Ping @svk

and still nobody answer my question:
1. what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
2. should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?

Quote from: alt on January 28, 2016, 02:32:27 pm

good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because  we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....

A good practice for those who hate the referral program: introduce others to register via your faucet and referral link, and reimburse them the 80% fees paid by them (to you). You won't feel guilty anymore. If you want to cover some costs of doing so, reimburse less, for example 79.9%.

Do something please, don't just complain.

I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates.  Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10?  Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI?  Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA.  I think FBAs are for income generating features.

In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.

Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B.   We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins.  Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now.  Is that correct?

Correct.

Also for other types of transactions such as premium names & UIA's I assume we can keep the discounts only for lifetime and annual members?

Other types of transactions won't be affected by BSIP10.

Quote from: Moon on January 30, 2016, 05:12:07 am

Quote from: wallace on January 29, 2016, 02:37:27 pm

BTS再继续这样下去，只有死路一条了，让老外们自己玩去吧

看你们激情昂扬的喷了那么多，按照过去经验，一点用没有。老老实实接受BM和他的权力地位，整什么幺蛾子都是鸡蛋碰石头

是的，在BTS社区没有出现技术牛人比BM强之前，我们还是应接受BM的领导地位，社区人不能在没有别的牛人出现前先反，而是应等牛人出现后再付和！

国人习惯了精英治国理念

Thanks, Akado.  Great summary.

This website is also an excellent source of news:
http://bitsharesnews.info

It's been regularly updated for a couple of months now, by this little-known but hard-working guy: @BitShares News
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20215.0.html

@jakub I thought the one who is running http://bitsharesnews.info is not a guy but a lady..

right, but many more mobile wallets will be released after ours I'm sure.
 
how hard would it be to get the Witnesses to offer this level of service. i could code it so that the mobile wallets send a flag to the Witnesses saying "hey, i'm a mobile device, please filter out the big shit so my data plan isn't exhausted!" thoughts..?
 
let's encourage some other devs to make mobile wallets too...

Anyone can run a full node to provide the service you need.
Responsibilities of "the witnesses" (if you mean the block producers) don't include providing API services to clients for sure. Hosted wallet service provider (E.G. OpenLedger) is most likely to provide such API service.
I see this service a business opportunity.

图文教程都要支持。

It didn't work for him.    Has something changed since launch in the way wallets are created using custom brain keys?

he has shared with me the seed he used and I've tried everything I can think of.  It's all numbers and letters and does not contain any special characters.  It does contain a mix of upper and lower case letters.  I noticed the normalize_brain_key function.  does this mean there is a possibility that lowercase could cause errors?

Also is there a CLI function to restore a wallet from brain key?  I've found create account from brain key, but nothing for a wallet.

Afaik when creating STEALTH addresses there need to input a brain key. Don't know if it's the same though.