301
DevShares / Re: DevShares forked...
« on: March 18, 2015, 05:23:46 pm »
We'll take a look. For now, just assume the init delegates are on the wrong fork.
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.
302
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Upgrade Announcements
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:48:47 pm »
BitShares 0.7.0 has been released: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases/tag/bts%2F0.7.0
This is a required upgrade for all users by block 2071000 (approximately 2015-03-19 17:00 UTC).
Feedback can be posted in this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=15020.msg194141#msg194141
This is a required upgrade for all users by block 2071000 (approximately 2015-03-19 17:00 UTC).
Feedback can be posted in this thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=15020.msg194141#msg194141
303
General Discussion / BitShares 0.7.0 Feedback
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:46:41 pm »
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases/tag/bts%2F0.7.0
Previous feedback thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14545.msg189123#msg189123
Version number was bumped to 0.7 due to hardfork.
Previous feedback thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14545.msg189123#msg189123
Version number was bumped to 0.7 due to hardfork.
304
General Discussion / Re: Change the base parameter of bts by all bts stockholder to avoid hard fork
« on: March 17, 2015, 08:27:32 pm »No confirmation. It is only in that milestone so that we can consider it after 0.7 and decide if and how to move forward with it. It's ultimate fate could be anything from being closed as wontfix, to actually implementing one of the previous proposals.
Okay, so then we should consider any issues in milestones that come after the earliest milestone at the time as effectively "not (necessarily) on the roadmap"? Can we assume that issues that are in the earliest milestone are issues that the core devs have concluded should be tackled as part of the roadmap (assuming no unforeseen changes)?
I would say you shouldn't really assume anything. Even in the closest milestone, an issue might be there just to signify "ok just look at this now and then decide where to move it".
305
General Discussion / Re: Change the base parameter of bts by all bts stockholder to avoid hard fork
« on: March 17, 2015, 06:26:08 pm »Notified.
I think the dividend feature is on milestone 0.8 https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1430
Well that's a pleasant surprise. Can we get confirmation from Vikram that the dividend feature tentatively scheduled for 0.8.0 is intended to be of a design in which the transaction fee cost to the issuer to issue the dividend is fixed and does not scale with the number of balances holding the UIA?
No confirmation. It is only in that milestone so that we can consider it after 0.7 and decide if and how to move forward with it. It's ultimate fate could be anything from being closed as wontfix, to actually implementing one of the previous proposals.
306
Technical Support / Re: Unable to sync blockchain ....
« on: March 17, 2015, 05:52:03 pm »
We've been getting various reports of this problem, and usually if you go into your data directory and delete everything EXCEPT the "wallets" folder, most people are able to sync after that.
307
Technical Support / Re: Bitshares client problems
« on: March 17, 2015, 05:39:08 pm »
Probably contact Poloniex first to see if it is a problem on their end.
308
General Discussion / Re: Change the base parameter of bts by all bts stockholder to avoid hard fork
« on: March 16, 2015, 06:06:16 pm »
This sort of thing is preferable in general and should be done eventually, but not on the roadmap for 1.0.
309
General Discussion / Re: Bter not allowing BitShares withdrawals due to unstable BTS wallet they say
« on: March 16, 2015, 05:49:59 pm »I've talked to them and the problem seems to have been due to a change in the default RPC behavior. They said they can work around it now so hopefully things should be back up and running soon if they are not already.
310
Technical Support / Re: bter tells the wallet has issue thats why i cant withdraw ?
« on: March 16, 2015, 05:10:40 pm »
I've talked to them and the problem seems to have been due to a change in the default RPC behavior. They said they can work around it now so hopefully things should be back up and running soon if they are not already.
311
General Discussion / Re: User Issued Asset Upgrades
« on: March 12, 2015, 07:30:08 pm »
When ready these updates will first go into DevShares, and then we will want as much help as possible testing!
312
Technical Support / Re: pass phase ?
« on: March 12, 2015, 07:10:59 pm »i just installed the old version and it logged me in, it says i have 0 BTS but that might because the blackchain hasnt downloaded ? i can see some transactions i made, my username is thirdstryker1
If that worked okay, you should be able to directly upgrade to latest version and it should keep your same wallet.
313
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Developer delegate: dev.bitsharesblocks
« on: March 12, 2015, 07:07:50 pm »@svk: please take not of recent API changes for 0.7.0 .. in particular the API for UIA has changed drastically:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14885.msg192750#msg192750
Thanks, I knew I would forget someone.
314
General Discussion / Re: [BOUNTY] $5000 BitUSD - LibSecp256k1 integration with FC
« on: March 12, 2015, 07:06:04 pm »PR submitted: https://github.com/BitShares/fc/pull/4
Speedup of --rebuild-index is insignificant on my system, around 5%. Possibly more on an SSD. The indexing is heavy on IO, so not much speedup to be expected here.
Speedup of wallet_rescan_blockchain is 4% for the mixed implementation and 25% for pure libsecp256k1.
Note that block/transaction signature validation is skipped until after the most recent checkpoint, otherwise IO may not necessarily dominate.
315
General Discussion / Re: Cannot recover wallet backup
« on: March 12, 2015, 01:47:17 am »Hey. I have the same problem. I'm trying to restore a wallet backed up in version 0.4.24, but I get the same error. I am dead sure of the password, which does have special characters (nothing outside of what you can type on your standard english keyboard though. no spaces). I checked and the master key record type structure is correct. Using 0.4.24 doesn't work either, it still gives me the same error.... same with 0.5.3
If the password won't even work on the old versions, it sounds like either your password really is wrong or there is a separate issue from what everyone else in this thread is experiencing.
In any case, I will think about if we can maybe add an option to force the backup to restore even if it thinks the password is wrong.
