Noir Investment Group : NoirShares

[xeroc]

Please check your debug, it should display your old private key and then a new one for you. in this format :-

Before ***********************************************
after *********************************************

It states:

Code: [Select]

before UMKZPyDT28Hs4****************************after UMKZPyDT28Hs*************************
Also checked with a different key. Same result:

Code: [Select]

before UL5akKb8bQn*******************after UL5akKb8bQn*********************

//EDIT: tips appreciated: PTS: PoJFoxbxBBZsYU4mESRUnamCRAtPYAQ79q

[barwizi]

Tell me the tangible benefits to this issue and then tell me what assurances NIG has that PTS holders will not repeat the massive dumping that was done on MMC. Too many units existed in the beginning, that resulted in dumping. Bitshares X is funded by PTS which has a steady value and BTC, so you cannot seriously try to use it as an example.

"Rome wasn't built in a day"

Just want to let you know I have been trying to get into talks with MMC's people to interview them and have a sit-down, two, three with the community.  I will like to attempt this with every new "DAC" that honors the social consensus in some way so I can help to grow the community and build a channel to help bridge the gap between Crypto-Devs and the Community.  It would be nice to help Devs get face-time with (potential) community members so they can gain a higher level of trust among the entire crypto-network. 

At first, ONE crypto-equity is going to rise above the pack.  BitShares has the potential if this social consensus is adhered to, or some other (NoirShares?).  I do not care which one, but I know one thing...it will not have a divided group of Devs trying to pull the social consensus in multiple directions will fragment movement in ANY helpful direction. 

As I see it, BitCoin largely grew because of Litecoin helping to open up a user-base who didn't yet understand the tech (and were not first adopters) to become "second adopters".  This broadens the user base and opens it up to more people.  So with that said, I am all for honest competition between Crypto Equities, but see the need for social-consensus-honoring services as well.  Using NoirBits as a means for purchasing NoirShares is similar to PTS funding model, but this is open source soooo if you are writing the code but just using the funding model then sure... 

Regardless, with NoirShares, I am starting to read that it does not use Invictus Code and as such is not expecting support from our community.  As such, I say go for it Barwizi.  It is a big loss to the community to see you with your efforts put elsewhere and I will be sad to see you go, but it is what it is and a project like NoirShares will be a full-time job.

With all this said, however, I am beginning to wonder if certain other platforms with so much BitCoin momentum are not going to blow all these fragmented attempts at crypto-equities away.  Remember this, they have many hardcore BTC Devs behind them and are riding on the coat-tails of that to keep hype up for their product.  I really do not know how any other crypto-equities are going to stand a chance without a pooling of community-members to create a similar project to what is occurring with them.  One crypto-equity will hold a competition to get the best algorithm from some of the brightest minds, and will likely hire all of them afterwards.  THIS IS HOW you get Devs to sign-on for the long haul.  They need to believe that if they do not, their chances are far worse for succeeding. 

Sincerely hope the people from both Invictus and NoirShares are listening on the last point. 


(P.S.  If you are looking for utility, give PTS holders the NoirShares, but create an "AngelShares Noir" fund where PTS/BTC/NoirBits are all accepted...this way miners know that at least a portion of the shares they mine will have a higher chance of becoming valuable and will not be subject to quick sell-off--i.e. devaluation.  Invictus' model was an attempt to help set a standard so there were not 1000 pump-and-dump altcoins like BitCoin had.  Though miners love it and get rich quick, it doesn't help society or the community--and worse incentivizes the public to BEG for regulation in the "mining" industry)

Regardless, with NoirShares, I am starting to read that it does not use Invictus Code and as such is not expecting support from our community.  As such, I say go for it Barwizi.  It is a big loss to the community to see you with your efforts put elsewhere and I will be sad to see you go, but it is what it is and a project like NoirShares will be a full-time job.

With all this said, however, I am beginning to wonder if certain other platforms with so much BitCoin momentum are not going to blow all these fragmented attempts at crypto-equities away.  Remember this, they have many hardcore BTC Devs behind them and are riding on the coat-tails of that to keep hype up for their product.  I really do not know how any other crypto-equities are going to stand a chance without a pooling of community-members to create a similar project to what is occurring with them.  One crypto-equity will hold a competition to get the best algorithm from some of the brightest minds, and will likely hire all of them afterwards.  THIS IS HOW you get Devs to sign-on for the long haul.  They need to believe that if they do not, their chances are far worse for succeeding. 

Sincerely hope the people from both Invictus and NoirShares are listening on the last point. 

Though some of my attention is now divided, i still am an active member of PTS community and III knows i am not going anywhere. My discoveries, ideas and innovations are for the group as a whole, they may be snubbing us here but we are still a part of this. Some have as much as 5000 PTS that was bought in anticipation of BTSX, my own PTS holdings are nothing to scoff at either. It should be noted that after i created the PoS/PoW Momentum code, i made it available to bytemaster. All my work will be shared with III without exception, if we can deal with our differences, i believe we can start attacking some of the issues that we will face.

NIG is not in a hurry, as proven by my not opening investment options before all the structures are in place. The Noir Fund  is already being tested but there are some security concerns that i want to deal with first before making it public. As it is meant to promote decentralization, some areas need ingenuity and innovation. for me it's easier coded than said.

With regard to factionalism, it does not exist. We may have brought in many new players, but quite a sizeable chunk of shares are in the hands of PTS holders already. And after a while when things pick up, there will be a lot of cross-investing as some of the ideas from both parties will work hand in hand.

[fuzzy]

Tell me the tangible benefits to this issue and then tell me what assurances NIG has that PTS holders will not repeat the massive dumping that was done on MMC. Too many units existed in the beginning, that resulted in dumping. Bitshares X is funded by PTS which has a steady value and BTC, so you cannot seriously try to use it as an example.

"Rome wasn't built in a day"

Just want to let you know I have been trying to get into talks with MMC's people to interview them and have a sit-down, two, three with the community.  I will like to attempt this with every new "DAC" that honors the social consensus in some way so I can help to grow the community and build a channel to help bridge the gap between Crypto-Devs and the Community.  It would be nice to help Devs get face-time with (potential) community members so they can gain a higher level of trust among the entire crypto-network. 

At first, ONE crypto-equity is going to rise above the pack.  BitShares has the potential if this social consensus is adhered to, or some other (NoirShares?).  I do not care which one, but I know one thing...it will not have a divided group of Devs trying to pull the social consensus in multiple directions will fragment movement in ANY helpful direction. 

As I see it, BitCoin largely grew because of Litecoin helping to open up a user-base who didn't yet understand the tech (and were not first adopters) to become "second adopters".  This broadens the user base and opens it up to more people.  So with that said, I am all for honest competition between Crypto Equities, but see the need for social-consensus-honoring services as well.  Using NoirBits as a means for purchasing NoirShares is similar to PTS funding model, but this is open source soooo if you are writing the code but just using the funding model then sure... 

Regardless, with NoirShares, I am starting to read that it does not use Invictus Code and as such is not expecting support from our community.  As such, I say go for it Barwizi.  It is a big loss to the community to see you with your efforts put elsewhere and I will be sad to see you go, but it is what it is and a project like NoirShares will be a full-time job.

With all this said, however, I am beginning to wonder if certain other platforms with so much BitCoin momentum are not going to blow all these fragmented attempts at crypto-equities away.  Remember this, they have many hardcore BTC Devs behind them and are riding on the coat-tails of that to keep hype up for their product.  I really do not know how any other crypto-equities are going to stand a chance without a pooling of community-members to create a similar project to what is occurring with them.  One crypto-equity will hold a competition to get the best algorithm from some of the brightest minds, and will likely hire all of them afterwards.  THIS IS HOW you get Devs to sign-on for the long haul.  They need to believe that if they do not, their chances are far worse for succeeding. 

Sincerely hope the people from both Invictus and NoirShares are listening on the last point. 


(P.S.  If you are looking for utility, give PTS holders the NoirShares, but create an "AngelShares Noir" fund where PTS/BTC/NoirBits are all accepted...this way miners know that at least a portion of the shares they mine will have a higher chance of becoming valuable and will not be subject to quick sell-off--i.e. devaluation.  Invictus' model was an attempt to help set a standard so there were not 1000 pump-and-dump altcoins like BitCoin had.  Though miners love it and get rich quick, it doesn't help society or the community--and worse incentivizes the public to BEG for regulation in the "mining" industry)

[barwizi]

Lots of warning due to a single line:

Code: [Select]

main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 8 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 9 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 11 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%llx’ expects argument of type ‘long long unsigned int’, but argument 13 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                     
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%x’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 14 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 15 has type ‘uint64 {aka long long unsigned int}’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 16 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 17 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 19 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 20 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 21 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]

testing import when compile is finished

//EDIT: hmm .. run time error:

Code: [Select]

NoirSharesd: kernel.cpp:368: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

//EDIT:
moved the original .NoirShare folder and started over. Daemon running.
exported Privkey from protoshare daemon

Code: [Select]

./NoirSharesd importprivkey UMKZPy*****************************
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid private key"}
sorry :-(

Please check your debug, it should display your old private key and then a new one for you. in this format :-

Before ***********************************************
after *********************************************

[barwizi]

Lots of warning due to a single line:

Code: [Select]

main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 8 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 9 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 11 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%llx’ expects argument of type ‘long long unsigned int’, but argument 13 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                     
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%x’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 14 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 15 has type ‘uint64 {aka long long unsigned int}’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 16 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 17 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 19 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 20 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 21 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]

testing import when compile is finished

//EDIT: hmm .. run time error:

Code: [Select]

NoirSharesd: kernel.cpp:368: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

//EDIT:
moved the original .NoirShare folder and started over. Daemon running.
exported Privkey from protoshare daemon

Code: [Select]

./NoirSharesd importprivkey UMKZPy*****************************
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid private key"}
sorry :-(

thanks for the effort, i'll tip you if you post an address. I'll get to checking whats wrong right now.

[xeroc]

Lots of warning due to a single line:

Code: [Select]

main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 8 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 9 has type ‘uint32_t {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wformat] 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 11 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%llx’ expects argument of type ‘long long unsigned int’, but argument 13 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                     
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%x’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 14 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 15 has type ‘uint64 {aka long long unsigned int}’ [-Wformat]                                                                                                                                 
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 16 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%d’ expects argument of type ‘int’, but argument 17 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]                   
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%s’ expects argument of type ‘char*’, but argument 19 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]               
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 20 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]         
main.h:1346:16: warning: format ‘%u’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 21 has type ‘const char*’ [-Wformat]

testing import when compile is finished

//EDIT: hmm .. run time error:

Code: [Select]

NoirSharesd: kernel.cpp:368: unsigned int GetStakeModifierChecksum(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `pindex->pprev || pindex->GetBlockHash() == (!fTestNet ? hashGenesisBlock : hashGenesisBlockTestNet)' failed.

//EDIT:
moved the original .NoirShare folder and started over. Daemon running.
exported Privkey from protoshare daemon

Code: [Select]

./NoirSharesd importprivkey UMKZPy*****************************
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Invalid private key"}
sorry :-(

[barwizi]

need someone to test updated git code by importing their PTS private key and tell me if it is accepted, then you tell me your addy and i see if you receive or not.  everything is working right i think.

[bytemaster]

Sounds good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[barwizi]

Honestly, these NoirShares are make no economic sense as a DAC but are in fact a means of duplicating the business model of Invictus.   I think the issue with share allocation is no ones business but your own as you are the creator of this coin.  As the creator you own 100% of the shares and may allocate them as you wish.

The issue comes down to how you plan to give them value.   Instead of learning from Invictus and the history of PTS which absent AGS would have likely failed miserably, you have attempted to repeat the process. 

Here is what you have overlooked, the people who you really gave your shares to were the power companies, cloud computing and mining pools.   The miners still have to pay for the shares they get with time and energy and thus ultimately do not get something for nothing.   These companies take their profit without benefiting your efforts at all, meanwhile your share holders are left holding something with no capital behind it.  A mere receipt of capital consumed as if that entitled them to consume more capital in the future. 

So the question of why should you honor PTS / AGS holders is because we can provide just as much benefit to you as the miners do without consuming our resources mining which means that we can then use the resources that we might have spent on mining actually helping your DAC to succeed.   Instead you must ask miners to first spend time and energy mining AND THEN also help you succeed.   From an economics perspective, which is more efficient and likely to help you grow?

You could have gone the 10/10 and still mined 80% but apparently the marginal utility of honoring the power companies with an extra 16% was perceived as greater than the marginal utility of honoring AGS/PTS holders with 2000% more.    A choice that does not make sense to me. 

Obviously it is too late now, but I am participating in this discussion because it is illustrative for future DAC creators.

It is too late for me to give 10% which still hasn't been really justified. Either way what you say make sense, however if 3% is not enough, then it is unfortunate. While there will be a Fund, i am focusing on defining structures first before the fund, why.. because i think that people need to understand what it is i am planning and how their investment will be applied to produce profit. If i try to "cow-boy" it , it will seem undisciplined  and confidence will wane.

[bytemaster]

Honestly, these NoirShares are make no economic sense as a DAC but are in fact a means of duplicating the business model of Invictus.   I think the issue with share allocation is no ones business but your own as you are the creator of this coin.  As the creator you own 100% of the shares and may allocate them as you wish.

The issue comes down to how you plan to give them value.   Instead of learning from Invictus and the history of PTS which absent AGS would have likely failed miserably, you have attempted to repeat the process. 

Here is what you have overlooked, the people who you really gave your shares to were the power companies, cloud computing and mining pools.   The miners still have to pay for the shares they get with time and energy and thus ultimately do not get something for nothing.   These companies take their profit without benefiting your efforts at all, meanwhile your share holders are left holding something with no capital behind it.  A mere receipt of capital consumed as if that entitled them to consume more capital in the future. 

So the question of why should you honor PTS / AGS holders is because we can provide just as much benefit to you as the miners do without consuming our resources mining which means that we can then use the resources that we might have spent on mining actually helping your DAC to succeed.   Instead you must ask miners to first spend time and energy mining AND THEN also help you succeed.   From an economics perspective, which is more efficient and likely to help you grow?

You could have gone the 10/10 and still mined 80% but apparently the marginal utility of honoring the power companies with an extra 16% was perceived as greater than the marginal utility of honoring AGS/PTS holders with 2000% more.    A choice that does not make sense to me. 

Obviously it is too late now, but I am participating in this discussion because it is illustrative for future DAC creators.   

[Stan]

lol, stan answer my questions please.  i'd like to hear it in plain clear words from you, why i should give  10% to PTS holders.

then you made one wrong assumption, read the NRS license that comes as part of the code.

Because if you don't, Macarena will...   

[bitcool]

I mine a lot script coins but sold them all, this is because the most profitable coins at the time usually were not the one I'm interested in.  (I'm a very selective altcoin investor, and usually prefer buying vs mining when it comes to investing)

With the growing number of switching-pools such as middlecoin, miners/hashing power can be a force killing your coin, or render it unstable. Loyalty-via-mining has become a thing in the past. 

As a PTS holder, I got MMC when it launched, I imported my priv keys and glad to see quite a few coins there. I could have sold them all but I decided not to, partially because its affiliation w/ PTS. I didn't buy any MMC either, because I didn't see any special value proposition coming from this altcoin. Subconsciously I do wish it succeed because of the stake I own. 

IMO, the number of DACs under BTS is not as important as the quality/usefulness of them. We need some killer DAC apps, not YAACs (Yet-Another-Alt-Coin)   

[barwizi]

either way , it's already in play and the max that i will honour without is the 3% i stated to bytemaster.

[barwizi]

...

you toast have 1000 PTS, NRS holder has 1000k, he mined to show support, you did not. There is no way i will give you 100 NRS, i had planned to give you 30, why? because with that 30, you would have a small interest in what i am doing, as a result you'd check in once in a while. later when you see the developments and choose to want in, you'll either mine, or buy-in. But if i gave you

100 NRS, you would already have enough to invest without even expending a single resource. meaning the dividends due to those shares are all free, not a single addition of value from you.

"Free" and "already payed for" are not the same thing.

Honoring the social consensus, in my opinion, is not about getting people to help you write your code as much as it is about building the network effect.  As is obvious looking at the list of failcoins, building network effect is much more difficult than just writing the code.  By honoring the social consensus, you invite this community (as one of the largest and most qualified cryptoequity and DAC communities in existence) to judge your product.  If they think it's worthless, they'll certainly dump it.  If not, even those who don't help code it will use it, and will relay word of its merit to those around them.

thanks your opinion makes sense but my issue is the %

[barwizi]

lol, stan answer my questions please.  i'd like to hear it in plain clear words from you, why i should give  10% to PTS holders.

then you made one wrong assumption, read the NRS license that comes as part of the code.