I see on the bitshares openledger platform there are two markets for trading MUSE: OPENMUSE and OPEN.MUSE
Why are there two?
What is the difference between the two?

The volume on OPENMUSE has died and the volume on OPEN.MUSE has picked up, any reason for this?

And how does one go about trading OPENMUSE or OPEN.MUSE for actual muse notes?
Thanks 

Read here for full details: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21308.0.html

Quote from: theoretical on March 10, 2016, 04:14:54 pm

Also the websocketpp deflate code is very new, so it might be a novel bug in websocketpp.  A quick run-through of the websocketpp issue tracker shows some known race condition crash bugs in websocketpp [1] [2] [3] and it is not out of the realm of possibility that one of these leads to a use-after-free.  Some of these bugs are TLS only, so it is possible that disabling TLS fixes the issue.

[1] https://github.com/zaphoyd/websocketpp/issues/459
[2] https://github.com/zaphoyd/websocketpp/issues/451
[3] https://github.com/zaphoyd/websocketpp/issues/336

I am using --rpc-endpoint and not --rpc-tls-endpoint, does this still apply?

If it's helpful I can try to recreate this setup on a separate server today or tomorrow.

We've pushed a changed to bitshares branch of bitshares2 that allows you to disable the compression via command line, if you want to test if it is related to the problem. The option to disable compression is:
option is:  --disable-permessage-deflate

Ok, I've replied to subreddit:

On the BlockTrades website (blocktrades.us), you can send to an ether address without needing to send a memo (this allows you to send from exchanges). But in the current version of the BitShares webwallet, you also need to include a memo that tells what BitShares account to credit the OPEN.ETH to.

The next version of the webwallet will function the same as the BlockTrades website (you will be able to send to a unique address without a memo).

Please contact BlockTrades via the contact info at their website with more info about your transaction.

Quote from: onceuponatime on March 05, 2016, 08:16:06 pm

Quote from: Erlich Bachman on March 05, 2016, 05:24:01 pm

Didn't you hear the mumble?

Dannostein already has code for another project he could monnetize here, and we could have a multisig sidechain in 3 months effectively allowing bitcoins to trade on our 3 second smartchain, sucking all the bitcoins off the bitcoin blockchain and onto ours and creating perfect pegs in the process.

Total estimated cost:

$200k, a mere $5,000 Ethereum IPO investment (sold today)

We would effectively become bitcoin's "lightning network"

dannotestein previously stated that he is doing an ipo of BlockTrades
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21509.0.html

In that case, if he considers the sidechain project to be feasible and profitable, he will be able to finance it. I guess we could fund raise to loan him the money to get started until his ipo goes through.

@dannotestein could you share your input on this?

I think the the sidechain/mutlis-sig custodians idea is a good one and something that should be done as the amount of outstanding IOUs gets substantial, but it's hard to say if now is the time to do it or not. It doesn't really allow users to do anything they can't already do or make any operation more convenient, it just allows them to trust the network more. So it only make sense now from a public relations perspective (i.e. first sidechain for bitcoin, more trustworthy, etc), and it then becomes a question if that benefit is worth the development cost.

Also, there will be more burden on SIDE.BTC custodians to manage a more complicated piece of software as compared to witnesses. Fortunately, the BTC wallet tends to be pretty stable, but if we did this for Ether as well, they can expect a lot more headaches since we've seen the Ether wallet crash numerous times (it feels a lot like an early BitShares 1.0 wallet).

Since I don't want BlockTrades to take all the risk for this venture, I would prefer if someone like CCEDK pre-sold an FBA, paid us a part in the FBA (to cover our existing costs and lost opportunities associated with open-sourcing that code) and part in proceeds from the FBA to cover our new development expenses. Ideally, BlockTrades could sell the FBA directly, but that would require us to get a special license from Cayman's to sell securities and I haven't investigated how much that would cost yet.

Looks that way when looking at commit charts on github

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/graphs/contributors

As phoenike pointed out, you're looking at wrong github repo to see the work being done. Graphene is where most of the coding is done, bitshares-2 is just for bitshares-specific code added to the library.

Private keys for BTC can't be held in the blockchain. They need to be "owned" by someone, hence the need for custodians for these keys.

Quote from: dannotestein on March 02, 2016, 04:07:34 pm

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 03:55:59 pm

Quote from: dannotestein on March 02, 2016, 03:30:41 pm

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on March 02, 2016, 01:28:47 pm

@abit
* The witness who hold the second key could be the same person who deposited the BTC which is supposed to be locked, but actually the person have both keys, she can just unlock the fund without destroy the issued bitBTC.

2 the software will only allow a witness to sign the bitcoin transaction once the corresponding SIDEBTC has been destroyed. Remember SIDEBTC is not transferable only BITBTC is.

Re 2): How does the software prevent someone with both bitcoin private keys from signing a "bitcoin" transaction? They would sign it on the bitcoin network, which doesn't care about the rules of the sidechain.

Who would have both keys? As a depositor you guard your 1 of 2 key as well as you would a single key.

abit's original point was simple, so I've just requoted his point, your reply,  and my reply. To answer your question: the
witness would have both keys: his "witness" key and his "sender" key. With these two keys, you can sell your BitBTC, then release your BTC.

So basically you're saying that witnesses would be able to double spend their own BTC by redeeming SIDEBTC and dumping BITBTC at the same time?

I'm saying they can sell their BitBTC and also reclaim their BTC since reclaiming only requires the two Bitcoin keys (no redeeming of SIDEBTC required). I don't really view this as a double spend, but it certainly doubles your money.

@abit
* The witness who hold the second key could be killed, so the key lost, and the locked BTC become non-redeemable, hence no value.
* The witness who hold the second key could be the same person who deposited the BTC which is supposed to be locked, but actually the person have both keys, she can just unlock the fund without destroy the issued bitBTC.

1 all witnesses would hold the second key
2 the software will only allow a witness to sign the bitcoin transaction once the corresponding SIDEBTC has been destroyed. Remember SIDEBTC is not transferable only BITBTC is.

Re 2): How does the software prevent someone with both bitcoin private keys from signing a "bitcoin" transaction? They would sign it on the bitcoin network, which doesn't care about the rules of the sidechain.

In general, I think this scheme is overly complicated and prone to some basic pitfalls. First and foremost, with potentially locked up BTC forever, all the BitBTC isn't redeemable for BTC, so it shouldn't trade as 1-1 for BTC.

I think BM's solution is much simpler, easier to understand, and therefore easier to trust. It's pretty safe except in the case of large scale collusion by the custodians of the SBA keys. To reduce this chance for collusion, the custodians could be compensated by some stream of income that goes away if they do collude.

Obviously there's political decisions involved in determining how to balance the amount of income to the custodians, the number of custodians, etc as the balance held increases. The biggest problem is this regard is probably the limited size of Bitcoin's multisig.