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 - pc

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102
1471
KeyID / Re: Good idea to reallocate part of dev fund for NMC and BTC?
« on: September 19, 2014, 03:43:37 pm »
I think it's a good idea, too. (Disclaimer: I'm holding less than 10 NMC).

The NMC community knows better than anyone else what the DNS DAC is about and what potential it has - IMO they are less likely to dump than the average PTS/AGS holder.

1472
General Discussion / Re: [DAC Proposal] Future Tech Farm
« on: September 19, 2014, 03:32:57 pm »
Quote from: G1ng3rBr34dM4n on September 19, 2014, 01:36:31 pm
What kind of fraud are you thinking about?

In my mind - with regards to fraud - who's going to mess with their own food supply?  If the data the nodes is providing is useful, it will help the rest of the network.  If not - the information will not be utilized by very many nodes, or any at all.  The goal is to create an objective platform.

... I believe those who produce most efficiently should be paid dividends at a proportional rate of efficiency with respect to the rest of the network.  ...

There's your potential for fraud. If I can make your system *think* that I'm producing more efficiently (while I'm actually not producing anything at all, or maybe producing food tainted with non-organic and possibly toxic chemicals), I'll be rewarded with higher dividends.

1473
General Discussion / Re: DEV DAC
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:33:20 am »
Quote from: bitsharesrussia on September 18, 2014, 05:07:09 pm
Quote from: pc on September 18, 2014, 04:53:29 pm
I don't really understand the DAC part of your proposal. Why is this a DAC and not just DevCoin-based-on-BitShares?

Its a DAC because its an autonomous company which helps developers develop their coin and gives them tools to do it.

How does the DAC generate a profit for its shareholders?

1474
General Discussion / Re: DEV DAC
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:53:29 pm »
I don't really understand the DAC part of your proposal. Why is this a DAC and not just DevCoin-based-on-BitShares?

1475
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop 100% profit to bitsharestalk.org (0915 380BTSX)
« on: September 16, 2014, 03:12:45 pm »
Thanks again!

btsx: pmc

1476
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares LND - P2P Lending - Social Contract & Business Model
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:47:48 am »
LND is not an asset in the sense of bitUSD on the BTS-X blockchain.

LND will be a separate (new) blockchain. In the genesis block of that new blockchain, 4 million shares will be created. These shares will be distributed as described, i. e. 1 million each to holders of PTS and AGS relative to their wallet balance on a given snapshot date.

How the "40% Market" will be distributed is not clear to me, and "10% Dev" seems like a lot. Maybe that's explained somewhere else in this thread (or subforum).

1477
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: September 14, 2014, 06:09:43 am »
Remote Procedure Call - that's a general term for requesting the execution of code over a network connection and receiving the result in the same way. The network connection can also point to localhost in which case it's not really a "remote" procedure call, but technically that doesn't matter.

The conceptual difference between an RPC service and for example HTTP or SMTP is that an RPC service is focused on code execution, whereas most other network services are focused on data transfer.

1478
General Discussion / Re: Ubuntu/Linux client for BitsharesX
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:16:24 pm »
No... I was asking if you're using the -j flag when running make. That would mean several compiler processes running in parallel, to make better use of multi-core CPUs. Of course that also requires much more memory and only makes sense when you don't run into swapping.

High optimization levels also consume more memory, and 64bit architectures require more than 32bit. I really don't see why you should need several GB, though.

1479
General Discussion / Re: Ubuntu/Linux client for BitsharesX
« on: September 13, 2014, 08:30:54 am »
Huh? I'm regularly building it on a netbook with 1G RAM + 1G swap.
Are you using make -j?

1480
General Discussion / Re: Ubuntu/Linux client for BitsharesX
« on: September 13, 2014, 05:51:54 am »
An "internal compiler error" is usually caused by insufficient RAM. You need to add more swapspace for compiling. Or even better - add more RAM. :-)

1481
General Discussion / Re: Airdrop 100% profit to bitsharestalk.org (0909 430BTSX)
« on: September 12, 2014, 12:10:31 pm »
btsx:pmc

1482
General Discussion / Re: Business Proposal with HUGE potential - automated BTC->bitBTC bridge
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:48:17 pm »
I had the same idea a couple of weeks ago, then realized that I'd get into serious trouble for running such a service - at least here in Germany. Probably in any country with a regulated financial system.

From a purely technical perspective it's a really cool idea, though.

1483
KeyID / Re: “Time remining till launch” ？
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:21:26 am »
Snapshot means that the PTS balances on 08-21 were recorded and will be used in the genesis block of the new DAC.

The DAC is not live yet, and you cannot buy at this time.

A testnet existed but is currently down, apparently due to some serious bugs which are currently being investigated.

1484
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: September 08, 2014, 09:03:04 pm »
In the command line wallet, how can I see which delegates I have already "approved" (or disapproved)?

1485
General Discussion / Software license?
« on: September 08, 2014, 12:21:24 pm »
Hi,

I have started to create linux packages for BitSharesX, which has made me research the BitShares license, and I see a problem there.

The BitSharesX client comes with a LICENSE.md that makes the client public domain. The source tree (excluding submodules for now) however clearly contains files that are not public domain (cotire.cmake is MIT, CrashRpt stuff seems to be BSD).

The web_wallet module is a complete nightmare: it also contains LICENSE.md which states that it is public domain plus code licensed under various licenses (including MIT, Apache, jQuery). In addition, it contains a "licenseagreement.html" that is clearly a non-free license.

The "fc" module used by the command line as well as the qt client does not specify its own license, which makes distribution problematic. Even worse, it contains AGPL-licensed code which means it cannot be published as either public domain or with a non-free license.

Please clarify.

Thanks,
Peter

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102

Page created in 0.194 seconds with 23 queries.