The screenshot shows your node was able to perform an initial network communication with seeds but died off soon after (0 network IO).  So the question is why? Did it die off because it was blocked or did it encounter some logic errors?  Was it a network timeout because of too congested pipe/too small bandwidth?

To know that:

1) Did you disable Firewall?   Disable it.  At least enable local port 1777

2) Do a 'netstat -a' to show the network socket state with seed nodes

3) Show the last 20 to 30 lines of p2p.log.  This gives an idea what the node was doing. Eg was it killing off some socket connections? And why?

Also I get the feeling that if we forcefully remove the asset from our customers that don't settle and settle for them there would not be a huge demand for my service.  We are going for decentralized aren't we. 

Even if the asset issuer can exercise this control over the asset I don't think they should, and I don’t think we should advertise it.

Quote from: Shentist on January 31, 2016, 05:48:56 am

you can not reuse the symbols, after the issue settled the symbol.

hopefully this can be changed, i think this is really a needed markettyp and could be a unic feature for bitshares.

- would also be good to allow "numbers" as the names for symbols.

Love it. loved the idea of the SPORTS.NFLAFC/NFC tokens and now the Hillary / Trump tokens coming soon. im loving this stuff. its starting to make my mouth foam in anticipation...

as for resetting tokens i think there is a feature that enables the issuer to take them back at any time.  maybe that would help?

I'll ask a stupid question:  This page makes no sense to me.      http://docs.bitshares.eu/muse/migration/howto-importing-wallet.html#importing-your-balance

How do I redeem my Muse that I bought in the pre-sale from a Bitcoin core wallet?  i have spent hours and hours trying to figure this out and I am about to give up.

Some of you are ignoring that transfer does not mean only for money. It can include information, like messaging, communicating with iot, etc. High fees can remove these opportunities.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 31, 2016, 02:40:41 am

Quote from: tonyk on January 31, 2016, 01:49:03 am

Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 01:28:18 am

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

I was about to make the same commentary.. a user is a user of the whole system and making decisions based on this fragmented outlooks is just operating on a faulty assumption.

If a merchant bring in 100,000 users he gets benefits, but because of the shared network, other merchants could also benefit from those users now using bitshares. So the merchant that paid nothing into the network is going to not only benefit from that merchant that brought the 100k users in, he is going to cheat him out of his % cut which he should be getting for bring that business to them.

This idea of fragmenting pieces of the network and the refer system to accommodate one crabby business is not only counter productive, but will have ongoing issues going forward. If they have no interest in shared network effect, they might as well fork.

Not sure I follow this.  Either mode A, B or C may generate more users (all things being equal and eliminating many other factors.)  No one knows which mode will get more active users.  It can be that low fees and no referral program brings in 1,000,000 users.  Then Mode A may be perceived to have brought more value.  If Mode B or C brings more users (ie. 2,000,000) it may indicate the referral program works well.  Without isolating other factors we may never know, but tracking active users provides one somewhat useful data point.  The proposal for three modes makes it fair to the network because the network will get the same fees no matter who brings them in.   Accommodating various modes and more businesses enhances network effect, it doesn't decrease it.