Hi coinsolidation, i want give you just an advice, "BM" is literally too "anonimous" how brand.

Instead "MARK" is so cool, I invite you to reflect on this change.

I love this:




ADD Today i'm in good form:



Keep it up!

I did not put in a vast amount of thought in to branding.

I did think the term "Mark" was good and could be used commonly, it is the unit of measurement for 0.001 Bitmarks, equal to "1 Mark". https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/Currency

So the term Mark is used by the project, but reserved for future usage. When one mark is equal to one dollar, and beyond

One constraint I do wish to apply to the logo, is that it must be identifiable at 20x20 and 32x32 pixels, as this is used commonly.

This variation of logo does look sharp, and Allow raises a valid argument against the use of "BM". I could argue that "B" is also anonymous, and that an icons usage in relation to a project creates the brand identity. We could also argue that if people do not feel it is reflective of Bitmark or the project from the start, then it may be incorrect.

I would seek feedback from the community on this matter. I do feel that we will be stuck with whatever we use at the start, changing logo half way through is probably not a good idea.

Refine yes, change no. I conclude then that any change should be before launch.

It is very good to see thought being put in to buy buttons, there is a thread here to discuss merchant and integrator needs.

Agreed.

What you propose can be done simply.

"Bitmark" the word, currently does not have a logo representation.

If we take the stylized "Bitmark" from Allows design, and prefix it with the "BM" logo we currently have, the solution is found.

The two font styles may, or may not, work together.

Can we proceed by merging the two, then Allow and mymenace can work together until both are happy with the end result, if the feel so inclined.

In a few minutes I will be posting an important update to the project, an issue we must discuss.

Can you be more specific about how taxation breaks backwards compatibility. What changes would have to be made, and what effects will it have on existing infrastructure?

Taxation requires the presence of a "custom" or "forced" transaction in the block chain. There are many ways to implement it, but each one requires a specific transaction or output to be present. This requirement means that mining software, pool software, and potentially anything that reads the block chain would need to be modified to be Bitmark compatible, or face having blocks rejected. As an example, see Freicoin.

I generally dislike IPOs (and you'll get trolls telling you it's illegal but that's besides the point) so I'm good with NO IPO.

However, premining, when it's small and explicitly detailed in its purpose, is accepted as the cost of doing business.  It incentivizes the development team, sets aside monies for bounties, resource acquisition and general petty cash.  I don't think the community hates premines, I think they hate OBSCENE premines (greater than 5%, 10%) and are vague in their usage as this is generally seen as a move to get-rich-quick.

Just a thought...

I don't think there is a problem with 'MARK' in general but it's more of an issue with 'BM' being better suited for the 32x32 icon for visibility reasons.

As far as the other issue that's been brought up related to compensation I'm not sure. I'm going to think it over a little and I'll see if I can add anything to the discussion.

A good suggestion, but I am uncomfortable with it for some reason.


I wish to avoid anything which could be used against the project later. The fund would have been 0.25%, the entire block taxation would have amounted to 70,000 BTM over the full block schedule.  Up front that is too much of a proportion, so I have to reject the pre-mine idea.

Perhaps there is another option.

1. I the primary first developer mine for myself, as others do.
2. We set up a "developer fund" address, or addresses, which are locked until a specific date, myself and other miners can contribute BTM to it as they see fit.

I am +1 to this approach, as it is simple, reasonable and fair.

Let us resolve this quickly, with +1's.