286
General Discussion / Re: Network Stability Under Graphene
« on: December 05, 2015, 01:56:40 am »
It has been stable. And I do not see any missing blocks since the last update (despite the short 3-second block time).
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.
I've also kept the market maker "maqifrnswa.bot" running with witness pay, which might also be something for a worker.
Bug report:
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.19 incorrectly shown percentage approval. It should be 100%.
Thanks cube, I'm not immediately sure what to do about this.. that panel is reporting directly from the blockchain, and I'm not sure why it changes after the fact. That doesn't make sense to me..
I did suggest that we need something like the following:bool get_final_proposal_state(proposal_id_type id) - to retroactively look at the final results of a proposed op
So at least we could look back and see if a proposal was approved or not.
The ability to see individual committee votes at the end of review would be great too.
You are mixing upSince my last post here, I made some considerable improvements and wrote some more articles:
15/12/03 Manually Construct Any Transaction, Proposing a Transaction
15/12/03 Tutorials, Confidential Transfers, Committee, Claim Worker Pay, Shareholder, Workers / Budget Items, Often used API Calls, Wallet Merchant Protocol, Wallet Login Protocol
15/11/30 Margin call mechanics
15/11/26 First Steps for End-Users, Things you should know, Assets/Tokens
15/11/23 User Guide updates: Transactions and Operations, Decentralized Exchange, Security
15/11/13 Refactoring, updates for: Integration Guide
15/11/10 Added MUSE blockchain: MUSE
For those that haven't notices .. you can now also reach it via docs.bitshares.ORG!
Cheers
Nice. I just took a look.
I have a question. Is "add_operation_to_builder_transaction" still valid or is it replaced by "add_operation_to_builder_transaction2"?
* propose_builder_transaction and
* propose_builder_transaction2 (will be available in a future release)
I never ran across a "add_operation_to_builder_transaction2" .. and it really only puts JSON objects together ... don't see a need to another implementation
thank you very much. Good luck with the project!Thanks, we too. The ball is largely in your (Bitshares') Court. We've been open and ready to discuss collaboration and overlap for weeks, so just let us know when you guys are ready
Looking forward to a nice collaboration in the future with bitshares.
Also: IOTA's first sale period, 'Pioneer', is ending today at 14:00 UTC. This period yields 15% more IOTA to the purchaser.
So far we've raised over 460 BTC and 35 000 JINN (equivalent to ~220BTC)
Since my last post here, I made some considerable improvements and wrote some more articles:
15/12/03 Manually Construct Any Transaction, Proposing a Transaction
15/12/03 Tutorials, Confidential Transfers, Committee, Claim Worker Pay, Shareholder, Workers / Budget Items, Often used API Calls, Wallet Merchant Protocol, Wallet Login Protocol
15/11/30 Margin call mechanics
15/11/26 First Steps for End-Users, Things you should know, Assets/Tokens
15/11/23 User Guide updates: Transactions and Operations, Decentralized Exchange, Security
15/11/13 Refactoring, updates for: Integration Guide
15/11/10 Added MUSE blockchain: MUSE
For those that haven't notices .. you can now also reach it via docs.bitshares.ORG!
Cheers
This thing is becoming something more than a roadmap:
http://neura-sx.github.io/#roadmap
thanks, I think we need to change this for all asset right?
Created 1.10.21, documented how I created it: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/Howto-propose-committee-actions
do we must do it one by one?
I have the same opinion. We have to update all smartcoins, especially USD.
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot.
i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .
claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?
not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.
the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
theoretically, python could be used to write a wallet that communicates with bitshares blockchain, even though graphene is written in react.js, right?
I believe graphene is written in c++
appreciate the correction.
question still stands though, if I wanted to make an alt wallet (a BTS equivalent to BTC/LTC's electrum, if you would), and actually saw this thing through long enough to get to that point, could that be done in python?