181
Technical Support / Re: witness_node completely froze overnight
« on: December 14, 2015, 01:39:35 pm »
It's something in the latest version which is causing it. Unclear what, though.
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.
182
Technical Support / witness_node completely froze overnight
« on: December 14, 2015, 10:17:45 am »
Unfortunately, no really log information available, but the latest witness_node just froze overnight; this is the first time this has happened.
183
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 14, 2015, 09:08:27 am »What is the actual function we are talking about here, that dice requires, and bitshares does not currently have?
Is it just a transparent, verifiable RNG?
Or does it require an escrow smart contract whose result is based on the outcome of the RNG?
Is the existence of such a function, by itself, considered gambling? Or is it how a frontend website/client uses that function.
Are there any other legitimate uses for that type of contract? Couldn't the contract be created with existing multisig functions?
At the very least we could have the RNG. There's no way, that this alone could be considered gambling. Random numbers are used for all sorts of things. It would be up to the frontend how to use it, and only they would be subject to whatever legal or cultural consequences.
I don't think bitshares needs to directly offer gambling, but I do think bitshares should have the simple tools available for someone who does want to offer it themselves.
You need a smart contract really. You have a bank, which is a big account full of currency, under the control of the 'house' and you have players who bet against the house using random numbers. The rnd decides who wins, paying the currency out to the winner (scaled by the probability of winning).
It's exact place at which the bet is struck that becomes the focus of any legal investigation, I think.
184
Technical Support / Re: Are chain files compatible between linux x86 and win64?
« on: December 13, 2015, 03:42:50 pm »
The answer appears to be: yes, they are 
185
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Dice FBA
« on: December 13, 2015, 03:29:53 pm »
A centralised bitshares dice is trivial to create; you could probably knock a daemon together in a week or so.
Truely decentralised requires a different blockchain and that's what Play is doing I think.
Truely decentralised requires a different blockchain and that's what Play is doing I think.
186
Technical Support / Are chain files compatible between linux x86 and win64?
« on: December 13, 2015, 03:16:17 pm »
My win64 chain is corrupt, but I have a linux x46 chain - are they compatible?
187
Meta / Re: [POLL] Tipbot Yes/No
« on: December 13, 2015, 12:01:30 pm »
I think the tipbot can add value when it is tipping actual currency, like BTS, bitUSD etc - things which have value, no these worthless tokens, no offence intended to their creators
188
Technical Support / database_api.cpp:229 get_objects getObjects without subscribe callback??
« on: December 12, 2015, 05:59:42 pm »
I've suddenly started getting this message - I have upgraded to the latest bitshares hardforking release. I've not seen this error in the previous version, any idea what it means?
189
General Discussion / Re: The Most Secure Messaging On Earth (Fee Backed Asset)
« on: December 12, 2015, 11:06:58 am »Is there any possible way that any MITM attack can happen? Can anyone find out who is sending messages to who, or who is checking their messages and when? Encryption doesn't go far enough.
See the stealth transfers proposal. The only place this proposal is lacking is that the sender and recipient can prove a connection between themselves if they so chose.
190
General Discussion / Re: Millions of Features, Features for Me!
« on: December 11, 2015, 11:15:16 pm »So to get this started, please place your bids for the MAKER asset which will earn 20% of all liquidity incentivization rewards if the Liquidity Incentivization proposal is approved and executed. Lets see how the community actually values this potential feature and then move on from there.
Where do we place our bids, and are you including @Chronos counter proposal to make it fair?
191
General Discussion / Re: The Most Secure Messaging On Earth (Fee Backed Asset)
« on: December 11, 2015, 03:22:53 pm »The only way to bring this into bitshares (which makes any sense) is to do nothing and wait for proper anonymity to be implemented in bitshares transactions. Then you just send a memo and you're done.
But does it scale? How much data is contained in a memo?
If it doesn't scale, then bitshares doesn't scale either.
192
General Discussion / Re: Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)
« on: December 11, 2015, 03:19:37 pm »
I think it's worth remembering this passage from the OP proposal:
The OP is very complicated, so cryptonomix gets rewarded for implementing it by taking a cut of the MSHARES. Fair enough, but is this clouding their ability to judge the counter proposal objectively?
Quote
It is our belief that the cost of implementing a feature must be less than the present value of a feature. It is the belief of Cryptonomex that this particular feature is worth much more than the cost to implement it and therefore Cryptonomex will be implementing it speculatively in exchange for a cut of all MSHARES for all assets that use this feature to improve their liquidity.
The OP is very complicated, so cryptonomix gets rewarded for implementing it by taking a cut of the MSHARES. Fair enough, but is this clouding their ability to judge the counter proposal objectively?
193
General Discussion / Re: Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal ($300)
« on: December 11, 2015, 02:07:24 pm »
What about going with option 1 for a set period of time, and if it doesn't work (as you think it won't), then go with your OP?
194
General Discussion / Re: Leveraged Trade
« on: December 11, 2015, 01:34:13 pm »In my mind I thought that it could be implemented as a market for an interest rate on an asset borrowed for a certain amount of time(second, minute, hour, day, whatever) coupled with the ability to lock funds in protocol based on the loan contract.
Indeed this is the more correct way to do it. I think they are just discussing how to achieve a similar effect very quickly.
195
General Discussion / Re: Leveraged Trade
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:55:06 am »
So I guess you guys are saying that if the feed price was scaled by, say 2 times, it's conceptually similar to having 2 x leverage, but not exactly in practice?
