So the buyback of SPRING will be at the same price in BTS terms, but you are expecting BTS to rise compared to Yuan (and overall)? At least if the fund is successful.

Excuse my potentially silly question, but how can one profit from investing into the fund? :) You thoroughly described the calculation of the management fee, but how will be determined the buyback price for SPRING tokens? I guess the price will depend on the value of the fund. Can anyone please explain?

Do you guys convert all steem to vested? The conversion starts to be quite ineffective :(

Quote from: ebit on April 03, 2016, 01:19:05 AM
I am mining
this right?

Code Select Expand

nable-stale-production)
1040032ms th_a       witness.cpp:215               block_production_loo ] Not producing block because production is disabled until we receive a recent block (see: --enable-stale-production)
1040292ms th_a       application.cpp:660           get_blockchain_synop ] synopsis: ["0004161ba5297bef65fa416e74b3490ca321e7bd"]
1041029ms th_a       witness.cpp:215               block_production_loo ] Not producing block because production is disabled until we receive a recent block (see: --enable-stale-production)


I don't think so...

And am I mining? It's been 6 hrs, and still nothing...

532459ms th_a       application.cpp:394           handle_transaction   ] Got 1 transactions from network
534065ms th_a       witness.cpp:352               on_applied_block     ] hash rate: 14784 hps  target: 28 queue: 98 estimated time to produce: 302.61933621933621907 minutes
537432ms th_a       witness.cpp:352               on_applied_block     ] hash rate: 14443 hps  target: 28 queue: 98 estimated time to produce: 309.76419488102658306 minutes
540266ms th_a       witness.cpp:352               on_applied_block     ] hash rate: 14916 hps  target: 28 queue: 98 estimated time to produce: 299.94128899615623141 minutes


 +5%

I've been trying to build graphene from source on ubuntu 15.10 and am stuck at this point of the documentation:

Quote
To actually run cmake we now need the following parameters:

Code Select Expand


cmake -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH="$QT_ROOT" -DCMAKE_MODULE_PATH="$QT_ROOT/lib/cmake/Qt5Core" -DQT_QMAKE_EXECUTABLE="$QT_ROOT/bin/qmake" -DBUILD_QT_GUI=TRUE \
      -DGRAPHENE_EGENESIS_JSON="$GENESIS_JSON" -DBOOST_ROOT="$BOOST_ROOT" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug .


It says "CMake Error: The source directory "/home/***/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-5.5.0" does not appear to contain CMakeLists.txt." Is it correct to try this line in the /home/***/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-5.5.0 directory?

Anybody knows what the problem is?

Edit: Ahh, I see, it's probably configuration of cmake for building graphene.. so it should be executed in graphene folder.. right?

From the moment I read about PMs on Bitshares I have been thinking about how we could make them more useful ( I don't care about outcomes of US elections too much, nor sports ). And I just found following idea, what do you think about it?

Quote
Hanson has been a vocal proponent of using prediction markets (or what he also calls "idea futures") to reform how we deal with controversies in science, academia, and politics. In "Could Gambling Save Science", he writes:

Quote
If the primary way that academics are now rewarded for being right, rather than popular, is an informal process for staking their reputation, which has various biases because of its informality, and if we want a better reputation game, why not literally make bets and formalize the process?
Imagine a betting pool or market on most disputed science questions, with the going odds available to the popular media, and treated socially as the current academic consensus. Imagine that academics are expected to "put up or shut up" and accompany claims with at least token bets, and that statistics are collected on how well people do. Imagine that funding agencies subsidize pools on questions of interest to them, and that research labs pay for much of their research with winnings from previous pools. And imagine that anyone could play, either to take a stand on an important issue, or to insure against technological risk.
This would be an "idea futures" market, which I offer as an alternative to existing academic social institutions. Somewhat like a corn futures market, where one can bet on the future price of corn, here one bets on the future settlement of a present scientific controversy.

There are more ideas for usage of PMs. Here is the source.

Are we aware of this? http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=4892

Quote
On behalf of the City and County of San Francisco (City), the San Francisco Department of Elections (Department) is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) in relation to obtaining a new voting system. The Department seeks information from organizations and firms that provide comprehensive voting system solutions that are fully accessible to all voters, are based on voters marking paper ballots, and conduct ranked-choice elections, as defined in San Francisco's Charter section 13.102. Further, the City has established a policy that gives preference to implementing voting systems designed using open source software. Additionally, the Department seeks to increase the transparency of all election functions by providing the public with information in open data formats. The Department invites responses from any organization or firm that currently offers a voting system approved by the California Secretary of State for use in California as well as any organization or firm that is building or intends to build such voting systems. 

To ensure fair and equal access to information, the Department will post any questions, requests for clarification or additional information, and the Department's responses, on this page.

Quote from: Permie on July 15, 2015, 10:16:24 AM

http://intheoreum.org/#welcome

Love this!  :D I guess it applies to any cryptocoin, not just Ethereum, including us (hopefully only until 2.0, which means hopefully not for long)..

! +5% !

I think most of the people, who preferred liquidity, already left. People, who want BitShares to succeed, will hold anyway. Do we need to reward them (us)? Would it help the market if known amount of BTS was locked?

I am of course aware of the not very high difficulty of the problem. I was just so curious about how it will get resolved. And I must say I am really happy with the result.

I generally like the approach of outsourcing smaller/modular jobs in the form of bounties. I hope Bytemaster is not too sad about his overestimation of the price and I also hope other bounties will be offered in the future.

With that said I am not here to earn money from the devs - once we have wallet 1.0 I intend on placing my own bounties funded from those $200.

So I would like to thank Bytemaster, Theoretical and all participants for doing this challenge and for fair resolution. It was fun!

Any updates so far?

Quote from: mhr on April 24, 2015, 03:57:54 PM
This trade involves two assets, but it does not involve a sale.  Also, this trade involves two parties, Alice and Bob.  This leads me to believe that BitAssets is basically a loan for which the denominating asset (USD) is different from the lent asset (BitShares).

I think when you want to short BitUSD, there must be somebody, who buys them. This way BitUSD is "shorted into existence". If you want to close the short, you then buy the amount of BitUSD and cancel the loan using them. So there is a sale of the borrowed BitUSD involved here. Also 3 parties are involved: you, somebody who bought your borrowed asset, and someone else, from who you need to buy the asset in order to repay your loan.

This is how I understand the mechanics. If it's not like this, I would appreciate correction :)

Quote from: robrigo on April 25, 2015, 02:11:51 PM
tl;dr using p2p networks and a universal container for information, we can solve the problems of resiliency and scalability into trillions of nodes (people, devices).

Did he actually say anything else than this? I don't like this kind of talks with nice presentations, but nothing to present  :(