A void agreement cannot be enforced by law.
Agreements made without consideration is void.
This is one of the basic rules of Contract law.
So,ebit has the right to void the contract of donating 6000 to the AGS .And 3i has the legal and moral obligation to comply.
I strongly recommend 3I to return the 6000 PTS considering the circumstances.I feel sorry for it and believe him make a bad mistake ,and but it is impossible for III to return PTS to him. if III reture PTS to him , verybody who donate in high volume day can requirment III return the PTS or BTC.
I strongly recommend 3I to return the 6000 PTS considering the circumstances.I feel sorry for it and believe him make a bad mistake ,and but it is impossible for III to return PTS to him. if III reture PTS to him , verybody who donate in high volume day can requirment III return the PTS or BTC.
My opinion would be to return the PTS to the guy and call it the day...
Today's PTS donators won't be diluted.
Apparantly that was an honest mistake. Everybody make mistakes...The community should show their support!
Since the AGS can't be returned, my recommendation is to send back part of his PTS such that he gets his AGS at closer to the average rate.
Calculate the average AGS per PTS for the past 10 days.+5%
Calculate how many PTS would have to be returned to everyone today such that they effectively paid the same AGS per PTS.
Produce the list of addresses and balances so I can copy /paste it.
Identify a proposed compensation to us and the fellow donors for correcting this mistake.
This will make sure that the entire community receives a fair outcome. ebit will still have given more than he intended to, but no one else will have gotten a RAW deal and all ebit effectively loses is a bit of liquidity.
Calculate the average AGS per PTS for the past 10 days.+5%
Calculate how many PTS would have to be returned to everyone today such that they effectively paid the same AGS per PTS.
Produce the list of addresses and balances so I can copy /paste it.
Identify a proposed compensation to us and the fellow donors for correcting this mistake.
This will make sure that the entire community receives a fair outcome. ebit will still have given more than he intended to, but no one else will have gotten a RAW deal and all ebit effectively loses is a bit of liquidity.
Calculate the average AGS per PTS for the past 10 days.
Calculate how many PTS would have to be returned to everyone today such that they effectively paid the same AGS per PTS.
Produce the list of addresses and balances so I can copy /paste it.
Identify a proposed compensation to us and the fellow donors for correcting this mistake.
This will make sure that the entire community receives a fair outcome. ebit will still have given more than he intended to, but no one else will have gotten a RAW deal and all ebit effectively loses is a bit of liquidity.
Can I get a refund on the double transaction I sent to the AGS address a month or two ago? Sent 2kPTS when I only intended to send 1k, blockchain reflects the mistake (it was two TX, one sent the day before the other sent the day after but I closed the client apparently before it broadcast because they were both picked up in the same block when I fired the second one) but I figured the rules were the rules and it was my mistake.
If we're fixing mistakes, I'd be happy to get my 1k PTS back.
Hi, I have a non-crazy idea to recall my PTS: several days ago I send them from exchange trade platform to III so I can not control following DAC shares.
2014-03-28 00:11:36 from PikAq7jB7yHJnZ8gsBXFLWquD1bPoeP7x5 quantity: 158.4 PTS
May I take them back and donate same PTS again from my local wallet?
thank you very much.
Can I get a refund on the double transaction I sent to the AGS address a month or two ago? Sent 2kPTS when I only intended to send 1k, blockchain reflects the mistake (it was two TX, one sent the day before the other sent the day after but I closed the client apparently before it broadcast because they were both picked up in the same block when I fired the second one) but I figured the rules were the rules and it was my mistake.
If we're fixing mistakes, I'd be happy to get my 1k PTS back.
The rules are that usage of AGS donations is entirely at III discretion, as they're donations. In this case I guess they think the best use of some that donation is to show grace to somewhat diminish the consequences of this error. They would have every right to do the same in your case, or to do nothing.
Can I get a refund on the double transaction I sent to the AGS address a month or two ago? Sent 2kPTS when I only intended to send 1k, blockchain reflects the mistake (it was two TX, one sent the day before the other sent the day after but I closed the client apparently before it broadcast because they were both picked up in the same block when I fired the second one) but I figured the rules were the rules and it was my mistake.
If we're fixing mistakes, I'd be happy to get my 1k PTS back.
What is your transaction ID for the overspent 1k PTS ?... or demonstrate your a FUD producing irrelevant persona.
My apologies. I deleted my post. I am a bit impulsive and have been drinking this merry Easter.
When I see nothing but FUD from a certain person, I start to question their intentions without doing my own due diligence.
I don't know much about Adam, except he has some large podcast.
I don't listen to such things usually - not my thing. I prefer reading because it is at my own pace.
I'm just some developer who has a somewhat varied life experience. I only view these things from the standpoint of a developer/geek. Sometimes I am wrong. Given my life experiences and observations, when I see too much FUD I start I assume the worst.
The problem with the crypto community is so many people have agendas. I am super-cynical and a lot of times get it wrong.
I made a bad call here and I guess Adam really did accidentally donate 1k PTS. My apologies.
People say whatever they want about me, I am what I am, and when I have concerns I voice them. I think I'm pretty consistent in being the squeaky wheel.
I do it under my own name because many people found out about projects like Bitshares from me and so I feel like I have a responsibility to those who I know have invested money and aren't watching things as closely as I am.
If you want to know me, listen to the show. I am exactly who I seem to be, it's very simple.
People say whatever they want about me, I am what I am, and when I have concerns I voice them. I think I'm pretty consistent in being the squeaky wheel.
I do it under my own name because many people found out about projects like Bitshares from me and so I feel like I have a responsibility to those who I know have invested money and aren't watching things as closely as I am.
If you want to know me, listen to the show. I am exactly who I seem to be, it's very simple.
Lets be frank. You also do it under your own name, because your name is your product and power. I could use my own name, but I have nothing to sell and my name means 0. Your point is a little bit superfluous.
I can listen to everything you put out, but at the end of the day I am not privy to your wallet's transactions.
I so hope I am wrong in any implications, but no one really knows. That is the nature of this beast. I do not read every other crypto-currency forum to know your consistency as the squeaky wheel.
This is not a direct attack on you, just trying to make people realize the level of gaming going on in the cryptoworld.
Address,Donation,ScaledRefund
Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW ,46.65,38.59683546
PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX ,50,41.36852675
PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 ,20,16.5474107
PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c ,0.25,0.20684263
PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo ,30,24.82111605
PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ,1.11111111,0.91930059
PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 ,6120,5063.50767465
PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL ,30.661,25.36800798
PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX ,10,8.27370535
PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p ,20,16.5474107
PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB ,2,1.65474107
PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 ,4,3.30948214
PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig ,107.613,89.03582539
PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X ,5,4.13685268
PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd ,49.4999,40.95475875
Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ,40,33.0948214
Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW ,0.4,0.33094821
PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 ,1.77,1.46444585
PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ ,50,41.36852675
PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg ,1,0.82737054
PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 ,2.19,1.81194147
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.276,0.22835427
PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 ,3.33,2.75514388
PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e ,4,3.30948214
PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG ,10,8.27370535
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.5,0.41368527
PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 ,1,0.82737054
PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 ,10,8.27370535
PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY ,20,16.5474107
PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 ,2,1.65474107
Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa ,20,16.5474107
Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 ,6,4.96422321
PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX ,1,0.82737054
PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b ,8,6.61896428
PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ,1.3,1.0755817
PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP ,0.86,0.71153866
PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm ,0.39,0.32267451
Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn ,12.1212,10.02872373
PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ ,4.71237204,3.89887778
PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK ,4.17027992,3.45036673
PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S ,50,41.36852675
Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha ,100,82.73705351
PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS ,120,99.28446421
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
Can I get a refund on the double transaction I sent to the AGS address a month or two ago? Sent 2kPTS when I only intended to send 1k, blockchain reflects the mistake (it was two TX, one sent the day before the other sent the day after but I closed the client apparently before it broadcast because they were both picked up in the same block when I fired the second one) but I figured the rules were the rules and it was my mistake.
If we're fixing mistakes, I'd be happy to get my 1k PTS back.
What is your transaction ID for the overspent 1k PTS ?... or demonstrate your a FUD producing irrelevant persona.
Lets avoid name calling or assuming bad intentions. Trust but verify is perfectly acceptable, but there is no reason for any of us to suspect Adam of having bad intentions. We may have disagreements about AGS and mining, but that is independent of his character or opinions.
Remember this before you post anything too judgmental about others on this forum:
(http://quotes-lover.com/wp-content/uploads/They-judge-me-before-they-even-know-me.jpg)
We don't want people choosing to be alone, we want people to be with us so lets not alienate people.
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
Your last paragraph is a bit of an argument against your point. You seem on some level to expect your concerns to be addressed because you are Adam B. Levine...
People say whatever they want about me, I am what I am, and when I have concerns I voice them. I think I'm pretty consistent in being the squeaky wheel.
I do it under my own name because many people found out about projects like Bitshares from me and so I feel like I have a responsibility to those who I know have invested money and aren't watching things as closely as I am.
If you want to know me, listen to the show. I am exactly who I seem to be, it's very simple.
Lets be frank. You also do it under your own name, because your name is your product and power. I could use my own name, but I have nothing to sell and my name means 0. Your point is a little bit superfluous.
I can listen to everything you put out, but at the end of the day I am not privy to your wallet's transactions.
I so hope I am wrong in any implications, but no one really knows. That is the nature of this beast. I do not read every other crypto-currency forum to know your consistency as the squeaky wheel.
This is not a direct attack on you, just trying to make people realize the level of gaming going on in the cryptoworld.
I use my name because if I do it under another name, people aren't able to recognize my perspective changing with the evidence. I used to post on this forum under another name and had just as much credibility, switching to my real name just added the liability that people who disagree with me now also dislike me because of that disagreement.
It's much easier to be quietly influential behind the scenes, posting under my own name is a CYA.
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
That's my point. Regardless of expectation I do not get special treatment so your suggestion that I do is simply incorrect. I expect my concrens to be addressed because I'm a long time supporter both vocally and financially of the Bitshares project, and as an investor I'm very unhappy with the way things are being handled but I have no way to do anything besides voice my concerns.
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
You are right that your name prevents you as being dismissed as a troll, yet it goes further. Your influence goes far beyond "I am not a troll" in credibility. You are a big part of Bitcoin media. People really really really listen to you. Trying to downplay your roll.. please!!!!
I'm a total random, but bytemaster has personally addressed my issues multiples times. He could have considered me a troll, but he obviously takes on legitimate criticism.
Your last paragraph is a bit of an argument against your point. You seem on some level to expect your concerns to be addressed because you are Adam B. Levine...
In my opinion , the guy who made the mistake , dont have a choice . It has already been donated. That is one feature crypto wallets do not have. What is done is done. Nothing else. I feel sorry for those investor who donated at the wrong time. Their shares have been diluted by this unexpected (maybe stupid) circumstances. Oh man. Pathetic.
In my opinion , the guy who made the mistake , dont have a choice . It has already been donated. That is one feature crypto wallets do not have. What is done is done. Nothing else. I feel sorry for those investor who donated at the wrong time. Their shares have been diluted by this unexpected (maybe stupid) circumstances. Oh man. Pathetic.
Except that mainstream everyday people don't want to lose their life savings over a typo. It is a double edged sword, the finality of everyday financial transactions.
Can you imagine the level of scams towards elderly if all that was required is a simple typo/misclick to rob them of their entire life savings ? Sick.
That's my point. Regardless of expectation I do not get special treatment so your suggestion that I do is simply incorrect. I expect my concrens to be addressed because I'm a long time supporter both vocally and financially of the Bitshares project, and as an investor I'm very unhappy with the way things are being handled but I have no way to do anything besides voice my concerns.
You most definitely do get special treatment. How can you not be aware of your status as the #1 media guy in this cryptocurrency world ? If you're not #1, then give me a list of people ? :)
Honestly, I feel like I am "trolling" you too hard and that it might make you unduly negative towards Bitshares. *That* is how highly I think of your influence even if I am not a regular podcast listenin' dude.
If you dropped 1k PTS accidentally on an AGS donation and are a sharp guy, then you are far more wealthy than me. I don't even understand the timing of why you'd be donating 1k on a certain day without being very well off.
You must have a lot of crypto-equity. I am jealous. :(
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
You are right that your name prevents you as being dismissed as a troll, yet it goes further. Your influence goes far beyond "I am not a troll" in credibility. You are a big part of Bitcoin media. People really really really listen to you. Trying to downplay your roll.. please!!!!
I'm a total random, but bytemaster has personally addressed my issues multiples times. He could have considered me a troll, but he obviously takes on legitimate criticism.
Your last paragraph is a bit of an argument against your point. You seem on some level to expect your concerns to be addressed because you are Adam B. Levine...
The whole Adam B Levine thing comes across as narcissistic on this forum, not sure how it seems elsewhere
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But lets play out your logic, what power has my name given me on these forums besides not being dismissed out of hand as a troll? I'm really curious what my name is getting me besides being on the record about my complaints. Has anything changed? Did anyone listen to me about anything? Were my concerns addressed?
Nope.
You are right that your name prevents you as being dismissed as a troll, yet it goes further. Your influence goes far beyond "I am not a troll" in credibility. You are a big part of Bitcoin media. People really really really listen to you. Trying to downplay your roll.. please!!!!
I'm a total random, but bytemaster has personally addressed my issues multiples times. He could have considered me a troll, but he obviously takes on legitimate criticism.
Your last paragraph is a bit of an argument against your point. You seem on some level to expect your concerns to be addressed because you are Adam B. Levine...
The whole Adam B Levine thing comes across as narcissistic on this forum, not sure how it seems elsewhere
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd say more egocentric than narcissistic. I am acutely focused on my own needs as a long time invictus investor, but just because I am focused on my own needs does not mean I am the only one who feels put in this same position.
But this is what i'm talking about with regards to the downside of posting under my real name - Just being me now means I get accused of all kinds of things by people who think I'm wrong.
I wish you'd listened more on things like "don't post topics that say GET YOUR BITSHARESX WALLET HERE when it's not at all available" than things like "talk to that guy for marketing". I wish you had listened more on things like "Don't lock yourself into 100% of Bitshares being allocated, just allocated 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS and leave the remaining 80% flexible" and less on things like "speak on this panel i'm organizing about new ideas".
You guys have made bad decisions and continue to do so, at some point you'll have to launch and then we'll see what got produced with all those pivots and rejiggerings. Will it be worth the wait? No idea. Is it what I signed on for, or what Daniel sold to my listeners? Nope.
I have huge hope for the project but have lost my faith in the core team at invictus to deliver because every self imposed deadline has been blown, and yet the decision making structure that has failed to perform so far is more entrenched than ever and acting in its own self defense. Is this what the decentralized revolution looks like?
I wish you'd listened more on things like "don't post topics that say GET YOUR BITSHARESX WALLET HERE when it's not at all available" than things like "talk to that guy for marketing". I wish you had listened more on things like "Don't lock yourself into 100% of Bitshares being allocated, just allocated 10% to PTS and 10% to AGS and leave the remaining 80% flexible" and less on things like "speak on this panel i'm organizing about new ideas".
You guys have made bad decisions and continue to do so, at some point you'll have to launch and then we'll see what got produced with all those pivots and rejiggerings. Will it be worth the wait? No idea. Is it what I signed on for, or what Daniel sold to my listeners? Nope.
I have huge hope for the project but have lost my faith in the core team at invictus to deliver because every self imposed deadline has been blown, and yet the decision making structure that has failed to perform so far is more entrenched than ever and acting in its own self defense. Is this what the decentralized revolution looks like?
Adam, do you write code ? I've tried a bit over the years to get it right but I still underestimate timeframes.. Complexity is not something you can easily estimate. Without being a coder/programmer it is soooo hard to understand these things. I wish I knew the right book to reference ...
Dan may have oversold his idealism at times but there is a 100% chance there is going to be neat stuff coming out of this.
Dan tried his best being a salesman. To me - he only offered potentials. Yes, I agree he oversold at times, but I believe his intentions are pure and I believe him to be a legitimate actor in the cryptocurrency world.
Has Dan delivered? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
However, please realize that this is about the most bleeding edge you can get.. Nothing in this world has the potential to be as disruptive at BTC 2.0 technologies.
So if your motives are as pure as you claim, please go a bit easier on Bitshares. Ask hard questions about implementation/exploits. Do this for all techs.
Man, this is really getting out of hand . Paging moderators. It is really true that forums are made to voice out opinions that matter importantly to the subject. Adam Levine made some of his because he thought that some of the posts here are not quite accurate. So as far as I know, he has the right to do so. Let him speak and criticize constructively as he is very influential in the world of crypto currency.
Adam is a smart guy. I try not to be insulting, but I see him only attack what is currently my passion. So I respond.
Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.
Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?
Man, this is really getting out of hand . Paging moderators. It is really true that forums are made to voice out opinions that matter importantly to the subject. Adam Levine made some of his because he thought that some of the posts here are not quite accurate. So as far as I know, he has the right to do so. Let him speak and criticize constructively as he is very influential in the world of crypto currency.
Adam has very legitimate criticisms. So do some people who criticize his beliefs. That is how adults who are trying to find the best solution interact.
Adam is a smart guy. I try not to be insulting, but I see him only attack what is currently my passion. So I respond.
I think we both keep it within the realm of constructive.
I am just some random dude and do not in any way represent I3.
Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.
Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?
Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel. I'd just rather be the wd40.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.
Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?
Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel. I'd just rather be the wd40.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting on the internet under your real name gives you thick skin, but I appreciate your concern. Seems like you think pretty highly of my ability to implement my will on other people against their own, man I'm powerful you better get your horse and lance to save the townfolk of the forum.
I do not claim to be a coder, I do not set timelines, I am a user and a prototypical one which should be more concerning. Many times I suggested that Bitshares not set timeframes it might be unable to keep but it took many public instances of failure for that message to be driven home to the Bitshares team.
How should I be easier on Bitshares? I am open to suggestions if you think that is best.
Why do you think there is a 100% chance of Daniel delivering? I am very much concerned the way money was raised is going to cause major problems which would put a giant stop on the whole endeavor.
Dude, I said I'm scratching my own itch. I don't claim to speak for anyone else, I said that a lot of people tend to agree with me because I'm not special just early.
Personally I think the Bitbro thing is really getting old, you seem obsessed with me why can't you just post about the topic at hand?
Eh, I don't mean to hurt your feelings as a person, but since the beginning I have seen the persona, the weight of it, its incongruous opinions, and the inflated sense of power and influence as a threat to the open nature of the forum and the progress of BitShares. Like you said, squeaky wheel. I'd just rather be the wd40.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and for the record, if you want to be the WD-40, you should try solving the problem rather than just jumping immediately to personal attacks.
If you're going to be a squeaky wheel, you should thank me for the wd40
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Adam is a smart guy. I try not to be insulting, but I see him only attack what is currently my passion. So I respond.
That is exactly the problem. Stop seeing what you want to be true and look at the situation as it is.
I do not claim to be a coder, I do not set timelines, I am a user and a prototypical one which should be more concerning. Many times I suggested that Bitshares not set timeframes it might be unable to keep but it took many public instances of failure for that message to be driven home to the Bitshares team.
How should I be easier on Bitshares? I am open to suggestions if you think that is best.
Why do you think there is a 100% chance of Daniel delivering? I am very much concerned the way money was raised is going to cause major problems which would put a giant stop on the whole endeavor.
I'm saying timelines are very difficult. Even when you understand the problem. We/they are still working at the solution for some of the most basic problems. Dan has decided to move beyond POW. I find that a positive goal yet I also wish it was instantaneous.
I said he will deliver on a NEAT product. I have no evidence his tech will overtake the world, but a bit of gambler's faith. It seems plausible, but to me it seems more interesting than anything.
I can not comment on your podcast's take on Bitshares. I've listened to some episodes and they're very high quality. (obv) I'm not some random hater.
I can comment on you showing up here and just harassing on time frames. This is a valid thing to do ! However, please understand that software dev is one of those jobs where people with no clue (not you) think they can do better.
It is much like trying to understand what sort of person you'll be 5 years from now. Nearly impossible. If you could foresee it all, you'd already be there. This is the same thing with software dev.
Where will it settle within the scope of humanity? I dunno.. but thats what I am here for because I have nothing else that interests me as much.
Cheers!
I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements. That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week". The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality. I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.
Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?
Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.
These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post. If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.
it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.
no response to this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4247.msg53486#msg53486These conversations are frustrating because Invictus only responds on issues they're willing to respond on, and then they stop talking except to do damage control when they feel it is more damaging not to post. If they were the only people on the forums that would be enough to shut me up because I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, but the echo-chamber always jumps in to defend invictus based on trust or belief, so then I wind up arguing fundamentals with people who do not care about the fundamentals.
it's very frustrating, but the reason it keeps happening is because Invictus simply does not want to address topics they're not willing to.
I am a newb to this forum. What do they not respond to ?
IMO, there are basically 2 areas.
1)technical aspects of product
2)investment aspects.
Dan has always responded to #1. For #2, decisions are made and it really is not productive to rehash them. If you think made decisions are that poor, then I suppose the solution is to go around and spread the word of these bad decisions.
However, instead of saying they lied!, tell me what exactly they reneged on and why you think it is a bad decision.
Changing your mind over an agreement does automatically equate to being a malevolent entity. I would much rather have someone making changes to optimize chances for success over someone who blindly follows what they thought to best previously in some attempt to grab meager/temporary market share.
no response to this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4247.msg53486#msg53486
and this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1890.msg53277#msg53277
to name a few in the last few days...
also this is a significant issue:
" I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements. That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week". The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
"
The solution I suggest is based on the following premises: 95% of all wallets are honest actors. Those are people that just download the standard wallet and start using it – making no modification to any aspect of the way such wallet is supposed to behave (among other things is not trying to gain the system).
Additionally the system by design makes the transactions with the oldest balance holders the most likely to be awarded the right to make a block. What this achieves is one of the most important features of this suggestion. – It strongly de–incentivizes cheating players! Who will make changes to the software and then wait to be having very old balance to have a chance at cheating?
Looking at the players on the field, I don't think Bitshares is even making a play for technological dominance. They're focused on profitable businesses, but the irony is they're building the platform and shouldn't be concerned about profitable businesses. People will build profitable businesses on top of what Invictus builds, which is why attracting an early entrepreneurial community was supposed to be really important.
the problem is you are arguing from belief, I can't help you with that because I'm arguing from what I see and the picture is bigger than Invictus. How can I argue with your faith? I can't, and even if I could you're not the person I wish I could influence.
We appreciate BM's understanding and response. +5% +5% +5%+5% +5% +5%
I do not know if he has pro-mining ones but the one I resently quated have nothing to do with it.
Actually Adam is:
Somebody that puts my thoughts in better English than I could ever do.
Sometimes I wish I could send him my thoughts so he can mix them with his (or not) and post them on this forum…
He is the ‘important minority’ that tries to keep you all going overboard with love and exuberant expectations.
Here is a great post of his that I sign after:
I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements. That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week". The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality. I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.
Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?
Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.
Hey tonyk, brief response to those posts:
#1: it seems like all of your points depend on a scheme which is critically vulnerable to sybil attacks...QuoteThe solution I suggest is based on the following premises: 95% of all wallets are honest actors. Those are people that just download the standard wallet and start using it – making no modification to any aspect of the way such wallet is supposed to behave (among other things is not trying to gain the system).
Additionally the system by design makes the transactions with the oldest balance holders the most likely to be awarded the right to make a block. What this achieves is one of the most important features of this suggestion. – It strongly de–incentivizes cheating players! Who will make changes to the software and then wait to be having very old balance to have a chance at cheating?
#2... XT snapshot will not change, get over it. I've read 5-10 posts where Stan outlines all the reasoning for this decision in great detail and addresses a superset of the complaints you presented.
To be honest I am surprised and satisfied that these are the most valuable neglected posts you could find.
Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, while are we ...Improving our non-existent code (building up on something that so far exists only in BM’s head)I do not know if he has pro-mining ones but the one I resently quated have nothing to do with it.Actually Adam is:
Somebody that puts my thoughts in better English than I could ever do.
Sometimes I wish I could send him my thoughts so he can mix them with his (or not) and post them on this forum…
He is the ‘important minority’ that tries to keep you all going overboard with love and exuberant expectations.
Here is a great post of his that I sign after:
I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements. That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week". The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality. I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.
Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?
Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.
sigh.
I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable. They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.
Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means. That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer. Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.
I did not invest in bitshares when they proposed momentum mining algorithm. Even then I did not see value in mining. I think it is important to understand the big picture. Mining was supposed to be a means or distributing shares, however it is one that lends itself to centralization and the momentum algorithm could not prevent that. Instead I3 implemented the ags donation system allows for smaller investors to acquire more equity then they otherwise would have given mining. I understand why you would think mining ostensibly provides a fair distribution of shares, but it does not. Satoshi first conceived of pow as one-cpu one-vote consensus mechanism but it has since strayed from that vision
That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten. As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism. A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.
I would liken this approach to the viral marketing approach of the dot-com era. The mindset was to expand (or at least attempt to) the customer base as quickly as possible even if it meant producing large losses. Relying on mining to achieve this expansion of the community is a more costly approach than ags funding. When it comes down to it, the fundamentals just do not support mining
When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.
This is better for the investors and promotes the community around DAC development. This helped you as an investor. I find it very hard to agree with your disappointment with it
It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens. I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS. They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.
How is pts totally inclusive? I can't mine any. I'd be better off purchasing them from an exchange. The notion that mining is inclusive is a fallacy
This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie.
This just doesnt make sense. You get more shares of xts and those shares are never devalued. It is better in all respects. There is no down side
My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else.
In this case it makes it worse for those that would disproportionately benefit from the inherent centralization of mining. So what if they fired the miners because a more efficient system can do there job better and less costly. Do you advocate reinstating ppl in positions that were made irrelevant by technological unemployment? No because that is not sound economics, and the free markets do not support it.
When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up.
How is any money left on the table? When Dan launched pts he couldn't even accumulate enough to finance his own project so how could mining possible help build dac business more than ags. There is no money left on the table, only money left in the miners hands, and those individuals are focused on one thing mining, not development of dac businesses.
That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.
Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.
QuoteBecause Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.
the mission of bitshares x is to create a profitable dac. profitability is hampered by mining. it is essential to discard it.
sigh.Hmm interesting, thanks for the recap. When I learned of Bitshares and I3 I think AGS was launched already (or it wasn't but was by the time I wrapped my head around what I3 was trying to do and how to invest in their plans).
I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable. They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.
Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means. That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer. Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.
That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten. As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism. A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.
When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.
It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens. I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS. They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.
This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie. My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else. When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up. That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.
QuoteBecause Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares (X), and it clearly did.
the mission of bitshares x is to create a profitable dac. profitability is hampered by mining. it is essential to discard it.
Thats like starting a car company, deciding that wheels are inefficient and we should be using hover-cars instead. The founder of the company has a great idea to make hover-cars, so instead of making cars (as promised) they push towards the goal of hover-cars with blown deadlines as (gasp) turns out it's difficult to do something completely outside the box and everything is (gasp) untested. Might have been easier to start with building cars with wheels, selling those and then developing the hover technology in the background so you've no pressure to release it until its ready.
The analogy is quite apt because although mining may be obsolete and inefficient, it's still the best and most tested option we have available given our current needs. Hovering is much better than driving, but we're still driving.
You really don't have to believe me, I just don't want you to be miseducated. So long as you know all the facts you're welcome to think I'm whatever type of terrible person you'd like.
sigh.
I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable. They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.
Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means. That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer. Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.
I wish Daniel had focused on delivering Bitshares as envisioned and then created subsequent versions or products that incorporate these elements. That is what I signed on for, not "whatever daniel larimer thinks is a good idea this week". The delays have been because the focus and method has constantly pivoted to be "the best possible" when in reality not having launched the product we don't even know what is best and if these "improvements" are making things better or worse, since we've never had an opportunity to see a product to compare against.
You have faith in Daniel, the people who remain on these forums clearly do which is why it's an echo chamber and people with dissenting views find themselves shouted down by the people who are passionate about the bitshares vision instead of pragmatic about the reality. I'm using these 2.0 products every day (projects on Mastercoin, Counterparty, I'm working with the NXT and Ethereum communities), this is not a hypothetical situation.
Bitshares was in first, and now they're in last - Even Ethereum has highly functional test code out for interested parties to build contracts on, why are we reinventing the transaction processing wheel?
Because Daniel decided mining is dead, and that's been the technological focus ever since. Mining will eventually be phased out, but it should NEVER have replaced the core mission of delivering Bitshares, and it clearly did.
The problem is creating a blockchain then deciding to switch the consensus algorithm is UGLY.
Let me take a bit of liberty here, but you are valuing market dominance where I am patient for technological dominance which eventually leads to a strong market position. I'm sure we could both sit here and argue the merits of both views ?
Dan is trying to make something that works and will not be overtaken. That has upsides, but the downside is release date.
I don't disagree with your "pragmatic reality" nor do I believe I am "shouting it down". I just see my investment as longterm or "binary".
I believe this tech will be around as long as the net. I started the internet on SLIP and Gopher.. so I've seen a few changes.
To me the questions are more like... 'Does it make more sense to release a run of the mill POW currency or the next generation gold standard POS currency ?"
Dan has opened himself to the market of ideas. No doubt he has an ego, but he is publicly seeking the best solutions which is something I very very much respect given the suspected "binary" outcome.
So while mining has been proven for bitcoin style transactions it has not been proven for markets.
It would have been great to see it in practice given that was the opportunity and plan.
sigh.
I believe that mining would have served the purpose of enabling transactions in a reliable, proven way for Bitshares and that over time they could have moved to a Proof of Stake model if that is what is desirable. They are doing this now with PTS so it's not like I'm inventing something that would never happen.
Daniel and I spoke extensively about a post-mining world in December, I am very much a proponant of this view - but I am also a pragmatic investor who supported a concept that did in fact involve mining and more importantly that would be distribution 90% of the total tokens through non-monetary means. That is to say, people don't have to buy Bitshares to get bitshares, they just have to run their computer. Remember this was also when the Invictus refrain was that Bitshares would be the coin EVERYBODY could mine and get vested in for just some of their time.
That was a whole three months ago so most people here have forgotten. As I like to say, when you leave money on the table in an open source world you're inviting someone well suited to come along and build a business picking up that money - that 90% was important because it's the ultimate onboarding mechanism. A taste for free, if they're believers the efficient thing to do is buy a bunch.
When Angelshares rolled out, I suggested it be 10% to match the 10% of PTS but rather than take a middle step, we went 100% to the other extreme.
It should also be noted we only launched Angelshares because Invictus didn't get many Protoshares, because they wanted EVERYTHING to be as fair as possible which meant not taking any of the tokens. I suggested several times prior to launch taking 10-25% of the tokens since after all the Invictus company was the entity giving value to PTS. They didn't want to do that because they were too extreme in the other direction, so Angelshares was an unfortunate 100% shift from TOTALLY INCLUSIVE to TOTALLY MONETARY.
This was sold as "a better deal" because it increased the share from 10% to 50% for PTS holders, but it's like 50% of a much much smaller pie. My cries of "Don't change the deal" are attempts to explain this - When you make the deal better for ANY PARTY, you are making it worse for someone else. When you take money that would otherwise be left on the table, you remove the opportunity for someone to build a business picking it up. That's the Bitshares ecosystem in a nutshell, Invictus hoovered up all the money with Angelshares and now they're doing stuff we hope will work with zero accountability.
Average donation for the previous 10 days was 1203, and the total for the 20th was 6971. Here are the donations, and the refund amounts necessary to scale everyone's AGS ratio to the 10 day average. The remaining decision is the appropriate penalty/reduction for ebit's refund.Code: [Select]Address,Donation,ScaledRefund
Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW ,46.65,38.59683546
PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX ,50,41.36852675
PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 ,20,16.5474107
PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c ,0.25,0.20684263
PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo ,30,24.82111605
PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ,1.11111111,0.91930059
PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 ,6120,5063.50767465
PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL ,30.661,25.36800798
PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX ,10,8.27370535
PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p ,20,16.5474107
PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB ,2,1.65474107
PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 ,4,3.30948214
PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig ,107.613,89.03582539
PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X ,5,4.13685268
PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd ,49.4999,40.95475875
Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ,40,33.0948214
Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW ,0.4,0.33094821
PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 ,1.77,1.46444585
PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ ,50,41.36852675
PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg ,1,0.82737054
PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 ,2.19,1.81194147
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.276,0.22835427
PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 ,3.33,2.75514388
PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e ,4,3.30948214
PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG ,10,8.27370535
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.5,0.41368527
PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 ,1,0.82737054
PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 ,10,8.27370535
PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY ,20,16.5474107
PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 ,2,1.65474107
Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa ,20,16.5474107
Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 ,6,4.96422321
PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX ,1,0.82737054
PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b ,8,6.61896428
PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ,1.3,1.0755817
PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP ,0.86,0.71153866
PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm ,0.39,0.32267451
Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn ,12.1212,10.02872373
PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ ,4.71237204,3.89887778
PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK ,4.17027992,3.45036673
PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S ,50,41.36852675
Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha ,100,82.73705351
PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS ,120,99.28446421
Average donation for the previous 10 days was 1203, and the total for the 20th was 6971. Here are the donations, and the refund amounts necessary to scale everyone's AGS ratio to the 10 day average. The remaining decision is the appropriate penalty/reduction for ebit's refund.Code: [Select]Address,Donation,ScaledRefund
Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW ,46.65,38.59683546
PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX ,50,41.36852675
PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 ,20,16.5474107
PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c ,0.25,0.20684263
PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo ,30,24.82111605
PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ,1.11111111,0.91930059
PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 ,6120,5063.50767465
PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL ,30.661,25.36800798
PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX ,10,8.27370535
PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p ,20,16.5474107
PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB ,2,1.65474107
PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 ,4,3.30948214
PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig ,107.613,89.03582539
PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X ,5,4.13685268
PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd ,49.4999,40.95475875
Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ,40,33.0948214
Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW ,0.4,0.33094821
PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 ,1.77,1.46444585
PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ ,50,41.36852675
PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg ,1,0.82737054
PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 ,2.19,1.81194147
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.276,0.22835427
PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 ,3.33,2.75514388
PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e ,4,3.30948214
PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG ,10,8.27370535
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.5,0.41368527
PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 ,1,0.82737054
PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 ,10,8.27370535
PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY ,20,16.5474107
PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 ,2,1.65474107
Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa ,20,16.5474107
Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 ,6,4.96422321
PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX ,1,0.82737054
PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b ,8,6.61896428
PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ,1.3,1.0755817
PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP ,0.86,0.71153866
PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm ,0.39,0.32267451
Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn ,12.1212,10.02872373
PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ ,4.71237204,3.89887778
PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK ,4.17027992,3.45036673
PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S ,50,41.36852675
Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha ,100,82.73705351
PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS ,120,99.28446421PUBLIC NOTICE
I have confirmed Trog's numbers to within 1 PTS and since there have been no objections for 24 hours, I will request issuing of these refunds tomorrow.
Since no one has demanded a penalty, no penalty will be requested. The hours it will take to implement this will be written off to the "treat others as you would like to be treated" account.
Nothing about this action should be construed to imply an obligation to repeat this.
It is a one-time act of grace obtained by general consent of the BitShares community.
"treat others as you would like to be treated"
Average donation for the previous 10 days was 1203, and the total for the 20th was 6971. Here are the donations, and the refund amounts necessary to scale everyone's AGS ratio to the 10 day average. The remaining decision is the appropriate penalty/reduction for ebit's refund.Code: [Select]Address,Donation,ScaledRefund
Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW ,46.65,38.59683546
PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX ,50,41.36852675
PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 ,20,16.5474107
PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c ,0.25,0.20684263
PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo ,30,24.82111605
PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ,1.11111111,0.91930059
PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 ,6120,5063.50767465
PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL ,30.661,25.36800798
PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX ,10,8.27370535
PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p ,20,16.5474107
PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB ,2,1.65474107
PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 ,4,3.30948214
PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig ,107.613,89.03582539
PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X ,5,4.13685268
PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd ,49.4999,40.95475875
Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ,40,33.0948214
Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW ,0.4,0.33094821
PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 ,1.77,1.46444585
PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ ,50,41.36852675
PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg ,1,0.82737054
PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 ,2.19,1.81194147
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.276,0.22835427
PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 ,3.33,2.75514388
PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e ,4,3.30948214
PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG ,10,8.27370535
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.5,0.41368527
PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 ,1,0.82737054
PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 ,10,8.27370535
PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY ,20,16.5474107
PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 ,2,1.65474107
Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa ,20,16.5474107
Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 ,6,4.96422321
PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX ,1,0.82737054
PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b ,8,6.61896428
PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ,1.3,1.0755817
PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP ,0.86,0.71153866
PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm ,0.39,0.32267451
Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn ,12.1212,10.02872373
PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ ,4.71237204,3.89887778
PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK ,4.17027992,3.45036673
PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S ,50,41.36852675
Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha ,100,82.73705351
PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS ,120,99.28446421PUBLIC NOTICE
I have confirmed Trog's numbers to within 1 PTS and since there have been no objections for 24 hours, I will request issuing of these refunds tomorrow.
Since no one has demanded a penalty, no penalty will be requested. The hours it will take to implement this will be written off to the "treat others as you would like to be treated" account.
Nothing about this action should be construed to imply an obligation to repeat this.
It is a one-time act of grace obtained by general consent of the BitShares community.
38.60 PTS Refund 1 Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW d2623e1f39a42a13c45ff93ba79300e79409d2946827b7ab78ed4f77e1738615
41.37 PTS Refund 2 PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX c74eb43a3f06f257c9478a804a2aea2a49cc35bfb68b4999abeb7c38b7cf11a4
16.55 PTS Refund 3 PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 d0f326fe9f3555592211846ec4c72a33ab02121fbd452bfe7372a33859580a1e
0.21 PTS Refund 4 PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c dce255d3242a5bd4114c7f3db65f1503b33cce1b4d518820582d71a40a2990a4
24.82 PTS Refund 5 PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo 78ba4d5c3a748b605c90ef2639092374f1fff7e06474b083dab6585d84c3d345
0.92 PTS Refund 6 PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ac1ddf0e46714711036c6731e91fbeea974453e6d3190763005c6b45a0eca75b
5,063.5 PTS Refund 7 PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 76e6f0d3da0c2b40d27c8cca1a4e173c775ec853874af92a8a81dfda98e18a0c
25.37 PTS Refund 8 PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL 2ff25e1f687562d26609a9c72b3f32b1c9b37803a69ffa200766c7cf4c5b3727
8.27 PTS Refund 9 PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX 18127d55f18269db9ee6245bf79eb196ea66b44ba0874f909525e38ec96fe06d
16.55 PTS Refund 10 PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p 6bec7f3f92005189abd487d63e1573c636e9d8410f507cc5c2270f232c02ffe2
1.65 PTS Refund 11 PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB de6381e550fc06e7c31b6b026a866d6379de87007dfd9ffc29efb352da2127ac
3.31 PTS Refund 12 PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 1694a90fa7dc05715cf0543d8e2d84f0f7f1eec4b2163111f3c9405b95795a3e
89.04 PTS Refund 13 PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig 0140df3371fa5b2251bb1b66cf3c0041b812659d8e326eb4869ce5f0bbeac880
4.14 PTS Refund 14 PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X c78d97089d72c37faf6bd9756f9fb9384213edbc8edd1a30457d92ceecb337c6
40.95 PTS Refund 15 PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd 8634f6fc10a38b399fe47dc83da26a19c29be2e67d2f85761f1de15b29aeb1af
33.09 PTS Refund 16 Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ad38fc664335f95b3fa9aaa6a21fbd8d6d869cb01e677cabaa0ff1d75f387262
0.33 PTS Refund 17 Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW cb684f6cba88704c3d56a527a0304277400fad2f1382f7681574ecaefba092ce
1.46 PTS Refund 18 PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 1be98cd1ca17c21dabe01f2d55d9d74cc780cfe1d7419c7630810c3abfb31510
41.37 PTS Refund 19 PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ a60f9ffbef4e5ebb110d336e8ffed49b25ba618a1f7bddc48fb8d2bdc7ef418b
0.83 PTS Refund 20 PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg 8cd701fa0ee4f9a7f94b82fddf0e73e5f134613d62a01772f2aefe8be13d9915
1.81 PTS Refund 21 PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 e0d4c9802a60f99e30389b365604b6d5f6f23bfed82a9dfcbaae0766774e0647
0.23 PTS Refund 22 PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ab37864492989096612b13b13170c3afe25b037391363918c6de8ec45f312a97
2.76 PTS Refund 23 PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 21c54f826317ba97761191da4f3a7ecffaaa6e21fc39292dbbad4af34d23958f
3.31 PTS Refund 24 PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e 44f4279957d05fb94463be59217bc3749943fdfa3cd7b44dfa45468563b69161
8.27 PTS Refund 25 PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG 9e822ace5b0f9bbd27f06c0523614a2f9cf0175991968b7ffda9c7c09c0f1283
0.41 PTS Refund 26 PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM 1098331714cd338de64e111cfe1b9b972b2fd36793b3883bf5130b517e40596d
0.83 PTS Refund 27 PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 db4c02c293b2753f91259fa37fec24e4f3b1221c68d1999088ff1b8ba9a9c5b4
8.27 PTS Refund 28 PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 93c75868fa6f6f2466e2e41e4f7b9c34889169feb7beebac81a6c74272bf19eb
16.55 PTS Refund 29 PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY 79d5cf0c01e25196a878c8f6378c57067375fc359faf88c6cee683dab968a3d3
1.65 PTS Refund 30 PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 60e22fe76e8f0ee09668c3fe2e9724b95698fa6e1fedeb695411993bd5157be5
16.55 PTS Refund 31 Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa 8171d96e3c88e418a76969f85d063e3e0798fd473768703cbf9c6def84c17d52
4.96 PTS Refund 32 Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 36827535b12bf7e83c8b6ed073217e1544a7132730ad965bdcd96e01c100d2ad
0.83 PTS Refund 33 PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX d9eaa0cbe512e8a23d6b4dc8670c8f55067c9e82f4c98d0c635ff576df31e4f3
6.62 PTS Refund 34 PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b fde3ff1fed1b9c428dcf0abdf25d006448bd56e79ba5cb01a12074dba2a85c35
1.08 PTS Refund 35 PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ff91793f7789e5642389485c321ae97963f952152299cc7306367147c75ec01b
0.71 PTS Refund 36 PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP 7b4d403946b1d7afaf7dcbf760038b6b4846d86fe40bb9f04b9c88de8355b4ef
0.32 PTS Refund 37 PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm 4d7d0b15bd020f6d45d3466847b77150bd8a600fadfb92eed75d5f97ad705b11
10.03 PTS Refund 38 Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn 94ea1ba2ad917abc7da850f782dcdd79554c7d98baa7b398720385692c3f959d
3.90 PTS Refund 39 PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ 7ffc6f8ce9c823831caa6b337ff4ad96ab0f64dd048d223c733f6a4c586412d2
3.45 PTS Refund 40 PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK 0f0049e38a387b89a34e5f820b46865cd9b49648655b94470a24dc7c32952745
41.37 PTS Refund 41 PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S 1f5615d8ac542d6cc21e3485294a5827f2eb23a992877759cc89c715a5f0752d
82.74 PTS Refund 42 Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha de36b48fe17903676ef6c9c2cc0125bd5c4d4541fdfc37e077c055e9502d306b
99.28 PTS Refund 43 PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS 9d642ba45a21c5453350ec9d939dc47d3f6e46c3c8416a0c2427b1be6f527994
Thanks very much!!Con!
+5% +5% +5%
ebit,
Did you sent 'thank you' PTS to some addresses or it was a mistake too?
If not a mistake - I do not know if you are sending them to those that tried to help to resolve the issue or those slammed by the extra-large donation (as I believe I qualify for both)
But in either case - Thank you!!
I'm confused again (it happens a lot).
I received the refund, thanks!
However, I'm confused as to whether I actually have the AGS the AGSExplorer now shows my address controls, despite the refund.
When I check the balance for my address, it shows the same amount of AGS as it did before the refund. Is this correct or otherwise?
???
getagsbalance *will update agsexplorer.com to reflect this
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The amount of AGS you have should not change
Could the Marketing guys make up some nice article about this!? This kind of PR might introduce others to take a look into our community!?
treat others as you would like to be treated"