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 - pc

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 102
331
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: October 03, 2017, 07:32:27 am »
Please rethink your wording.

Code review is one of the responsibilities of Alfredo, our paid developer. In return, I have reviewed other contributions, and the hardfork includes a lot more than just bsip-18. The bsip-18 code has been reviewed by several other volunteers as well. It's all on github if you really care.
I think the shareholders are getting very good value for this worker.

My opinion about witness responsibilities have been expressed in the proposal from the beginning. The shareholders have approved this. I don't know what you're complaining about.

332
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: October 02, 2017, 08:38:16 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on October 01, 2017, 12:24:00 pm
one question, if testing is part of the BSIP18 work, should the testers be paid from the fund of the worker proposal?

Testers (other than myself) are not paid through the proposal, see http://www.bitshares.foundation/workers/2017-07-peter-conrad .

Quote
My work includes the following milestones:

* 20% specification (already delivered, see BSIP-0018)
* 30% implementation (mostly finished)
* 10% integration into testnet (*)
* 10% testing (*)
* 10% bugfixes
* 10% integration into mainnet, including release (*)
* 5% supervision of hardfork (*)
* 5% supervision of initial coordinated MPA revival after hardfork (*)

I expect the current witnesses to actively assist in the items marked with (*). It is their responsibility to maintain the operation of the chain, and ultimately it is their decision which version of bitshares-core they use to produce blocks. With the current price of BTS, witness pay should be sufficient reward for their efforts.

333
General Discussion / Re: An urgent need to increase the security of bts wallet login and payment
« on: September 29, 2017, 03:02:29 pm »
Quote from: yvv on September 28, 2017, 09:23:59 pm
Quote from: pc on September 28, 2017, 07:06:17 pm
Accounts can be set up so that a robot can use it with a single key, while at the same time a desktop wallet with a different key can only use it together with a 2FA provider.


Then what prevents a hacker to use this account with the same single key as robot?

PRESUMABLY bitcrab's account was hacked through his desktop machine, which in the above setup would not have contained the single robot key. Robots typically run on servers, and servers are more easily locked down than desktop machines.

334
General Discussion / Re: An urgent need to increase the security of bts wallet login and payment
« on: September 28, 2017, 07:06:17 pm »
Quote from: yvv on September 28, 2017, 02:18:41 pm
Quote
If a decentralized solution is not yet possible, I think it is fine for me to use a centralized service to do this to secure my wallet (but not google's 2FA since it is not accessible from China) for now.

This is a shittiest solution one can propose. How this would help bitcrab? His trading account was hacked, where he ran his trading bots. Was he supposed to authorize each trade trough google? This is ridiculous.

It's not at all shitty. A centralized 2FA service may not be ideal, but it's much better than not having 2FA at all.

IIRC bitcrab said that he accessed the account on a windows machine through a web wallet and/or light wallet. Accounts can be set up so that a robot can use it with a single key, while at the same time a desktop wallet with a different key can only use it together with a 2FA provider.

I think @xeroc had plans to set up a 2FA provider for BTS, but AFAIK it doesn't exist yet.

335
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: September 28, 2017, 03:20:22 pm »
In order to make testing easier for everyone, here are a few example CLI commands for creating a bitasset and generating a black swan. Also see http://docs.bitshares.eu/api/wallet-api.html#asset-calls .

Issuer "crn" creates an asset with symbol "CLOSED.USD", 4 decimals and the given asset options (all permissions, override_authority flag, core exchange rate of .1 CLOSED.USD / 1 TEST) and bitasset options (1 hour pricefeed lifetime, 1 hour settlement delay, 50% maximum settlement ratio):
Code: [Select]
create_asset crn CLOSED.USD 4 {"issuer_permissions":511,"flags":4,"core_exchange_rate":{"base":{"amount":1000,"asset_id":"1.3.1"},"quote":{"amount":100000,"asset_id":"1.3.0"}}} {"feed_lifetime_sec":3600,"force_settlement_delay_sec":3600,"maximum_force_settlement_volume":5000} true

Show the new asset (note its ID, it is required for publishing feeds):
Code: [Select]
get_asset CLOSED.USD

Set the list of feed producers to the issuer account only (alternatively, set the witness_fed_asset or the committee_fed_asset flag):
Code: [Select]
update_asset_feed_producers CLOSED.USD ["crn"] true

Publish a feed price of .1 CLOSED.USD / .00001 TEST and a core exchange rate of .0001 CLOSED.USD / .01 TEST (you have to substitute the ID of your own asset in two places!). Warning: with these settings someone can cheaply borrow CLOSED.USD and use them to empty the fee pool!
Code: [Select]
publish_asset_feed crn CLOSED.USD {"settlement_price":{"base":{"asset_id":"1.3.341","amount":1000},"quote":{"asset_id":"1.3.0","amount":1}},"maintenance_collateral_ratio":1750,"core_exchange_rate":{"base":{"amount":1,"asset_id":"1.3.341"},"quote":{"amount":1000,"asset_id":"1.3.0"}}} true

Account "crn" borrows 1000 CLOSED.USD from the blockchain, providing 0.2 TEST as collateral:
Code: [Select]
borrow_asset crn 1000 CLOSED.USD 0.2 true

Account "crn" settles 10 CLOSED.USD:
Code: [Select]
settle_asset crn 10 CLOSED.USD true
You have to wait for the settlement delay, i. e. 1 hour in the example, provided that there is a valid pricefeed at that time. If executed after a black swan, settlement happens immediately.

Account "crn" places a sell order of 10 CLOSED.USD for .01 TEST (no expiration, no fill-or-kill flag) on the market. The subsequent price feed update triggers the black swan (again, you have to substitute your asset ID twice):
Code: [Select]
sell_asset crn 10 CLOSED.USD .01 TEST 0 false true

publish_asset_feed crn CLOSED.USD {"settlement_price":{"base":{"asset_id":"1.3.341","amount":1000},"quote":{"asset_id":"1.3.0","amount":10}},"maintenance_collateral_ratio":1750,"core_exchange_rate":{"base":{"amount":1,"asset_id":"1.3.341"},"quote":{"amount":100,"asset_id":"1.3.0"}}} true

For the black swan it is required that the short position is margin called AND a sell order exists AND the short has insufficient collateral to cover the debt at the best sell price.

336
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: September 26, 2017, 06:51:52 pm »
Quote from: Brekyrself on September 26, 2017, 06:12:51 pm
Any update in regards to the new software on testnet?  Is there any criteria in place to verify before scheduling a fork on the production network?

A very good questions. Yesterday I have asked the witnesses about the progress with their testing, but have yet to receive an answer.
Of course anyone is welcome to test on testnet, but the responsibility really lies with the witnesses, IMO.

337
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: BEWARE what advice you take on this forum
« on: September 24, 2017, 08:41:42 am »
Quote from: wdfh on September 24, 2017, 05:41:11 am
So BEWARE the advice you read and take here with your investments.

That is a generally useful advice.

In the specific case however, AFAICS everyone involved acted to the best of their knowledge *at the given time*.
It was unclear whether OL would support the new MUSE chain, so the best way to go was to withdraw the tokens from OL.
If you have a backup and password of your online wallet, then you still have the keys to access your funds. It's only a matter of extracting them. Perhaps someone in the "Technical Support" forum can help you.

338
Technical Support / Re: Fees for "fill or kill" order?
« on: September 23, 2017, 12:00:41 pm »
When a transaction contains a fill-or-kill order that is not filled, the whole transaction is rolled back. It does not become part of the blockchain and expires eventually. In that case you don't pay any fees, obviously. As if the transaction never existed.

339
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BitShares October 2017 - BURN %30 of Reserve pool
« on: September 22, 2017, 06:08:47 am »
Quote from: red-head on September 22, 2017, 12:56:46 am
For a long time bitshares price on market is decreasing.

Are you kidding? BTS is worth 20 times as much as half a year ago.

You can create a burn worker and have people vote for it. I doubt you'll get many votes though.

340
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal - Alfredo Garcia - Core Developer for the second half of 2017
« on: September 19, 2017, 03:16:27 pm »
Thanks Alfredo! You help with the release preparations, and your testing have been very valuable! Good Job!

341
Technical Support / Re: about UIA issuing shares
« on: September 16, 2017, 06:34:45 pm »
Quote from: attente on September 16, 2017, 04:16:18 pm
Could anybody please explain me how can I issue shares for distributing dividends on a regular basis? I issued a UIA at testnet but there is no such an option anywhere at my wallet to pay dividends to token holders.

There is currently no easy way to do this. We're discussing ways to make this possible, though, see https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0020.md .

Right now the easiest way to do it would probably to use cryptofresh to get a list of token holders, and then write a program to pay out individual dividends using the API.

342
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: September 16, 2017, 01:02:40 pm »
Quote from: startail on September 16, 2017, 10:19:08 am
Seeing the many things fixed in this version I'm unsure if it's enough to just run a witness to see the effects. I assume some tests have to be performed to see that they are actually working as expected.

I miss an actual schedule or plan on doing this, but maybe I'm not in the right place?

I posted a small update in the BSIP-18 thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24322.msg310920.html#msg310920

IMO it's up to the witnesses to run acceptance tests on testnet, and it's also up to them to define how such a test should be run.

343
General Discussion / Re: bitUSD black swan possiblity
« on: September 15, 2017, 06:35:22 pm »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on September 15, 2017, 05:48:16 pm
1.) It is not bailing anyone out. When a short wants to close they need to buy back the BitUSD they borrowed.

Of course it is bailing out. A short position contains a risk, and you want to use the reserve pool to cover that risk. In a downtrend, shorters will happily pay a 10% premium if they can thereby avoid a 100% risk.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on September 15, 2017, 05:48:16 pm
3.)Good luck trying to tell traders what they should be doing in a free market.

I don't want to tell them how to behave. I want to tell them what the risks are, so they don't have a reason to complain when the market turns against them.

344
General Discussion / Re: bitUSD black swan possiblity
« on: September 15, 2017, 04:56:33 pm »
Bailing out margin calls with reserve funds is like bailing out banks with taxpayer's money.

Nobody complained about bitassets while BTS was going up. AFAIK nobody sent the profits from going short to the reserve pool.

If a black swan damages the reputation of BTS, then the solution is not to spend money on preventing black swans. The solution is to educate traders about the risks involved with bitassets.

345
Technical Support / Re: about UIA issuing shares
« on: September 15, 2017, 03:49:16 pm »
Quote from: qun on September 15, 2017, 03:44:23 pm
Thank you! It gives me some clues, but I need to figure out what the correct bitasset options I should set...

None. Bitassets are market-issued assets, but you want a user-issued asset.

Just write "null" instead of "{}".

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 102

Page created in 0.183 seconds with 20 queries.