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.


Messages - abit

Pages: 1 ... 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 [206] 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 ... 309
3076
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:10:43 pm »
Quote from: kenCode on January 31, 2016, 01:52:58 pm
I have no income, zero.
 
The mobile wallets will bring us referral income. This income is sorely needed to get the wallet past v1.0 and keep it bug free, constantly improving and ad-free. I have a family of four and my wife works 3 jobs, she is NOT happy that I have had no income for over a year. I have put my life blood, sweat and tears into this business and to have the only thing I have going yanked out from under me once again, well, I have to say this is it. Nuff said. Please enable micro-payments with near zero fees all the way up to large POS payments such as a Ferarri (charge a much higher fee of course) on a dynamic scale, but I would definitely cap it and use the Smartcoins as the % basis instead of the volatile BTS. @abit @jakub @xeroc @fav @BunkerChain Labs @chryspano and many others here know how important the network effect is, we need dynamic fees.
 
The Smartcoins POS for Odoo can bring us ALL an income. Dynamic fees are required here as well. Everything from 5 cent gumballs all the way up to houses and yachts and beyond.
 
Flat models don't scale, nature itself is dynamic, mimic nature and THRIVE.
So can you please describe your business model more clearly? For example how lowering transfer fees would affect you and etc..

3077
General Discussion / Re: OPENPOS :: Smartcoins Point Of Sale (POS) & BitShares Wallet for Android/iPhone
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:08:44 pm »
Quote from: kenCode on January 31, 2016, 04:52:24 pm
Quote from: svk on January 27, 2016, 02:10:55 pm
Quote from: kenCode on January 27, 2016, 01:41:28 pm
it has come to my attention that the mobile app will suck up over 400MB if left open for 20+ minutes, this is not good. The nice thing is that this is a real-time wallet, no refresh is needed- Watch the block number in the bottom right corner. When someone sends you some money it shows up in the normal 3 seconds. Thing is, that real-time connection is sucking up my data plan! This friday (2 more days) I will be uploading the alpha 9 release and it has the 3 minute auto-close feature working. That will help *limit* data usage, but leaving your mobile wallet open for even 3 minutes might STILL suck up around 60MB grrrr - anybody have any idea why the socket is eating so much data? Is it downloading a frign movie or something? wtf
@svk @valzav @xeroc Any ideas on how I can limit the data usage?
If you're using the websocket connection as is from the witness_node you'll get spammed with loads of object updates that you have no interest in. Your best bet would be to implement a data layer that would filter the objects coming from the witness node and then only send out updates to items that actually interest you.
For some reason on every new block the 2.4.33 or 2.4.34 objects get pushed from the witness_node, and it's a HUGE object containing feed data for every single asset. If you can filter out that you should be fine...

Quote from: abit on January 30, 2016, 01:51:28 pm
Anyone can run a full node to provide the service you need.
Responsibilities of "the witnesses" (if you mean the block producers) don't include providing API services to clients for sure. Hosted wallet service provider (E.G. OpenLedger) is most likely to provide such API service.
I see this service a business opportunity.

Quote from: abit on January 27, 2016, 10:46:46 pm
Quote from: kenCode on January 27, 2016, 07:11:21 pm
Quote from: svk on January 27, 2016, 06:15:26 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 27, 2016, 03:28:18 pm
nothing you can do on your end since you have to receive the data before you can filter it ..
No there is, what I'm saying is he needs to filter the outgoing data from the witness node using a proxy server. A node websocket server using socket.io should do the trick. He would need to host his own witness_node then obviously.

So, I would need to have the mobile wallets all connect to one dedicated witness node? Could we just have a few/all of the Witnesses provide this as an option to their service? So, for mobile clients, the Witnesses will only serve up just the filtered stuff? Heck, this might be a great value-add for all Witnesses, no? Many more mobile wallets will be released after our I'm sure. Thoughts?
Sounds like a paid service? Interesting..

@svk @abit @xeroc @bytemaster As more mobile wallets get out there (well, and regular wallets too), I can see the bandwidth requirements at the Witness nodes going up substantially. Witness pay is low enough as it is, so we'd better address this bandwidth issue sooner than later. Better to fix these issues now rather than wait until thousands of people have their wallets all open at the same time and Witnesses become inaccessible, can't afford to serve it up, etc. Thanx for any attention you can give to this issue soon guys please :)
Ken, you quoted my message but didn't understand it imo.

Witnesses have nothing to do with this bandwidth issue. It's up to online service providers for example OpenLedger to consider it. Witnesses don't provide a service to let your mobile wallet be able to connect to, but OpenLedger does.

Witnesses care more about bandwidth increasing caused by amount of transactions increasing though.

3078
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 04:53:41 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on January 31, 2016, 12:08:27 pm
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 10:33:34 am

@bitcrab , if you say the referral program is nothing but "a trouble maker" in countries like China, maybe this is a simple solution:

Create a special faucet in China that registers new users and offers them LTM for free (or almost for free to cover the network LTM fee).
This faucet will be a non-profit entity (or will have to be subsidized a little bit by businesses like yours) but in my eyes it makes perfect sense, if you say you are able to make profit elsewhere, i.e. outside the referral program.
The only drawback is that Chinese customers will have to be aware of the vesting aspect (i.e. they pay higher fee today but 80% of it gets refunded in the future).

It's so simple that I'm sure you must have thought about it already.
But what are the reasons (apart from vesting) that prevent you from solving the problem this way?

I do not get you.
now one LTM cost 20K BTS, how can a faucet offer free LTM? even I can make a little profit, I cannot offer free LTM.
and if there is a faucet that offer free LTM, new users all around the world will come to sign up, how will openledger attract users?
Some misunderstandings here..
I think what Jakub proposed about "free LTM" is: if you refer someone, when she upgrade to LTM (for example the cost for her is 20K BTS), you will get 16K BTS but it will vest after 90 days, so you CAN return that 16K BTS to her after 90 days. That's all. I think Jakub didn't mean that you should give the user 20K BTS to upgrade to LTM.

3079
General Discussion / Proposal - Permit non-LTMs to be referrers
« on: January 31, 2016, 01:05:04 pm »
Currently only LTMs can refer new users and earn referral income, which set a high barrier for attracting new users, and lead to bad PR. Imo we need to break this barrier, let non-LTMs be able to refer new users, which will be better PR. In the mean while, if needed, we can set other limitations, for example only LTMs can claim referral income.

//Edit: an option could be non-LTMs get less cash-back from referred users than LTMs.

Quote
do any of you recall one time BM mentioning possibly being able to change it so that not just LTM can gain from refers but regular users also?

To implement this, technically we need to:
* add a special vesting object to every non-LTM account, and
* add an operation or change current withdraw_vesting_operation so that only LTM can claim from this vesting object, and
* modify the fee split implementation so non-LTM referral income goes to this special vesting object

Thoughts?

3080
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:41:07 am »
Quote from: jbutta2k13 on January 30, 2016, 08:15:15 pm
I have been away from Bitshares for almost a year now and I am still invested.  My stupid questions for today are:
  • Is there a place t oget caught up on the developments?Is there one succinct place that shows a general timeline of developments?  It seems very hard to follow all the developments via the forum.
The roadmap: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20171.0.html

Quote
  • I was once a PTS holder and moved to BTS then BTS 2.0.  Is BTS 2.0 the defacto or is there some other UIA that I should be considering at this point in time?
OBITS https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20498.0.html
and OPENPOS https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20762.0.html

Quote
  • i see all this information about obits and meta exchange?  Is there anyone focused on using BTS as a non-currency transmission system? IT seems that most focus is on currency and replacing fiat.  While this is noble, I like to know if there any BTS projects looking to leverage ledger technology to other business conduct/transmission mechanisms.
Sorry I don't understand this question.

3081
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:33:15 am »
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 03:03:23 am
Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.   
But it's unfair to who brought in users. Hence reduced incentives.

3082
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:25:23 am »
Quote from: yvv on January 31, 2016, 02:02:43 am
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 01:06:30 am


So to answer your question: no, there is no way to create a new account and skip the referral fee.
The referral program would not make sense, if there was a way to avoid paying the referral fee.

So, I need to pay to ccedk (or fav or whoever) at least $80 just because I was signed up by them? Thanks a lot, I am going to skip this. And good luck with such a "smart" marketing.
Let's try to reach a compromise..
If you like, I can register a new name for you, and if you upgrade it to LTM, I'll return you 15000 BTS. Deal?

3083
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:21:00 am »
Quote from: alt on January 31, 2016, 01:39:32 am
do you believe BTS can earn more money from special service?
some service like register short account, upgrade account, create UIA, active a market for UIA
somebody have asked with low transfer fee, why people upgrade account?
we can give more features to VIP account, such as normal users can't create UIA, display a gold color name for VIP  in the web site...
Give a business plan at least revenue/profit analysis please? Who are the targeted users? How much will they pay for the "special service"?

* register short account, upgrade account, create UIA: these are already there, we can find whether they are profitable via data analysis.
* active a market for UIA: It's free now, so there is no complaint. Once you started charging fee, why do you think there will be no complaint? To start charging this fee we need development, will it worth fund via dilution? Data analysis please.
* normal users can't create UIA: currently fee of UIA registration is 5000, which means 1000 for LTM, so users are already motivated to upgrade to LTM. Imo it's more flexible than disabling something.
* display a gold color name for VIP  in the web site: good idea. On CryptoFresh LTMs are displayed with a lightning icon, it's very cool. But on OpenLedger LTM shows with no difference to normal users. @svk can we have this feature?

Thank you for the suggestions. Very helpful.

Quote
and can you give you answer for this questions:
forget about referal program, withou this program, what's the fees you prefer for transfer?
Sorry, I don't know.

Quote
All I want to say is we should give a low fee for basic service, earn money from special service
and the referal program can run better,
actually no conflics between low transfer fees and refreal program.
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 01:29:22 am
Quote from: alt on January 31, 2016, 01:09:02 am
means reference should get payment from BTS company, not from BTS users.
And where does the BTS company take this money from, if not from fees earned on users?

Quote from: alt on January 31, 2016, 01:09:02 am
if you sold at price 200, we call that ponzi.
No, we call it sales margin.
All existing products have this, unless you have a way to buy straight from the factory that produces it.

Look, the referral program is meant to incentivize business around BitShares.
The ecosystem has benefits from that (e.g. we would not have Open Ledger fiat gateway without this incentive).
But somebody has to pay for it and no matter how we try to arrange things, it's always the end user who pays the bill.

3084
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:43:52 am »
Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 01:28:18 am
Quote from: abit on January 30, 2016, 11:52:47 pm
Quote from: merivercap on January 30, 2016, 10:21:34 pm
I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.
In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.

Hmmm..  From a business perspective I think it's better to use FBAs for new, niche, or advanced features that expand the network in new business segments.  For broad/core features that deal with fees for all types of assets (FBAs,UIAs, Smartcoins, Privatized BitAssets) it seems inappropriate to use an FBA.  Also I think the network should provide the bare minimum fees it can sustain with the limited dilution that is built in.   I never thought the network needed to take any piece of referral fees, because it was mainly for marketing and the network doesn't provide recurring support for marketing.  The fee structure should be based on the value it brings.  It's either one-time or recurring and I think the ability to change fees is a one-time value-add feature vs a recurring one.  With the referral program it's meritocratic.  You get paid for each active user you bring in.  Unless you're constantly improving or maintaining the technology, it should be a one-time fee.  I think FBAs should work the same way and need to be continually maintained and improved or be outcompeted.  I think the network portion of the referral program originally was to help subsidize lower fees based on the thinking that 20 cents would be the long-term fee.  I think a 20 cent fee can work in the US, but it's better to keep the network fee the bare minimum 1 cent to obtain the broadest appeal and get network effect while allowing business that are able to charge higher fees in the US & Europe do so at the same time.     
Yes there would be continuous improvements/developments. Perhaps you've never thought how much work need to be done to support all potential features, perhaps you will only use a small part of them, but others may need other features. FBA is for special features which major stake holders don't want to dilute for.

The network need to sustain, which means in the end it's best to be able to pay witnesses and workers from income / fees, although they have to be paid from dilution in the beginning due to insufficient income.

Imo setting a low fee and not splitting to the referral program will definitely hurt the referral program. Asset issuers should have no privileges to hurt other parties.

Quote
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 12:14:33 am
Quote from: jakub on January 30, 2016, 11:48:18 pm
What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?
Imo if option A is allowed to exist, the fee should be higher than minimum fee of B or C, or the issuer pay some in other ways for example a monthly fee deducted from fee pool, so it will come to a balanced situation.

@jakub @abit  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   :P.  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.
By selecting mode A means the issuer will get benefit when users referred by other referrers come to use her service, in the meanwhile the referrers will be hurt, unless the issuer white-list her users. This can't satisfy all parties if fee rate not set properly.

3085
Technical Support / Re: is the witness thing running under win?
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:01:30 am »
Quote from: cube on January 30, 2016, 07:45:41 am
Quote from: tonyk on January 29, 2016, 09:23:43 pm
Quote from: abit on January 29, 2016, 09:11:16 pm
Quote from: tonyk on January 29, 2016, 01:00:02 am
[update]
sorry for being somewhat slow with this...

ran the cube's exe.

same result. stuck at the same point - [blochchain ID and block#]

given up more or less on getting this thing working
When you're posting there is another hard fork. No exe file has been released so far. Perhaps you can try to compile by yourself. This guide: https://github.com/neura-sx/neura-sx.github.io/blob/master/BUILD_WIN64.md

yeeh... but thanks.
As I posted moments ago I did listen to today's mumble's recording.
 So... I do  think my internet cannot handle the 'requirements'*  to run a witness node...  :(

*700 empty blocks... to say nothing if an asshole or two overloads the blockchain with a transaction or 2 every 10,000 blocks...

What is your Internet bandwidth?

I faced similar issue recently during the hard fork - ie blockchain download stuck.   But when I added a working seed node. It started downloading. So all is well.
The recent hard fork caused the binary to be invalid.  I will upload a new binary if the devs have not done so by then.

Edit: Latest Win tools binary is uploaded here - https://github.com/btscube/bitshares-2/releases/tag/20160129
Add a valid seed to the command line arguments eg -s 185.25.22.21:1776
CNX has released latest windows cli tools.
Cube: you didn't update the source/branch of your github repo to newest commit, it looks strange.


3086
Technical Support / Re: Unlinkable block error when syncing
« on: January 31, 2016, 01:58:47 am »
My witness_node works fine under windows.  Started with --replay-blockchain.

3087
Technical Support / Re: Workflow for a proposed transfer
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:57:37 am »
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 12:48:22 am
@xeroc @abit
Is there a way to create a multi-sig account in the CLI?
It's easy in the GUI but it seems to me there is no command for this in the CLI.

Here is a list of all CLI commands:
Code: [Select]
(help)
(gethelp)
(info)
(about)

(get_prototype_operation)

(begin_builder_transaction)
(add_operation_to_builder_transaction)
(replace_operation_in_builder_transaction)
(set_fees_on_builder_transaction)
(preview_builder_transaction)
(sign_builder_transaction)
(propose_builder_transaction)
(remove_builder_transaction)

(approve_proposal)

(sign_transaction)

(is_new)
(is_locked)

(lock)(unlock)(set_password)

(dump_private_keys)
(get_private_key)

(list_my_accounts)
(list_accounts)
(list_account_balances)
(list_assets)

(import_key)
(import_accounts)
(import_account_keys)
(import_balance)

(suggest_brain_key)
(normalize_brain_key)

(register_account)
(upgrade_account)
(create_account_with_brain_key)

(sell_asset)
(borrow_asset)
(cancel_order)

(transfer)
(transfer2)

(get_transaction_id)

(create_asset)
(update_asset)
(update_bitasset)

(update_asset_feed_producers)
(publish_asset_feed)

(issue_asset)
(get_asset)
(get_bitasset_data)

(fund_asset_fee_pool)
(reserve_asset)

(global_settle_asset)
(settle_asset)
(whitelist_account)

(create_committee_member)

(get_witness)
(get_committee_member)

(list_witnesses)
(list_committee_members)

(create_witness)
(update_witness)

(create_worker)
(update_worker_votes)

(get_vesting_balances)
(withdraw_vesting)

(vote_for_committee_member)
(vote_for_witness)

(set_voting_proxy)

(set_desired_witness_and_committee_member_count)

(get_account)
(get_account_id)
(get_block)

(get_account_count)
(get_account_history)

(get_market_history)
(get_global_properties)
(get_dynamic_global_properties)
(get_object)

(load_wallet_file)


(get_limit_orders)
(get_call_orders)
(get_settle_orders)

(save_wallet_file)

(serialize_transaction)

(propose_parameter_change)
(propose_fee_change)

(dbg_make_uia)
(dbg_make_mia)
(flood_network)
(network_add_nodes)
(network_get_connected_peers)

(set_key_label)
(get_key_label)
(get_public_key)

(get_blind_accounts)
(get_my_blind_accounts)
(get_blind_balances)
(create_blind_account)
(transfer_to_blind)
(transfer_from_blind)
(blind_transfer)
(blind_history)
(receive_blind_transfer)
(begin_builder_transaction)
(add_operation_to_builder_transaction)
(replace_operation_in_builder_transaction)
(set_fees_on_builder_transaction)
(preview_builder_transaction)
(sign_builder_transaction)
(propose_builder_transaction)
(remove_builder_transaction)

CLI can do anything with above commands.

//Update:
The operation for setting an account to multi-sig is "account_update_operation".

3088
Technical Support / Re: Openedger/Chrome please fix mobile/desktop view
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:54:13 am »
Quote from: svk on January 31, 2016, 12:49:59 am
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 12:49:20 am
Quote from: svk on January 31, 2016, 12:47:56 am
Not sure what the issue is, there is no desktop or mobile version and never has been, only a responsive website. And nothing has changed in this regard recently.
I think he means the website doesn't work in Chrome in Android.
That I get, but I just checked on my phone and it works fine..
Thanks. It works for me too right now. Will wait for more information from 38PTSWarrior.

3089
Technical Support / Re: Openedger/Chrome please fix mobile/desktop view
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:49:20 am »
Quote from: svk on January 31, 2016, 12:47:56 am
Not sure what the issue is, there is no desktop or mobile version and never has been, only a responsive website. And nothing has changed in this regard recently.
I think he means the website doesn't work in Chrome in Android.

//Update
It works on my phone now anyway. Last time it didn't work for me, loading forever.

3090
Technical Support / Re: Unlinkable block error when syncing
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:43:21 am »
Upgrade to newest release please.

Pages: 1 ... 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 [206] 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 ... 309

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 21 queries.