lol, bee watching the price drop wide eyed, people are so afraid that rather than chance it for after  the snapshot, they are selling high now.

Don't expect the price to drop too much. Many of us are waiting for low prices for PTS so we can scoop them up.

As a result I don't think PTS price is going to drop for long.

In one of the article links found in the EASY MONEY: posts....
I happen to read this one... http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/01/computer-corporations
What caught my attention was this quote..
"Lots of people will throw the term [DACs] around without really understanding it," says Mike Hearn, a Google engineer and Bitcoin developer. He prefers the term "autonomous agent" as a more useful metaphor. For such agents to exist, he says, "you need trusted computing to work well and it never has. So it'd require new hardware to be deployed."
Can anyone explain what he means by "require new hardware"?
Is he alluding that it's going to take more network hashing power, aka needing more miners? Or does he literally mean NEW HARDWARE?
Anyone on the inside track able to help out with this answer?
Peace!

Mike Hearn is actually right. We do need to rely on the trusted platform module and I asked about this a while back but got responses from conspiracy theorists who think the TPM is a sort of trap door.

I don't agree with him that it never has worked although maybe it hasn't been tried in this context. It does work fairly well in some scenarios but it's not cheap and it has to be designed very conservatively.

I think you could design kiosks and Trezor wallet style hardware devices which use hardware random number generators and trusted platform modules.  It would not be totally secure without also designing it to be protected from emissions leaks, differential power analysis and other side channel attacks.

It's possible and it is used in practice but it's not going to be something which the average persons computer can do. The average computer is not secure from any of the stuff I mentioned even if it's entirely offline. Your private keys are not safe from side channel attacks even if you're not online.

Paper wallets are secure but the moment you put your private key into electronic form this leaks all sorts of information which can be intercepted if your information is valuable enough.

DACs will have to be hardened to protect private key material. This would require specialized hardware designed specifically for DACs or the DAC industry or very cheap single purpose handheld devices which connect to kiosks (maybe quantum cryptography could be applied here?). The average smart phone isn't good enough, Trezor is good enough but also very limited.

There is a huge difference between what Mike Hearn is saying and what I am saying... and that is that Hearn is talking about advanced vending machines and trading bots which is different from emergent behavior of market forces coordinated by a block-chain.

I agree with you. I think Mike Hearn is talking about vending machines. I think he's presenting a future which Bitshares could be leading us to.

If you're going to build DACs that interact with the real world in some way then eventually the hardware has to be built and that hardware has to be secure and open source. The hardware designs in my opinion should be open so that even the chip designs can be examined, the whole process should be something which can be audited including trusted foundries that make the chips and components.

I think we are years away from that stage because it would require special purpose hardware even if some of the software exists. And this is actually one of the main concerns I have with Ethereum. Ethereum is supposed to run on untrusted hardware as far as I know, and probably on untrusted software as well if it's running on something closed source like Windows or even some open source OS.

I think right now it's not a very big deal because these are all just experiments. If real money starts pouring in then it will be a different ballgame.

Quote from: luckybit on February 24, 2014, 10:46:04 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on February 24, 2014, 10:30:33 pm

Quote from: yellowecho on February 24, 2014, 09:17:14 pm

New DAC with BitsharesATM!  Get 'em while they're hot.   

An ATM is a vending machine, not a DAC.  Understanding the difference is the key to understanding a DAC.

I think we need to find a way to build PTS into ATMs. It is the killer app.
It would allow P2P exchanges to be built into local kiosks. Those kiosks could be put at airports, malls, and other places where people sit down with nothing better to do.

If people want to buy Bitshares then sell them like stamps. If they want to buy any asset from a Bitshare chain then sell them like stamps. Scan the stamps in and you can sell it back, put fiat in and you can turn it into Bitshares. You could repurpose the Bitcoin ATMs into Bitshares ATMs as well and also let people buy Angelshares.

A really interesting idea is to somehow make it so people can make purchasing Angelshares a recurring donation payment in a simple way. Like a membership type of thing and reward people based on how long they are a member. This way a person who contributes at regular intervals for longer periods of time would get some kind of reward or advantage.





True but we could decentralize the ownership of the ATM vending machines and share the profit. That is actually a great idea which would get us to use the ATM and market them because we'd get a share in the profit via PTS/AGS. The only barriers to doing it would be legal.

I think the idea is great and hope someone does it.

I also think its a great idea but Bytemaster is correct that it's not a DAC; DACs must be decentralized and autonomous.  The ownership of the ATMs would be decentralized but the ATMs operation would not be so it's not technically a DAC.

Anyone making a new DAC could also reward shares based on how long PTS holders have held PTS in a wallet. This would encourage people not to sell or trade their PTS by giving them an incentive that future DACs may reward long term PTS holders based on how long they hold (Proof of stake).

That's just an idea for DAC developers who think it's unfair how PTS holders are being treated.

http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/87448377/66716b27fa

You also don't have to accept the recommendation of using Bitshares XT to allocate to the Bitshares chain. You can always use Angelshares and PTS in any mix you want as long as at least 10% go to each.

Quote from: BitMinerN8 on February 23, 2014, 01:51:49 am

Well this was a good 5 page read, lots of information and I have to agree with many points made by many people. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over this next week and into what we all hope will be many successful launches of the various products.

The #1 thing I am hearing through all these posts is the need for a central location for the "official word" on these rules and guidelines. A forum is a great communication tool, but a blog or product FAQ is a more professional way to set these very important factors and descriptions in stone so to speak. There is no doubt that it is all very confusing unless you have the time to dedicate many hours of reading a day to keep up with it. (many don't)

That being said, here is the article that Adam mentioned earlier that was recently posted over on the LTB site.
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/caution-watch-for-falling-pts/
This is a prime example of what should be available on the main Invictus site, specifically the bitshares product page. Utilize a product blog for official statements and updates, use the forums for discussions, update the blog when things change, rinse and repeat.
I'm very much looking forward to earning my on anything.

this leaves more legal questions since they are actually calling us "shareholders" in this announcement... which brings into question this whole "donation" thing even more (not just legally with the "stockholders/donators", but what about the IRS come tax time, this is taxable income to them)... this is a huge can of legal worms that could cause the entire value to be expunged by a large lawsuit or FTC investigation... this is what worries me... they are muddying the waters SO much calling things by different names every step of the way as if they are trying to legally sidestep something to create a legal barrier for which they have flat out broken wide open... I wish they would just call the apple an apple... so we can have clarity about buying oranges here...

We are shareholders in the software itself, not in Invictus. In the social consensus license I deliberately suggested the phrase "value supply" be used. Units of value don't have to be owned and in this case are not owned by any centralized entity. Those units of value are shares or are currency units in the sense that value is being exchanged.

But Invictus is not the source of the value. The software itself is the source of the value just as with Bitcoin. So while Bitshares may someday be seen as a commodity like a stock and there might be some sort of tax implications, there is no direct connection between Invictus Innovation and Bitshares beyond the fact that they are writing the software.

This means it can be forked and Invictus wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It's owned by the community and that is why the social consensus exists. The social consensus uses the language of the law to guarantee that the community of shareholders owns Bitshares.

This is why 50% is owned by PTS holders and 50% owned by AGS holders. AGS holders brought more value to the project because they donated money at a critical time. Yes it's a donation and not a payment. The donation is to fund development of the software and Invictus Innovations are more like contractors doing the job of development rather than owners.

I hope this clarifies things.

Thank you. Bytemaster, I am honored by your response. Even though this is my first series of posts here, I'm a big supporter of what you are doing at Invictus + I'm an investor in PTS and Bitshares. Power to you for what you guys are trying to do; I love the transparency, the profit focus, the lack of reliance on mining. Between NXT, Mastercoin, Ethereum, etc., you guys have the best chance and you are doing it right.

For better or for worse, I am also a licensed attorney (purely private, don't worry; not with any part of the government and not the kind who files lawsuits!). Sadly, I cannot disagree with what you said about contracts and (dis)trusting the government with enforcement. It is an inexact science, especially when you are blazing new trails like this. Invictus is right to stick to real digital DACs for now. But I don't think business will stop there.

Nevertheless, I need to respond to a point you made. You mentioned that DACs will be the future of business. I agree that they can be. But when you are talking about business, most commerce involves trading goods and services that cannot be totally encrypted into the blockchain. There is plenty of money to be made in futures contracts, hedging, gambling, crowdfunding, and financial transactions that do not involve regulated or licensed fields. But what about the future for the rest of the economy and the rest of the people who are still bound to serve greedy corporations? I believe we can "Napster" P2P a lot of things while securing them with the blockchain. It would spread the equity out and allow for more profit sharing, less waste and needless costs into the pockets of the elites.

I guess I see that coming, whether Invictus ever moves beyond the digital DAC concept or not. If DACs work, someone will harness their power for offline business. It's too good a concept to limit it to only the digital sector of the economy. But I totally understand where you are coming from. Better to be safe and get this right first. I'm rooting for you all the way.

There are Open Value Networks which basically do what a DAC does in a lot of ways but does it more in the offline business world. I suggest you Google that.

Quote from: yellowecho on February 24, 2014, 09:17:14 pm

New DAC with BitsharesATM!  Get 'em while they're hot.   

An ATM is a vending machine, not a DAC.  Understanding the difference is the key to understanding a DAC.

True but we could decentralize the ownership of the ATM vending machines and share the profit. That is actually a great idea which would get us to use the ATM and market them because we'd get a share in the profit via PTS/AGS. The only barriers to doing it would be legal.

I think the idea is great and hope someone does it.