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 - cube

Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 94
991
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:05:26 am »
Quote from: fluxer555 on February 10, 2015, 04:57:54 am
Right, there only needs to be a surprise if there is actual malicious intent. If there exists a known vulnerability that only works when it is unanticipated, then either a) it needs to be always anticipated or b) something needs to be fixed to no longer need to constantly anticipate. In either case, in terms of strengthening the network, nothing is gained by exploiting this kind of vulnerability if it is known.

If the exact details of an attack is known, wouldn't the voters and community members be actively monitor and defend against it?  The apathy voters would suddenly spring into life and monitor the forum thread frequently.  These are the things that they do not do in any usual day.  And if the attack can fail so easily due a pre-warn, what kind of credibility (or rather 'discredibility') would Come-from-Beyond get out of it?  Would he spend the time, effort and monies to get this result?

992
General Discussion / Re: Cass deserves a second delegate.
« on: February 10, 2015, 04:44:35 am »
Quote from: Ander on February 10, 2015, 12:21:09 am
Quote from: cass on February 10, 2015, 12:13:13 am
Hey,

thank you all so much for your trust! I've thought about the last weeks, if it would be a good idea to create a 2nd delegate!
I've talked with several members of our community about ... consense on western side = yes … consense on eastern side = no.

So at the end, i've decided, NOT to go with a 2nd delegate!
In addition to this i'll try to get my own BitShares related business out soon, but also don't want to go more into detail now!!

I'm personally thinking, we should come more together again!
East & West, i'm feeling good for BitShares 2015 :)

best
cass

2 delegates for anyone is going to be a hard sell for anyone who doesn't know the delegate well, and what they have accomplished.  So it doesnt surprise me at all that the chinese community would say no to a 2nd delegate for any westerner.


The communication part has always been a huge barrier.  A delegate faces difficulties getting support from both.

993
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 10, 2015, 04:18:53 am »
Quote from: liondani on February 10, 2015, 12:05:28 am
Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 09, 2015, 11:25:26 pm
Quote from: fluxer555 on February 09, 2015, 11:21:27 pm
Come-from-Beyond, here's a nice honest way to approach this: discuss with the community what kind of attack you plan on doing before executing it, and then proceed with the attack only if the devs/community tell you that your particular attack will not work.

Good idea, will do it this way.

0.6.0 is the latest version and https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/archive/bts/0.6.0.zip is the source code, right?

Is it not easier to defend from an attack when it is known how and when it will be executed?
I would say the first step is to attack DevShares without informing the community when and how it will happen...

One of the elements for a successful attack is 'surprise'.  If we take this element out, I doubt it can have a successful outcome.

994
General Discussion / Re: We are failing selling our products
« on: February 09, 2015, 08:00:31 pm »
Quote from: clayop on February 09, 2015, 07:53:12 pm
I think Chinese goes to bts.hk instead of bitshares official homepage.

I believe that is the case. Good find.

995
General Discussion / Re: An attack on DevShares
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:58:44 pm »
You are helping us to find the weakness in the system so that we can secure it better.  All this is done in the safe environment of dvs chain.  You are spending time, effort and possibly monies in this test.  Thank you.  Looking forward to your first attempt.

996
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: xeroc's price feed broken
« on: February 09, 2015, 07:25:47 pm »
Quote from: jsidhu on February 09, 2015, 06:55:05 pm
Quote from: onceuponatime on February 09, 2015, 06:39:20 pm
Quote from: jsidhu on February 09, 2015, 05:00:49 pm
publishing fees costs money? How much do we need in our account.. im still a standby delegate maybe thats why i cant publish anymore. cause my balance ran out lol

Anyways will the payout function not work now because it cant see the funds? How about if wallet is unlocked for a long time?

Nope. You've been elected. Congratulations!

Thanks!.. just upgrading to 0.6.. everytime I redownload the blockchain my client seems to crash.. i only have 2 gigs ram maybe thats not enough.. so it takes me a while to resync.

Congraz! and thanks for the hard work. :)

997
General Discussion / Re: A Better Solution for Greece - Crypto Drachma
« on: February 09, 2015, 05:42:32 pm »
Quote from: GaltReport on February 06, 2015, 12:26:55 am
I think they will look for help from Russia,China & Brics "Bank".

The other way is to break out of EU and have its own currency.  The BRICs and the US could be potential lenders. The first few years would be tough. But I think Greece has a good chance to stand up tall again.

998
General Discussion / Re: Metexchange.info just started to transfer bitBTC<-->BTC
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:38:44 pm »
It is the beginning of a new chapter for bitassets!   +5%

999
General Discussion / Re: BitShares February Newsletter
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:30:47 pm »
Quote from: graffenwalder on February 09, 2015, 03:27:38 pm
Why are only Western initiatives included in this newsletter?
It would be nice if cn.market101 could get a section in the next newsletter to give us an update on the eastern side.

 +5% to have the eastern's development too.

1000
General Discussion / Re: giving up TITAN will make it easier to develop the client?
« on: February 09, 2015, 02:57:35 pm »
Quote from: arhag on February 09, 2015, 01:16:48 pm
Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 09, 2015, 12:07:33 pm
It'll be an additional field in the public_data json of EACH account on the blockchain that will DEFAULT to "non-TITAN". Though you can set it to "TITAN" if you prefer to ..

Actually, I would like some clarification about this from the devs. New accounts registered with new clients will likely specify the account to either be a public_account or titan_account. Light wallets will automatically specify it to be a public_account, since without mail support they wouldn't be able to receive funds otherwise. And of course any account can change these parameters for their account in the future.

But will accounts registered with the full client also default to public_account, or will they still default to titan_account?

Furthermore, what about all the accounts already registered that do not have either public_account or titan_account set? The new client will have to interpret these accounts as one or the other. So does it interpret such an account with no specification given as public_account or a titan_account?

My preference would be that a blank is interpreted as a titan_account, and that the full client default to a titan_account for any newly registered accounts unless otherwise specified. I would also prefer to allow all clients (both light wallets and full clients) to override the preferences of the receiver for a particular transaction and force the transaction to be treated as if the receiver is a public_account. This could allow users to publicly pay another account even if the recipient is set to be a titan_account, which can provide transparency and accountability. For example, I could have a titan_account with some amount of funds held in public balances (balances spendable by the address of my account's public active key) and I can create a transaction that transfers funds from those public balances via a non-TITAN transaction to another titan_account. Thus, everyone could look at the blockchain and verify that account A spent X BitUSD of their money to account B.

I think these are valid concerns and should be addressed.  You have a good suggestion and I hope to see some feedback too.

1001
General Discussion / Re: Cass deserves a second delegate.
« on: February 09, 2015, 02:20:54 am »
His current pay can barely ends meet.  He is a talented and hard working designer. He deserves a second delegate position.

1002
General Discussion / Re: BitShares article on coindesk
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:44:22 pm »
Quote from: nz on February 06, 2015, 03:40:49 pm
.. they changed the title of the original post  to .. BitShares Rebranding Signals New Communication Strategy

Nice.

1003
General Discussion / Re: Consistency in naming: Is it bitAssets or BitAssets?
« on: February 06, 2015, 03:42:45 pm »
Capital B.

1004
General Discussion / Re: First ecommerce bitshares cart plugin dev cycle complete
« on: February 06, 2015, 07:07:40 am »
Quote from: jsidhu on February 06, 2015, 05:55:47 am
Hey guys,

Check out http://www.bitsharesdemo.com/presta

I've added bitshares login to prestashop... cool to be able to link existing account to a bitshares id... or change the login aswell.. ie: I already made an account I can link it to my bitshares ID after the fact, or change my bitshares login ID later on too.

Please try it out and let me know if there are any issues.

bitshares login is a 'social login'?

What about those who are not comfortable with autolinking bitshare wallet to a browser?

1005
General Discussion / Re: Economics of subsidized mining pool
« on: February 06, 2015, 05:13:22 am »
Quote from: theoretical on February 05, 2015, 09:06:26 pm
Quote from: cube on February 05, 2015, 04:43:43 pm
But the other well-established pools are not going to wait there and do nothing. They will do all it can to compete and pull the miners back.  And they are very competitive.

No, the key is we have a marketing budget and are willing to operate the pool at a loss to advertise BTS.  I'd surprised if there are lots of other pools (especially big ones) who can convince a partner to give them money to allow them to operate at a loss, since it doesn't make sense for them to do so.

And a bigger pool would have to spend more to match a small pool operating at a loss.  E.g. if our pool has $1000 / day volume and we're spending $50 / day to subsidize +5%, then a much larger pool earning $10,000 a day would have to pay $500 / day just to match us.  And then when half of our miners leave and we're only doing $500 / day volume, with the fixed-budget approach we're now suddenly offering 10%.

I do not mean the established pools will be subsidising when I refer to them being competitive.  No, they are not likely to subsidise with monies.  They are more likely to use their deep experiences and know-how to fight back - eg adding new hard-to-find mining-profitable coins, having better coin-switch algo, having multiple mining sites in different parts of the world, having better conversion-to-btc algo, more visually appealing charts.  Miners are drawn to new features and efficiencies.

Having a subsidised pool is a good start. But we must not be complacent.

Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 94

Page created in 0.286 seconds with 24 queries.