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 - monsterer

Pages: 1 ... 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 [120] 121 122 123 124 125
1786
General Discussion / Re: Another (Technical) Issue With the Merger
« on: October 22, 2014, 08:09:50 am »
Even if that was the case, difficulty would adjust until it became profitable for anyone to mine, then you could mine yourself.

1787
General Discussion / Re: Instead of dilution/inflation, increase transaction fees
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:29:20 pm »
Quote from: trader on October 20, 2014, 05:19:09 pm
Yes and the current proposal is for extra pay from dilution to go to delegates. No one said anything about dacsunlimited.

It is? How on earth will that fund further development?

1788
General Discussion / Re: Instead of dilution/inflation, increase transaction fees
« on: October 20, 2014, 05:13:36 pm »
Quote from: trader on October 20, 2014, 04:53:24 pm
So we need more revenue to fund promotion of BTSX. Before we resort to inflation/dilution, how about we try increasing transaction fees?

Delegates receive transaction fees, not dacunlimited.

1789
Technical Support / Re: blockchain_market_price_history returns open/close outside of low/high range
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:41:10 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on October 19, 2014, 06:25:25 pm
The only reason I can think of is that s.o. is selling for 0.13332977787259007 no matter the lowest ask .. (154.96560 BTSX) have been traded
the matching algorithm in BTSX works different from what traders are used to see/do in othere exchanges ... you get what you ask for ..

Does this make sense to you?

No, because the lowest ask will be the first thing off the book as it is the cheapest selling price. To me it just looks plain broken. What's more I think the charting is broken as well.

Take a look at the following chart from the client:



Then take a look at this chart in which I have processed all trades to build an OHLC data set for a similar period:



They're aren't alike. I've always thought the client chart looked very odd, with all those long wicks.

Cheers, Paul.

1790
Technical Support / blockchain_market_price_history returns open/close outside of low/high range
« on: October 19, 2014, 05:51:49 pm »
Look at this result from blockchain_market_price_history:

Code: [Select]
{"jsonrpc":2,"id":1,"method":"blockchain_market_price_history","params":["CNY","BTSX","20141017T153600",180000,"each_hour"]}
Code: [Select]
{"timestamp":"20141019T170000",
"highest_bid"  :0.1392757660167131,
"lowest_ask"   :0.13793103448275865,
"opening_price":0.13332977787259007,
"closing_price":0.13332977787259007,
"volume":15496560,"recent_average_price":null}
Both opening_price and closing_price are LOWER than the lowest_ask over the given 1 hour period. How is that possible?

1791
DAC PLAY / Re: Payouts from the house in a trustless, decentralised system
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:13:32 pm »
Quote from: pc on October 19, 2014, 04:00:52 pm
The fund would not be simple address from which funds could be spent using a private key.

I think the fund would be more like a global counter that is updated in every block according to strict rules. If someone tried to violate the rules by paying out funds to themselves, other delegates would notice and reject that block.

Like a coinbase transaction in bitcoin? Presumably, then lost funds would simply be 'burned' to be in line with the 'created from nothing' aspect of a coinbase transaction?

1792
General Discussion / Re: Build your own DAC app!
« on: October 19, 2014, 11:49:21 am »
Quote from: xeroc on October 19, 2014, 10:43:20 am
there is .... and it's called bitshares_toolkit

the "app" that creates a business is a DAC or blockchain .. and should be run on servers and not mobile phones.

Mmm, in the same way that an app to make your own console game is called c++.

1793
General Discussion / Re: Build your own DAC app!
« on: October 19, 2014, 10:38:14 am »
If you can answer the following question, you will answer the OP question:

Why isn't there an already an app to create your own business?

1794
DAC PLAY / Payouts from the house in a trustless, decentralised system
« on: October 19, 2014, 10:03:43 am »
How do you handle payouts from the house fund in, say a dice DAC where players losses form the fund?

At some point a private key must get revealed in order to sign the transaction paying the winner, so how do you prevent a malicious actor from just making his own transaction paying himself the entire fund?

1795
General Discussion / Re: How is a DAC more resilient against governmental takedown?
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:24:14 am »
Quote from: gamey on October 18, 2014, 12:19:54 am

Well people would revert to the latest open source version, figure out the problem and it would be worked around and reverted.  Obviously not a straightforward process, but that is what should happen.

The reason for the question was because I was considering creating a DAC myself. I was trying to weigh the benefits of creating a DAC over creating a centralised service for me as the business owner, but I find myself at somewhat of a loss to justify the massive amount of extra development it would take to create one.

The benefits for the end user are obvious, however.

1796
General Discussion / Re: How is a DAC more resilient against governmental takedown?
« on: October 17, 2014, 01:37:17 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on October 17, 2014, 01:32:41 pm
if HK forced DSL out of business .. why should they publish a release anyway?

sure .. forks will be required .. not necessarily a hardfork of the network .. just a fork of the software

I'm not sure why they would publish a release, but it's possible the government wouldn't go all out like that - they might simply want to prevent a certain user base having access, for example the US, so the client would need to be modified so that it didn't run on a US based IP address.

1797
General Discussion / Re: How is a DAC more resilient against governmental takedown?
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:55:35 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on October 17, 2014, 12:00:11 pm
It's all about consensus .. if the network decided to not run on the latest (malicious) update than the network won't .. so will noone be able to connect to it with the latest "wrong" version ..
Further, there is not just one country on earth .. so I do not really care about US-jurisdiction but have to follow my local rules ..

I don't see a issue here ... It's like china banning bitcoin ..

But that does require a fork, no?

The problem isn't quite like china banning bitcoin.

So, for example Dacsunlimited is registered in hong kong - if the HK government took an unfortunate disliking, they could order that the official client be disabled in the next release?

1798
General Discussion / How is a DAC more resilient against governmental takedown?
« on: October 17, 2014, 11:55:08 am »
Just hypothesising here. What makes a DAC more resilient to being taken down by the government in which the creators reside?

Because, although the government can't control who uses the DAC and the network would stay up, there is nothing to stop them ordering the creators of the DAC to make it unusable in the latest download. Unless the creators are as anonymous as satoshi, this will be quite simple.

Yes, someone could fork it, but this government order would surely cause the value of the asset to drop so much as to make it worthless?

Has there been a precedent for this happening already?

Cheers, paul.

1799
DAC PLAY / Re: The problems with decentralised, trustless poker
« on: October 17, 2014, 08:08:22 am »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 17, 2014, 07:37:54 am
I'll reply soon, but I recently changed my mind about the profitability of such a DAC... we may be too late. I am a little worried about competition with this DAC as there are already 2 competing alternatives being developed. Sergio Lerner has a team working on it.. He is probably the most knowledgable guy in the cryptocoin world when it comes to mental poker, he recently stated it will be done Q1 of 2015. Also Nxt has a project being funded right now.. Nxtpoker.

I'm not sure it is worth the time and trouble with 2 competitors that have head starts, as decentralized poker is a very complicated DAC to implement.

Dont' forget Bitfrog http://bitfrog.io/

I'm not sure that potential competition is a good reason not to look into an idea, though! There is probably room in the market for three competitors at least, and bitshares doesn't have any such offering yet.

1800
General Discussion / Re: Expanding the use cases for DACs - Using DPoS delegates as trusted third parties
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:17:19 pm »
Take a glance at the thread I've started if you get a chance - I'd like to hear what you think about mitigating collusion in a trustless environment?

Pages: 1 ... 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 [120] 121 122 123 124 125

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 17 queries.