0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pssst .. you forgot your caps lock ..
I don't remember anyone losing money in bts1 from any coding bug..and by the way we are in bts2 now..You can't compare completely different things..and it appears that someone has hacked DAO and is dumping millions on the market..I don't remember ever to have happened to bts something like that..In any case, if we don't advertise the DEX in situation like this then how do you ever expect bts to rise? Come on people..Show some positivity for once...No need to wait anything more from bts for your financial freedom. bts is ready. We only need to attract more people to learn about bts now.
In fact .. who ever "hacked" the DAO is NOT dumping because the funds he gained are in (that's what I heard) in a mini DAO that doesn't release the funds until in a few days or so ..
Everyone should go on Polo troll box and explain to people why such attacks cannot happen to bts, advertise the DEX and the importance of a decentralized exchange.
The DAO ETH Balance was 11,599,353.25 Ether 24 hours ago with a total Token Supply of 1,159,931,811.69 TheDAO, now there is currently only 8,914,536.17 Ether with a total Token Supply: 1,159,813,810.27 TheDAO.So 118001.42 tokens has split with 2684817.08 Eth? 22.75 Eth per DAO token? Can someone explain?
Someone is draining the DAO using recursive splitDAO calls
It is according to slack. Someone is stealing like $1.000.000 worth of ether a minute
But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!********************************************************************************************The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost.""You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/**********************************************************************************************Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.
Quote from: chryspano on May 20, 2016, 07:46:35 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on May 20, 2016, 01:23:32 pmListing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent. If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.Not sure if this particular version of events is true but I think this is the gist of the allegation regarding how they made the mining deliberately difficult... Quote from: cryptohunter on April 05, 2016, 06:08:29 pm Here's how they did it:First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released(1) no compiled wallets(2) no instructions to build(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mineThis wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427230.0(OP alleges they were exposed as mining to many different witnesses but being one entity in the initial launch and if true it's likely they followed a similiar modus operandi in the relaunch & is also why they were able to secure 80% of the initial Steem.)
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 20, 2016, 01:23:32 pmListing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent. If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.
Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.
Here's how they did it:First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released(1) no compiled wallets(2) no instructions to build(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mineThis wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.
Saying they were trying to "cover the fact" that they were mining a lot seems wrong since they said they were doing it (see below), and although they had lots of different miner names, the names were mostly of the form steamit99. It wasn't hidden at all.
Post #3 on the thread:QuoteAccounts:root, admin, administrator, steem, any, moderator, and unknown plus anything starting with steemit are our own mining efforts.Those were all highly visible, as the code displayed the name of every miner when they solved a block (this has apparently since been turned off). It was easy to see they were mining most of the blocks.You have to take Eclipse Dev's comments in the right context. I think he was both FUDding to discourage participation and just plain trolling.
Accounts:root, admin, administrator, steem, any, moderator, and unknown plus anything starting with steemit are our own mining efforts.
"The reasoning behind not having windows binaries is that the devs continue to use their insider knowledge to fuck over the community.
Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others...
Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies'....
The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method. So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 20, 2016, 03:15:25 amQuote from: lil_jay890 on May 18, 2016, 03:04:06 amThere are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash. Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights. I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information. They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..
Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 18, 2016, 03:04:06 amThere are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash. Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights. I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information. They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.
There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash. Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights. I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.
Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.
If this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.
I haven't seen many downvotes on STEEM.
Quote from: donkeypong on May 18, 2016, 06:51:20 pmIf this discussion were on STEEM, I'd give a few of you some upvotes and you could be making real money.Only if you're one of the whales and no other whale down-vote it.
This post is not meant to be negative (I do appreciate the efforts of the DEX getaways and bitshares would be useless without them, so thank you very much for the efforts) but I can’t help to notice that there is a big spread and inconsistency between “real” DAO token and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO price. I assume that this is due to low liquidity and low demand for the DEX assets vs. the real thing.If you want to attract users I think that Open Ledger and transwiser should provide this liquidity by hedging their positions. At the time of this post the spread between “real” DAO and OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO is 25%. This is huge…If one wants to exit DAO via selling OPEN.DAO or TRANS.DAO has to pay this spread, not many users will buy again the Open.xxx ICO or any other ICO tokens by any getaway in the DEX. I would think that since OPEN.DAO and TRANS.DAO are liquid assets of an unliquid currently token they should be sold at premium not at discount…What do you think?
Quote from: gamey on May 17, 2016, 04:46:37 pmYou aren't invested in new money? Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type. It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain. He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts. Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them ! Epic.You guys ( lil_jay890, gamey, btswild ) are well overboard with this... this is all part of a trend that I have come to appreciate very much. The trend is called painfully-honest-project(/self)-naming.That is to say that at that very epic moment that you gamey described..it was sealed for solar-and-non-sense... he just named the project after the truth... "Solar found new money laying around" and it made so much sen$e... so the "Solar New Money"But he is not alone... other brutally-honest-naming examples include:- OBITs for bitshares....(self explanatory)-eSTEEM - bm has so much self-esteem, so much so it justified something as ridiculous as issuing 75% of the coins to himself and even adding 9x more coins for each coin someone dared to 'earn'... full name: "BM's self eSTEEM."-of course steem was developed in STEALTH of bts holders... I mean while MasterByte supposedly was working on STEALTH.... btw, during the same period, in STEALTH were also sold tens of millions of BTS by the core team...while the poor common bts holders believed something improving bts was being developed...-and bm has the honesty to call himself reverseflash (you know how one flashes the toilet? The reverse flash is the opposite action) while working in STEALTH to satisfy and fairly pay himself in accordance with his self-eSTEEM.... the bts holders were reversed-flashed more or less.-Open Ledger is so named of course to make it perfectly clear that their ledger is wide open...open as in open for a new ICO token of theirs each and every month...
You aren't invested in new money? Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type. It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain. He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts. Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them ! Epic.
Or a giant middle finger.
Quote from: btswildpig on May 17, 2016, 06:40:04 amQuote from: gamey on May 17, 2016, 06:11:44 amhttps://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doaBytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)I saw a great article on PTS/AGS before written by a Bitcoiner .I wish I had believed it . however , if you think about it , everybody can write something on why something can not come true , especially in the crypto world . you're bound to become a good predictor if you bash enough projects .Yea it is kinda funny... BitShares was likely hurt by Dan's bashing of Ethereum, so he continues on with The DOA. "Dead on Arrival!" .. clever.. but not really. He'll get all the people new to ETH or those not paying attention also against Steemit.QuoteI do think some bashing is needed to properly analyze the validity of some non-sense BitShares based tokens like xxxx-non-sense-new-money ......You aren't invested in new money? Word has it, the founder is a Vitalik Buterin/Steve Jobs type. It is the new Apple and IBM of the blockchain. He's learned that marketing the blockchain failed. The most telling was that guy's reaction when he found out he could sell brownie.pts. Obviously he sold them, but he wasn't even aware there was a marketplace to sell them ! Epic.
Quote from: gamey on May 17, 2016, 06:11:44 amhttps://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doaBytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)I saw a great article on PTS/AGS before written by a Bitcoiner .I wish I had believed it . however , if you think about it , everybody can write something on why something can not come true , especially in the crypto world . you're bound to become a good predictor if you bash enough projects .
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doaBytemaster wrote a great article on this over on steemit.(I'm 100% against the blanket poaching of BitShares forum users to the subforums of a vaguely related project. However.. that article above is a good read.)
I do think some bashing is needed to properly analyze the validity of some non-sense BitShares based tokens like xxxx-non-sense-new-money ......
Quote from: gamey on May 14, 2016, 06:11:44 amQuote from: btswildpig on May 14, 2016, 01:56:32 ami think i'll pass . I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool . AGS/PTS/JL777 .......Your mistake is correlating negative issues with people being 'programmers'. From what I can tell Chinese education system doesn't produce many programmers so I am not sure what to think but it explains the problems.IMO your problem is you chose the wrong people. It has nothing to do with them being programmers. Bill Gates was a hardcore programmer... As were a ton of founders.One needs to always judge their mistakes appropriately.And I'm not sure how I should response to your question about China ....because nowadays the saying is , "Even if you throw a stone in the street randomly , you'll hit a programmer " . Just , most programmer with great skills don't speak English well (nor that they have much time to do so ) . So it's not common for you to encounter many Chinese programmers on line . I wish the word "China" could be used to expain everything ..... but it doesn't really , aside from sometime glith in the networking environment .
Quote from: btswildpig on May 14, 2016, 01:56:32 ami think i'll pass . I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool . AGS/PTS/JL777 .......Your mistake is correlating negative issues with people being 'programmers'. From what I can tell Chinese education system doesn't produce many programmers so I am not sure what to think but it explains the problems.IMO your problem is you chose the wrong people. It has nothing to do with them being programmers. Bill Gates was a hardcore programmer... As were a ton of founders.One needs to always judge their mistakes appropriately.
i think i'll pass . I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool . AGS/PTS/JL777 .......
Quote from: Shentist on May 14, 2016, 08:17:21 amQuote from: btswildpig on May 14, 2016, 01:56:32 ami think i'll pass . I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool . AGS/PTS/JL777 .......i think your understanding of the DAO is not clear.at the moment the DAO is in creation phase and after the creation is done, anyone can make a proposal and get funded. this will be probably done first from slock.it, because they are the creators of the smartcontracts the DAO is using.if you want your ETH back you can everytime split and your ETH is returned to you, so it much less risk then with AGS, JL777, ETH or any other crypto project so far.Hmm......So that means DAO's token price will certainly higher than or equals the marketcap of the Ether it holds ? And as long as we assume Ether can not go lower ...... investing in DAO will have no chance of losing money but winning as long as not much money are spent in the fund ? Sounds like too good .......If that's the case , it explains why people who were not selling their Ether in the first place is now investing crazy in DAO ......because they can purely bet on the token price of DAO before significant money spent from the fund without any risk ? It just sounds too good .
Quote from: btswildpig on May 14, 2016, 01:56:32 ami think i'll pass . I have much nightmare about putting my money on programmers and let them spend it to invest on something they thought was cool . AGS/PTS/JL777 .......i think your understanding of the DAO is not clear.at the moment the DAO is in creation phase and after the creation is done, anyone can make a proposal and get funded. this will be probably done first from slock.it, because they are the creators of the smartcontracts the DAO is using.if you want your ETH back you can everytime split and your ETH is returned to you, so it much less risk then with AGS, JL777, ETH or any other crypto project so far.
I really am not looking to be a dick. However people need to correlate their mistakes appropriately. If the lesson you learned from BitShares is "don't trust programmers" then you need to seriously reconsider the basis of what you learned.That... or become a programmer...
Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pmProposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day.'The DAO' seems to be doing very well in its fund-raising so far, so it seems the market has faith in something similar to the BTS voting model. I guess the real test will be to see how they do in practice. http://coinjournal.net/dao-decentralized-fund-management-crowdsale/QuoteThe DAO Raises Over US$13 Million During First Three Days of CrowdsaleSimilarly, in The DAO, there is no director and no board. Voting power is granted to holders of The DOA tokens who can vote to approve or decline proposals submitted. Voting rights are proportional to the amount of tokens held. The proposals submitted to The DAO by contractors, define how much or how little control over its operational responsibilities The DAO “outsources” to the contractors.The DAO said it is looking for projects that provide a return on investment or benefit to the organization and its members, and which benefit the decentralized ecosystem as a whole.The organization earns revenue generated by the products and services it helps fund. Profits are then distributed to participants based on transparent rules that are decided by the participants beforehand.
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.Voting is overrated. I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.Give me a benevolent whale any day.
The DAO Raises Over US$13 Million During First Three Days of CrowdsaleSimilarly, in The DAO, there is no director and no board. Voting power is granted to holders of The DOA tokens who can vote to approve or decline proposals submitted. Voting rights are proportional to the amount of tokens held. The proposals submitted to The DAO by contractors, define how much or how little control over its operational responsibilities The DAO “outsources” to the contractors.The DAO said it is looking for projects that provide a return on investment or benefit to the organization and its members, and which benefit the decentralized ecosystem as a whole.The organization earns revenue generated by the products and services it helps fund. Profits are then distributed to participants based on transparent rules that are decided by the participants beforehand.