Quote from: emailtooaj on April 02, 2016, 05:43:58 pm

Quote

The difference between a proof-of-work sidechain and Graphene is that the multi-sig trustees on the Graphene chain cannot buy their way into power, but rather they are subject to shareholder voting. In order for any funds to be stolen or diverted, at least 15 out of the 20 independently chosen and voted for operators would have to collude with each other in a very public way

IMO your article has a vary rational approach but, take into account what we're experiencing with the Yunbi voting situation and how it's single handily shutting down worker funding.  This easily could apply towards the idea you've laid forth. Where an "exchange", or equivalent,  can brute force the "trustees" out and dismantle the whole system.
I'm going to shamelessly plug the "Modular Wallet" idea I've been preaching about,  which I believe will help lessen the chances of a brute force vote attack (Yunbi style) and potentially make these "Reserve Holding" idea become a reality! 


@CryptoPrometheus    for a great article!

Actually if we can get exchanges adopting the use of our sidechain solution, that would solve things like Yumbi and Polo. It would stop exchanges from holding the voting power along with the coin.

Holy shit, Qora kept on going and hit 50.

Quote from: CryptoPrometheus on April 01, 2016, 03:36:39 am

Sidechains can be implemented on DPOS in a way that is superior to any other consensus algorithm.

False... actually very false

Quote from: roadscape on March 31, 2016, 12:27:31 am

Discussion also here: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/643

At this point I'm thinking @abit's solution would indeed work great as long as he can implement this detail:

Quote from: tonyk on March 22, 2016, 07:29:12 pm

OK, how about a middle ground - taking the snapshot every 10 (20, 30 whatever) minutes BUT also reading the filled orders in that period and using them for the calculation[effectively adding them to the orderbook like they were not filled]?
We can do 2 diff things - either credit them for the whole time period or really check when they were placed and  filled and credit them with the correct real time they were on the book.

####
thisTimeIntervalStart = now() - 10 min
For each filled order in time [now, thisTimeIntervalStart]
      T = OrderFillTime - max(OrderPlacementTime,  thisTimeIntervalStart)
       order_total = size of the Filled Order
####

So each snapshot really needs to be a window of time (say 15mins) that contains every order that existed during that time PLUS its placement time and/or fill time. Is this what you were thinking @abit? Any idea how partially filled orders are handled with this approach?

My idea can be considered that a new snapshot will be taken on every new block, so all unfilled orders will be tracked. For partially filled orders, we'll know when they were created, when they were partially filled, and when they disappeared.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on March 30, 2016, 07:11:12 pm

@bytemaster
I think the best case scenario is to have the committee own these and have a few select people be able to post from them. such as @fuzzy @BunkerChain Labs @Chris4210  and myself.
This is to make sure the content stays neutral.

I currently control the proper twitter and facebook handles which I acquired from someone who was using them for bitcoin posts.
I paid $2800 to acquire and would like to find a way to recover these funds and then transfer ownership to the comittee.

Jonny, great news.  I agree the committee should have control and think it is worthwhile for you to be reimbursed.   We just need someone to post on a daily basis and keep the users engaged.

Quote from: Ander on March 25, 2016, 04:12:36 pm

Expanse is a coin where the dev premine is 10 million and the "current supply" is 2 million.  I got hyped 100x already because ETH got hyped.

And yet way more daily volume than BTS. 

That should never happen, even on a pump & dump.

I think it's a clear signal of the impression of BTS outside of this forum when two projects few have heard of can get 5x the daily volume of BTS going at any point in time.

I think BTS should be trading in the millions daily and the fact that it isn't speaks volumes and clearly shows something is (still) wrong and something (still) needs to change.

That's just my observation and opinion.

After looking into the Expanse "premine" you mention, I don't see an issue.

Christopher (defaced) has explained it well enough for me and their solution is better than what Ethereum did for funding IMHO.

So the fact that it currently has a higher daily volume than BTS is no longer surprising to me.

It's an ETH clone, which has all of the current hype going for it, with a better funding solution and "appears" to be more decentralized in ways ... and I like the wallet.

I hate to say it, but CF probably has a better reputation in this ecosystem than DL.

I'm not saying I agree and whether or not their reputations are warranted can be debated, but from my observations it appears to be a fact.

BitShares should be worried. Not about these other projects, but about it's own reputation outside of this forum.

It seems like it doesn't really matter how good BitShares is, what features it rolls out, how far ahead of XYZ it is ... the crypto-masses are simply avoiding it and have a predetermined bad impression of the platform.

So much so that it appears most are unwilling to even give it a try by downloading the wallet.

The only interaction outsiders appear to have is during a pump and dump on a centralized exchange, otherwise they won't touch BTS.

The reasons for this should be identified (although some would argue that's been concluded long ago), addressed and rectified asap.

Otherwise I don't see BitShares ever stepping out of the shadows of mediocre exchange performance (i.e. "userbase").

If anyone disagrees, be sure to view the youtube video in my sig (NSFW).    (I jest ... I love to hear others opinions, except fav's  )