Has this insurance fund proposal been implemented?

Mineforeman conceded and blamed heavy medication...

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on August 18, 2014, 08:35:53 pm

Quote from: MineForeman.com on August 18, 2014, 07:45:30 pm

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on August 18, 2014, 05:17:31 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on August 16, 2014, 04:46:57 am

Step 4)  Don't submit winning hashes, reducing the REVENUE of competitors by 3%

When mining you don't know if you have the winning hash until after you submit it (sometimes not even then).

Neil

Hi Neil, thanks for the input. This is the latest response I've got from BM on the forum  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7003.msg94085#msg94085

Your absolutely right of coarse, the miner could 'guess' what shares may solve a block without too much trouble.

Neil

P.S. I blame a head cold, I took some pseudoephedrine about an hour or two ago and I just realized I am not thinking all that straight.... I think I will stop doing test restores of VM's as well before I do some damage .

Wasermann added some good examples of where this may already have happened

Quote from: MineForeman.com on August 18, 2014, 07:45:30 pm

Quote from: FandangledGizmo on August 18, 2014, 05:17:31 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on August 16, 2014, 04:46:57 am

Step 4)  Don't submit winning hashes, reducing the REVENUE of competitors by 3%

When mining you don't know if you have the winning hash until after you submit it (sometimes not even then).

Neil

There are some modified versions of mining software (I believe it was cgminer) that can be set so that found blocks are not submitted to the pool. There was a miner in China earlier this year that was mining on the eligius pool, withheld what should have been several blocks (they would have been expected to find several blocks verses what they actually found); it ended up costing the pool several hundred BTC. There was also likely a similar attack on BTC guild that lasted several months before that as their luck was way below what it should have been.

Conversation ended. Don't think I'll bump it, Bitcoin is on shaky enough ground as it is.

I was already of the opinion it was extremely vulnerable because you only had to get to two people and there was also no certainity ghash.io wasn't already malevolent.

Having said that, I guess you could argue that for the next 3-6 months at the very least DPOS can still be thwarted for the short to medium term by getting to one person and/or location.

We should contact this company https://bitcoinatm.com/
and others to request they let us buy or sell Bitshares at the ATM.

 

Quote from: Empirical1 on August 19, 2014, 12:19:12 am

For me it's a question of whether you can design a system that gives shareholders confidence these actions will only be taken in the big cases & when there is a definite clear consensus.

In every other system the answer is no, because you don't have the ability to provide that confidence. So I would not be in favour of a rollback for NXT.

This is *exactly* the problem actually.  If the rollback is only used in big cases, it means that it is safe to be part of a very popular NXT failure but not part of a small one (Because it won't be serious enough to be rolled back) - This will have a very centralizing effect where if you're going to be part of an exchange, well it better be the biggest exchange because otherwise people will say "Well it's not so bad, it wasn't the biggest exchange so we'll survive this". 

The rules need to be the rules, if you create conditions under which the rules and history itself can be re-written you will be inviting those who want to reinvent history to create exactly the conditions you are trying to avoid.  If it was not desirable to rewrite history such a mechanism could work, but because there are many ways individuals and groups and profit from rewriting history it's a very bad thing to codify in a way that is "OK".

It's concerning more people don't see this intractable issue.

We don't have to reward too big to fail. We could tax bter or burn all of it. I just don't want the hacker walking round with 50 million he can dump on the share price at any time.

Quote from: xeroc on August 18, 2014, 10:11:42 pm

Quote from: donkeypong on August 18, 2014, 10:06:41 pm

True, but as far as I can see, the only reason to get out of PTS is if one is extremely excited about BTSX and needs to pay for it somehow. Otherwise, why have people held it until now only to flake out the week of a dual snapshot?

1) Donate to AGS using PTS
2) wait for snapshot annoucment
3) sell pts when high
4) get your shares from AGS
5) buy low after snapshot

sounds reasonable to me

That was reasonable when AGS existed. I'm talking about today, this week. Why would people sell PTS if not to buy BTSX?

If you don't like the snapshot or you think you can buy in cheaper post launch. In my case I'm a PTS seller now, but it was a close call.

My personal decisions

1. The alt-coin market is in a downturn, very negative, to be tied up now.
2. I couldn't value the Vote DAC at all. It looks interesting but Adamkernest has not been very active since the announcement. I have no idea what their short term business plan/approach is. There is limited interest at the moment. So personally I felt it had limited pre-snapshot value.
3. I like the DNS DAC. Toast is great and I think it looks strong.  I also think people like Clains in particular have done a good job in general putting the word out a bit. Hard to value post launch, mine was wide $2.5-10 Million.

Judging by investor interest, PTS volumes. I have a feeling you're not going to be missing out hugely value wise if you sell now and buy post-launch, so given the downturn in the alt-coin market & given I've already got some AGS. It made sense to me to sell some PTS.   

I have BTC but otherwise, BitShares is literally the only thing you want to be invested in right now imo. (I have a little NXT hedge left, sold 63% in the last few days, a little XCP hedge, sold 1/2 of that to buy more BTSX 2 weeks ago too )

first wave over?

The forum was down for a while. That scares new people a lot imo.

The price in BTC graph though still looks very good.

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-x/

So yeah just taking a small breather imo.

This is not a good approach in general; people will vote for the candidate they think will win, rather than the candidate they think is best. The only effect will be voter unanimity, not voter motivation.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

  True

Quote from: Empirical1 on August 18, 2014, 06:26:37 pm

Quote from: HackFisher on August 18, 2014, 06:21:50 pm

What's the meaning of this? Adding the complexity of system I think.

It's a possible solution regarding voter apathy. (people being too lazy to vote and vote well.)

Yes, possible, but I think it only work for those who interested in luck chance, not exactly the people who are lazy to vote.
The cost is system payout and complexity but does not resolve it completely.

But voter apathy is a problem. Some extra motivation would be good imo.

But the system can only afford a small cost to get that motivation. So only by building it into a prize, would it become something big enough, that is able to help motivate.

Which is why I like the lottery idea.

Edit: For delegate voting in BTSX.  Not for voting for the 'right one', as I see biophil is right