I have tested and found that now the force settlement feature is actually enabled for TCNY.

according to the design, force settlement/allow witness to provide feed features should both be disabled because of the change but actually not, this is another bug and when in the future the bug be fixed these features will be actually disabled for TCNY, right?

so I wonder whether there are ways to reserve these features for TCNY, as they are important for a smartcoin.

Yeah I agree.   The features should be consistent with regular smartcoins.  (Although I'd probably want to disable forced settlement or make it 90%.)

So do these bugs just occur in the GUI and will CLI changes work fine?

Yes you can do public offerings of equity to the public now so there is a very good business opportunity here.

If you want to raise up to $1,000,000 in the US you will be able to use equity crowdfunding with Title III of the Jobs Act:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2015/10/30/sec-approves-title-iii-of-jobs-act-equity-crowdfunding-with-non-accredited/

If you want to raise up to $50 million you can use Title IV Regulation A+ of the Jobs Act.  I call this the mini-IPO.

We plan to use the DEX for share management and fundraising in addition to angel funding.  I encourage others to consider this route since Title III should be official very soon.  It may be better to establish a relationship with a website like Crowdfunder.com, but there is an opportunity for a new crowdfunding business on the DEX as well.  A lot of it is marketing, connections and distribution so it may be better to work with an existing crowdfunding website rather than creating it from scratch.   

The hedge fund part of it can be done as well.. If you have less than 35 accredited investors you can use Reg D to create a hedge fund here in the US.  I've explored this option some time ago.  That's another business altogether if you want to create a fund to invest in cryptocurrencies or companies.   

BTW GoFundMe was a tremendous success...  WePay piggy-backed off GoFundMe from what I understand, but WePay had incredible fraud detection technology so they were a good fit for each other.  For a two-sided marketplace with everyday donors/funders and high potential for fraud we need a strong reputation or web of trust system.  Anyways there's a lot of potential for a system like this and you can probably use multisig accounts for tighter controls as well.... you also can have blockchain accountability for larger projects... 

A project similar to GoFundMe would be great.

In all honesty, the referral program looks like a good idea on paper but in reality - atleast over the six past months we haven't been able to prove its viability or use.
In addition, basic economics would tell you , if an individual is required to spend money to access a system and then expect others within the network to use the syste to make money, it looks more or less like a ponzy scheme. Am not saying it is, am just stating what it looks like to the average consumer. In addition, it looks a lot similar to the time paypal decided to offer referrals, but paypal had a million USD to do this in its kitty, we barely have anything in terms of marketing spends and in addition expect any new players coming to the ecosystem to bear the expenses. Even when I asked who's doing this, we only had names of individuals who are already in our ecosystem. Which is a fair deal, but in terms of mass market acquisition, I still don't see it working when I look at the fees involved.

It will take time.  The referral system is to support viral growth, but isn't supposed to generate growth all by itself.  People have to see the value of Bitshares first if it's for the Smartcoin, decentralized exchange, UIA.. tipping ...the ideology...or whatever...    Businesses have to be valuable to consumers and have to communicate that value before anyone would even care to share.  Each of the businesses are still at the stage of creating a great product & experience to the right demographic that's worth sharing.  Right now I wouldn't expect the referral system to be that relevant.  You need to create the right experience, go after the right target market, and achieve product-market fit.  Only then should you start trying to grow/scale and use the referral system.   

You don't have to pay to enter the system.  It's 20 cents per transaction for anyone.  You just have to be a member to get a discount down to 4 cents.

 
Happy holidays folks!

Hi Merivercap,

I'd like to join. I'm sort of new I know ,but I'm involved in a altcoin for Marijuana so would be interested to see how all this plays out

P.S
I saw the video pretty kickass! 

Thanks!  ... and welcome to the bitCash Founder's Club and the Bitshares forums!   It would be great to collaborate...what altcoin are you involved with?

Quote from: merivercap on December 21, 2015, 10:37:03 pm

I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:

I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine.  If someone is being rude  it doesn't mean I support rude behavior.  Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior?  If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?

Hence it's important to focus on the consequences.  If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action.  It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk.  There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.

In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle.   You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm. 

If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that.  Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government.   Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers.  Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists.  In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission.   I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss?  In the end it's up to you.  Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise.  Go ahead and obey.  If you have the TSA touching your crotch.  Go ahead and obey.  If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl.  Go ahead and keep silent.  Then we'll all know who the boss is.

Quote from: donkeypong on December 21, 2015, 11:32:09 pm

It's not fine to drive drunk. Society has a bright-line rule preventing bad behavior and I fully support having such lines as well as reasonable enforcement of them.

 

 
1.  Again there is a difference between being 'not fine' as a behavior vs there being a law against it. 
2.  You should focus on the consequences.  People should pay the consequences regardless of if they are drunk or not for the actual harm  they cause.
3.  90%+ people routinely drive over posted speed limits.  Driving 'fast' is completely arbitrary and subjective.
4.  It's the same with being 'drunk'.  What is .08 blood alcohol even if you could measure it accurately?  Why not .02 or .04 or .12?  That's also arbitrary. 

Do you seriously believe a legal system can function without statutory laws? That's a very naive view. If you want to strip those away and rely only on tort law, then I see at least four big problems with that.

 
Yes most statutory laws are arbitrary and unnecessary.  You have thousands of pages of statutes that for the most part amount to junk.  Some person wrote a book saying the average person commits three felonies a day.  (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx).  Sure you can probably find a bunch of obscure statutes that make something illegal.  Much of it is disregarded anyways or can easily be challenged.  Consider the 2,242 page Omnibus Bill that just passed.  A bunch of junk.  The media now touts CISA as the  'law of the land'... Yeah that can and should easily be challenged, but the Supreme Court even has bias.  Either way most statutes are either frivolous or unconstitutional. 

First, it would be incredibly expensive, so get ready to pay MUCH higher taxes.

 
I disagree.  You'd save a whole lot of trees and wasted time.  It would be far cheaper without all these administrators on the dole.  That's probably why legal fees are so high in the first place.  All these spaghetti statutes you have to go through to settle a simple dispute.  There's already a trend towards arbitration and private law.  Also just look at the 6th & 7th amendments in the US Constitution.  The foundation of our judicial system was common law and trial by jury. 

Second, tort and common law do not cover crimes adequately. That's why we have criminal codes. They are different bodies of law for different situations.

I disagree there too.  Criminal law is just as arbitrary.  You can argue about what forms of punishment you should have for violent crime, but a majority of prison inmates are there for non-violent offenses (50% drug-related and 10% immigration-related). There's just a whole lot of bad criminal statutes that have the Prison-Industrial-Complex on the dole.  It's a multi-Billion business in the states...  I'm sure some people are happy to be making money off these statutes. 

As for punishment we are doing things backwards.  Instead of locking most people up we should have criminals pay back their debt to the victims and society by working.  Instead we lock them up and pay their living expenses.  Victims and aggrieved family members get nothing.  If an offender actually was able to work and pay back a debt I'm sure the victims would prefer that.     A reparations-payments mechanism would be far better for non-violent offenses. 

Third, speaking of the differences between criminal and civil law, you're talking about (in common law countries, at least) a completely different standard of proof that's required. It's much easier to prove a civil case (preponderance of the evidence, probably around 51% certainty) than a criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt, probably greater than 90% certainty). How are you going to reconcile those? Because if you are relying on civil law to solve all of society's problems, then you're going to "convict" a lot more people than the criminal law system would have convicted.

    Yes relying on civil law is much better and can handle everything.  It's semantics anyways.  'Criminal law' came out of Canon Law so most of what we think of with statutes and 'criminal law' most likely came about from central authorities dictating what was right, rather than the people as individuals with equal power.  Before it was the Church and now Government.

Fourth, if you are relying on tort law, then most tortfeasors (wrongdoers) would not have the money to pay adverse judgments...deep pockets. ...additional consumer protection laws (both civil and criminal statutes, which I know you don't like) to cover other areas that tort law's deep-pockets-free-market approach cannot touch.... In other words, the system would break down immediately .... No rules, no enforcement, no civilization, no society.

   Not sure how you think the current system fixes any of those problems you mention or doesn't break down?   Maybe there are some benefits of being poor?  The reparations-system I mentioned above would work as well as voluntary bonds & insurance to participate in certain activities.   

So next, you may argue that this whole thing still could work if you had a reputation system. I think a reputation system would be good. But who would end up administering and enforcing that? ... if you don't have a government or nonprofit overseeing it, then you're leaving it up to the market to do so, and that's when you get cartels, mafia, and organized crime.

Yes a reputation system would be fantastic and we should be pursuing this regardless of what the government is or isn't supposed to do.  It's  where the technology is taking us and I'm excited about the potential for those in our community to help make that happen with Bitshares.

One way or another, power will fill the vacuum.

Yes.  I agree with you there.... and my goal is to have We the People fill that power vacuum instead of We the Government or We the Elite....