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.
It's very hard to find my balance based on public keys, since I trade frequently.
Can someone make a tool like this?
https://bitbalance.azurewebsites.net/
Please refresh my memory...
How many Play per BTS/AGS/PTS? When is the estimation for launching of the client and claiming those shares?
Thanks!
thank you, vikram, great jobSince that thread is locked , I am going to continue the discussion here. I would like to hear what the BitShares team thinks about requiring an airdrop of AGS to PTS to maintain the favor of the community.
I feel that DPOS PTS deserves consideration by the community to give it a pass here but I can see how people would take the opinion that it is a violation of the social consensus.
DPOS PTS is cheaper to maintain and the discussion of moving PTS has been long going, even before the superDAC merger. I don't see why we should tilt the PTS / AGS split in favor of AGS instead of maintaining the current split other than semantics. Moving PTS to DPOS is beneficial for the whole community because it will cost us less to maintain. Of course it will still cost more than killing PTS; but I personally would like to see it live on for future DACs to snapshot. Combining AGS / PTS into one user issued asset and making that the new consensus tool would be my preferred option but I will support DPOS PTS in case that doesn't happen. In some ways DPOS PTS is the simpler upgrade path, because nobody has to step up to be the GENESIS issuer.
What do you think vikram?
I have not followed any discussion relating to PTS, but at an initial glance I suppose I can see why people could argue for either side when it comes to using the BitShares code--previously the BitShares Toolkit which was developed using AGS funds.
However, my initial reaction is that: at the end of the day, the BitShares source code is public domain and people are free to use it however they want. The PTS project has been abandoned by its original developers, so some community members have decided to adopt the project and release an upgrade which moves it onto the BitShares architecture. Performing a pure upgrade without reallocating ownership like this does not bother me.
I do not intend to provide support for this chain or any other forks, with the exception that I am willing to notify downstream developers of important security holes or consensus bugs. This is an act of courtesy that requires very little effort, but could help save some DACs some serious pain. I would expect good downstream developers to give me the same courtesy and warn of any security issues they discover.
With respect, I do not want to discuss which chains the community should or should not support in this thread. I just want a list of real projects that are using our codebase purely for the above purpose of sharing security vulnerabilities.
thank you, vikram, great jobSince that thread is locked , I am going to continue the discussion here. I would like to hear what the BitShares team thinks about requiring an airdrop of AGS to PTS to maintain the favor of the community.
I feel that DPOS PTS deserves consideration by the community to give it a pass here but I can see how people would take the opinion that it is a violation of the social consensus.
DPOS PTS is cheaper to maintain and the discussion of moving PTS has been long going, even before the superDAC merger. I don't see why we should tilt the PTS / AGS split in favor of AGS instead of maintaining the current split other than semantics. Moving PTS to DPOS is beneficial for the whole community because it will cost us less to maintain. Of course it will still cost more than killing PTS; but I personally would like to see it live on for future DACs to snapshot. Combining AGS / PTS into one user issued asset and making that the new consensus tool would be my preferred option but I will support DPOS PTS in case that doesn't happen. In some ways DPOS PTS is the simpler upgrade path, because nobody has to step up to be the GENESIS issuer.
What do you think vikram?
I have not followed any discussion relating to PTS, but at an initial glance I suppose I can see why people could argue for either side when it comes to using the BitShares code--previously the BitShares Toolkit which was developed using AGS funds.
However, my initial reaction is that: at the end of the day, the BitShares source code is public domain and people are free to use it however they want. The PTS project has been abandoned by its original developers, so some community members have decided to adopt the project and release an upgrade which moves it onto the BitShares architecture. Performing a pure upgrade without reallocating ownership like this does not bother me.
I do not intend to provide support for this chain or any other forks, with the exception that I am willing to notify downstream developers of important security holes or consensus bugs. This is an act of courtesy that requires very little effort, but could help save some DACs some serious pain. I would expect good downstream developers to give me the same courtesy and warn of any security issues they discover.
With respect, I do not want to discuss which chains the community should or should not support in this thread. I just want a list of real projects that are using our codebase purely for the above purpose of sharing security vulnerabilities.
Where can I see the play shares I've been allocated?
Can we have the link to the json file containing the allocation for each public key, just like other snapshots did?
....
At last, we decide to honor all of three, but if most people (> 50%) involved in this poll util Wednesday 12:00PM(UTC) think that we need a new proposal for AGS, I will definitely give a new proposal (a promise to delulo on yesterday's mumble).
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10367.msg135971#msg135971
...
These are all in chinese - was that your intent?
