launch as soon as we've secured a dedicated server.
So i think best would be:
Perhaps there is another option.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
I am +1 to this approach, as it is simple, reasonable and fair.
Let us resolve this quickly, with +1's.
That works but I've read a few times on here that donation based projects often have a really hard time in Bitcoin at least. Maybe it will be different here though(hopefully).
On the topic of mining: I've never done any serious mining and don't have a rig capable of mining anything significant. I just rent scrypt hash through a website and point it at a Bitmark pool when the time comes, correct? Is it that simple?
+1 
So i think best would be:
Perhaps there is another option.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
I am +1 to this approach, as it is simple, reasonable and fair.
Let us resolve this quickly, with +1's.
I would say make 0.05% taxation but : "...Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain..." - right?
So i think best would be:
Perhaps there is another option.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
The idea i came up with is to have a "official" pool.
The Dev would own/control it in so the mining fee 0.25% would be taken on that basis.
Other pool owners can set it up but have to agree to pay 0.25 back to the dev.
The Dev would own/control it in so the mining fee 0.25% would be taken on that basis.
Other pool owners can set it up but have to agree to pay 0.25 back to the dev.
A good suggestion, but I am uncomfortable with it for some reason.
I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%)...
I disagree. There's a lot of people out there who scream about even a 1% premine.
I wish to avoid anything which could be used against the project later. The fund would have been 0.25%, the entire block taxation would have amounted to 70,000 BTM over the full block schedule. Up front that is too much of a proportion, so I have to reject the pre-mine idea.
Perhaps there is another option.
1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.
I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%)...
I disagree. There's a lot of people out there who scream about even a 1% premine.
32x32
PS Guys, "MARK" is very cool, I'm a good designer and I still think it's the better choice brand oriented. :/
I don't think there is a problem with 'MARK' in general but it's more of an issue with 'BM' being better suited for the 32x32 icon for visibility reasons.
As far as the other issue that's been brought up related to compensation I'm not sure. I'm going to think it over a little and I'll see if I can add anything to the discussion.
- Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.
I generally dislike IPOs (and you'll get trolls telling you it's illegal but that's besides the point) so I'm good with NO IPO.
However, premining, when it's small and explicitly detailed in its purpose, is accepted as the cost of doing business. It incentivizes the development team, sets aside monies for bounties, resource acquisition and general petty cash. I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%) and are vague in their usage as this is generally seen as a move to get-rich-quick.
Just a thought...
Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain. There are many ways to implement it, but each one requires a specific transaction or output to be present. This requirement means that mining software, pool software, and potentially anything that reads the block chain would need to be modified to be Bitmark compatible, or face having blocks rejected. As an example, see Freicoin.
Got it. I see how that's a problem.
32x32
PS Guys, "MARK" is very cool, I'm a good designer and I still think it's the better choice brand oriented. :/
Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
Can you be more specific about how taxation breaks backwards compatibility. What changes would have to be made, and what effects will it have on existing infrastructure?
CRITICAL ISSUE
The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees.
Prior discussion can be found here and here
Issue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1).
Here are the proposals:
I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected.
Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready.
Please discuss and propose.
- 1. A priority for Bitmark is to keep compatibility with the existing infrastructure which has been built around Bitcoin and the alternatives.
- 2. Another priority is to ensure long term development for Bitmark, the proposal was the developer fund
The development fund proposed was a 0.25% percentage block reward to a development fund, and at the start a portion of the transaction fees.
Prior discussion can be found here and here
Issue: Any technical implementation of the developer fund (2) requires modifications to existing infrastructure which will break compatibility (1).
Here are the proposals:
- Any form of taxation: no, see above, it breaks backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure.
- IPO: no, it conflicts with the natural growth principal of Bitmark and will create an expectation or rush to acquire unnatural value.
- Block 1 Reward / Premine: no, it is too much up front, and even if agreed now, would be frowned upon member of the community who are not with us yet.
I am open to novel ideas, but if they reduce to anything which requires a transaction in the block chain then they will break (1) backwards compatibility and have to be rejected.
Perhaps the end solution is that the development team supports the block chain (mines) like anybody else who believes in Bitmark's future. On a positive side, if this is to be the case then Bitmark can be released as soon as we have a dedicated server, it has been tested heavily and is ready.
Please discuss and propose.
I would say that the current tilted 'BM' is good as a logo. Especially as a small icon. But as a brand in the context of purchasing something the 'bitmark accepted here' button is good as brand image.
If there we're a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
If there we're a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
Agreed.
What you propose can be done simply.
"Bitmark" the word, currently does not have a logo representation.
If we take the stylized "Bitmark" from Allows design, and prefix it with the "BM" logo we currently have, the solution is found.
The two font styles may, or may not, work together.
Can we proceed by merging the two, then Allow and mymenace can work together until both are happy with the end result, if the feel so inclined.
In a few minutes I will be posting an important update to the project, an issue we must discuss.
I would say that the current tilted 'BM' is good as a logo. Especially as a small icon. But as a brand in the context of purchasing something the 'bitmark accepted here' button is good as a brand image.
If there were a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
If there were a way to unify the two it would be good. But that's not easy I'm sure.
I did not put in a vast amount of thought in to branding.
I did think the term "Mark" was good and could be used commonly, it is the unit of measurement for 0.001 Bitmarks, equal to "1 Mark". https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Currency
So the term Mark is used by the project, but reserved for future usage. When one mark is equal to one dollar, and beyond
One constraint I do wish to apply to the logo, is that it must be identifiable at 20x20 and 32x32 pixels, as this is used commonly.
This variation of logo does look sharp, and Allow raises a valid argument against the use of "BM". I could argue that "B" is also anonymous, and that an icons usage in relation to a project creates the brand identity. We could also argue that if people do not feel it is reflective of Bitmark or the project from the start, then it may be incorrect.
I would seek feedback from the community on this matter. I do feel that we will be stuck with whatever we use at the start, changing logo half way through is probably not a good idea.
Refine yes, change no. I conclude then that any change should be before launch.
It is very good to see thought being put in to buy buttons, there is a thread here to discuss merchant and integrator needs.
I did think the term "Mark" was good and could be used commonly, it is the unit of measurement for 0.001 Bitmarks, equal to "1 Mark". https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Currency
So the term Mark is used by the project, but reserved for future usage. When one mark is equal to one dollar, and beyond
One constraint I do wish to apply to the logo, is that it must be identifiable at 20x20 and 32x32 pixels, as this is used commonly.
This variation of logo does look sharp, and Allow raises a valid argument against the use of "BM". I could argue that "B" is also anonymous, and that an icons usage in relation to a project creates the brand identity. We could also argue that if people do not feel it is reflective of Bitmark or the project from the start, then it may be incorrect.
I would seek feedback from the community on this matter. I do feel that we will be stuck with whatever we use at the start, changing logo half way through is probably not a good idea.
Refine yes, change no. I conclude then that any change should be before launch.
It is very good to see thought being put in to buy buttons, there is a thread here to discuss merchant and integrator needs.
Jump to: