Thank you for your reply.

I must be honest in what I will have at my disposal:

• a) A development fund of the currency from the 0.250% block tax
• b) An amount of personal coins which I will be legitimately mining myself
• c) I'm a working man with an income which varies from month to month, some months it has more disposable income than others

I've calculated the cost of all resources needed to be about 0.6 BTC.

In return I could offer a portion of A for an agreed time.
Also, If required a percentage of B for an agreed time.
In the worst case, should the project have zero value I could recompense from my personal income.

A+B have an unknown value, which we must assume to be zero, but that we hope to be higher.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this is not a pump and dump with "10000% gains tomorrow!", it's a long term development project who's value will be earned rather than presupposed.

If it helps any, part of the project entails making a clone-able reference implementation available to the public so that we can have clones which at least use a stable new codebase, hopefully that alone has some value.

You could build an ALT coin generator as a source of funding.. (just an idea, not sure if it's a good one.) I think most of the generators are not generating coins with current codebases.

Or, give credits like at the end of movies to donators somewhere in the client (in the about screen showing current version etcetra) or on the webpage. People like being famous...

You could build an exchange in which a percentage of the trading fees go towards the development of your coin and the rest goes to maintenance of the service, or any service for that matter could be made and a percentage of the profits sent to the development fund.

Creative ways to fund development is something that Litecoin/Bitcoin is lacking IMO. Their development funds pretty much all come from donations, I think both could spend more time thinking of creative ways to fund development.

sure just send to my address below

~CfA~

Keep it up, and thanks! I've edited my response in response to your edit.

Also I have updated the OP with what has been discussed so far. It's sounding more reasonable already.

Great ideas CoinHoarder.

Would you be willing to commit some time in the future to the bitmark project, particularly at the adoption stage? I can see the way you think being very beneficial during brainstorming sessions and when discussing targeting specific markets encouraging adoption - as the target is non crypto currency affiliated ventures.

To clarify regarding the RI, all Bitmark code is already open source and free to use, I just need to polish a few bits, fork, and provide some documentation so that it's easily clone-able by others.

I think what I'd like to convey is that I would like the process of others cloning the RI to be a documented manual process, rather than an automated process.

The NXT Asset Exchange is being used by a lot of people/businesses to raise funding....take a look at:

https://nxtforum.org/asset-exchange-general/

seems like a perfect match for your needs....

Cheers, thanks for the kind words. I'd like to point out one thing which is controversial and opinions differ, but I feel very strongly about it. I wish I would of seen your project earlier so I could of voiced my concerns.

I feel like crypto currencies that are mined by ASICs are not a good thing, and I would suggest looking into alternatives.

1. ASICs make the network more centralized due to ASIC companies being able to make them for pennies compared to the retail prices average consumers can get. Due to economies of scale, they can build large farms much cheaper than the average miner can. This also applies to anyone with enough money to build their own ASICs or buy ASICs in bulk, so it favors large institutions and old money, more so than the average joe blow.

2. I feel like PoW is broken in that so much electricity and processing power is wasted on securing the block chain. PoS coins help and/or solve the electricity problem (depending on whether its fully PoS or not), and coins like Primecoin solve the wasted processing power problem. I'm not saying these solutions are ideal... finding prime numbers isn't going to change the world, and there are many variants of PoS out there and PoS security is still under question. However, with all the talk of how "unsecure" PoS coins are from the naysayers, I find it odd that there have been no problems with it thus far.. not even with PPcoin in which people seem to think is the most insecure PoS implementation. So, I take these arguments with a grain of salt.

2a. Fair distribution is the only main issue others and myself have with purely PoS coins. However, I feel like there are work arounds that can be implemented.
2a1. Having the coin start out as a PoW coin for the initial distribution of the coins, then switching to purely PoS at a set point in time. See Vericoin as an example.
2a2. I have been thinking about other solutions for this problem, as I'm sure they exist. I would like some feedback on something I thought about.. I'm not sure if it would work. Here is a brief overview of my idea:


Since you don't want to do an IPO, you could use Vericoin's approach for the above idea if the logistics were worked out.

3. ASIC mining unnecessarily makes the mining community susceptible to preorder scams, late delivery, manufacturers mining on customers hardware, etc.

Very interesting. Personal opinions follow:

on distribution
I'd like to suggest that much of the unfair distribution is down to the "missed the train" and "pump dump" mentality. The ecosystem has become geared towards making a fast profit, rather than slowly maturing a project.

Consider a coin with zero value at launch, as Bitcoin was, and where value is earned over time. Do we feel this distribution is unfair? (personally, no).

Fuss, countdowns, IPOs, premines, excessive marketing, rush to get on exchanges, all of these things cause unfair distribution, the human element, not the technological element.

Nothing is infallible, but there are steps we can take to limit unfairness I hope.

on ASICs
I have shared your opinions on ASICs, as you stated earlier opinions change, as mine have.

ASICs will always be created when there is an economical advantage by producing one. No PoW algorithms are immune to ASICs or computational and technological advantages, and percentage gains from the benefits of faster cheaper hashing will always drive the market.
ASICs are economically and environmentally more efficient at securing a PoW block chain.
Over time ASIC farms are more likely to gravitate to where it is cheapest (in all senses), to where it is cold, or where electricity is free. Consider an ASIC farm being powered by wind and hydro, and where the heat generated was used by humans instead of burning fossil fuels.
Securing a distributed transaction ledger has cost, but that cost far outweighs the cost of having a human powered, extremely latent, abused and manipulated ledger.
PoW can have multiple applications outside of currency, and ASICs can be used there.
GPUs are also possible. Several people with GPU miners can equate to one ASIC miner, so a balance can be struck.
One can easily rent a rig if they want to mine, you don't have to own hardware.

PoS is a different case, for now I feel that PoW is the fairest and safest way to ensure distribution from inception, coupled with the points above about distribution.

All of this is just personal opinion on why I chose PoW Scrypt over the alternatives for Bitmark. It feels balanced and proven, under the right circumstances.

general
You make a strong counter argument when you mention ASIC farms and old money. I would counter this by saying that whilst there are multiple players in a field it should not get monopolized, there are multiple ASIC manufacturers and lots of people with old money. I do not feel either should be excluded from the process of migrating to crypto. It is still a concern though. Perhaps it's more of a concern for hyped coins which are to be short lived, and less for a slow project with longevity?

IPO, I honestly want to avoid this at all costs. Nobody get's in early unless they believe in the merit of the coin, no inflated value, and development funds tied directly to the value of the coin over a long period of time, in order to incentive good old hard work.

The human element is always fallible, centralization of funds or distribution, even if through a single distributor, just makes a mess. I don't want that on my head. Anybody who get's a Bitmark will have mined it or bought it from a miner, any bitmark project incurred costs will come from development and increasing the usability utility to end users.

I feel as though I may have been dismissive in the way I've written this, I hope it does not convey that way.

No rush, you aren't required to reply again Thank you so much for your input so far.