226
General Discussion / Re: BitShares French ConneXion wish you a UIA Merry Christmas !!!
« on: December 27, 2015, 05:14:43 pm »
It's the thought that matters. 
Thanks!
Thanks!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
227
General Discussion / Re: Against FBA
« on: December 27, 2015, 04:30:58 pm »inb4 patronizing posts telling me to sell and leave if I don't like: I've already adjusted my holdings and I'm spending less time at these forums. "this is 'murca and if you don't like it you can GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!" It's sad that the most promising prospect for change that I've ever seen is opting to go this route. It really bothers me. Sorry for having an opinion and expressing it.
Meh, I won't be telling you that. At least you are respectful while voicing your opposition. The only person I'be told that is tonyk, and if you look through his recent post history he has been very mean and nasty towards everyone for a long time. It wasn't simply the fact that he disagreed.
I know how you feel though. I was very vocal against dilution and the community decided to go against my opinion. I had to come to terms with that... you don't always get what you want. Eventually, I even came around to their way of thinking and now think it is a nice feature. You should stick around because perhaps the same will happen with you once you see a few neat features implemented because of FBA with no added dilution.
228
General Discussion / Re: Whats going on with Coinmarketcap ?
« on: December 26, 2015, 03:47:51 pm »
That sucks Monsterer, hopefully this motivates you to improve the back end of Metaexchange a little bit. Coin market cap uses the price of each exchange, weighted by how much volume they've had in the last 24 hours. I think perhaps you can improve upon that formula by using a combination of the median price and CMC's formula. Obviously you've thought of this but a killswitch would be good too, if the price moves X% you should freeze trading until you manually OK it.
I've been working on creating part of a Meteor app (javascript & node.js) that aggregates data from 31 exchanges... it is a pain in the ass because every exchange has a different format for everything whether it be the format of their JSON, or the denomination they show price or volume. It is incomplete, but I'd be happy to share my code with you if you want to build a custom solution and cut CMC out of the loop. I admit I haven't programmed anything in about 10 years though, so my code is rough around the edges so to speak. This project is just to reacquaint myself with programming for fun so I wouldn't mind sharing the code, although I do plan on building a site around the code I'm writing. I have 31 exchanges working and am looking to implement another ~40 more. I can understand why you're using CMC though... it is a PITA to integrate a lot of exchange's APIs.
I've been working on creating part of a Meteor app (javascript & node.js) that aggregates data from 31 exchanges... it is a pain in the ass because every exchange has a different format for everything whether it be the format of their JSON, or the denomination they show price or volume. It is incomplete, but I'd be happy to share my code with you if you want to build a custom solution and cut CMC out of the loop. I admit I haven't programmed anything in about 10 years though, so my code is rough around the edges so to speak. This project is just to reacquaint myself with programming for fun so I wouldn't mind sharing the code, although I do plan on building a site around the code I'm writing. I have 31 exchanges working and am looking to implement another ~40 more. I can understand why you're using CMC though... it is a PITA to integrate a lot of exchange's APIs.
229
General Discussion / Re: Plan for introducing Privacy (STEALTH) Mode feature asap
« on: December 25, 2015, 07:18:53 pm »their logic goes like this.... if I build a better looking house on your land I can claim the land as mine. After all they claimed a whole continent as 'theirs' following this tactic, what are a feature or two on BTS.
CLI users are (and always will be) a very small fraction of Bitshares' user base. Sorry, but you are not that important. It is more important that the masses be able to use said feature than you get "robbed" of it. Anyways, the appreciation of the value of the BTS token, if we are able to further adoption, will in effect remedy the "profit" you could of made from Stealth transfers (or any feature for that matter.) Adoption has always been the end game goal for Bitshares- if it is widely adopted everyone wins, regardless of who owns X, Y or Z feature. Making Stealth transfers available to the masses rather than just CLI users is a good step in that direction. It will take many more steps, but every step is worth taking.
You guys should of realized early on that Bytemaster will heavily influence the direction the Bitshares project will take. If you don't like that, then please just sell your stake and go somewhere else because your negativity is toxic to the community.
230
General Discussion / Re: There should be disclaimers on the Depost/Withdraw page
« on: December 22, 2015, 03:13:29 am »
Thanks.. I was beginning to lose faith in this community.
A good point to provide 'warning/disclaimer'. But why are you losing faith? The software is still new and it needs time to iron out the glitches.
I thought no one agreed with the OP since no one replied.. no other reason and I was kind of joking.
231
General Discussion / Re: There should be disclaimers on the Depost/Withdraw page
« on: December 22, 2015, 12:50:58 am »Thanks.. I was beginning to lose faith in this community.
232
General Discussion / Re: [VoterApathy] How To Make 51% Attacks A Lot Harder (without more people voting)
« on: December 22, 2015, 12:42:36 am »
So it seems the OP went right over everyone's head. Admittedly I am not certain it would work, but it seems like no one even got the concept. I was hoping BM would read the OP and comment as to whether it is feasible. I probably described it wrong, but I feel like it is a possible solution. Here is the most recent thread on Bitcointalk about the idea, along with a link to the first thread. I was against it at first because I didn't want Litecoin to be Bitcoin's "bitch", but I eventually came around to the idea... as you can see in the original and subsequent thread. Those threads explain the idea in more detail if you're having trouble getting what I was trying to say in the OP.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=677783.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176556.0
For the record I like DPoS, and I think it is one of the features that makes Bitshares attractive. It is definitely unfortunate that hardly anyone votes. I think we should force centralized exchanges to vote by taking our business elsewhere if they refuse to vote. That is one easy thing we could do.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=677783.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176556.0
That would required the MUSE chain to also validate transactions of the BTS chain to use the hash of the right fork.Well, yeah... that's the point of the proposal. Each Bitshares chain would work together to make each separate chain more resilient.
Furthermore, BitShares already favours the longest leg (which happens to be the leg with highest witness participation and thus "highest degree" of consensusSo does Bitcoin/Litecoin (for which the idea was originally conceived for)... the idea is that when an attacking fork occurs that there be an option to NOT favor the longest leg and instead favor the honest leg that is recorded on the other chains.
Maybe I still don't get the magic behind the idea
51% is a gross overestimate. Try a 13% attack; that's what bitshares is currently vulnerable to.Well, duh.... but if I say 13% attack hardly anyone knows what I'm talking about, yet if I say 51% attack then everyone knows what I am talking about.
For the record I like DPoS, and I think it is one of the features that makes Bitshares attractive. It is definitely unfortunate that hardly anyone votes. I think we should force centralized exchanges to vote by taking our business elsewhere if they refuse to vote. That is one easy thing we could do.
233
General Discussion / [VoterApathy] How To Make 51% Attacks A Lot Harder (without more people voting)
« on: December 21, 2015, 03:56:26 am »
Debating PoW vs PoS (yet again) on Bitcointalk today made me think of something that I think would be neat. It was an idea proposed by Mike Caldwell (Casascius) for Litecoin in 2013, and I think it could work for Bitshares chains. It requires cooperation from both (or in our case multiple) chains, which is why it never really took off for Bitcoin/Litecoin. However, considering the close relationship that already exists in between Bitshares chains the politics of it may work out, and I think it is a great idea if we can make it work.
It seems like this idea (or something similar) can help the Bitshares ecosystem be more resilient to 51% attacks. BTS, MUSE, PLAY, Etc... (which I hereinafter refer to as Bitshares chains) can "backup" each other. I edited the original post to cut out the opinion pieces, for readability reasons, and to make it easier to understand as far as how it would work in the Bitshares ecosystem. Obviously, all of the below subject to change after review from those smarter than I, and honestly I wrote this without giving it much thought but I am positive it could be made to work. I am busy with other things- I just wanted to make sure the Bitshares community knew of this idea.
It seems like this idea (or something similar) can help the Bitshares ecosystem be more resilient to 51% attacks. BTS, MUSE, PLAY, Etc... (which I hereinafter refer to as Bitshares chains) can "backup" each other. I edited the original post to cut out the opinion pieces, for readability reasons, and to make it easier to understand as far as how it would work in the Bitshares ecosystem. Obviously, all of the below subject to change after review from those smarter than I, and honestly I wrote this without giving it much thought but I am positive it could be made to work. I am busy with other things- I just wanted to make sure the Bitshares community knew of this idea.
Quote
A General Overview:
I believe I have thought of an idea that would make each Bitshares chain more secure, and far more important & relevant in the Bitshares/cryptocurrency ecosystem... by each Bitshares chain being ready in wait in case any certain Bitshares chain experiences a 51% attack. Add a mandatory "merge-mining" feature to each Bitshares chain so that it is always "merge-mining" all other Bitshares chains. All chains should have the option of "let's subscribe to a different Bitshares chain(s)" as a secondary means of block validation, which in turn would be a way to resolve future 51% attack on any certain Bitshares chain.
How It May Work:
1. Add a new requirement to all Bitshares chains, such that a valid Bitshares chain's block must contain either a record of the most recent block header hash of all other Bitshares chains, or a repeat of the hash found in the prior Bitshares chain's block (with a limit of repetitions.) Bitshares blocks that contain outdated Bitshares chains' intelligence should be disfavored by nodes and/or delegates capable of detecting that. Further impose the requirement that all Bitshares chains' block headers must be represented contiguously in each Bitshares chain. Each Bitshares chains' blocks cannot be skipped by all other chains and must be recorded in each chain's blockchain.
2. In the event there is an active block chain fork on any certain Bitshares chain, the requirement is loosened such that the block header hash requirement of the Bitshares chain under attack can be satisfied by any leg of the chain, not just the leg that the Bitshares chain under attack considers valid.
3. Add a feature to all Bitshares chains' clients that allow Bitshares users to decide to prefer or not-prefer branches of a certain Bitshares chain's fork (while one is in progress.) The default for this should always favor the Bitshares leg with the most longevity, and should disfavor long chains that suddenly appear to replace a large amount of the known Bitshares chains' block chain that's under attack. The stakeholders/delegates should always have an easy way to have the final say, such as by pasting in a preformatted message either exiling or checkpointing a certain Bitshares chains' blocks.
Anticipated Benefits:
1. Each Bitshares chains' stakeholders would have a ready made remedy to a 51% attack that they can switch to, and thus be far more resilient to 51% attacks.
2. Each Bitshares chain would be seen as far more important and valuable (by those who do not see it that way.)
234
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 21, 2015, 12:17:40 am »
I think it would be more lucrative for Bitshares to insure things that are usually insured (life, health, dental, car, house, etc), not some random obscure list of things such as in the OP. Using an obscure list of things to insure means you need to educate the consumer, which is never a good proposition.
If you are going to use that obscure list of things to insure, then they should not be lumped together. Almost everyone drives, but not everyone uses drugs or hangs out with anyone that does. Some people have very little contact with prostitutes and would not want to pay for protection for such... etc..
Good points, perhaps it is not a Ponzi scheme (although it closely resembles one.) If everyone had an incident early in the existence of the insurance plan, then it could go bankrupt and thus be ponzi-like.
If you are going to use that obscure list of things to insure, then they should not be lumped together. Almost everyone drives, but not everyone uses drugs or hangs out with anyone that does. Some people have very little contact with prostitutes and would not want to pay for protection for such... etc..
This is a ponzi scheme.
No, it's not. From a certain angle, any kind of insurance is a ponzi scheme of sorts. You have people paying into it, and those continued payments being required so that others can get payouts. But insurance, benefit societies, and community rainy day funds have been around for thousands of years, and their models are not pponzis.
The difference between insurance and Ponzis is that insurance companies can invest and build up the money they get from premiums. Their businesses can sustain themselves based on returns from their investments and current policyholders paying premiums. If they needed to attract new pay-ins in order to have the money to pay claims, etc., then they would be Ponzis.
Good points, perhaps it is not a Ponzi scheme (although it closely resembles one.) If everyone had an incident early in the existence of the insurance plan, then it could go bankrupt and thus be ponzi-like.
235
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 20, 2015, 08:30:15 pm »
This is a ponzi scheme.
236
General Discussion / There should be disclaimers on the Depost/Withdraw page
« on: December 20, 2015, 06:08:14 pm »
That clearly state you are using a centralized service and there is risk involved. Don't get me wrong.. I love the services there. I have only used Metaexchange's bridge (a few times... super convenient), but I see the value in the other Gateways as well if the exchange truly takes off and has decent liquidity. They are awesome features that no other cryptocurrency has built in to their wallet, but the way it is presented does not properly convey the risks of using such features.
237
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 17, 2015, 01:52:38 am »
I suggest we implement the lastest-greatest, otherwise we will want to upgrade in a few years.
Anonymint knows his stuff, and ZKT seems to be a superior technology compared to all other solutions to privacy on a blockchain. Zerocoin is nice, but setting up the initial parameters in a transparent way is a tricky thing to do from what I'm told. If we implemented something like ZKT, we would have industry-leading privacy... a better solution than even Monero is able to come up with. Correct me if I'm wrong Anonymint, but I remember from what I've read on Bitcointalk that your solution results in a smaller block size than Monero's solution.
If it is possible set up the Zerocoin parameters in a transparent way then would be awesome too. We would be years ahead of most other coins when it comes to financial privacy. Bitshares needs to consider privacy as being one of its core values, and I think that core value fits together well with the exchange and banking part of Bitshares.
Anonymint knows his stuff, and ZKT seems to be a superior technology compared to all other solutions to privacy on a blockchain. Zerocoin is nice, but setting up the initial parameters in a transparent way is a tricky thing to do from what I'm told. If we implemented something like ZKT, we would have industry-leading privacy... a better solution than even Monero is able to come up with. Correct me if I'm wrong Anonymint, but I remember from what I've read on Bitcointalk that your solution results in a smaller block size than Monero's solution.
If it is possible set up the Zerocoin parameters in a transparent way then would be awesome too. We would be years ahead of most other coins when it comes to financial privacy. Bitshares needs to consider privacy as being one of its core values, and I think that core value fits together well with the exchange and banking part of Bitshares.
238
General Discussion / Re: The GUI.....
« on: December 12, 2015, 04:03:40 pm »The GUI is improving daily. Thanks to those working on it. The core programmers certainly know what they are doing, but with respect to the GUI fixes, it feels like BitShares finally has some first-class project management that is geared towards user-friendliness. Very gratifying.
#sharebits "CoinHoarder" 2000 SPERM
Thanks, that is the first time someone has came on me.
239
General Discussion / The GUI.....
« on: December 12, 2015, 06:53:44 am »
is getting so sexy. Mad props to the developers that have been working on it... you guys are making some huge improvements quickly. 
240
General Discussion / PSA: Be weary of investing in decentralized exchange UIAs
« on: December 08, 2015, 11:58:24 pm »
This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I feel I must speak up. The way I see it, the operators are trying to cash in immediately and shift most of the risks of their businesses to those who buy their UIA. If they think their businesses will be wildly successful, then it makes little sense to me as to why they would try to sell so much equity this early in the game. Take a look at the list of cryptocurrency exchanges and notice how many of them have little to no volume. I gave the same warning to the Nxt community when they were largely investing in many UIAs immediately following the creation of their UIA exchange. I think a majority of them wish they would of taken my advice. You have been warned. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers and mean no offence to those who are selling these assets, as you guys likely do not have any bad intentions in offering these sales.
*promptly looks for an underground bunker to hide in for eternity*
*promptly looks for an underground bunker to hide in for eternity*
