Topic: Bitmark - page 78. (Read 622228 times)

Well I think it's been long enough that we can consider this Bitmark experiment a failed attempt.  Linking block confirmations in retrospect was an absolutely terrible idea and the hope of a fair payout was a nice thought but was poorly done as there was no fail safe included to make sure that the difficulty could not get raped into oblivion again and again and again, rinse and repeat.  Until that is fixed multipools and farms will continue to force the difficulty up to unreachable levels for the smaller guys and will keep bailing when they themselves are no longer getting confirmed coins.

I've been mining BTM on and off since the start and once farms and multipools showed up on the scene the problem was blatently obvious and nobody on this forum seems to be talking about it.  Everybody is obsessed with this marking layer project.  I have a little word of advice for everybody here. 

Marking will fail if mining fails. 

Get that straightened out first, then i will come back to mine.  The longer the difficulty stays at 1953 the lower the network hashrate will be and the slower blocks will come, turning BTM into a extremely rare coin that only mining farms etc are able to obtain.  Guess what?  They don't share their coins either.

Lets not try to run before we have stopped crawling here...

Received our pokerchip, great delivery and amazing quality!

Agree ... achieving the block generation rate which is specified is very important, because, like you say, its a "nuts & bolts" aspect of a coin.  If BTM is to gain wider traction and adoption, it has to be reliable and perform as advertised to gain the trust of users.  What hash rate is on the network should not have such dramatic impacts on the transaction confirmation delay times; after all, that is a big  point of having a difficulty number: it regulates the block generation rate in the face of whatever hash power is there. Bitmark charter post states it should be about 2 minutes, IMO, this should be regardless of the hash-mojo miners are putting on the network.

Transaction confirmation delay has been conflated with coin production/emission. This is necessarily so when blocks carry a fixed reward which doesn't change over a long period of time. (i.e., bitcoin's 4 year halving, or bitmark's somewhat more sophisticated formula, which halves every 3 years, with intermediate decreases every 18 months).

For transactions to process expediently, blocks have to be produced by network consensus at a rate which is not too slow, which is why most ( or all?) alt-coins have aimed for lower confirmation times = higher block-generation rates. As long as the difficulty is matched to a given network hash power, blocks will be generated at close to the target rate and so transactions confirmed without unexpected delay.

Hash power of the network varies for many reasons. Primarily because miners seek higher profits and move their hash power around different coins as market prices vary, but also for many other trivial reasons, such as power outages, new hardware, etc. From the point of view of a single coin network which seeks to serve its users consistently and expediently, responding and adapting dynamically to network hash power changes and achieving control of the block generation rate / transaction confirmation delay times ought to be a high priority.

The aspect of regulating coin emission rate (CER) could be separate from transaction confirmation time (TCT) by a more dynamic block reward formula. Think about the blocks as trains on a commuter line. A train should arrive every 2 minutes, like clockwork (thus satisfying the users with reliable 'transportation' = expedient transaction confirmations). But how many new coins the train brings could be variable, being revised periodically;  (most likely based on coin demand as measured by network hash-power).  This part clearly needs further thought and elaboration, as to how much  and how often to vary the block reward and satisfy the overall absolute limit on emission and other economic supply-demand laws, but my main point is that TCT should not be dependent on CER policies.

It appears to be there now.

There is another one that pays out in Bitmarks: https://prohashing.com/
You can even have it pay-out 45% BTC, 5% LTC and 50% BTM, or any other combination that you want with 80 different coins, even USD

TY!

Yes, and no. http://bitmark.co:3000/tx/3c83a7337302f5460e0e36ec98a55adc02ba112ee620ff654b5862e12be9a0dc

Is there a block explorer for this?

Is this tx in the blockchain? 3c83a7337302f5460e0e36ec98a55adc02ba112ee620ff654b5862e12be9a0dc

http://www.simplemulti.com/

Any multipool paying out Bitmarks?

Just a test to see if X is fast enough to do a real time demo bct-slack 😀

Well we had another diff drop today after nearly 5 weeks... A quick feeding frenzy at 488 diff and back to 1953.  Wait another 5 weeks, rinse and repeat.  It's great for restricting the supply of BTM but surely this cycle is not healthy in the long run.

I'm holding a considerable amount of BTM so the fewer coins the better for me, but I'm trying to look past that and consider the long term health of the coin.  It's nothing for whales to stop mining LTC for a few hours and pick up some easy BTM when the diff drops and then return to what they were doing earlier.  

Seriously, BTM needs to do *something* to better manage it's hashrate. I would be willing to put money into renting hash to regulate/pump the average hash if enough of us pooled together to make it worthwhile.  Short term pain for long term gain.  You can't go on forever having 1gh/s for 5 weeks and over 70gh/s for 5 hours and expect people to hang around.  

No miners = no perceived value = no real value..  I sometimes feel that as good a job as the dev team is doing, they are too involved with the future plans for BTM and not looking closely enough at the nuts and bolts of actually producing a viable coin that is attractive to both miners and end users.  After all, if not enough people are willing to mine the coin to give it value, it has no value.

This has been the subject of much discussion as would be expected...

However, marking and tipping are quite different animals - there will always be many providers of 'similar' services especially where they have value.

Imho, marking is a 'value add' service linked to BTM (as the parent currency) as opposed to being BTM's main purpose. There may well be many services developed on the back of BTM but marking is at the forefront at this time.

I will leave it to others who can elaborate more clearly on the differences between 'tipping' and 'marking' but in essence, tipping is firmly 'money based' and will be viewed and measured as such, whereas 'marking' is up-voting, reputation, and the sharing of marked content - but with the value of cryptocurrency built in...

Marking is not tipping.

I have a somewhat controversial question maybe, but please understand I mean no harm by asking it.

The last day or so Changetip has gone somewhat viral, people are tipping eachother on both Reddit and Twitter like there is no tomorrow.
How do you (devs and enthusiasts) feel this may or may not affect Bitmark? BTM's main purpose (as I see it) is to tip people for content you like on the web.
As Changetip is linked to BTC and has in this sense first mover advantage, do you feel there still an incentive to use BTM for the same purpose?

Current Bitmark Development: Part Four

http://bitmarknews.com/2014/11/06/current-bitmark-development-part-four/

Not so sure it's down much more than a lot of the others looking at some charts.

But other than the fact that all of crypto is in a major bear market right now:

I would say the reason that there's been some people selling over the last little while is that a lot of people who bought BTM before weren't necessarily familiar with the project. And as our community doesn't participate in any sort of 'pumping' some people might view the lack of constant chatter as some sort of negative.

We're working on improving the flow of information though as we know there are many people who still don't have much information about the project.

Also, I agree with you about there being a lot of good news. There is a lot going on now. People are working on a lot of projects and personally I'm extremely excited to see how all of these projects come together over the next little while.

Why is this ongoing downtrend?? although there are many good news as far as i can see!! it kinda seems all coins have dropped in value... but bitmark seems to have lost alot more than others... I purchased alot a month back 

Thanks for your replies that seems easy enough.

It would be nice if the block explorer at (http://bitmark.co:3000) had buttons for previous/next block and for "block at previous difficulty change"