Quote from: delulo on June 17, 2015, 03:48:45 pm

Where does it explain how it works (proving solvency)?
I would understand how it works if the order book was in BitUSD / cryptoassets?

Good catch ... exchanges that offer a IOU cannot easily proof solvency ... technically they could issue any amount of IOUs .. unless they do multisig/corporate ids with a 3rd party accounting firm..

exactly...
let's go for a fully decentralized / counterparty free exchange with bitassets

Where does it explain how it works (proving solvency)?
I would understand how it works if the order book was in BitUSD / cryptoassets?

Ronny,

congratulations first of all to making all this happen!

have you thought about naming the exchange something else? I had a hard time remembering the name! Even today I have to think for a while until I have arranged all the letters in my head. And it has 5 syllables All big companies have at most 2: Google, Yahoo, Apple, NASDAQ, LMAX.....

haha 

A lot of ground has been covered on this thread, and it seems that multiple issues are being conflated.  But let's look at things logically.  For starters, I take it as a given that the devs want BTS to succeed.  I also understand that the devs need to be paid for their work.  And we should be looking to ensure they can devote as much time as possible to continuing the development of Bitshares.  If there are enough funds currently available to sustain every dev, great.  If not, it is understandable that they would need to supplement their incomes.  Whether they do so as individuals or as a company is really none of our business. However, what does NOT seem appropriate is for Cryptonomex to separate the intellectual property from Bitshares considering BTS shareholders have funded the development. Not to mention, in that case we'd have a divergence of interests between the devs and BTS shareholders.  This does not imply there are any nefarious intentions on the part of the devs.  But the realignment of interests would be undeniable and problematic.  I think this should be addressed ASAP as uncertainty around this issue can't possibly be helpful.

This was well weighted.
AGS donators and indirectly PTS holders have funded the developement of what Bitshares  is today respectively what it will be when 2.0 is implemented. Graphene may have been developed while AGS funds had already run out but without the experience (mistakes, testing in real markets, lots of contemplation) that resulted from the development work when the dev team was paid through AGS donations we wouldn't be were we are today.
Like always with AGS/PTS and BTS nothing is legally binding as the donations were no strings attached but such a "soft justice discussion" makes sense in the spirit of the no strings attached fundraiser.
Another argument, PC pointed out above, is that new code that is funded by the Bitshares DAC would be "owned" by cryptonomex instead of who is funding it. Or did I get this wrong?

To determine who should own the graphene code (of copyright restrictions are not debated), the logical answer would be: Whoever put in the "capital" (that is money as well as intellectual capital). Maybe graphene was founded for one year through AGS and for half a year through private efforts. Plus founders have contributed intellectual capital.

I just want to point out that this

If GS wants to enter the market with a ton of money and produce a product that is compatible with our vision, then it would be stupid for BTS developers to not take them up on a job offer.  It would be stupid for both financial and philosophical reasons, namely, freedom supporting blockchain tech going mainstream is the real goal.   

seems like a contradiction to prior statements that Cryptonomex will not work on chains that would compete with Bitshares.
Interests could be aligned through sharedropping on AGS/PTS holders which again would be an interesting legal case

This is also true!

Your concerns aren't unfounded. I just feel they really didn't have a choice if BTS is to survive this bear market.
Sent from my Timex Sinclair

No simple answers here. Let's keep up the open and honest discussion.

you need to setup your locales correctly:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Locale

make sure to have "en_US.UTF-8" enabled and built then try again with the export command in the OP

great, thanks xeroc! I will try when I am back home on the weekend...

Since we are claiming BitShares can scale to 100,000 transactions per second I thought it would be fair to weigh in on what the Bitcoin core devs plan for scaling:

https://lightning.network/

I watched the video presentation of the slides and found the entire thing fascinating.  Here are my takeaways:

1. It functions a lot like a "collateralized" ripple network.  To make a payment you must find a route between the sender and receiver.
2. It requires "interactivity" and active participation of all links in the route, including the receiver.
3. It would reintroduce privacy to the blockchain.
3. While the simple example of  A->B->C->D appears to be simple enough where "B" and "C" are well known hubs.  If you replace A and D with 1000A's and 1000D's then the combinatoric complexity of the "un-broadcast transaction" between B and C can get rather large, especially when you consider all of the possible intermediate states.  B and C would probably end up setting up many parallel payment channels to prevent any one channel from becoming too complex. 
4. Even on the "lightning network" the time it would take to negotiate all of the handshakes and routing would be a second or more assuming nodes were distributed around the world. 

Their definition of scalability is:   7 billion people making 2 transactions per day each.   162,000 transactions per second.  50 Mbyte/sec "best case"

BitShares can handle that on a single computer at 20 Mbyte/sec which is well within reach of many data centers.  Internet2 can handle 12 Gigabyte per second bandwidth.

So here is my overall conclusion:

1) The Lightning Network would make an excellent currency if the complexity can be properly managed because it would be both fast and private.
2) To send a payment to an "offline" receiver would require hitting the blockchain. 
3) It will not work for markets on a blockchain
4) it would be "buggy" because long chains can have many failure points that end up "locking up funds" for longer than intended and would require some kind of reputation system due to the cost of opening a channel with a bad node. 
5) Economics of scale would drive most transactions through a small set of hubs because they can offer lower fees and have high reliability (no hangs waiting for a timeout).  These nodes would end up being like a 101 delegates and require much more than 50Mbyte/sec due to all of the handshaking required. 
6) While the number of transactions that end up hitting the blockchain will be fewer, the size of the transactions hitting the blockchain will be much larger.

At the end of the day, the Lightning Network will end up just as centralized as any other network due to pure economics. 

Conclusion:  a complex solution compared to BitShares approach that ultimately results in similar centralization and fees and is only fit for transfers.

Thanks for sharing it.

How much privacy would this introduce if measured with the definition of privacy (false privacy is no privacy etc.) you gave in the last (or second last) mumble hangout?

Looks like a useful brochure for targeting technical folks.