Quote from: blahblah7up on May 06, 2015, 09:52:45 am

decentralized market mirror   

Fabulous, is :

"blahblah7up"

your BTS address?

No.

BTS7wV5P8n5jVqo2AF5ycS2aX8aDXk9e2B85WFoyoJoJpYMQ6p7YW

Wow, thanx!

Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on May 06, 2015, 09:02:33 am

BitShares - we're not a decentralized exchange, but a ___(1000BTS bounty)_________

decentralized unit transducer 

decentralized market mirror   

Quote from: blahblah7up on April 15, 2015, 07:19:57 am

Moonstone. Building the tools for monetary surveillance.

1) I wrote that wiki article
2) no one can force you to publish your data
3) the current concept from moonstone is to hand out a certificate that ties your account with a authority
4) in order to comply with regulations for stocks you need to be able to 'survey' shareholders of your company
5) no one will force you to either issue or buy any stock in bitshares

1) A known known. For delegates.
2) As social systems grow in importance, individuals are very much forced to participate as dictated - in order to survive.
3) Moonstone. Tying your account with a authority.
4) Bitshares. A new way to issue stocks, exactly like the old way.
5) see 2)

Welcome tsaishen.  Thanks for the hope.
And that was very nice of you to offer an opportunity to the poster in the other thread. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258152142/Obama-Executive-Order-on-Venezuela-9-March-2015

please be careful.

And toast just posted saying he was working on MUSIC under a NDA, and therefore diverting his delegate pay to cass and someone else.  Now the post is gone.  Too much truth?

I thought it was an honorable post.

But seriously, what is going on?

Thanks everybody for the feedback so far!

The way we approach everything in live is pretty simple: Do no harm. And treat others as you would like to be treated.

One thing I have learned is to change my position if my position has a known logical flaw or does harm.

Before I continue I would like to point out how hardcoded delegate voting works on our thin client. At no point does anybody but the users have access to his private keys. The light client does transaction building in two ways: 1) for single signature transactions everything is build in the client. The Angular app would preset those delegates on each transaction. 2) for future multisig transactions the server builds the transaction with the vote pre-set, then sends the build transaction to the client, which then signs the transaction with his private key. The client can independently verify whether the transaction is OK. The server is in this setup only a relay and can never actually change any transaction as the blockchain would not accept such a forged transaction.

So far what I have gathered from this discussion:

• There is a considerable number of people against the hardcoded proposal.
• I believe that there is a serious problem with the Nash Equilibrium of the DPOS voting system
.

• The proposed fundraiser is in libertarian terms all OK. It is a voluntary trade and risk taking by all invloved parties, and all parties are individuals rather than collectives. Furthermore a public good is created and payed for by the public without the public taking any coerced risk.
• The people against hardcoded delegates voiced concerns initially based on the potentially exposed flaw in the DPOS voting scheme, but then dismissed this very problem as invalid

From my perspective, the reasoning behind being against hardcoded delegates has still not been explained by the people who are against it.

As I said, we can do the fundraiser differently, but people who are so vehemently against this approach need to please argue why it is so bad. Can somebody please explain to me what the core problem is?

My problem is that because the problem with hardcoding hasn't been defined by anybody of the people against, I am unable to formulate an alternative fundraiser approach. I feel like a physician being told by some of the community to do an operation without knowing what the illness is...

Translation:

Everything is OK!

Here are some technical details to blow smoke over the central issues everyone here is worried about and actively discussing!

Despite almost unanimous dissent, we will go ahead as planned and ignore the opinion of the community!


Good Luck!

Quote from: blahblah7up on February 16, 2015, 08:57:50 am

What about something really sugar-coated?  Imagine a game which functions as a voting wallet on the back end, with hard-coded delegates.  Couldn't something like this be effectively used in an attack against DPoS?  A sort of zombie consumer attack?

If its as easy we would have been seeing more malware containing wallets by now. There is a reason they don't work - users are extra careful in any situation where they have to use their wallet.

Can you imagine anything like that gaining traction as soon as the first report comes out that they are using a backdoor? If they are voting without the users knowing whats to say they don't plan to steal the balances outright? I think you are underestimating the cautiousness involved when it comes to money.

Ok thanks. These are good points.