16
General Discussion / Re: Ideas for a redesig of the fee architecture
« on: April 05, 2016, 08:11:30 pm »
My preference would be to eliminate all fees and SIMPLIFY the role of committee members not make it more complicated.
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.
17
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 05, 2016, 08:08:28 pm »Who are these investors let in on the ground floor? Were they Brownie holders? I'm a brownie holder and didn't here anything about this opportunity.
Companies in the US are not allowed publicly solicity investments. Startups are forced to raise capital from private sources.
I haven't forgotten about Brownie Holders.
18
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:46:28 pm »I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.
I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .
I'd like to see @onceuponatime to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.
He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.
I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.
I would support this move as well. The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money. That would require about 7.5 million BTS. Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.
Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders?
19
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:39:24 pm »
In many ways BTS has already benefited from the work done on Steem. I have been systematically taking Steem innovations behind the scene and attempting to bridge them into BitShares (with a lot of resistance from some Steem investors).
1. Free Transactions - invented for Steem but offered to BTS first
2. Liquidity Rewards - invented for Steem but suggested to BTS first
3. Vesting Rewards - presented to BitShares first, but rejected
The implementation of Liquidity Rewards in Steem actually uses an algorithm and ideas not suggested in the corresponding thread on BTS.
Unfortunately, BTS stakeholder voting is unwilling to fund the work necessary to implement these hard forks, let alone an entirely new wallet interface required by Steem.
SBD is an entirely different beast than BitAssets. There is no shorting, no margin calls, and users cannot create it.
3. Interest on SBD is paid by creating new SBD from thin air and might never result in creation of STEEM
There are other reasons why Steem could not be built on BitShares:
1. It would need to be a separate asset due to its inflation scheme
2. bitshares is unable or unwilling to fund the development of something so speculative
3. bitshares is better served being an exchange and integrating with STEEM via a side chain
4. The backing of SBD cannot be BTS due to inflation
5. BTS protocol has historically been shifting with frequent hardforks, Steem aims to be a stable protocol with perhaps a single upgrade to add blinded transfers in the distant future.
6. We wanted to make some fundamental improvements to the transaction types
7. It would cost much more to build Steem on BitShares than start from scratch
8. we would have had to publicly debate the entire platform undermining marketing objectives and increasing costs.
In effect, STEEM would have ended up a "blockchain within a blockchain", users would have been forced to hold BTS and STEEM so they could transact, and the only value STEEM would gain is being natively listed on the BTS exchange.
Building Steem on BitShares makes as much sense as CounterParty building on Bitcoin.
A objective and rational investor choosing to fund the development of Steem would have a hard time justifying building it on BitShares.
This reality is true of every DAPP and applies to Ethereum as much as it applies to BitShares.
The conclusion is that BitShares needs to be a DAPP that directly serves a particular market and focus on growing that market rather than attempting to merge everything.
The other conclusion is that for BitShares to attract entrepreneurs to build DAPPS on BTS it will require much higher levels of dilution than BTS is authorized even with 100% dilution. So perhaps we should consider how to empower users of BitShares with the features it currently has.
1. Free Transactions - invented for Steem but offered to BTS first
2. Liquidity Rewards - invented for Steem but suggested to BTS first
3. Vesting Rewards - presented to BitShares first, but rejected
The implementation of Liquidity Rewards in Steem actually uses an algorithm and ideas not suggested in the corresponding thread on BTS.
Unfortunately, BTS stakeholder voting is unwilling to fund the work necessary to implement these hard forks, let alone an entirely new wallet interface required by Steem.
SBD is an entirely different beast than BitAssets. There is no shorting, no margin calls, and users cannot create it.
3. Interest on SBD is paid by creating new SBD from thin air and might never result in creation of STEEM
There are other reasons why Steem could not be built on BitShares:
1. It would need to be a separate asset due to its inflation scheme
2. bitshares is unable or unwilling to fund the development of something so speculative
3. bitshares is better served being an exchange and integrating with STEEM via a side chain
4. The backing of SBD cannot be BTS due to inflation
5. BTS protocol has historically been shifting with frequent hardforks, Steem aims to be a stable protocol with perhaps a single upgrade to add blinded transfers in the distant future.
6. We wanted to make some fundamental improvements to the transaction types
7. It would cost much more to build Steem on BitShares than start from scratch
8. we would have had to publicly debate the entire platform undermining marketing objectives and increasing costs.
In effect, STEEM would have ended up a "blockchain within a blockchain", users would have been forced to hold BTS and STEEM so they could transact, and the only value STEEM would gain is being natively listed on the BTS exchange.
Building Steem on BitShares makes as much sense as CounterParty building on Bitcoin.
A objective and rational investor choosing to fund the development of Steem would have a hard time justifying building it on BitShares.
This reality is true of every DAPP and applies to Ethereum as much as it applies to BitShares.
The conclusion is that BitShares needs to be a DAPP that directly serves a particular market and focus on growing that market rather than attempting to merge everything.
The other conclusion is that for BitShares to attract entrepreneurs to build DAPPS on BTS it will require much higher levels of dilution than BTS is authorized even with 100% dilution. So perhaps we should consider how to empower users of BitShares with the features it currently has.
20
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 05, 2016, 06:42:21 pm »I assume Steem will largly be based on graphene...
Has a sharedrop (on bts) been discussed before?
The following parts of Steem reuse code from BitShares which was released under public domain shortly after Graphene was announced.
libraries/net - P2P network code is 100% the same
libraries/db - general purpose, blockchain agnostic, in-memory database
The following parts of Steem have been completely written from scratch:
libraries/chain
- all operations used by the blockchain (transfer, etc)
- all objects kept in memory
libraries/wallet
programs/cli_wallet
The following parts of Steem have been heavily adapted from BTS:
- limit order operation and matching
The question of a share drop has been discussed internally and so far has been avoided for regulatory, support, and complexity reasons.
The current license of Steem prohibits unauthorized chains derived from the same code.
Ned will respond with a more detailed response and policy. I just wanted to provide some 'facts' and not state any position one way or another on the decision to share drop or not.
21
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies in the news
« on: April 05, 2016, 02:32:26 pm »
Steem is the first step toward MAS.
MAS needs a platform where people can review claims and validate discussion. Getting the kinks worked out of Steem will allow us to add the extra layers of complexity required for MAS.
MAS needs a platform where people can review claims and validate discussion. Getting the kinks worked out of Steem will allow us to add the extra layers of complexity required for MAS.
22
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 05, 2016, 02:28:38 pm »Quote
as for how to actually use this -- if anyone on the network does one of the stealth ops, the fees will be accumulated in an object and then sent to stealth-buyback account at the next maintenance interval. a v-op will be produced at that time (so you only get one v-op per maint interval instead of spamming the stealth-buyback history every time someone does a stealth tx). during each maintenance interval stealth-buyback account automatically attempts to use its BTS balance to buy as much STEALTH as possible on the market, generating a market order v-op (immediately followed by a cancel v-op if it can't be fully matched). you can basically monitor the stealth-buyback account history if you're interested in the finance. (ok, i guess technically that's up to three v-ops per maint interval total)
Onceuponatime now has 1M stealth and can distribute them to his partners and/or sell them on the internal market.
23
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 05, 2016, 01:43:14 pm »So, the important question is:
Can I use stealth transactions or not?.. I dont see any options at the GUI and all the Tokens still belong to BM..
Yes, you can use them via the dedicated wallet.
Onceuponatime will have his STEALTH asset today.
Our developers made STEALTH #1 priority over STEEM. Ben, James, and Val have been dedicated to STEALTH this whole time (hence, no Steem UI).
In any event, onceuponatime and I have been talking about the project and I believe he is very happy with how we have taken care of him.
24
General Discussion / Re: Looking for Deposit Tutorial for OPEN.BTC
« on: April 05, 2016, 01:31:05 pm »Code: [Select]# First Steps for End-Usershttps://gist.github.com/099201101b397be076d4f9d0bf5e7e33
This guide gives a quick introduction on how to trade STEEM:BTC in BitShares.
## Choose your wallet
To interact with the BitShares ecosystem, you can either
* [download the official Light Wallet](https://bitshares.org/download)
* or access the network in the browsers via one of our partners:
* https://openledger.info
* https://secure.freedomledger.com
* https://bitshares.org/wallet
## Create an account
In order to use BitShares, you will need to register an account. All you need
to provide is
* an account name
* a password
The identicon at the top cn be used to verify your account name to third
parties. It is derived from your acocunt name and gives a second verification
factor. And this is how you register your account:
Note that, in contrast to any other platform you have ever used:
Creating an account at one of our partners will make your account
available at all the other partners as well.**
Hence, your account name can be seen similar to a mail address in such that it
is **unique** and every participant in the BitShares network can interact with
you independent of the actual partner providing the wallet.
## Backup your account
Since you are the only individual that has access to your account and funds, it
is **your responsibility** to make a secure backup of your registered account.
After creating your account, follow these steps:
1. Click the *Backup required* link in the footer
2. Click "Create Backup"
3. Click "Download" and store the file safely. Make sure to **remember the passphrase** you provided when you created your wallet (above) as the downloaded file is encrypted with it.
4. (optionally but recommended) Note the `xxxxxx * SHA1` checksum to verify the backup
## Depositing Bitcoin
1. Click on **Account** in the top navigation bar to open up your account overview
2. Make sure it states `(Your Account)` below your account name
3. Click **Deposit/Withdraw** to open the corresponding page
4. Enable the *gateway* **CCEDK** which provide the most liquid `OPEN.BTC` IOU
Note: OPEN.BTC is an *I owe you* (IOU) provided by CCEDK. This means that they back every `OPEN.BTC` token with 100% reserves!
5. Identify the `OPEN.BTC` row and use the provided Bitcoin address to fund your account with BTC
6. After reception and confirmation of your transfer, you will be automatically credited with `OPEN.BTC`
## Trading OPEN.BTC for STEEM
1. Clicking the **Trade** link in the top navigation bar will open the decentralized exchange of BitShares
2. Since any two assets can be traded, we first need to search for our `STEEM:OPEN.BTC` pair by clicking **Find Markets**
3. Search for `STEEM:OPEN.BTC` to trade `STEEM` for `OPEN.BTC` (the tokens you have received for depositing `BTC`)
4. Click on the search result below to open the market page
5. Similar to other exchanges, you can now place buy and sell orders at your price.
**Note:** In BitShares, placing an order costs a very small fee (sub-$cent) which get a 90% refund on cancellation. This fee can be payed in almost any asset including `OPEN.BTC`, `BTS` or `STEEM` and it is up to you to decide which asset to use to pay for the fee. Further percentage fees on filled orders may apply.
6. Once your order is matched, the corresponding asset will automatically be credited in your account.
These instructions are "good", should only give users ONE WAY to do things. Every Time you give a user a choice to make they face anxiety and stop.
In my opinion, directing them to bitshares.openledger.info should be the default.
25
General Discussion / Re: Looking for Deposit Tutorial for OPEN.BTC
« on: April 05, 2016, 01:29:56 pm »If I make this tutorial video, do I assume that the user already has a BitShares accounts?For me it would make sense separating the two, maybe titled
Or does it need to include instructions on how to set that up first?
1) Wallet install and set up
2) Funding your BTS Wallet
I agree these should be two separate tutorials.
26
General Discussion / Looking for Deposit Tutorial for OPEN.BTC
« on: April 04, 2016, 09:25:27 pm »
I am looking for someone to create a step-by-step guide with screenshots on how to deposit OPEN.BTC into your BitShares account.
These instructions will be used as part of a marketing push for STEEM that will direct users to BitShares which will start out as the exclusive exchange where STEEM is traded.
If we play this right BitShares can ride the STEEM publicity and we can get some new traders into the exchange.
Having exclusive assets that people want to trade is one of the best ways of bootstrapping BitShares.
Ideally the guide would be done in MARKDOWN.
These instructions will be used as part of a marketing push for STEEM that will direct users to BitShares which will start out as the exclusive exchange where STEEM is traded.
If we play this right BitShares can ride the STEEM publicity and we can get some new traders into the exchange.
Having exclusive assets that people want to trade is one of the best ways of bootstrapping BitShares.
Ideally the guide would be done in MARKDOWN.
27
General Discussion / STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 04, 2016, 05:33:54 pm »
I want to take a moment to give everyone an update on where we are with STEALTH.
The hardfork today will allow us to transfer the STEALTH asset to @onceuponatime and the blockchain will be fully functional from that perspective.
The GUI release here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/releases/tag/2.0.160323-stealth-beta implements an interface and set of functionality that we outlined in the proposal.
The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets. We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.
With todays hardfork and enabling of the fee-backed-asset along with the windows binaries we will release the STEALTH worker will technically be completed to spec. We were late and over budget so have actually lost money on this worker.
That said, I am not happy with the resulting product and user experience. It is still too hard to use for most people and therefore, it is reasonable to expect few will use it.
In an effort to make things right for everyone, especially @onceuponatime, we intend to implement an alternative in the months ahead:
Blind Transfers with Public Accounts
In this mode everyone will be able to tell which accounts are transacting with each other, but be unable to know the amounts involved. The impact is that you would be able to tell if someone sent money to an exchange, but would be unable to know how much. Furthemore, your
account balance would be completely private.
With this mode of operation it is possible to make blind transfers the default mode of operation while maintaining the same interface we have for normal transactions. A simple checkbox can be used to enable public/free transfers.
This interface will generate many more STEALTH transfers and improve everyone's privacy while at the same time enabling the holders of the STEALTH asset to make more revenue.
We cannot promise a particular schedule for this enhancement, but will state that we intend to work toward it. We want to make sure that people can actually use privacy enhancing features and that @onceuponatime has a reasonable chance to recoup his investment.
The hardfork today will allow us to transfer the STEALTH asset to @onceuponatime and the blockchain will be fully functional from that perspective.
The GUI release here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/releases/tag/2.0.160323-stealth-beta implements an interface and set of functionality that we outlined in the proposal.
The server-side wallet storage was not part of the proposal, but something we felt was necessary to backup/secure user funds. We do not yet have confidence in the reliability of server-side storage to enable this feature. There is a significant about of liability associated in offering to host/backup user wallets. We don't want to be responsible for the loss of funds.
With todays hardfork and enabling of the fee-backed-asset along with the windows binaries we will release the STEALTH worker will technically be completed to spec. We were late and over budget so have actually lost money on this worker.
That said, I am not happy with the resulting product and user experience. It is still too hard to use for most people and therefore, it is reasonable to expect few will use it.
In an effort to make things right for everyone, especially @onceuponatime, we intend to implement an alternative in the months ahead:
Blind Transfers with Public Accounts
In this mode everyone will be able to tell which accounts are transacting with each other, but be unable to know the amounts involved. The impact is that you would be able to tell if someone sent money to an exchange, but would be unable to know how much. Furthemore, your
account balance would be completely private.
With this mode of operation it is possible to make blind transfers the default mode of operation while maintaining the same interface we have for normal transactions. A simple checkbox can be used to enable public/free transfers.
This interface will generate many more STEALTH transfers and improve everyone's privacy while at the same time enabling the holders of the STEALTH asset to make more revenue.
We cannot promise a particular schedule for this enhancement, but will state that we intend to work toward it. We want to make sure that people can actually use privacy enhancing features and that @onceuponatime has a reasonable chance to recoup his investment.
28
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 03, 2016, 06:37:09 pm »It could be that the transaction was broadcast too late to be included by the producer. There is a race condition where if you broadcast it, but the producer doesn't receive it in time and so it is "stale" and not included in the blockchain.
Thanks for the explanation. Does "in time" mean that a POW based on the hash of block n is only accepted if it is included in block n+1?
That would severely (and unnecessarily IMO) punish miners on a "high"-latency connection. For example, with a (perfectly normal) latency of 300ms a miner can effectively only mine from t+0.3s until t+2.7s, which is a 20% reduction of efficiency!
Moreover, this means that the currently active witnesses automatically have a higher than average chance to have their own POWs included in the chain in time.
Even worse, it means that the currently active witnesses can deliberately drop POWs from other miners, thereby increasing their own effective hashrate!
IMO there's no reason to not accept POWs that are based on the hash of one of the latest 21 blocks (for example).
I considered all of these issues. The consensus algorithm is subject to a 33% attack, whereby someone with 33% of the hashpower can gain 50% of effective hash power by ignoring POW by competitors. This is why block producers get paid for including POW of competitors, to minimize the incentive to exclude them.
The POW-only consensus system is a short-term concern and designed mostly for distributing coins and giving time for witnesses to be elected.
Low latency is a critical issue on any blockchain with 3 second blocks. Someone who is unable to mine with low latency impacts everyone else when they finally get scheduled to produce blocks.
We have effectively made latency part of the POW algorithm which means forcing miners to invest in low-latency VPS. It also reduces potential for mining pools and hinders botnets. Botnets would have to distribute the private key to all machines and many of the compromised computers are on slow internet connections.
Just consider it a different kind of resource like CPU, GPU, DISK, etc.
29
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 03, 2016, 04:13:18 pm »There is something not working here.With pow you only mine a 'ticket' in the block production queue .. once you got a ticket mined you need to wait for your round to actually produce a few blocks .. (maybe 20 or so)
I've been mining since yesterday with my quad-core at ~22khps. The client tells me it'll take 50-150 minutes to solve a POW. Indeed I sometimes see a message like "Broadcasting Proof of Work for cyrano", but that's it. No accumulating STEEM, not even POW transactions in my account history (except for one yesterday, almost immediately after I started).
Any ideas?
I know that. I should be mining a ticket every 2 hours or so, but I'm not.
What I'm seeing is messages like this:Code: [Select]hash rate: 21507 hps target: 27 queue: 95 estimated time to produce: 104.01088637807846737 minutesand in the 30 hours I've been mining a grand total of 5 messages likeCode: [Select]Broadcasting Proof of Work for cyranoIf I understand this correctly each "Broadcasting POW" should result in a transaction that gets me a place in the queue, but only one of these made it into my account history.
Edit: sometimes you just have to complain to make it work I guess...Code: [Select]2016-04-03 17:55:16.269806500 3316269ms th_a witness.cpp:436 operator() ] Broadcasting Proof of Work for cyranoNevertheless, this only proves my assumption that for every "Broadcasting POW" message there should be one TX in my account history, but there isn't.
2 285428 4a49bdf267c686f76b2558cf6ac3807eb1373e62 pow {"worker_account":"cyrano", ...
It could be that the transaction was broadcast too late to be included by the producer. There is a race condition where if you broadcast it, but the producer doesn't receive it in time and so it is "stale" and not included in the blockchain.
30
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] [STEEM] Introducing Steem, Looking for Witnesses / Miners
« on: April 02, 2016, 06:07:30 pm »@thereverseflash I created a node : "122.114.47.242"But I haven't a private key ,so I can't create a account.privete key is bitcoin's
I got a publick key :STM5p78kHbL33Rn3JWkTWRE2B9uz6gy4r1KbfAKLNQGE3ovMBS5bu
Any one give me some coins?
I don't known how to create my first account
./steemd --miner='["accountname","${WIFPRIVATEKEY}"]' --witness='"accountname"'
get_account mottler
create_account_with_private_key
create_account( string creator, string new_account_name, string json_meta, bool broadcast )
You just mine it. No need for faucet or coins. No ability to send to address.
