maqifrnswa is not a registered witness.     ( I deleted all default witness registrations in genesis )

ah sorry about that, won't get around to it until later.

maqifrnswa upgraded
PPA upgraded

so far my $10 DO vps witness has been stable through this testing; in case someone wants a point of comparison for hardware specs.
1GB ram, 1 CPU
Ubuntu 15.04, using the daily build packages

Right now we have 65 delegates at 3%, those are the current "witnesses." 55 of them have > 95% reliability. At least 10 of those are duplicates.

BTS2.0 will take a little more technical skill to set up at first since there aren't many FAQ/How to/tutorials on basic sys admin for new witnesses, so you want expert sys admins at the helm as BTS2.0 launches. I'd say <50% would be experts. That leaves you with ~22 current "witnesses."

I think that 22 should be the max at launch, so 17 might be acceptable. As xeroc suggested, you can let people know that there are plans to scale security/decentralization by both increasing pay and number of witnesses appropriately.

I think $300/month is a good number because 1) it's enough to get good sys admins excited but 2) not enough for hard-core professional sys admins to get involved beyond a hobby level.  As BTS2.0 grows, you can increase the pay to scale the quality of services (reliability/capacity) or increase witnesses to increase security. The committee can suggest appropriate directions.

Therefore, $300/month and ~20 witnesses seems about right now. That said, I probably am more interested as a worker than a witness unless we really need more witnesses to kick this off.

EDIT: the key is that both pay rate and number of witnesses MUST be adjusted as BTS2.0 grows to stave off real attack concerns. Which one we do depends on how BTS grows. We don't know that yet, so we just need to pick a starting point that is reasonable and adjust in the future.

I've been providing Bitshares-packages on the open build service for a while. The problem with graphene will be the non-free license - OBS doesn't allow proprietary packages on there.

AFAIK it's possible to set up and run your own version of the build service, but that's a major undertaking I think.

Yeah, I read through the OBS documentaiton. I know how to set up my own .deb repo; it's  not that hard. OBS is a bit tougher. Perhaps the best route is to just set up repos for each distro so people can add the appropriate one. There are the OBS perl scripts that can be used to build many packages at once from the same source:
https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build
then we just need to take care of distribution.

@pc: do you primarily package for openSUSE? We also could use your current packages with obs-build to generate all the distros at once.

Just for the record, my personal view of morality is that it is dishonest to sell something you know to be worthless to unsuspecting people who didn't get the news about the upgrade.

yeah, I was tempted to sell those PTS - but in the end it just didn't feel right!

Hi - I've been maintaining an Ubuntu PPA for bitshares and am planning on doing a worker proposal for bitshares 2.0. I can take care of Debian-based distribution (Mint, Ubuntu, etc.) and infrastructure, but I think having a coherent and robust packaging for all distros would be best. If you're currently maintaining packages for a distro and want to join in my proposal, please PM me with your "packaging resume" and what you've done for bitshares so far.

Also, if you know Debian-based packaging, please let me know too since we'll need redundancy in case I get hit by the proverbial bus.

Docker experience, Ubuntu snappy experience (don't know if we want to go in that direction yet) could be useful, but you'll need to explain what you do.

I'm hoping for a small team (~4) of experienced linux packagers/distribution people. Ideally we can set up something like the open build service opensuse uses (http://openbuildservice.org/).

Why?: Why have one proposal rather than independent? People may recognize that linux packages are important, but may only vote for proposals for their distro of choice. I believe distro coverage is also very important, but proposals for specific distros may not get funded. If we team up we can get a larger community behind the proposal so more distros will be covered. Also, there will be some infrastructure required, sharing the workload and removing redundancy will be beneficial.

Hello tech pro's, quick question:
Can quantum computing technology be a future threat to cryptography technology?  Will QC be able to crack cryptographic messages?  Thanks for your time!

All crypto tech relies on finding things that are easy for a machine to do in one direction, but hard to do in another (easy to encrypt, hard to decrypt). Machines that run code in sequence find it very hard to crack RSA, but machines that approach problems differently (quantum computers) have no problem with it. So RSA, current hashing techniques, won't be useful in a world with useful quantum computers.

At the same time, new crypto tech will emerge such as quantum cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution

Just like the enigma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine) was practically unbreakable before computers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe), new tech will both make current crypto obsolete and present the platform for the next gen of crypto