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.


Messages - lafona

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
46
General Discussion / Re: Dilution in ...communication channels
« on: February 25, 2016, 02:20:14 pm »
Also you can subscribe to all of them and have nearly non stop bitshares discussion. @sudo do we currently have a wechat group or channel?

47
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:02:43 pm »
I think the team consists of several former crypti team members.

48
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: February 22, 2016, 01:14:34 pm »
Voted back in! Thanks for the support :)

49
Stakeholder Proposals / Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:24:14 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I would like to first thank everyone who has voted for my witness(delegate-1.lafona), I have enjoyed the opportunity to be an elected witness and I hope to have that opportunity again in the not so distant future. My other motivation for posting is to offer more information and try to answer any questions.

I had been an active Bitshares 2.0 witness from the first day of the network up until a few days ago and I actively participated in most if not all of the graphene public test networks. In addition I ran a payroll delegate for Chronos during the last few months of Bitshares 0.x as mentioned in the thread below.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16536.45.html

I have also run delegates for the PTS DPOS, Devshares and Play networks.

I currently run a witness node on a Virgina based AWS VPS (2 cpus, 4 GiB Memory) and a seed node on a (1 cpu, 2 GiB) vps.
During the time as an active witness my node produced over 115000 blocks with less than 0.6% of blocks missed and was in the first 66% to produce blocks after the two network pauses.

For additional information: https://github.com/lafona/delegate-1.lafona

I hope this has been informative and I thank you for your future or continued support.

50
General Discussion / Re: AGS Investor Checking In
« on: February 20, 2016, 05:19:49 pm »
Ok so I think you can import your wallet.dat file in the console.
The command is
wallet_import_bitcoin
It should actually prompt you for the filename, passphrase and the account to add the keys to(ie the one you just created)
If i remeber correctly it will only look for the filename in the same folder as the executable so you may want to try moving the dat file into the same folder or typing in the the whole pathname. What is your operating system by the way?

51
General Discussion / Re: AGS Investor Checking In
« on: February 20, 2016, 04:07:49 pm »
Hi Keyser,
It looks like 117 days is approximately the amount of time from when the chain was stopped for the transition to 2.0. If the gui is giving trouble for creating a new account I think you might be able to get around this by using the console. You can actually access the console from within the gui by clicking on the advanced option under the account details menu next to the lock button. I using cli only I was able to create an account name using the command:
wallet_account_create
This account name will not be registered to the blockchain but might let you import your keys as you would have normally. If not there are also several wallet_import commands for importing keys through the console, but I am not sure which you would need for your type of wallet. hope this helps

52
General Discussion / Re: Beyond Bitcoin (CNX) Hangout w/ Bytemaster Tomorrow @ 10AM EST
« on: February 19, 2016, 03:11:46 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 19, 2016, 03:07:42 pm
Mumble is still asking for a certificate and rejecting entry into the room... 2nd week in a row mumble isn't working for me and I'm guessing many others... glad to see this is being back burnered even after it messed up the Roger Ver hangout.

Which mumble client are you using?

53
Technical Support / Pull requests for updating seed nodes
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:29:29 pm »
I was looking through list of seed nodes on github and it appears like there are some waiting pull requests which would drastically increase the number of seed nodes used(either by updating addresses or by adding new nodes).

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/pull/5/files
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/pulls

54
General Discussion / Secondary market for blockchain timeshare resources
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:19:44 pm »
Hi so I mentioned the idea of a blockchain resource secondary market in the mumble today and after listening I wanted to discuss some modifications.

From my understanding there are at least two main network resources to be used by operations, bandwidth and memory.
Since the ownership of BTS represents owning a time-share portion of the network we could say that each BTS represents ownership of X bandwidth and Y memory. Then BTS could essentially create these assets at some predefined rate. Since the resources have different properties, the tokens should also have differing properties. ie

bandwidth tokens
-have a predefined lifetime(real bandwidth does not carry over)
memory tokens
-are sharedropped or allocated once(memory should be constant except for specific hardware upgrades)

One benefit of splitting these into discrete tokens is that you could charge a fee that more directly represents network usage.

transfers= 1 bandwidth
market_order= 1 bandwidth, 1 memory (memory is returned on order cancellation or fulfillment)

The main benefit would be that you could you could resell your unused resource tokens on a secondary market to users looking for bursts in bandwidth adding potential income to bts holders.

Also this could potentially fit into the current referral program by structuring the resource fee in a similiar 80/20 split. The referrers get the 80 spent by referrees and can either use or sell it on the secondary market. Lifetime membership would refund the 80 back to the referree as it does now.

Parameters like bandwith token life, memory token supply, bandwidth token creation, and the associated fees could be adjustable by the committee to allow for adaptation to various hardware or usage scenarios.

One potential drawback could be the amount of overhead this could add to track the creation, movement, destruction of the bandwidth tokens. My best guess might be to only create these tokens when they are used or sold.

Anyways I wanted to post this in case the ideas might be helpful or fun to discuss.

 

55
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 29, 2016, 05:22:42 am »
Quote from: merivercap on January 28, 2016, 11:56:07 pm
1.  The referral program is one key to  success for Bitshares and Bitcash.  It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources.   If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business.  The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical.  Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.

2.  The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares.  It provides some sustenance to these businesses.  Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.

3.  The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides.  Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem.   We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers.  We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems.   Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees.   Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing.  We can go after peer-to-peer payments later.  It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.

4.  The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.

5.  The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning.  It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development.   All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability.  We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.   

6.  What if we:

a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run.  This will be the network fee.  It can be in dollar/yuan terms. 

b.  Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is.  We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.

What do you guys think?
This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.

56
Muse/SoundDAC / Interesting Popular Science Article
« on: December 23, 2015, 04:12:36 am »
Thought this was interesting. What she describes as her ideal "Mycelia" system sounds an awful lot like what you guys are trying to build. Not sure how to contact her but she might be receptive to the idea of using Peertracks.

http://www.popsci.com/big-idea-hacking-music-industry

57
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 10, 2015, 04:57:12 pm »
witness delegate-1.lafona updated

58
General Discussion / Re: UIA Giveaway - BRICS
« on: December 08, 2015, 06:26:29 pm »
I'll take some BRICS.

Account: lafona

59
General Discussion / Re: my plan to adjust SQP
« on: November 27, 2015, 04:12:03 pm »
I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.

60
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: November 24, 2015, 03:48:48 am »
I think this is a really interesting idea for funding a new feature. Particularly if it ends up as a crowdfund UIA. I am a little concerned over the potential loss of revenue for the block chain and bts holders. While I completely agree the funder should be rewarded, I think we should think carefully over what option (outright funding, or private funding) of this feature would be best for bts in the long term. Personally I would probably vote for the 45k worker proposal outright to secure the future revenue for the blockchain, but I would support this one as well. Either way, kudos to onceuponatime for stepping up.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 20 queries.