hazard, are you only "trying to find out" or are you actually trying to get your balance to show up on your client?
Finding out is easy.
Get all your pre-snapshot balances from all addresses you own.
Multiply by that by 644.
That's how many you're entitled to by owning PTS.

Quote from: arubi on January 02, 2015, 08:26:40 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on January 02, 2015, 08:05:31 pm

Quote from: arubi on January 02, 2015, 07:55:27 pm

But then can't the malicious 51% ignore these votes (they are transactions, right?)?

They can ignore them, but they will be stuck with 51 delegates while the honest chain with the majority of shareholder approval will move up to 100% participation and eventually be longer.

Exactly what I was getting at.
This is also the reason why I said you can only "take over" the network with 100% delegates.
Even an honest 49% can still recover.

This is perhaps a topic for a future blog post.   You can "recover" from any attack as long as the attackers never gain more than the long-term average delegate participation rate.   The reality is that you would recover with a developer released hard-fork / check point.   

Only an idiot would trust "the longest chain" metric on its own.   The longest chain is just a "short term" consensus building approach, it is not the basis of long-term consensus.

Right, so a 51% attack is not viable in the long term.
A hardfork/checkpoint is more or less "cheating" (requires a human factor) but still a viable solution.

It seems that as more malicious delegates are voted in (or just turn malicious), it's harder for the network to "naturally" recover, but it can still easily recover from a 51% attack.

A lower % of an honest network can still recover, and that's where Bitshares wins with DPoS.
With Bitcoin, a "Longest chain" isn't really longer than any other chain, but the difficulty is higher.
With Bitshares, the "Longest Chain" is asserted because any other (malicious) chain has fewer blocks, because malicious delegates ignore honest blocks that vote them out.
A malicious delegate can't just vote in another malicious delegate because she needs enough stake in the chain for that to happen.
Having stake in a malicious chain goes against the very premise of "zero stake".


Man, I love Bitshares

But then can't the malicious 51% ignore these votes (they are transactions, right?)?

Quote from: arubi on January 02, 2015, 05:51:53 pm

I'll edit my reply, though I still don't get how only 51% of delegates can censor transactions.

They can ignore blocks produced by the other 49 delegates.

So who is creating the rest of the blocks in the round?

But he has protoshares from the first snapshot, that means he should have his bitshares balance.

Yep. I can see your address on the genesis.json file.
Can you describe the steps you took to import your protoshares wallet.dat file?

Take a look at:
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/BitShares/Howto#Attempting_a_wallet_import_to_receive_BTSX_from_February_28th_snapshot

See if you're doing it as described.
(Wallet type should be Bitcoin, even though its PTS)

Instead of what you're trying to do, can you tell us what you're trying to accomplish? (XYproblem)

Are you trying to get your PTS-AGS balance into an account in Bitshares, or did you actually have PTS at the time of the snapshot and are you looking for a PTS-BTS snapshot balance?