What causes this error?.. and how is it fixed without going back to square 1?

0 exception: unspecified
unable to reconstruct public key from signature
    {}
    th_a  elliptic.cpp:488 public_key

    {}
    th_a  common_api_client.cpp:2507 blockchain_list_forks

    {"command":"list_forks"}
    th_a  cli.cpp:626 execute_command

Not critical as I expect there's be another build before I get off fork but it would be good to understand the cause of errors more clearly.

ECB expected to inject up to €1 trillion into eurozone

The ECB could purchase government bonds worth up to €50bn (£38bn) per month until the end of 2016 - double the amount previously expected.

That's not a closed loop!.. What do they expect will happen afterwards? Perhaps we'll watch as the US undoes its QE.
I guess they have no other answers and it'll help people adjust to the new austerity but I can't help but wonder that is in exchange for increased volatility later.

I'll suggest this as I think of it.. and not being critical of the delegates involved.. all issues are useful in DVS.

#1 DVS Delegage with "0.41%" votes suggests jcalfee1-developer-team.terrier currently Reliability 57.14% http://dvs.bitsharesblocks.com/delegates
With "Number of votes" suggested as %, I'm not sure how that is counting.. if money is split among the votes cast or if we end up at total of more than 100%.


Should the network count reliability and votes in its ordering of delegates? Perhaps taking into account the reliability of others in the 101, so if there is some form of attack that has many of them drop the 101 is not disrupted.. but where a few are badly off, perhaps less than 80%, then those get pulled down?

I don't know whether all 101 get an equal shot at mining blocks - I'm expecting they do but if there is to be an order, perhaps that does need to use whatever criteria is available to find the best delegates - voting being one criteria and reliability being another obvious one??

Votes for DVS delegate: devshares.warlock appreciated.

So, I try to register my DevShares account that has DVS in it and get an error.
I get the same when trying to send to another unregistered account, which I want to become a delegate.

36005 insufficient_relay_fee: insufficient relay fee

    {"fees":50000,"required_fees":100000}
    bitshares  chain_database.cpp:1541 evaluate_transaction

Are these error messages a bit cryptic or am I missing something?

Where is DNS DAC up to? I wondered a simple DNS blockchain could provide a good answer to spam. Spam is obvious a big problem for the time and money that goes to combating it but with a DNS blockchain running that might become trivial to frustrate, if not solve.

I wonder if a domain registered themselves for a small BTS fee and then used some simple postman to bounce outgoing messages, to sign those and put those signatures in the email headers, receiving applications could then check messages received are signed by the public key for that domain and reject others. They wouldn't need to look to the blockchain every occasion, just initially and occasionally. Once such a header was available, applications would just need to integrate some way to check those against known keys or the blockchain and refresh once in a while. I'm expecting a simple 'Register your domain name here' blockchain would be simple to setup. Users could have an option to whitelist only those domains that are using this, which I wonder would simply turn the spam off.

The reality of spam being persistent is well known, so I don't know if there's a flaw to this idea above. Let me know, if I've missed something obvious. The only problem might be how to know that the registration request comes from the real domain but they would only have to prove themselves once. Personal emails on bulk addresses might need a more subtle approach of registering the email address rather than domain. Still given the amount of effort put to antispam already, this struck me as a simple answer and if such an application worked, it would be a good way to engage businesses directly and might help get BitShares name promoted more widely.

Thoughts?..

"Vote for my preferred delegates." instead of the confusing "Vote as my delegates recommended"

Change the empty thumbs up to a neutral symbol '--' or something that cannot be confused with the coloured thumbs up vote.

The "My Votes" list in Delegates detail contains delegates that had been voted on previously but it's not clear, given those thumbs up, that a vote isn't still in place.

Votes that have not been confirmed, perhaps should be highlighted in some way.. a different colour thumb.. Amber goes to green when vote is actioned.

If each delegates still publishing old versions will continue to be an issue, could the qt display also the version numbers in the way that BitSharesBlocks does?

Since it costs money albeit 0.5BTS.. perhaps put a message somewhere "Your Vote is Important" to prompt action.

I was looking at http://bitsharesblocks.com/delegates and wondering at the amount of red and orange and the number out of date clients.

In an effort to provide more stable delegates, I've setup moon.warlock on a dedicated server in Amsterdam and wonder that if that works well, I might set a few more running. I'm hosted on vultr.com which impressed me in part by accepting Bitcoin payments. They suggest themselves a lot faster than AWS and certainly have performed well so far.

This is set at an uncontroversial 3% pay rate.. I am doing this more for fun than profit. In the event that brings reward for the effort, then I'll be encouraged to setup more. Vultr offers hosting round the planet; so, expanding would be trivial.

Hopefully, the feed will work well too.. I've using bitSuperLab's script for now, though I wonder we need variety beyond three scripts. I might look at hacking one, if it's not too complex and if there really are more sources of data that those three existing scripts already draw on.. perhaps sources of distinct data are limited but perhaps they can respond in different ways too.

So, vote moon.warlock .. if only because it's not just another marketing delegate!