Poloniex delisting is a sad day, i still remember when they first started with marking, there was so much potential with bitmark, one of the biggest under achiever coins in the whole  cryptosphere. Never really recovered after Nathan Rixham was expossd as a scammer, i know later devs tried, but the rixham scam and lies drove away a lot of the original community.

Hi Bitmark Team & Community,
I am XING, a new Forging Delegate with the Shift Project, www.shiftproject.com.
I've been following the outstanding progress of Bitmark over the past several months, and I think Bitmark & Shift would benefit greatly through mutual collaboration.
Regardless of the recent delisting on Poloniex, I can see the innovation, hard work, persistence, patience and business potential by the Bitmark team.
Similarly, the Shift team is hard at work, building an agnostic decentralized web storage and hosting platform on IPFS, and open to integration with other blockchains.


As Bitmark starts to re-focus it's efforts again on the business of Marking & Reputation, please consider to use Shift for hosting and storage in the future as well. The Lead Developer is Ralf S., who would be best to speak to regarding any and all types of technical integration and overall benefits of a collaboration between Shift and Bitmark.

Shift team can be contacted directly on Ryver or via email (check footer of their website www.shiftproject.com/team),
or just ping me on the Bitmark Discord @XING if you have any questions/comments.
Thanks!
 

Hey guys.
If your idea is the most perfect decentralized platform in the world for immediate payment without the risk of volatility for the implementation of the crypto receiver, then in the near future it will be successful.

But the more important question is; Why would you care about Bitcoin when literally everything that is electronic has been taken out? Bitcoin should be least of your worries when the infrastructure of your country is wiped clean

    Bitmark is a Proof-of-Work (PoW) coin, started as single Scrypt PoW when introduced in 2014, and now has eight PoW algos, a very succesful evolution to 8mPoW, governed by an effective difficulty algo, Dark Gravity Wave v3, DGWv3 and, with an emission control policy dubbed "Coin Emission Modulation", in its first version, CEMv0.1
     All algos have the Auxiliary chain Proof-of-Work submission (AuxPoW) feature: they are "merge-mineable".    Bitmark was probably the first coin to offer as many, 8 PoW algos and all merge-mineable.

     But, there have been calls for some algos to go back to native-only, and for the distinction between the production cost of merge-mined blocks and native-mined blocks be taken into account in general.
@onelineproof coded most of our vision for the current v0.9.7.2, and it is certainly a very solid, secure blockchain, flowing well, producing blocks regularly and promptly

     That said, I thinks we can add some natural improvements. With the drive to keep building on our success, for example, CEM v0.1 which has been well received in general, can be improved.  Let's give it authority over a larger part of the epoch base reward; it's warranted. CEM v0.2 will act on 80% of the epoch base block reward, instead of on 50%. The lookback time window has been softened a bit: instead of "remembering" back a whole year, we only look back 3 months, because it seems rather harsh to punish loyal miners for hashrate peaks that happened more than 3 months ago. This  will have the effect of restoring full emission that much quicker after a high hashrate event, while still deploying the "CEM Effect" for a substantial amount of time.

For the Road Map:
     I propose an additional, 9th PoW algo, Groestl (or Grøstl) as a native-only algo, and also revert Argon2d and Yescrypt to native-mined only. This would make the individual algos' target block time 18 minutes (for a combined production of a block every 2 minutes) . Code for this is taking shape in the 0.9.9 branch of the project-bitmark github repo.
     This would mean 2/3 of the algos are merge-mineable, and 1/3 are native-mined only. This will have the effect (that @onelineproof should like) of keeping to a larger emission and making it so that (I like this ...) it goes to miners who prize them a bit more, as they are the mainline, and not merely a bonus.
As I've argued in previous posts (and been pilloried by @one lineproof) I do believe that merge-mined blocks should be rewarded at a lower fraction than native mined blocks: currently Fork#2 v0.9.8.3, will map native CEM to the range 10% - > 20% for merge-mined block rewards. But I am open to reasoned arguments and discussions about what fraction of the CEM-modulated full epoch block reward merge-miners should receive and any other aspects.


Dev Time Frames : we will release 0.9.8.3 today. Bitmark v0.9.8.2 only has a couple small changes, but they are important and forking changes affecting consensus rules. We have run testnet4 and are satisfied.

Our dev team is picking up the slack and continues advancing. The Bitmark project is getting code contributions and moving forward with development and the next version,  v0.9.9  You can help by taking a look at the code, compiling and playing with it.  Do have fun and give us some feedback !

..... what if suddenly we find ourselves operating at 50% the hashrate of peak hashrate of the year, what do we do? Wouldn't that be suspicious that not all miners are making use of their resources and there is some spare mining power ready to deploy an attack at any time....

volume of MARKS on Cryptopia is down, will it improve?

   It's unfortunate when a there is division and disagreement. However, the decision to subsidize merge-mined blocks less than native mined blocks was taken after long discussions, where everyone except @onelineproof agreed that it was in the best interest of the entire Bitmark community.  This includes users, early adopters, early investors and miners as well.

    Despite having been employed by the project for over a year and a half, @onelineproof has taken the stance that the project would either implement his vision, or he would fork. Despite having been repeatedly  invited to understand the point of view of most everyone else, and to engage in discussions whereby we could find common ground, or at least find some compromise, he chose to cut off communications, "ostrich style,  except to accuse me and the project of turning into an ICO (which is absurd as anybody who know Bitmark's history is well aware).  This radicalism he displays and lack of a balanced vision are simply not qualities I would like to see in a leader, to be honest. By his own admission, he says:


    As a project, we cannot be held hostage to the "merge-mine fundamentalism" of a single person, especially when he is insensitive to destroying the value of the coin and completely disregards the concerns of early adopters.

    The issue of merge-mining, and the pros and cons of seeking equitable subsidies between native mining and merge mining have been discussed at length on Project Bitmarks official github: Merge-mining as an Issue, on Project Bitmark's Slack channels and directly among interested parties.   I have invited input from the community repeatedly on this forum, and by and large, people are mostly interested in how soon the fork with the features as we propose will be ready.  

    I have sought the best advice on ths issue and have received this illustrative comment:



    I believe that by finding balance the right rewards for native mining and merge-mined mining, the Bitmark blockchain will be both secure and produce coins at the rate that the market is calling for. It is no secret that I have sought to regulate emission in response to market demand as early as 2015, when the idea of Coin Emission Modulation was born, and finally implemented earlier this year, ( with @onlineproof's coding help: give credit where credit is due.)

    @onlineproof seems to think it is wrong to consider the hardship suffered by early investors in the coin, who have seen the BTM/BTC exchange rate drop  dramatically this year. After long periods of rather minimal emission, and then a long period dominated by a selfish miner, ( as yet not identified to my knowledge, who may be hoarding their entire mining take for some future), we have had a few months of very distributed mining, which is good, but by mostly merge-miners who are acquiring  bitmarks at nearly zero cost and liquidating them ASAP.  We seek to remediate this, unashamedly.

    @onelineproof is correct that v0.9.8.3 is an absoute hard fork, set to occur at block 511,111, in approximately 5 or 6 days, around August 30.  We may delay this a bit to address the valid issues pointed out, but ultimately, IMO we should not pretend to ask the merge-miners who we have unwittingly let dominate all of Bitmark mining if they think letting go of the "candy" is a good idea.    As we have stated, we think the compromise we have implemented in Bitmark version 0.9.8.3 between 1) the near-zero cost of merge-mining Bitmark on top of an already on-going mining operation  and 2) the value of merge-mined blocks to the Bitmark blockchain is a good one.  I believe it is even good for the merge-miners, utlimately, because altough they will get less units, these units should be worth more. And of course, they can always mine natively for the full CEM reward.

    Losing @onelineproof as a coder for the project has been unfortunate, as in truth and fairness, he is a fine coder, resourceful, and was able to implement the Bitmark Project's vision of our transition from a single-PoW algo regulated by a primitive diffalgo to an 8mPoW blockchain regulated by the DGWv3 diffalgo,  and implented also the vision of Coin Emission Modulation as CEM v0.1.
 
    @onelineproof actually likes CEM well enough, although it has the same effect of withholding and deferring a part of the coin's emission into the future, just  as reduced subsidies for merge-mined blocks does.  It bears repeating that is a strong positive, because it means mining Bitmark will be viable much longer into the future and the number of coins emitted will match market demand much closer. Also it bears underlining that the total emission of Bitmark is being respected: no more and no less than originally planned
   Rather incongruoulsly, though, @onelineproof has chosen to chacterize the improvement of adjusting merge-mining subsidies as a "scam" and an "ICO" which IMO shows an embarrassing lack of understanding, a unfortunate quickness to judge negatively  and an unwarranted propensity to ascribe dark motives.  
 @onlineproof seems to think that it's OK to modify the code, as he helped to do in the v0.9.5 to v0.9.7 transition, but then somehow a sin to do so again to fix issues and address flaws discovered since v0.9.7 went live on June 6. Incongruous is the word that come to my mind.

    In any case,  for all his positive contributions we are grateful.   If @onelineproof wishes, he may submit a pull request with  the BigNum and other technical issues he points to. If we have time before the forkheight, or if we decide to postpone the fork, these minor details will be taken care of now, or they will be addressed later.  

BTM is currently under maintenance or experiencing wallet issues. Deposits and withdrawals will remain disabled as we work to find, test, and audit a solution. Thank you for your patience in the meantime.
 
unbelievable