Topic: Bitmark - page 42. (Read 622228 times)

i am sure that Melvin is legit and very good dev

i have been in BTM slack for 4 months now. I don't talk much in the slack and only read
Melvin is very knowledgeable about technical stuffs. The way Melvin's talk is just like the way Taek's talk from Siacoin. BTM is pretty much a hidden golden gem now if you consider BTM as Siacoin in early day.

Of course, it is up to you how to decide at playing this coin. The best way is to join their slack to understand more about development. Bitcointalk IS NOT the right way to  get information. Actually Bitcointalk is the place for people trolling and shilling every coins instead 

Could i get link to slack?

irrelevant if they're scamming the blockchain. No mention of any orphan fix in there or explanation.

It's a waste of peoples resources.

Couldn't agree more, most of the time BTM is mined by assumingly one single entity who is orphanizing all others blocks.
If there is really a dev, he is impressively good at ignoring the pathetic state of his coins blockchain that is monopolized by a single selfish miner since months.

and doesn't care about the miners obviously, perhaps it's because he's controlling the blocks and/or polo has a play in it..

anyway, no trust left in this coin, I wouldn't waste your time or energy with it.

there is a lot of uncertainty indeed.

but if the dev keep delivering, this porject is going huge.

all concept is ground breaking. 

I'm too dumb to know what an "executive sentence" is.  In lieu of that please accept this haiku:


much moves on dead coin.

same size. crackfoo say one man

owns chain. not "wrong." strange?

Before I dive into it, could you summarize , like one executive sentence, what (in general ) you feel is wrong ..

http://explorer.bitmark.io/block/398164fb26f40730f15626a0ee37b7761d9267a3e5e461bbc78f66972306b042

This explorer is more accurate in the current total emission (money_supply)

thanks for the info

do you have any eta for the halving?

and what about bitmark usage? i mean the bitmark 2.0, decentralized storage, passport, and other features described in the roadmap.

is that roadmap serious?

To give some true perspective, (which is not biased as an investor already vested), we need other opinions on these things:

It's a limited edition, in the sense it has gone through some very (and I mean _VERY_) slow blockchain times. So the emission is still under 3 million.
We are definitely adopting better block chain growth regulation, to balance the need for reasonably fast transaction processing (under different usage scenarios) but with equal regard for actual demand for the coin in the exchange markets. The amount of work going into the chain has to satisfy several dynamic constraints which may be vectored to their limits (within the design envelope) to satisfy different policy constraints and policies.

Orphans at my Pool
With the spurty (is that a word ?) selfish mining going on now by a concern with reputedly over 200 GH/s in SCrypt power, there has been more emission as of late.
Our aim is to address that too by having a stakeholder mechanism for deciding on proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithms; Speedy adoption by stakeholders by organized, cryptographically secure, consensus (plurality and majority) of voted on policy-changes.

There are many great ideas on strengthening and properly balancing the needs of users and miners, while securing the chain and ensuring *relatively* speedy transactions that meet certain performance guarantees.

We do need the community's input and support, so firm decisions taken include going with Dark Gravity Wave v3 as the difficulty regulation algo; but a firm decision on going multiple-proof of work tangles as chain-advancement legitimating vectors and if then, what _algos_ has not been taken. SCrypt, of course, as our base algo is going to stay. But it might make sense to add a vector for SHA256d miners, as well as CPU-favoring algos which do not have firmware nor hardware implementations, such a CryptoNight, EquiHash, A
Best Regards,
dbKeys

Was looking at the block explorer:

https://prohashing.com/explorer/Bitmark/

Do some of those transactions in recent blocks look odd to you?

no. the blockchain is under control of one person. any public pools can only generate orphans and the dev doesn't acknowledge or fix it.

Is this altcoin worthy to purchase for long term?

Bitmark enabled for mining on sky-pool.com
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sky-poolcom-x11-sha256-and-scrypt-multipool-now-only-10-fee-prop-1673242

I do not agree with your suggestions, BTM already dgunakan in poloniex for gifts and until whenever BTM will not be removed in trade poloniex 

All good points, but a new name does create a new beginning free from association with nathan rixham.

What about 'ByteMark'?

Perhaps it's time to assert that this coin has been using the name bitmark in relation to block chain technologies first. Perhaps Moss-Pultz and his Taiwanese partners have developed interesting technology, perhaps not. But there is no doubt, and this can be proven easily, that this Bitmark predates the use of the bitmark in relation to marking, a very broad certification and notarization application. Shortly before Bitmark started, Moss-Pultz was using the bitmark.com site (which had been registered in the late 1990's) first for web site hosting and then for coffee mugs and other memoriabilia ... nothing at all related to cryptography nor digital property systems nor blockchain marking technology.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111228191054/http://www.bitmark.com/
He then seems to have had a better idea and refocused as intelligencia.io
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516231923/http://bitmarq.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20140813182641/https://intelligencia.io/

Then, around the time the bitmark cryptocurrency marking project was announced here on bitcointalk.org, the bitmark.com site starts showing a plain "philosophical" page, with quotes from Plato and Aristotle:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140516235934/http://bitmark.com/

It's not until 2015 that anything related to blockchain technology / marking / digital property registration & notarization appears:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150801012258/https://bitmark.com/

So it's clear the group here is first; that said, it's worth listening to what the community here thinks, in regards to rebranding / renaming the project - (rather than asserting our right to the BITMARK name in relation to blockchain cryptocurrency marking, property and digital notarization technologies )

That's the same Bitmark isn't it?

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bitmark-inc#/entity

Same symbol. Don't know the veracity though...

Might be time to change the name of this coin, there's a new project using 'Bitmark'

http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-startup-bitmark-funding/

BTM is too closely linked to the scam developer Nathan Rixham anyway. A new name might finally cleanse this project of his presence.

Instead of FOMO spam, you should detail a little - if you truly have some info to share