Quote from: alt on July 17, 2014, 12:16:57 am

still can attack with these rules, if I have about 1% XTS.

1. use about 10^7 XTS  or more, control the price to 500USD/XTS, get about 5*10^9 USD
2. usd about 10^7 XTS or more + maybe 10^5 USD, control the price to 0.0005USD/XTS,get all the backup XTS.

It is just a matter of scale.  Attacking the network in such a manner would destroy the network and make your 1% worthless.  We can set that value as high as 5% or more.  The assumption is anyone with that much steak we not want to harm the network.  No one else would participate in the network and instead could go to a new bit asset.  You and then be trading against yourself and not profit at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arrrg.  I'm not a tester, but I don't think I like this reasoning at all. Assuming that no individual person or group would spend money to harm the network is a bad assumption, especially at the early stages when the total NAV is still low.  There could be great incentives to try and destroy the network.    Please tell me I don't know crap and I'm wrong because that's what I want to hear right now. 

Quote from: JakeThePanda on July 15, 2014, 01:22:53 pm

Quote from: FreeTrade on July 15, 2014, 12:33:42 pm

Quote from: JakeThePanda on July 15, 2014, 11:56:27 am

Yeah, this recommendation concerns me a little, especially since my biggest balances are AGS and we can't move those.  I already imported my private keys so I hope these are just precautionary measures.  Is this a real risk? Should I  ?

There's a chain of trust involved in getting the software to you - if you're reading and compiling yourself, that's the shortest chain - you're just trusting the code I've published and that your own system isn't compromised.
If you're using the binaries, or relying on someone else to vet the code, that chain is longer, you're trusting the compiler isn't compromised, that his system/software isn't compromised, that the network isn't compromised, that github and that your own system isn't compromised.
We're looking at other ways to handle this private key issue that require less risk and trust.
For now, there is no reason to import AGS/MMC/PTS keys - those balances don't start maturing for another 2 months anyway.

Wow! Now that I know this I'm very surprised the community would support any DAC without reviewing the code first.  Why are these risks only being brought up now?  No offense, but the code should have been completely reviewed before it was agreed to have it's own section in the forum and be fully supported.  Thank you for adding AGS/PTS to the distribution list, but at what cost do we blindly support a DAC?

At this early stage in the developement of DACs and this community, the leadership of Invictus has the most to say.  I'm pointing at I3 for not making this an important issue.  It could potentially compromise the entire project. No?

Sure, it's very important and we should be concerned with security and all that - but FreeTrade has been around forever, and as far as I'm concerned he's a trusted dev. I believe he created PTS - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

So what you're saying is absolutely true, but in this particular instance the community (and, I believe, I3) decided there wasn't much to be afraid of.

Considering there seem to be people in this community that don't feel comfortable importing AGS private keys to get LTS, I have to disagree with this statement. If this is such a real risk then a security measure/fix should have been a top priority since the inception of AGS.

Quote

We strongly recommend you move your BTC/DOGE/PTS/MMC/ShareCoin/FootballCoin balance to new wallet before importing your keys or wallets in LottoShares.

I'll be writing a guide on this shortly.

Why ?
Is it possible that my private keys are getting disclosed or something ?

Yeah, this recommendation concerns me a little, especially since my biggest balances are AGS and we can't move those.  I already imported my private keys so I hope these are just precautionary measures.  Is this a real risk? Should I  ?

Bitshares is very different from blackcoin, nxt, etc. 

There are also 100s of coins that have lost far far more than Bitshares.

The comparisons in this thread ... are bordering on retarded.

The original question was about AGS and not Bitshares-PTS.  To keep it real, as of right now, the btc I sent to AGS is gone and I have nothing to show for it.  I'm a big supporter of this project, but I can definitely understand the frustration.  It's not about wanting a quick profit, it's about knowing your investment will eventually give returns.  Every week that passes makes people more and more antsy, especially when it was supposed to launch on the ides of March.  Remember that?

I want to be clear that I'm not this person.

"I'm here as a donator to build DACs for the good of mankind, so I don't care about making money.  I'm such a moral and ethical person and everyone trying to profit is selfish". 

If you are this person just STFU. You are probably full of crap.

I'm here to profit and so is everyone else, so stop the bullshit.  Just ranting as I've heard this from people in these forums.

Anyway, Go Bitshares!  I'm a big supporter, but I can understand the frustration.  That's all.

I'm one of the technically challenged and I'm willing to put in the time and investment. I just need the know how.

I'm in from NY

I've been made aware of a similar project called ChanceCoin (thanks ABL). I'm not sure how I missed it, but it is a very similar project. In some ways, it is better than what I'm working on and yet seems to be failing to attract a high valuation in the marketplace.

For these reasons, I'm suspending the planned launch while I fully review this project and any lessons that can be learned.

It's failing because they had problems with the wallet.

Quote from: tonyk on May 23, 2014, 07:14:33 pm

As of today I have about 3.65x more AGS than PTS as pure # of shares,(which as of right now is  even bigger % of total AGS/PTS respectively, and will be ~3x  at the final numbers (1.65Mil PTS and 2 mil AGS). So my interest is AGS is to be honored… but I am just stating what is the logical step for a DAC developer.

I have to admit it is one of the things I was somewhat curious about as well. Since my motivation for donating seems to differ a bit from others, I haven't really taken my time to think about the social concensus part or share distribution. I don't even know how much shares I'm supposed to get. I just wanted to support the development of as many competing chains and blockchain ideas as possible and I abhor the single-central-blockchain ones and especially the ones trying to pull everyone together in the same sphere of influence.

To be brutally honest I wouldn't mind at all if people did start competing with Invictus at their own game and fork the code and experiment with the technology on their own terms. I'm not a fan of the central point of failure model at all, but for now I don't see many other options. Rationally I'd expect people only to buy "shares" in DAC-chains that they are interested in after those DACs are up and running and only for as long as they have a use for it.

It is probably bad of me, but I might as well be upfront with it, eventhough it will hurt my interests plenty, but seeing people expecting to get rich of other peoples efforts by claiming and monopolizing a stake, instead of wanting to use the new DACs, end up with nothing would actually make me feel a whole lot better about the world. It might even instill in me a little confidence that out of all the crypto-blockchain-experiments something might emerge that could actually work, but for now I am not convinced. So from my point of view I don't even see why DAC developers would owe PTS anything and I'm not convinced that pump and dump speculators are even interested in decentralized companies/applications/collaborations and their uses in the first place.

You should donate all the DAC shares your AGS are owed to the development of decentralized stuff.