I've done the paleo diet for the last year and it does make a tremendous difference.

You will melt weight away faster than you ever thought and you do it all while eating fat and protein.

The carb flu sucks though as you go through withdrawals.  Only lasts about 3 days though

Thanks for the feedback lil_jay890
It's harder to research when there are so many different names for very similar diets. I think 'paleo' seems to be among the more popular names.

Having done it for a year, are you intending to keep your diet like this indefinitely? I'm mostly interested in the supposed health benefits, rather than weight loss.

Isn't it funny how the more interesting things in life take a lot of digging to find? BitShares, paleo diet, what else do I need to discover I wonder?

Quote from: charleshoskinson on November 24, 2014, 12:05:46 am

But then I can't do a Frost-Nixon. It really ties the room together.

Well if you are going to fling accusations and then make no effort to back them up don't go screaming like a girl  when you don't like how people treat you.(we can be sexist in crypto there are literally 0 women) 

@gamey - I know you've mitigated your use of the phrase "go screaming like a girl" by using it in jest (and indicating that you'd like there to be more women in crypto). However, I'd still like to express my thoughts on this. I wish I could do it without making a big deal out of it, but the fact that I'm mentioning it at all seems to negate that possibility!

I've decided to comment on this occasion partially because I feel that people on this forum are sensible enough to understand my comments in the way I intend them, rather than to overreact. I've also seen things before (from other people) and nearly commented, and so I've just got to the point where I wish to say something.

My feeling is that the presence in society of flippant derogatory sayings is too commonplace. I think people are using phrases readily (often without malicious intent) and that this makes it more acceptable for the next person to say it. Casual sexism, casual racism et cetera. Much of the time this perhaps has no negative effect. In some cases, though, I think it can garner harmful effects. Firstly, in the more bigoted person, it can re-enforce their own ignorant beliefs. Secondly, it can hurt people who are the 'subjects' of the comments.

I saw this short video quite recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

Using #LikeAGirl as an insult is a hard knock against any adolescent girl. And since the rest of puberty's really no picnic either, it's easy to see what a huge impact it can have on a girl's self-confidence.
We're kicking off an epic battle to make sure that girls everywhere keep their confidence throughout puberty and beyond, and making a start by showing them that doing it #LikeAGirl is an awesome thing.

"In my work as a documentarian, I have witnessed the confidence crisis among girls and the negative impact of stereotypes first-hand," said Lauren Greenfield, filmmaker and director of the #LikeAGirl video. "When the words 'like a girl' are used to mean something bad, it is profoundly disempowering. I am proud to partner with Always to shed light on how this simple phrase can have a significant and long-lasting impact on girls and women. I am excited to be a part of the movement to redefine 'like a girl' into a positive affirmation."

So much for me not making a big deal out of it hey?
@gamey - there are some REALLY dodgy comments to be found on the internet, so I'm sorry that I've picked on your mild and somewhat undeserving post to say this!


Q:    Why do men float?
A:    Because they're scum!

HAAAAAhahahahhhahaHAHAHAHAH! Hahahahahahahahah!
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
LOL! HAHAHAhahahaHAHAHAHA 

WTF am I doing? HAHAHAHAHA

P.S. @sparkles - 

This is a good idea to build on - voluntary funding of community projects as an alternative to dilution. Growth + Individual Freedom.
The trick I'm grappling with is in how to get the reward for the project that pays back the initial funders with interest, especially once the end-product is already in the hands of the community. It may be this could come through:
- direct user donations,
- if the product is a tool, tool-based fees (even if just for a temporary period to cover the ROI), or
- a dedicated pool of contributed community funds that rewards on the outcomes of such projects.

I was thinking of the same issues which you've raised.
Assuming there could be a 'dedicated pool of contributed community funds that rewards on the outcomes of such projects', the hard bit might be to ascertain the level of success of the project (in terms of value added to BitShares). This is where the 'subjective issues' which I mentioned come into play. Maybe there could be methods for measuring or voting upon the success of the project, if it isn't clear cut. If this could be gauged, perhaps there would then be a way of paying back the funders. Maybe through pay from delegates, or diverting some fees instead of burning them?

It feels quite messy, but I wonder if it's worth working on.

@tonyk2 - at the moment I don't fully understand your comments, possibly because I'm knackered! If this were done through user issued assets, how would the asset obtain 'pay' from BitShares in return for adding value to the system? I will think more about what you said tomorrow...

edit: this post is in reference to raising funds for normal, yet expensive tasks such as those ordinarily carried out by delegates within BTS. For example, an expensive advertising campaign...

Is it possible to create a semi-automated 'fundraising system' within the protocol, whereby users can give funds for a project and receive 'interest' if the project is successful?
Failing this, is it possible to do it in a more manual way using delegates, and requiring some trust?

Has anyone discussed ideas for fundraising above and beyond delegate pay? (My understanding is that delegate pay is limited by the amount of fees being payed in the system)
Is there a mechanism in place (or planned) for bringing in more money if it is deemed to be necessary or desirable?

What if someone comes up with a really good plan which the community wants to see implemented for the benefit of BitShares, but funds are lacking?
What if the community could in these situations give funds voluntarily and immediately?

I believe there may be various ways to implement something like this. The main problems I see are that some trust would likely be needed, and subjective issues would need to be voted/argued on.

Perhaps this isn't possible, or would introduce too much scope for underhand dealings?

There are some complicated issues here, perhaps more than meets the eyes.

Potential upsides:

• This could be an alternative, in some cases, to increasing inflation.
• It could offer increased 'yield' to those individuals who want to take risks, at the same time as supporting improvements to BitShares.
• These individual risk takers could swallow the loss of the initial investment, instead of the BitShares userbase as a whole.
• Perhaps this method would therefore allow risky projects to take place when otherwise they wouldn't have got off the ground.
• It could allow more flexibility if opportunities suddenly appear which would ordinarily take a long time to fund.

I like the idea with one condition:

we should have enough Throttle-out/vested delegates in positions 102-151....
So if we need to replace a bad actor(s) we do not have to wait 2 weeks for some new delegate to become Vested/Throttled.

[This might be addressed/obvious, excuse my post if this is the case]

I was thinking about this also.
This part of the idea is relevant:

...Basically there is no restriction on a delegate losing approval but a delegate can't gain more than X% approval in a 24 hr period or similar rule.  Kind of like the idea that trust takes time to gain but is quick to lose.

So if a bad actor needed to be replaced, hopefully many of their votes would be removed by stakeholders, then those delegates next in line would automatically rise without any need for their % approval to rise significantly.

If i'm right 

Quote from: pc on November 09, 2014, 08:19:35 pm

The plan, in general, is to upgrade the existing PTS to a DPOS chain. That means that all transactions in the old chain must be honoured, up to a yet-to-be-announced point in the future. Using the Nov-5 snapshot simply doesn't make any sense.

 

It would just be giving back PTS to those that sold after the snapshot so that they could sell it again.

Can't existing POW PTS be sent by users to a 'proof-of-burn' address in order to receive new DPOS PTS?

If a burn address were used it would be a way to increase the value of the new DPOS PTS:

• It removes potential competition - what if someone else decided to 'revive' the old POW PTS in a slightly different way? It's harder for them if a load of it's been burned already.
• DPOS PTS hodlers have demonstrated some kind of commitment to it by burning the old PTS.
• DPOS PTS hodlers have also had to invest in it (in a way) by having to think about it and make a conscious decision.

The above points make it a bit more viable and therefore more valuable.

Other advantages of proof-of-burn:

• Because action is required to claim DPOS PTS, it means that all hodlers are currently active. That is to say, it could clear out 'lost', inactive or exchange-owned PTS
• Erm...

If it were to be done from a snapshot we would then have the old POW PTS remaining. This could go on ad infinitum. Dumping, keeping, buying, other devs reviving the old, old PTS with a different feature...101 different versions of PTS. I'm sure some people would say this is fine - let there be competition. I think it'd be too messy.

Wouldn't proof-of-burn bring more clarity and finality to the situation?