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 - Rune

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 75
241
General Discussion / Re: Forking bitshares
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:00:28 pm »
If you want to get the support (and subsidy through a delegate) of the bitshares community, you have to offer something that will be useful to us right now, most likely a hardware wallet. All the other ideas can come later, at first you need to offer something of immediate value.

Also issuing your stock on the bitshares blockchain is fine even if you're not a DAC. You just need to do KYC and whitelisting.

242
General Discussion / Re: Up to 27 100% delegates. Really?
« on: January 23, 2015, 11:10:13 pm »
Quote from: Ander on January 23, 2015, 10:54:43 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 23, 2015, 10:51:44 pm
Quote from: Ander on January 23, 2015, 10:34:28 pm
I dont think we need a delegate to look after the other delegates.  I think this is something that investors should want to do.  The community should be doing this (and will be), without needing to be paid.

At scale there should absolutely be HR delegates that provide reports, metrics, etc. about all delegates, all their projects and all their employees. No delegate should go unscrutinized and all delegate expenses should be 100% accounted for. Shareholders are meant to make the executive decisions - doing actual research and reports at the massive scale the bitshares bureacracy will reach at 5 billion (or just 500 million really) will require loads of resources that we can't expect individuals to donate.  Of course ultimately there will be many situations where grassroots investigation or shareholder activism is required, and it will probably happen much more often compared to traditional publicly traded companies, but if we rely solely on altrustic shareholders doing in-depth delegate investigation in their free time we will not be able to have a functional team at scale.


Eventually yes, delegates will need to be whole organizations. 
I should say: At the present time, I dont think this is so complicated that it needs to be a paid position, it is something that we the community should be doing.

Later on if we get huge things will change.

Agree, for now delegates should be developer salary or marketing/bounty expenses (non salary) only.

243
General Discussion / Re: Up to 27 100% delegates. Really?
« on: January 23, 2015, 10:51:44 pm »
Quote from: Ander on January 23, 2015, 10:34:28 pm
I dont think we need a delegate to look after the other delegates.  I think this is something that investors should want to do.  The community should be doing this (and will be), without needing to be paid.

At scale there should absolutely be HR delegates that provide reports, metrics, etc. about all delegates, all their projects and all their employees. No delegate should go unscrutinized and all delegate expenses should be 100% accounted for. Shareholders are meant to make the executive decisions - doing actual research and reports at the massive scale the bitshares bureacracy will reach at 5 billion (or just 500 million really) will require loads of resources that we can't expect individuals to donate.  Of course ultimately there will be many situations where grassroots investigation or shareholder activism is required, and it will probably happen much more often compared to traditional publicly traded companies, but if we rely solely on altrustic shareholders doing in-depth delegate investigation in their free time we will not be able to have a functional team at scale.

244
General Discussion / Re: My problem with BitAssets... lack of price discovery
« on: January 23, 2015, 07:22:03 pm »
The price feeds can measure the bitasset peg and then multiply it with the internal market price. So if bitGOLD/gold = 1 then the price feed is set exactly at the internal market rate for bitGOLD/BTS. If the peg deviates then so does the price feed, ensuring that the peg is always pushed towards 1. There's no need to ever have BTS traded externally and it will likely be phased out as we get a light wallet capable of trading and better external bitasset liquidity.

245
General Discussion / Re: Public Goods and the Public Good [BLOG POST]
« on: January 22, 2015, 12:34:54 am »
How do you distinguish between something that is property and something that is not property?

How do you distinguish between an action that is violent and an action that is not violent?

246
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Exchange Should Accept REAL Bitcoin
« on: January 21, 2015, 11:22:55 pm »
Quote from: teenagecheese on January 21, 2015, 11:18:10 pm
Have I been reading correctly that the bitshares protocol is similar enough to bitcoin's to accept and transfer real BTC? If it is, why don't we make it so the bitshares client can accept actual BTC so users can trade it on the bitshares exchange.

This would eliminate a whole step of getting money into the bitshares ecosystem and would make bitshares exchange even more useful. You could even accept other popular cryptos in the same way (or not, but at least BTC), then it would be even an even more functional decentralized exchange.

This seems like a no brainer to me, am I missing something?

You'd need two-way pegging for this, and according to toast that isn't possible because DPOS cannot create SPV proofs. So no, it isn't possible. Best we have is gateways. You could potentially have gateways written with smart contracts that can become almost as safe as simply holding real bitcoin.

247
General Discussion / Re: Account 'bter' please return funds
« on: January 21, 2015, 10:55:13 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on January 21, 2015, 09:07:34 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 21, 2015, 08:41:33 pm
But why would you ever want to do this as a sender? BTER wouldn't give you access to the funds in your account until the transaction became irreversible, so it would be akin to filling out the sending information and then waiting 30 mins before clicking send.

If I were sending $6k to anywhere, I would chose that option by default just for the safety factor.

I see the point of "locking in" the transaction. That's actually quite neat. It wouldn't have to be done through delayed transactions though, you can just have a system that sends a mail to the name of exchange using bitshares mail, and if the exchange receives the mail they can confirm to you that you have the correct name. Ultimately I do think the robohash kind of serves this purpose well enough already though. If you want to confirm that you've typed the correct name, you can look at the robohash that shows up and then go back to the exchange website to check if it indeed is the correct one.

248
General Discussion / Re: Account 'bter' please return funds
« on: January 21, 2015, 08:41:33 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on January 21, 2015, 07:27:43 pm
I'm gonna get shot down for this... but this is yet another case where bitshares could benefit from having reversible transactions.

You could set a block target for when the transaction was spendable (like an uncleared balance in a bank), and up to that block the transaction could be reversed by the sender.

But why would you ever want to do this as a sender? BTER wouldn't give you access to the funds in your account until the transaction became irreversible, so it would be akin to filling out the sending information and then waiting 30 mins before clicking send.

249
General Discussion / Re: Account 'bter' please return funds
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:09:35 pm »
Quote from: toast on January 21, 2015, 07:03:30 pm
Ouch. I'm in favor of putting a warning next to "bter" account and/or hiding stuff with negative rep from the autofill.

If you can remove names from the autofill with a negative rep someone could do an attack where they register a name so close to an exchange account that it shows up as number 2 on the autofill, then bombard the exchange with negative rep to remove it from the autofill and become the first suggestion for that name instead.

How about only having autofill for accounts you have sent money to before? So you have to verify the first time you send funds to an exchange, but then after that you're safe and can trust the autofill.

250
General Discussion / Re: Account 'bter' please return funds
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:02:34 pm »
I think autofill in general is a bad idea. As more and more users join, the blockchain will be cluttered with every single name imaginable anyway. Imagine autofill for gmail addresses, whatever you type in there will always be some guy who registered that combination of letters already.

251
General Discussion / Re: Overstock Communications Director re Medici "some kind of USD coin"
« on: January 21, 2015, 04:25:00 pm »
Quote
with all the upside that brings

But what are upsides are there for issuing traditional stock on a blockchain? This is what I'm trying to understand.

What would make a client choose to buy stock on the blockchain instead of through a regular stockbroker if they have to do exactly the same registration procedures and fund it the same way?

All I can see that will happen is that trading will happen much more slowly, all trading data will be public for anyone to perform data analysis on, and transactions will be more costly due to the high redundancy of the blockchain validation process.

252
General Discussion / Re: Overstock Communications Director re Medici "some kind of USD coin"
« on: January 21, 2015, 04:09:11 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on January 21, 2015, 02:54:33 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 21, 2015, 02:11:04 pm
Medici won't even be run on Counterparty. TBH I don't really see the advantage of putting fully regulated real world stocks on a blockchain anyway, all i can possibly imagine it'll do is to make stock trading less private. So now everyone, not just the NSA, will be able to figure out what you invest in.
A huge advantage you are missing is that you do not need to maintain "the books" and records .. that's done by the blockchain .. though this approach comes with it's own issues (security, ...)

But putting something like this on the blockchain when it still requires full centralized control makes no sense to me. All it does is make every transaction cost more money, without adding any security because ultimately the entire ledger has to be centrally controlled anyway. They probably still have to keep external books and records as well, and have to do constant data analysis.

253
General Discussion / Cool article on PLAY and DACX on the frontpage of /r/bitcoin
« on: January 21, 2015, 02:17:55 pm »
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2t5vcx/a_chinese_startup_has_recently_gone_public_as_a/

Time to go explain BitShares and DACS in the comments!

254
General Discussion / Re: Overstock Communications Director re Medici "some kind of USD coin"
« on: January 21, 2015, 02:11:04 pm »
Medici won't even be run on Counterparty. TBH I don't really see the advantage of putting fully regulated real world stocks on a blockchain anyway, all i can possibly imagine it'll do is to make stock trading less private. So now everyone, not just the NSA, will be able to figure out what you invest in.

255
General Discussion / Re: What if I have 11% of BTS and I am malicious?
« on: January 21, 2015, 12:33:52 pm »
An immediate and effective solution to this issue is actually very simple. Malicious delegates will likely be delegates that don't produce blocks or produce blocks and steal 100% of the inflation. Both scenarios are by themselves quite unlikely and not actually that hurtful to BitShares, but most importantly they are easy to detect and it's possible to see what accounts control the stake that voted for them. To ensure the malicious stake doesn't continue ruining things a hard fork can be manually circulated among the community that permanently destroys all the stake that voted for the malicious delegates. BitShares would be back up and running normally quite quickly, and the only person who would really be hurt would be the attacker.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 75

Page created in 0.194 seconds with 23 queries.