## UniBitX Developer Resources

### :book: Technical References:
1. CryptoNote Whitepaper -- [CryptoNote Whitepaper](https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf)
2. A Nice Review of The CryptoNote Whitepaper -- [CryptoNote Whitepaper Review](https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf)
3. Our Template For A Whitepaper -- ["CryptoNot" aka Our Whitepaper](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRk8_i2s4X5YPKWNj9SKgrLmwSOKMCDKQWkes5yovCPyQVuE9VEttNTvTgppPGuTCYA96ozs5iCfe1X/pub)
4. The Tokenomics Behind UniBitX -- [Tokenomics of UniBitX](https://tokenomics.app)

### :ghost: Spooky Services:
[SpookyPool Web Wallet](https://spookypool.nl/webwallet/dashboard)
[SpookyPool Mining Pool](https://spookypool.nl/pools)
[SpookyPool DEX](https://spookypool.nl/exchange/LTC-UBX)

### Websites & Services Running:
[UniBitX.Org](https://unibitx.org) -- public facing website
[UniBitX.App](https://unibitx.app) -- the website to see the app ecosystem built around unibitx
[UniBitX.Dev](https://unibitx.dev) -- the public developer docs for unibitx
[Block Explorer]() -- Public block explorer service
[Network Map]() -- Public network map service
[Web Wallet]() -- Public web wallet service
[Paper Wallet Generator](https://unibitx.github.io/paper-wallet/index.html) -- paper wallet generator
:link: [Discord Invitation](https://discord.gg/ED8Nmd9)
[Current Bounty Info](https://discordapp.com/channels/642894771718979584/642895632184508416/642896518579486740)

### Services Planned:
faucets added and implemented [ToDo]()
airdrop management system implementd []()
bounty system implementation [Please Join Discussion](https://discord.gg/fE8M9B5)
multi-sig implementation [Being Worked On](https://utils.turtlecoin.dev/classes/multisig.html)
governance solution implementation [E.g, Aragon](https://aragon.org/project/governance/)
[DAO](https://lawofthelevel.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/187/2017/07/WhitePaper-1.pdf)
voting platform [Private Chain Voting?](https://governance.app/)
mining pool listings
decentralized exchange listings
centralized exchange listings
telegram bot added
discord bot added
irc bot added
bots, exchange listins, need put into sections/areas for correct funding sources..
also, how we depict what community funding needs are from airdrops, faucets, or bounty fund. id assume airdrop only correct?
bounty funding all direcly comes from bounty fund..
faucet funding all directly from faucet fund..
and finally, airdrops fund supporting community airdrops soley and with partnering communities and events/services
what draws the line between these funds and the marketing fund? or core/governance funds? what are those explicity used for and how are all/each of these managed needs laid out in the whitepaper.
what tasks specifically get done by core devs, what can be done by contributors, volunteers, what actions get taken from which funds and via what means this takes place, also the tools and techniques used in governing the funding acions and verifying the authenticity/validity of submissions for such funds, or escrow release of such funds.
Community polling vs. governance voting vs. network voting vs. consensus agreement mechanisms and how they are being used.
growth hacking, and community growth outreach plans/initiatives.
Improvement proposal process and implementation of changes policy to the community agreement.
Terms of service, privacy policy, community agreement, walk-thru tutorials, etc;
API's
[Current API Server](https://104.251.210.140/q/api)

Improvement Proposal Process Notes:

1. Make it easier to follow the process than it is to do the proposal without it. With or without a process, it's not easy to do a proposal. A well designed process, by eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel, will expedite things and make it easier to follow the process than to improvise. A more complex process, requiring more effort and training to follow it, reduces the advantage to the user, increases the perception that the process requires work over and above what is required to do the proposal, and increases resistance to the process. If you find yourself asking people to invest in following the process for an intangible future benefit, your process is too difficult. The process should show people how to do the things they will have to do anyway, and make it easier than coming up with their own solutions.

2. Prime the pump. Whenever possible, customize process templates and fill-in forms in advance. This lowers the effort to execute the process. Every time someone faces a blank page, the outcome is unpredictable. It also raises the level of frustration and resistance. Set things up so that all contributors have to do is to provide content.

3. Build training into the process and make it constant. Training should not be a separate once a year or even once a proposal event. Thirty-six five-minute sessions delivered at the moment of need are better than one three-hour session. Each task should come with guidance built in. If you have identified what you want reviewers to validate, then you have the criteria you need to enable contributors to self-review. Think of every instruction paragraph, checklist, or process document as a training tool. Build it into the process so that they don't have to go looking for it. Surround the participants with guidance.

4. Set expectations. Communicate clear roles and responsibilities at every step to ensure that participants know what they are getting into. No one should ever stop work or feel frustration as a result of not knowing what is expected of them. Process cooperation and acceptance starts with a clear dialog regarding expectations. The process should provide opportunities to raise issues with expectations early and frequently to anticipate and mitigate potential problems.

5. Ensure participants are capable of fulfilling their assignments. Even if the process defines roles and responsibilities, communicates expectations, and provides guidance, it will fail if participants are not capable of fulfilling their assignments or not are available to fulfill them. When staff are assigned who cannot fulfill their assignments, you are doomed to failure. They need to be helped or replaced as quickly as possible. To ensure the success of your process implementation, you should anticipate that this will happen occasionally and address it during resource identification and shortly after assignment tasking.

cn_turtle_lite_slow_hash_v2 -- Algo @ V5
CN-Turtle Variant 2 -- Our algo being used by unibitx

TechSpecs:CommunityLinks:DeveloperSetup:
c

[UniBitX DAO Using Alchemy](https://alchemy.daostack.io/dao/0x061598fc9b575436bd66ed54e0072b2333450b37)

[TurtleCoin Smart Contract Thoughts](https://docs.turtlecoin.lol/guides/crypto-funda/smart-contract)

HyphaDAO -
is currently operating on the Telos blockchain,
which uses a DPoS consensus mechanism, (Delegated Proof of Stake)

EOSIO/EOSDAC -

Aragon -
"[Gasper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.03052.pdf)"
Ethereum's proof-of-stake-based consensus protocol

UniBitX Aragon DAO -
https://rinkeby.aragon.org/#/unibitx

Alchemy -
[Proof of Authority](PoA)
maintains a public list of previously authorised nodes:
the identities are not anonymised and the blockchain is not open to everyone
(i.e., the blockchain is permissioned).

UniBitX Launch Date - 03/05/2020 @ 7:49pm (UTC)