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 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 102
361
Technical Support / Re: Full node and blockchain size
« on: August 30, 2017, 03:19:36 pm »
The bulk of the data is the operation history log. There are options available to reduce the size of that significantly (by sacrificing some history, obviously). A better long-term solution will have to offload these data to disk storage (it's read-append mostly).

362
General Discussion / Re: Request for shareholder opinion
« on: August 27, 2017, 02:55:51 pm »
We have a mechanism in place, in the form of worker proposals.

But the overhead of creating worker proposals is rather high and not really appropriate for stuff like small bugfixes.

363
General Discussion / Re: Request for shareholder opinion
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:34:27 pm »
Thanks guys. Looks like there is consensus.

@bitcrab @xeroc - you're the biggest proxies, what's your position?

364
General Discussion / Request for shareholder opinion
« on: August 23, 2017, 03:41:05 pm »
Quote from: pc on August 20, 2017, 12:15:58 pm
Do we need shareholder approval for these bugfixes?

Can we decide on that question? Not just specifically for the PRs in the OP, but generally.

365
Technical Support / Re: Wallet Question
« on: August 23, 2017, 03:29:33 pm »
Like I said, I'm not sure if the light client can import your .bin file, but if so that would be the way to go.

366
Openledger / Re: Transaction does not pay enough
« on: August 23, 2017, 05:34:53 am »
Duplicate post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24874.0.html
Please don't do that, this is not helpful.

367
Openledger / Re: Transaction does not pay enough
« on: August 23, 2017, 05:33:36 am »
CVCoin has a 2% market fee, which is deducted from the amount you buy: http://cryptofresh.com/a/CVCOIN

368
Technical Support / Re: Wallet Question
« on: August 23, 2017, 05:31:29 am »
Your account is registered on the blockchain and can be accessed through various ways, like openledger.io or the light client. In order to control your account, you need cryptographic keys. These keys are stored in what you call your "wallet", and for extra security this wallet is protected with a passphrase.

So if you have created your account on openledger.io and then start the light client, the light client cannot control your account until you import the required keys into it. Similarly, clearing your browser cache deletes the "wallet" from your browser's storage, which is why you can't control your account anymore.

You should be able to import your backup into your browser to regain control of your account. I'm not sure but it could even be possible to import the same backup into the light client.

369
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« on: August 21, 2017, 10:15:16 am »
Quote from: alt on August 21, 2017, 12:52:28 am
May I ask a question about the new logic?
suppose USD already had a blackswan, the black swan price is at 0.1 USD/BTS, SWAN.current_supply is 1M USD
when we enable this new logic, the feed price is 0.2 USD/BTS.
from the descript I can still make a operation  bid_collateral_operation(debt_covered: 1M USD, additional_collateral: 1BTS).
then I can get the debt about 1M USD, and all the collection about: 1M/0.1 BTS ?

No, this is prevented in the section "Auto-revive after increase of settlement fund value". If the BTS price recovers that much, the settlement fund and debt are turned into a normal short position belonging to the asset issuer (in the case of bitUSD that would be the committee).

370
Technical Support / Re: My wallet is no operation to lose 2bts
« on: August 21, 2017, 10:11:15 am »
You mean this one: http://cryptofresh.com/u/zhshj ?
Looks like you paid a fee of 2 BTS to create a proposal.

371
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« on: August 20, 2017, 12:15:58 pm »
Guys,

last call!

I'd like to wrap this discussion up and get BSIP-0018 into action. AFAICS we have the following things more or less ready for inclusion:

* PR 340 (BSIP-0018, approved)
* PR 23 (bugfix wrt early withdrawals)
* PR 348 (bugfix wrt voting)
* PR 369 (bugfix wrt committee voting)

Anything else?

Do we need shareholder approval for these bugfixes? It could be argued that we don't because the fixes don't change the *intended* operation of the blockchain. This is a dangerous road though, because in other cases there could be disagreement about whether something is a bug or intended...

372
General Discussion / Re: Reinforcing Smartcoin Pegs Through Feed-Tracked Orders
« on: August 19, 2017, 07:29:45 pm »
I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented.
Perhaps a market maker (or other trader) can tell us if that'd be a useful feature for them? I can see at least one use case, and that's worker payments denominated in bitUSD. Buying a significant sum of bitUSD at a small offset would be easier if you can set an order with a feed-dependent price.

373
General Discussion / Re: Reinforcing Smartcoin Pegs Through Feed-Tracked Orders
« on: August 18, 2017, 06:01:44 pm »
Quote from: fluxer555 on August 18, 2017, 03:11:25 pm
Also, I think we should decidedly not support "offsets" from the price feed, as this loses easy parity with other tracked buyers/sellers. The only way to match these offset-tracked orders would be through normal limit orders (other than using the exact same offset, of course) which is at odds with this feature's intended benefit- reinforcing the peg. It's also a lot easier to implement without this, both core/UI wise.

If you don't allow an offset you can support the peg only on one side, because orders from both sides would cancel each other out.

Also, why should market makers place orders *at* the feed price in the first place? They'd take all the risk but can't make a profit from it.
If you want to support the peg, allow offsets - this will create competition among market makers, which means more liquidity, and with more liquidity market makers will be forced to use small offsets.

374
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Hardfork schedule proposal
« on: August 18, 2017, 03:48:46 pm »
I don't know the answer, and personally I don't think that this feature is desparately needed. Nevertheless, the worker has been voted in, it has been implemented, and we have paid for it.

Seeing that this discussion seems to be mostly ignored, how do we proceed from here?

375
KexCoin / Re: [ANN] Introducing Kexcoin - BitShares Powered Real Estate Crowd Funding Project
« on: August 17, 2017, 05:53:26 pm »
Can't find anything relevant. Deep link?

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 102

Page created in 0.19 seconds with 22 queries.