Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 20 results by Deathnotei
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
lol its dead 
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
It"s a good time to accumalate more BTM, guys !!!
Okey! My bags are full! It's time to go to top border of trade range!!!!Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
It"s a good time to accumalate more BTM, guys !!!
It's done. It'll not pump again and most of altcoins will die soon. 2017 is over. Buy bitcoin only. 
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Yes, it"s trade range.
It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving !
It looks like we are at beginning ...
I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
And Activity: 2 lol
So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market
We were at the beginning ...
BTM hit 750 sat! O-o-o!!!
Where is noise about scam?
  |
L M F A O
BID (BTC): 0.00000207
ASK (BTC): 0.00000498
Pump & dump scheme.
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Yes, it"s trade range.
It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving !
It looks like we are at beginning ...
I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
And Activity: 2 lol
So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market
We were at the beginning ...
loser
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Yes, it"s trade range.
It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving !
It looks like we are at beginning ...
I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
And Activity: 2 lol
So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market
We were at the beginning ...
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.
We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
May we ask you to move on now?
I certainly understand your frustration, but dbkeys is not bitmarks - bitmarks is a community including all hodlers, miners and other stakeholders - which includes you and me as well.
This thread is for all sorts of discussions revolving around bitmarks and if you open a well detailed and well documented thread in Scam Accusations board and link to the post here, most of us will certainly consider your statements carefully. But just repeatedly shouting in very big letters doesn't help you and your cause, it rather disproves any point you might have and paints you as one of the many lunatics here. Nor will it help bitmarks (I somehow read you want it back at 0.00007 BTC where it was in Apr 2018, to make a nice profit),
Anyway, if alts ever pump again like in early 2018, bitmarks will surely be among them, but nobody knows that right now - high profit opportunities are high risk investments.
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM.
We've heard your concerns loud and clear multiple times.
May we ask you to move on now?
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
Loser Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.
Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
And today was good movement on Nova!
And today was good movement on Nova!
Thanks for your support guys ! It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.
Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
And today was good movement on Nova!
And today was good movement on Nova!
Thanks for your support guys ! It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Have always been impressed with Bitmark/Marks. Plenty of us still here for the long haul. Thx Dbkeys for all you do.
Yes, thx Dbkeys for all you do!
And today was good movement on Nova!
And today was good movement on Nova!
Thanks for your support guys ! It's nice to know you appreciate the hard work and effort that go into helping this project move forward
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!Quote
I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary. How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro. And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
@Deathnotei: If you bought bitcoin at $1000 in December of 2014 you would be whining the same way all through 2015 and 2016. But if you had patience and held until now, you would be amply rewarded. You're simply dense if you think I've spent all this time and energy to sell my Bitmark position that low.
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer!Quote
I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary. How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro. And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Yes, it"s trade range.
It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving !
It looks like we are at beginning ...
I'm a crypto enthusiast since 2011 and see many many "exit scam".
And Activity: 2 lol
So fact is that buyers's pressure is growing on Doge and BTC market
Be aware: Bitmark is a SCAM!
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
Yes, it"s trade range.
It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
An exit scam and it isn't going to happen again. You're a sheep. It's not so bad to trade from 50-100 sat (buy) to 500-1000 sat (sell)
So I bought some BTM and I'm ready for another moving !
It looks like we are at beginning ...
Re: [ANN] [MARKS] Incentivize Content Creators & Build a Reputation Value Framework
I shouldn't have bought this shitcoin at 800 sats two days ago. It is now 140 sats. Fuck you Bitmark!
Loser