@bitfreak!  LTBcoins are a Counterparty asset that Adam Levine created several months ago that he now uses to run his network on.  Individuals earn LTBcoins for participation in and contributions to the LTB network and the coins are issued on a regular schedule based on a formula that uses various statistics they collect on their site.  There are different tokens that LTBcoins can be auctioned and/or traded for, such as SPONSOR (for a 1 minute audio ad during a podcast), LTBDISPLAY (for a front page display ad), and HOURCONSULT (for a one hour Skype consultation with Adam).  There is also a market where LTBcoins can be purchased for bitcoin so that those that have LTBcoins they don't need can sell them to those that do.  Sometimes the SPONSOR tokens, etc. may also become available for purchase directly with bitcoin if someone aquires one and then decides to sell it or auction it.

To make use of these assets you simply need to create a free Counterparty wallet at https://counterwallet.io.  You will need some bitcoin dust in your wallet in order to spend any Counterparty assets, so keep that in mind.

Here is the link to the LTB page that explains sponsorships, etc.:

     http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/sponsor-advertise-contest

You and Arthur Falls did an excellent job on the Beyond Bitcoin podcast awhile back, but I think it is also worth pursuing an interview on the flagship program with Adam Levine, Stephanie Murphy, and Andreas Antonopoulos, although I honestly don't know how difficult that is at this point.  It would be especially useful, IMO, to have Andreas Atonopoulos participate in that interview because of his technical skills and his ability to explain technical subjects to a wide audience.  Also, simply because of his considerable reputation in the bitcoin community, if Mr. Antonopoulos speaks favorably regarding the technical merits of cryptonite that could be a huge boost.

@bitfreak! regarding your query on marketing ideas, I would like to repeat my offer of my nearly 20k LTB coins to contribute toward a sponsor token.  Maybe there are others here in this forum that have LTB coins they would be willing to contribute?  We could buy a spot on the flagship LTB podcast to get a brief message to a huge audience and put Cryptonite back on peoples radar.  I honestly don't know what sponsor tokens are going for these days, but if you want to pursue this I'll check into it.

@bitfreak! I thought I was done bothering you about withdrawal limits, but another potentially tricky situation occurred to me...

Suppose someone sets the withdrawal limit for an address to the minimum transaction fee.  No problem there, they can raise the limit any time by executing another setlimit transaction and waiting the required 100 blocks.  However, now suppose at some point in the future the minimum transaction fee is raised.  Do you now have an address that becomes effectively burned because its withdrawal limit is now less than the new minimum transaction fee?  Never mind why you would or wouldn't raise the fee, or how unlikely you think it is.  The future is hard to predict, and the goal is to think very long term and to assume that Cryptonite becomes successful beyond our wildest dreams.

We've been referring to this situation as the zero withdrawal limit feature, but after thinking about it some more, it occurred to me that the minimum transaction fee acts like the event horizon for a black hole.  Once you cross that line there's no going back.  I think this situation starts to make the second solution mentioned above look more attractive, because it fixes the problem once and for all and removes the hidden dependency between transaction fees and withdrawal limits.

Just to be clear, and to save you from having scroll back in this thread, the second solution was:  Make it so that the minimum fee is paid for a setlimit transaction regardless of the withdrawal limit.

Another way to think about this is to say that the withdrawal limit simply does not apply to the minimum transaction fee. I think it should also be noted that only the minimum transaction fee should be exempted.  Allowing an arbitrarily large transaction fee to be exempted would potentially provide an avenue for a hacker to circumvent the withdrawal limit.

I would also like to request clarification on your comment about needing to change the protocol.  My understanding is that Cryptonite added the concept of withdrawal limits in the first place (a nice innovation, IMO), effectively making a significant alteration to the Bitcoin protocol (not to mention separating the block chain into three different data structures to implement the mini-blockchain).  So I'm not following why what seems like a slight change in the way you handle withdrawal limits is really a big departure from what you've already done.  I really am asking, so please forgive my complete lack of understanding for how the protocol works under the hood.  I would also appreciate any good reading material you could point me to.

Bitfreak, thank you for taking time to look into this matter.  I admit that I carried out that experiment rather impulsively, and I accept full responsibility for the consequences.  I'm honestly not worried about the relatively small amount of XCN I burned, another thought bothers me more...

I don't know whether I was the first person to make this mistake, but I'm quite certain I wont be the last.  I shudder to think of someone doing this someday with a large chunk of their life savings.  Even worse, someone might do this and then wait weeks, months, or even years before trying to raise the limit.  A wallet or blockchain explorer will show that the expected funds are present any time that address is checked.  So not only has the money been lost, but the discovery of that loss has been potentially delayed to a future time when the impact on the individual is far worse.

I wont belabor the point any further, but I think it should be clear that the zero withdrawal limit feature is a Cryptonite landmine just waiting around to blow a hole in the finances of innocent people.  So you may want to consider doing one of the following in a future software update:

• Make it impossible to set the withdrawal limit lower than the minimum transaction fee.
• Make it so that the minimum fee is paid for a setlimit transaction regardless of the withdrawal limit.
• Have the setlimit interface issue a dire warning and require the user to respond to a query before proceeding.

The third suggestion would have stopped me from making the mistake in the first place.  I like the second suggestion for the selfish reason that it would allow me to recover my funds at some point in the future (when they might be worth a lot more than they are now). 

Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but I set the withdrawal limit of an address to zero and now I am unable to raise the withdrawal limit.  I looked at the debug log output for the CommitTransaction process, and I noticed that the error message for the AcceptToMemoryPool step was "insufficient funds".  So I set my transaction fee to zero hoping that would allow the transaction to go through.  Although the transaction still failed, when I checked the debug log output again, the error message for the AcceptToMemoryPool step was changed to "no inputs/outputs".  So with no transaction fee, at least it seems to have failed for a different reason.  I even tried putting some XCN in a new address in the same wallet, and then reinstating the transaction fee, hoping that it could somehow draw the transaction fee from the funds available in the new address.  However, the setlimit transaction still failed.  I also tried giving more than one address argument to setlimit, but all I got was a usage message.

Bitfreak, do you know of any way that I can raise the withdrawal limit for an address once it has been set to zero?  At the very least, this may be a situation that you would want to consider idiot-proofing in a future software update.  In my defense, since I'm the idiot in this situation  , a naive user might consider doing this as a way to protect the funds at an address he/she intends to use for long-term storage.

To bitfreak, I would like to say a sincere thank you for this contribution.  It seems to me the bitcoin community may have rushed to work on 2.0 apps before work was finished on a solid 1.0 money app.  A digital money that can scale to global use by billions of people (isn't that the goal?)... and IMO money is THE killer app in this space.  So thank you, bitfreak, for having your priorities straight!  Also, I still just don't trust PoS systems. After all, that's exactly what the Federal Reserve banking cartel is... a PoS system.

I'm running on an Arch Linux system, so I got the source code from GitHub and built it.  So far, cryptonite-qt seems to be running like a champ, it synced to the network very quickly (as compared to my experience with bitcoin-qt).  I even ran it with setgenerate turned on for about 16 hours with all four of my laptops CPUs cranking... but of course I didn't get any blocks.  I aquired some XCN on BTER to try out the wallet, but I want to ask a question first.

When running the configure step of the build, I got a warning about my Berkeley DB embedded database system version.  In fact, I had to rerun configure with the flag "--with-incompatible-bdb".  The build wants version 4.8, but on my system I have version 5.3.28-2.  How important is this?  Do I need to go to the trouble of rolling back my Berkeley DB to the older version?

Finally, I would like to offer to help out.  Is the BTC address on page one of this thread still valid for contributions?  I'll send what I can.  Also, I have about 18,000 LTB coin I am willing to donate if you find that useful (to go toward a sponsor token or for some other purpose).  Do you think it would be useful to repeat the XCN announcement on the LTB community forum to raise awareness?  I really want to see this succeed.