Quote from: lzr1900 on February 12, 2015, 11:05:21 pm

Quote from: mike623317 on December 25, 2014, 05:15:30 pm

I think i heard BM say that end of january was the expected date in one of the mumbles.
We'll get there, its more important that the team get it right IMO.

Have a drink, its Christmas

end of january？mid february now.
depressed.

The cure for being depressed is to get up and do something 

This proposed change deeply concerns me. I am not convinced this won't break the peg. Specifically, it seems there is no longer any guarantee that you can sell your BitUSD at the price feed within 30 days, since new shorts can always be created that undercut you. Not to mention it gets rid of the main source of yield for BitAssets.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I think this is a bad and dangerous idea. Don't mess with our core product that we know works. The risk of breaking the market peg (and all the bad PR that will come with that even if we revert back) is not worth code simplicity.

Do you have  open APIs that can be called from external?

I would vote for a 100% delegate for you. I would expect to see both GATEBTC for BitShares and GATEBITUSD for DevShares. The user shouldn't need to access a web site to do any transfers; it should all be possible through the DAC networks (perhaps utilizing the memo field of the transaction and/or linking accounts/addresses in the different systems using signed statements added to the public JSON of the accounts). The counterparties managing the reserves on the various blockchains (as well as the manager/issuer of the UIAs) should use multisig (as discussed above). And the easy-to-use tools the counterparties need to implement these gateways should be open-source.

Quote from: cube on February 11, 2015, 04:39:53 am

Since when did Supernet become a competitor?  How is James going to use the trinary product?

They are developing features similar to ones in BitShares.