The question of legality is always tied to jurisdiction. It's an interesting question, because what is legal in one place might not be legal in another. There should be a way to report questionable content, and for contributors to the storage federation to decide whether they want to keep it or not.

I like your suggestion !

That would be a great and simple way to enable users to mark anything they had on file.

The optional storage part is interesting too because it would in essence be the storing of the file which originated in the user's machine to the Bitmark servers, or "Bitmark Storage Cloud" which could be a federation of machines which are willing to commit storage space for a length of time in exchange for MARKS.

Wallet disabled

Can you explain about the staking a bit.Will wallet be out before the end of the ICO for the desktop or will we be able to stake on mobile devices also?

In short: 9509391.96671310 (MARKS)
 

For a more detailed answer ....  

It is easy to determine how many Bitmarks have been mined to date; this is the "money supply" figure given by the "getinfo" (or "gi" command) :


"moneysupply" : 9509391.96671310
so the answer is, a little bit over 9.5 million MARKS       (9509391.96671310  MARKS, to be exact)    
That is the total number of Bitmarks in existence at the moment.

Every day, no more than about 720 * 15 = 10800 MARKS are added to this number.  Usually less, because CEM v0.1 is already on the job, modulating the block reward down for algorithms where the hashrate is not at peak.

There never was an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) for Bitmark. It has always been generated by mining exclusively.

The exchanges that trade Bitmark (Poloniex.com, Cryptopia.co.nz, qTrade.io and TradeSatoshi.com among other) may have all-time volume figures on Bitmarks traded inside their platforms, but these numbers would only indicate how many Bitmarks have changed hands on those exchanges... Understand that one Bitmark (or any fraction of it) may have changed ownership many, many times, so those volume figures may be quite a bit larger than the absolute number in circulation.


With the proposed enhancements in Bitmark v0.9.8.3 (Fork #2) it is almost certain that the daily emission of MARKS would be less than the present theoretical maximum of 10800 MARKS. How much less would depend on factors beyond anyone's control. How many miners kept on mining through the merge-mining enabling AuxPoW feature, whether a steady hashrate was maintained or high peaks observed, etc.

TeamBitmark is a puppet account of 82ndabnmedic I assume, since the writing style is the same. What vote? Where did it take place? On slack where people get banned for disagreeing with the fork. How can you not get 100% support in such an environment?

I actually have a significant stake in Bitmark, it's not just peanuts. If I were to lose all my marks, that would be a very significant setback financially. I do have skin in the game, but for sure I would sell what I have on dbkeys' fork. The price of Bitmark never surpassed $1 except for a short time last winter when Bitcoin peaked, and the market cap never surpassed $7 million, except for that short burst. The BTC value of marks in 2014 is a useless measure since there was much less altcoins at the time, bitcoin value was lower, and there was much less marks in circulation. Same with any other BTC price / market cap. The only meaningful marketcap is USD since that's the dominant world currency right now. From 1.2 million to 7 million market cap is quite easy (we just saw a rise this month from 1 million to 1.2 million). Reducing the emission rate will not magically increase the price, it will reduce selling pressure so investors can more easily dump. Any gains will likely be temporary and unstable.

The email I listed previously in my signature seems to have problems so I am changing it back to my previous email:
@gmail.com
Like I said, this is the last chance if you support the uncorrupted version of Bitmark. Block reward changes that favor special interests will be visible on the blockchain forever. You cannot hide it.

I understand that those who now manage a coin want to stop the coin's depreciation. for this they want to use centralized methods. and the original developer does not agree to a centralized solution. correct if I do not correctly understood the situation

Afert a resonanable period of discourse our previoud developere could not see the real picture which was blatantly obvious (and which I will not go over as @DBKEYS has already laid out just reasoning for our decision).

We SHALL take action NOW!

Hi,

We've added MARKS to the miners multipool: www.zpool.ca

We have it enabled on SHA256, SCRYPT and X17

Cheers

MARKS is already being traded on Cryptopia. You probably meant deposits and withdrawals will be enabled again?

Dbkeys, can you help me, my wallet 9.0.5 is not syncronized, i added the node but don't syncronized.

What did you do? This is ridiculous! cryptopy produces the message "13th June - Investigating deposit issues." and all the others also do not work, qtrade - does not cause any trust at all - what are your problems in this and why they are not solved? Where is the promised yobit - you even got money for this, and what?

This is the only block explorer, I can find right now, which is working: http://explorer.bitmark.co/

projects with ideas or ideas that will be needed in the future because it will facilitate the activities of someone later, for the sale of coins I think there is no problem and quite interesting because the price of coins offered is not too expensive, what is the target price of coins when listing on the exchange?
egretia

My opinion would be to accelerate development of marking applications, improve online presence and social media outreach, as well as continue to modernize and improve the core software. 

Naturally, someone with such a generous donation would have a big voice in how these funds were spent.

We like Bitmark and we are prepared to support most algorithms.
Our team is waiting for v0.9.7.