Thanks roadscape!

Ubuntu 64bit cli version.

Seems to crash after an hour or two, need to keep restarting when this happens. 
The only message there is "killed".

This was on a fresh account that never had a previous version of bitshares before.
Deleting .Bitshares folder just results in everything starting over again.

Command line is extremely slow to respond and this slowness grows the longer the client is running.
Command line slowness is no joke, there is always literally at least 1 second in between characters, regardless of my typing speed.

I think you have a memory leak because the whole machine slowed to a crawl near the end of the last incident then became snappy again once the "killed" message appeared.

Have not yet synced the block chain, been at it 2 days.
Thanks for the hard work though!

Thanks everyone for the detailed explanation on NOTES.  I had read the info before but it never really clicked for some reason.
Sounds like an incredible project.

As for Toast, I saw some of his posts, and he seemed like a good guy.  Sad to see good people leave.

Impressive!  Great work guys!

After listening to the latest hangout I'd have to say OP is not messing around here.

Thank You!

Quote from: bitsapphire on April 20, 2015, 12:56:13 pm

Quote from: tsaishen on April 19, 2015, 10:09:46 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on April 16, 2015, 04:30:14 am

It has been suggested before that BitAssets with feeds produced by private parties would enable greater variety of BitAssets to be created.   I would like to explore this idea further from the perspective of growing adoption.   

Today there is little incentive to market BitUSD because 100% of the profits of marketing BitUSD go to USD holders via yield or BTS holders via trading fees.  If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption.  Assume the manager got to set the market trading fees/transfer fees just like they can with any other user issued asset.

The end result would be a financial incentive to get a pegged asset released, marketed, and adopted.   The BTS network would profit by having the asset trading against BTS and other assets.   Initially this would result in a handful of attempts, but market competition would result in the best promoted and adopted variant having the highest usage and deepest markets.   Ultimately the market would settle on one or two variants and the rest would die off or be special purpose.   

1) Assume anyone could create a BitAsset and publish a feed for it.
2) Assume that "anyone" could be a group of 100+ individuals which are unlikely to collude and they must agree on the feed via multi-sig.
3) Assume that this group got to set the trading fees (%) on all trading volume with the asset.

So the question is, are delegates inherently more trustworthy than any other group of individuals collaborating to publish a trusted feed?   Sure they are elected, but an election is not the only or even the best way to establish trust.   

So I contend that a market full of private market pegged assets with profit motive for a near "winner takes all" on the team that can provide the highest liquidity and best marketed variant will produce better results than relying on socialized funding of the BitAssets produced by delegates. 

Thoughts?

I am not a lawyer but...

I believe that doing this would consolidate and centralize the market rapidly into the hands of a few well heeled players.  The appeal of bitUSD would diminish quickly as any properly incorporated entity with the resources to pull this off would immediately be subject to AML/KYC regulations and would be forced to lock down the bitUSD holdings of anyone the IRS asked them to.   

Assuming that they could sustain the compliance burden, they would also find themselves immediately subject to US laws regarding virtual currency & money transmission.  http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/msb.registration.html (click the links labeled Regulation & FactSheet)

If they didn't comply then FinCEN could seize the company's assets globally, pretty much immediately. 

Doing it without incorporation, for instance as a DAC would mean that in theory, USA courts would disregard the DAC and treat the players as individuals who were operating a series of sole-props and engaging in a regulated activity (money transmission and investing/banking).  100% of the liability would likely rest with the players severally and I have serious doubts that the USA wouldn't treat everyone in the market under RICO statutes and seize their individual assets and likely their personages.

In short, if you want to do this, don't live anywhere near the USA and don't expect to be able to board an airplane any time in the near future.

Other than that it's a great idea!

It seems this will be one of the primary reasons why all privatized bitAssets absolutely require whitelisting. However, because you don't actually issue IOUs backed by actual fiat, I think coinbase-style expansion into more jurisdictions should be a lot faster.

It depends upon the liability for publishing a PRICE FEED.   Ultimately that is all that it comes down to, everything else is the blockchain.

Yeah maybe you're right.  Still I would talk to a lawyer before making the change if you haven't already.

I think this sounds awesome.. 

These are some of my qustions:

• You say compliance with Canada.. however, the securities compliance for crowdfunds in Canada are provincial and not federal.. will that be the level of compliance you will accomplish?
• You say maw paw shops.. that suggests to me you are going to need boots on the ground so to speak to act as gateways/hand holders to these businesses that otherwise know nothing about this opportunity to crowdfund. does the business model incorporate regional partners?
• You mention seeking out existing ATM operators.. I have a friend in my area that owns many in this area and manages them from top to bottom. What would be the advantage to him to incorporate this into his existing ATMs..can he?
• I have tens of thousands of sq/ft of space in the bunker that would be ideal for assembly and/or distribution... need a Canadian distributor? Guaranteed to keep inventory safe under all conditions! 

Looking forward to your reply!

I apologize, this is why I don't belong as the public voice of this.   According to the new guidance, US & Canadian companies can participate in JOBS act funding in accordance with US law.  Furthermore, parties from outside the US & Canada can participate by contributing capital, i.e. investing but cannot request capital e.g. make an offering.  In the USA, state law was completely pre-empted by the SEC in this regard.  It's possible some states such as AZ will likely sue to block the SEC.   If that occurs it would be a direct threat to our business model. 

Canadian companies are welcome to participate, but I expect that local laws there would not be superseded by SEC rules.  I recommend everyone with questions about legal applicability to their own situation consult this... http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9741.pdf  In short if I were a Canadian company seeking funding from the USA, I would definitely speak to my lawyer first.

As to number 2, we need boots on the ground everywhere, but we are waiting to put those boots on the ground until we have the shape of things hammered out.  I personally think we need to look at adding a marketing director as soon as possible.  If anyone is interested including newmine & tonyk2, the application form involves PMing me or Alec and introducing yourself at this point.

#3, incorporating into existing ATMs.  The help is totally welcome.  Alec struck a deal recently for expansion in Mexico that should add several units.  I'm doing my part to make sure those units integrate correctly.  We're also working on a deal for exposure in the USA at the moment.  Canada would be a good market into as well. 

Right my focus is on adapting existing Bitcoin ATMs to add Bitshares functionality to them.  If there were enough similar units from other manufacturers, I might push up the schedule.  I would do this if I could ascertain that there was someone with a sincere interest in the selling of bitshares through them. 

Odd you mention it though.  At the moment I'm fixing an ATM.  Specifically the thing on my desk in testing right now is a Skyhook, primarily because the software is already open source and I know a guy.  I've talked with other MFRs and have SDK access to about 3 different makes.  So it's more a matter of time than anything. 

As for the opportunity for the ATM owner/operator.  It's the opportunity to add a new revenue stream to your ATM business.  You set your margins and buy/sell coins directly.  We're working on a plan to reduce the bagholder risk while providing immediately liquidity too, but that plan needs a lot of work before it's worth discussing.  So can he participate?  Depends on the make and model right now.  If it's a skyhook I could use help in testing.  If it's not Skyhook, then PM me and we can talk.  SDK availability is the biggest hold up not really technical challenges.  A couple of MFRs are already in exclusive agreements with other crypto-companies, so my plan there is to work with those guys.

#4 Despite the fact I'm coding ATM software right this moment, I'm not in the ATM business.  I do know that there is a distributor opportunity from the MFR we are working most closely with.  So if you want to PM me your contact details I'll have them get a hold of you ASAP.

As far as us going into a bunker, it sounds like fun.  Probably going to need flame proof suits by the time this thread concludes

I think I addressed everything, now if you'll excuse me the build tree on the replacement skyhook firmware just caught fire and I need to go see what's failing.  I'll check back in a few hours.

Thanks. Just one more question. Are entrepreneurs supposed to create their IPO shares in short-name assets (3 to 5 character), which require 500k BTS? Or do they have an option to choose long company acronym, say 6 to 8 character?

This is one of those areas that is still up in the air. 

The current plan involves gemspace handling the creation and registration of the asset name on their behalf as soon as they receive a filing ID back from the SEC.  I can see this quickly becoming cost prohibitive though, especially if the price of BTS climbs. I mean really, what happens here if/when BTS reaches dollar parity? 

What will likely happen is that we will give them a longer ID for bitshares purposes, and then adapt a plugin/filter that performs an on the fly rename for the asset.  This happens all the time on the bigger exchanges.  You might see AAPL, but you're really trading AAPL:US on the NASDAQ or something that looks an awful lot like US0024812085 on other exchanges ("note, that is the ISIN for a completely different company, but it's given as an example").  Back in the day, we dealt with things that looked like US0024812085.1.10.002 which would denote a company, an asset class a batch number and lot.  Trading systems can get really specific.

Again something being discussed, but the point is to keep the process affordable. 
You shouldn't have to mortgage your house just to seek crowdfunding.

Good questions guys, please keep them coming.