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 - xeroc

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 860
166
General Discussion / Re: fox、clockwork、blckchnd、elmato、crazybit、bangzi、magicwallt all ugly witness
« on: April 01, 2019, 09:13:06 am »
Quote from: ljk424 on April 01, 2019, 03:02:17 am
fox、clockwork、blckchnd、elmato、crazybit、bangzi、magicwallt   all ugly witness
cancer of the BTS
Change your tone or risk a temporary forum ban.

167
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP59:Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
« on: March 31, 2019, 09:49:23 am »
Arguable, DAI

* hasn't seen major bear market move like bitAssets did
* DAI us collateralized by ETH which has much higher market cap than BTS

Hence, I am not sure comparing only supply with DAI makes a lot of sense.

168
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: March 29, 2019, 07:57:19 am »
Thanks for getting back at me .. I'll add my vote to your witness again. Please don't double sign!

New workers I am voting for:
* Poll - BSIP59 - Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
* 201903-bitshares.org-exotic-infrastructure
* 201903-atomic-cross-chain-swaps

New witnesses I vote for:
* delegate-zhaomu

Important Remark
Since our workers are now consuming the entire daily budget, and some workers do not receive any funding while others receive theirs plus extra backoff,
I will start rotating my votes for active witnesses start in April. This means, I will remove my votes from workers that are currently active but funded
sufficiently to continue their work, then, after some time (e.g. 4 weeks), I rotate my votes again.
By this I hope to distribute funds across more worker proposals instead of having too much excess funds in individual ones.

Since I cannot change workers to become active/inactive alone, I will post here frequently for other proxies to potentially follow the idea voluntarily.

169
General Discussion / Re: Market fee sharing for BitAssets
« on: March 28, 2019, 07:12:59 pm »
I love the idea!

However .. this needs proper marketing .. else we just won't gain anything from this.

170
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP59:Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
« on: March 28, 2019, 08:47:18 am »
I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on this. Ultimately, its their job

171
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] gibbsfromncis
« on: March 26, 2019, 08:51:29 am »
Approved your *TESTNET* witness. Please ping me in 2 weeks again.

172
General Discussion / Re: WHERE ARE THE MODS?
« on: March 25, 2019, 01:54:15 pm »
Was away for a week :D

Any volunteers that want to help?

173
General Discussion / Re: Some key points of the BTS ecosystem in recent future
« on: March 13, 2019, 02:45:53 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on March 13, 2019, 01:53:19 pm
but it seems witnesses are more professional in coding/server maintenance than in financial analysis, and MCR is not like price, it's a key financial parameter, I don't think traders like a MCR that changes frequently, which will bring much trouble to their decision making.
Neither am I but I am supposed to vote on it.

What I am trying to say is that, after plenty of discussion already, I would expect the witnesses (which are paid in contrast to proxies and committee members) to take an advantage and catch on!

174
General Discussion / Re: Some key points of the BTS ecosystem in recent future
« on: March 13, 2019, 01:05:22 pm »
+5% for laying out your plan!

On 1), I would actually expect the witnesses to become more pro-active and implement their own algoritms (presented to the voters) instead of the voters telling them a fixed number for MCR. This should bring up competition and I am willing to use my voting power to support those proactive witnesses!

On 3), BSIP40 is a tough beast as it requires thorough review - discussions are ongoing about how to best proceed.

175
General Discussion / Re: option trading with BTS
« on: March 07, 2019, 02:18:06 pm »
If i read that right, I can put options on BTC/USD pricing using BTS as currency. Quite cool.

176
General Discussion / Re: Cryptofresh API
« on: March 07, 2019, 02:16:12 pm »
Quote from: wizitsolv on March 07, 2019, 09:24:48 am
In Bitcoin it is easy to connect using JSON-RPC. Is there something similar for Bitshares in the works, or what is the best way to do it? I want to be able to query the balance, to register a listener for incoming transfers and be able to send Bitshares or BitAssets.
Is there a way to do this efficiently?   

[https://wizitsolv.com/devops-training-in-hyderabad-kukatpally/]DevOps Training in Kukatpally[/url] | <a href="https://wizitsolv.com/devops-training-in-hyderabad-kukatpally/">DevOps Training in kukatpally</a>
Sure BitShares backends come with websocket/HTTP rpc interface. Example:
Code: [Select]
curl --data '{"method": "call", "params": [0, "get_dynamic_global_properties", []], "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1}' https://node.bitshares.eu

177
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: March 07, 2019, 11:16:12 am »
Removed my vote from witness "delegate-zhaomu". He is double producing blocks:
Code: [Select]
Got block: #35402824 021c34487edacb4c6b6a679bc43c6371a8a9f9f2 time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 31 latency: 344 ms from: delegate-zhaomu
Got block: #35402824 021c3448705f175cfd865f4ed2c7aade0e0ec1ea time: 2019-03-04T17:52:27 transaction(s): 30 latency: 601 ms from: delegate-zhaomu

178
Technical Support / [pyBitShares] Release 0.3.0
« on: March 04, 2019, 03:41:58 pm »
Hello everyone,

just so you guys don't miss it, python-bitshares version 0.3.0 has just been tagged.
This release took quite some efforts as it lays out the foundation to share more code with other blockchain.
Additionally, new operations (including HTLC) have been added and (shitton of) bugs found by the community
have been resolved.

At this stage, I would like to discuss with the community, how to continue with this project as I cannot promise to find
the time to work on this as actively as I would like to. Should we go for a bounty based development setup (funded by
a worker), or rather look for funding from existing projects that use pybitshares (like dexbot) and have their team
also work on pybitshares more actively?

Ultimately, I would very much love to see this grow (even more) into a community project with more contributions
being merged in. As you can see from (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bitshares/python-bitshares/master/AUTHORS),
there are already some 20 contributors in the repo. Let's make this 40, please!

179
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Reference faucet via BitShares.eu
« on: March 03, 2019, 12:22:23 pm »
Options to resolve this from the top of my head:

1. One option to prevent this kind of issue going forward would be to implement a two-step account registration that requires verification of an email address or even better a mobile phone (SMS). However, this is considered too aggressive w.r.t. privacy concerns and barriers of entry by many.

2. Another option to reduce this kind of attack would be to require an invitation code for account registrations which could be tightly integrated into bitshares.eu and anyone with an account there could get an invitation code that fills up to a certain threshold within 24hr or so. (might be interesting in combination with becoming the referrer). Obv, people would need to have an account on bitshares.eu.

3. Yet another way could be to require a *signed message* from a life-time member that could then be set as referrer. This does not require people to have an account on bitshares.eu but signed message are longer and more cumbersome than simple invitation codes.

Anyone with another way of dealing with this?

180
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Reference faucet via BitShares.eu
« on: March 03, 2019, 12:15:12 pm »
FYI:
Due to a distributed attack on the onboarding faucet, account registration for account names that are shorter than 6 is now forbidden. The (now stopped) attacker tried to have hundreds of thousands of accounts registered with community funds.

The way the attacker misuses the faucet made me force this limitation onto everyone. I am truly sorry that, after having tried to slow him down by other means, the ultimate answer to the attacker is to restrict account names to a length of 6 or more.

If any business relies on account creations that are no longer possible, please contact me directly and have your setup whitelisted. Thank you.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 860

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 20 queries.