Sorry guys but super33 isn't me. See my last post:

Quote from: super3 on January 26, 2015, 11:25:12 PM

Quote3.BM began to write blog

BM taking poorly about projects that I support made me dump a bunch.

Now that BitShares is launched a lot of the hype is gone. Maybe need something else to look forward too?

Sold most of them last year,  after BM talked poorly about projects that I support. The technology is promising, but was treated pretty poorly by the community (see the unsupported attacks in 2014). I have no ill will against BM or the community as this is where I got my start. Wish you all the moon +5%

Also why would I vote for bytemaster when thats the reason I sold?

Shawn

Quote3.BM began to write blog

BM taking poorly about projects that I support made me dump a bunch.

Now that BitShares is launched a lot of the hype is gone. Maybe need something else to look forward too?

Are the BitShares guys going to any conferences anytime soon. Probably be best to reach out to Paige in person first.

Which is why we spent a great deal of time developing Metadisk. A decentralized application that we run most of the core code on. Solves two problems:

1) Allows us to have reward full nodes because they have an application built on top of them
2) The nodes can cache the DHT

Because the nodes also may have the file, you can submit multiple queries to multiple nodes. Obviously they would want to return a result as quickly as possible, as being the fastest would probably mean they also get to get paid for transferring the file to you.

Well profit model is also involved. If you look at Dropbox they just take Amazon cloud and mark it up 100x for their premium service. Its $1 GB per year. Take your free hard drive and add those numbers up(divide by 3 to account for redundancy). Have I convinced you?

Sure lookup times will increase in complexity. That's only a extra millisecond or two of overhead. We are taking about transfer at P2Ps speeds though so you gain 10x-100x transfer rates over centralized systems. Not to mention decentralized system can automatically scale to any size.

I'm interested interested in using Bitshares because we can use the platform to create pegged digital commodities. While Storjcoin is a deflationary cryptocurrency, increasing in worth as the network expands it might be useful to have something like a BitGB.

Therefore I can purchase a BitGB, and use it in the application knowing that it will always be worth 1 GB of space.

Great post Bytemaster. Let me try to break it down a bit.

Our solution is to encrypt all bits in the network. Therefore all bits can be "fungible" and treated the same. The problem when occurs when the user shares the hash+decryption key to the bits (all data is encrypted client side). At that point, the user has voided the contract to keep the data secure. Any contraband bits can be public greylisted, and nodes and applications can refuse to server them.

This doesn't not invite censorship because Bob can always share any file with Alice as long as he adds some salt to his data, so it does not appear as a publically listed file. Public files will be removed only if a particular network achieves consensus on the greylist. So some nodes will serve all content, some will choose to implement perhaps a copyright greylist. The users will have the the power to choose which nodes they want via their wallet and usage.

QuoteThat said what these systems ultimately boil down to is this:
1) Provide a standardized API for finding content by hash across many different service providers
2) Provide a standardized payment system to automate paying any provider you may come across.
3) Lowering the barrier to entry by making the use of this system transparent to the users.

1) Our distributed application Metadisk implements a standardized API. This application can span multiple blockchains and networks, and make it very easy to integrate though a nice web API.
2) Cryptocurrency obviously.
3) We are designing out applications in a way that an average user can use them.

Quote1) Use 1 API for legit & contraband bits
2) Legit bits can be found quickly and easily and relatively cheaply
3) Contraband bits can be found slower and relatively more expensively.

Done through Metadisk. The more contraband a bit is, the more it will be pushed toward the edge of the network.

He/she seems to have mastered the ad hominem argument. Its hilarious.

Anyways. DPOS seems like an interesting thing to look into. Not sure it would be the best fit for our early blockchain(extra complexity>needed features), but it might be useful in other ways.

I think it however be quite useful when we scale this up to compute. You could use DPOS as the basis for a quorum to have a good structure for trustless computing, without jumping into Turing complete blockchains or zero-knowledge proofs.

DonJoe how old are you? Zeus is this the Cryptsy guy? I love you didn't read the rest of the topic where Zeus said he just heard a rumor and he has no proof.

We store the file metadata including hash and location on the blockchain, is one of the primary reasons.

Quote from: xeroc on June 26, 2014, 04:50:04 PM
Dpos can store memo currently already .. check out the current test runs! Pretty sure dpos makes sense for storj hashes

How large are the memos? The data would probably look something like this:

storj:05ecf7f9d218c631cc380527ac57f72798647824aa8839eb82045ed9fc3360c7?key=f869659afd98d617fc3c0a2b9f8b12a048a8da16a2ce2cc5abe5f42bd0f42845

Quote from: toast on June 26, 2014, 03:19:21 AM
@super3  FYI, our primary blockchain security model is now DPOS, not TAPOS. Might be appropriate for storj, might not be, but check it out.

Any DAC that has massive data storage requirements might be able to take advantage of storj, especially if there was a canonical way to verify the storj chain that could be built into our clients.

Ok, I guess I'm a little behind. Any progress on TAPOS?

Well you could just put the hash identifier for the data in your chain. Does your DPOS have any metadata fields? Just need enough space for a hash.

Quote from: bytemaster on April 25, 2014, 01:24:23 PM

Quote from: xeroc on April 25, 2014, 09:21:09 AM

Quote from: toast on April 25, 2014, 07:50:21 AM
we never owned it and super3 was surprisingly unresponsive

Woops .. too bad .. but you own bitshares.org .. do you?

anyway .. updating (all) the links should be considered important when interested in newcomers!

We own bitshares.org and other domains.   We had trusted Super3 as a core member of the team, but he turned out to be an opportunist.

I gave you all bitshares.org and all the domains after I didn't have enough time to work on the website anymore after I went back to school. You have always had full access to the servers and code. I registered Invictus.io for the bounty site, which you used and never fully paid for.

Opportunist? If Bitshares was a volunteer organization that didn't make a profit you would have a point, but it isn't. I worked as hard as  I possible could for you, so I don't appreciate being thrown under the bus.

Quote from: Zeus on April 26, 2014, 06:28:02 PM
When I first learned about PTS (in November if I remember correctly) I asked on Cryptsy what they knew about it... Most people didn't know anything but there was a guy that said "anyone who deals with super3 is an idiot. The guy has scammed a lot of people in the past.Enough said". I didn't pay much attention back then because I liked the whole concept of PTS, but It seems that that guy knew better... I think that your relationship with super 3 must have done some damage to your publicity...

Any proof would be great.

I have to say I'm a little disappointing by the FUD. Want to hear my side of the story?

Quote from: toast on April 25, 2014, 07:50:21 AM
we never owned it and super3 was surprisingly unresponsive

I worked for Invictus as a freelancer around Winter 2013. I was off on winter break and had a bunch of extra time to work on Bitcoin stuff. I worked on all of the Invictus web stuff including protoshares.net and invictus.io. They had a very poor web presence, and it looked pretty bad to people who were interested in our platform. It was practically an emergency.

Bytemaster agreed to pay me my standard freelance rates, and I started working. I worked as hard as possible working 16+ hour days 7 days a week trying to get two websites up to par including advertising it myself. Invictus started using my in development websites because they were better than current stuff. I reduced my bill by 1/3 for and Dan paid for the hours I did so far. The agreement was would be still be eligible for the website bounty, and Invcitus was paying me for site because they were currently using it and showing it to users and investors.

Got to a workable version of the website, and Dan decided that he didn't want to pay out the bounty for the Invictus website I completed. Invictus continued to use the website for a time without paying being for either the bounty, or the hours I completed after the payment for initial hours for the protoshares website and start of the invictus website.

Dan wanted me to drop of of college to work with Invictus. I almost took it, but decided to finish because I only had a semester left. I made it clear that I couldn't work on Invictus web stuff, AND do class work everyday. I was unresponsive because I was doing class, and working on other paid projects. I graduate in 3 weeks from Morehouse College with a Bachelors degree in Computer Science. I'm pretty happy with the choices I've made.

Am I mad about anything? Absolutely not. I learned a ton about Bitcoin, an still am an Bitshares supporter. I also learned you should always make written agreements even with people you trust. I don't think anyone acted in bad faith, but miscommunication definitely left some sour feelings.

I transferred all domains except invictus.io(which I still have yet to be paid for the work that I did). The entire time Dan had access to all web servers, and code for the websites.

So if you want me to transfer invictus.io just honor the agreement that I made with Gregory months ago.

Quote from: liondani on June 25, 2014, 06:12:48 PM
very interesting...

what are your differences with maidsafe project?
Have you think about to make an IPO using Bithares? (like maidsafe used mastercoin) of course with bytemaster sugestion's to make it succesfull not like the ipo-maidsafe-joke...

I think we just decided to go to Counterparty, we plan on doing the crowdsale next month. Counterparty looks like the most polished platform for that so far. We plan to have more blockchains and tokens in the future, so perhaps we could at some point.

As far as Maidsafe, like you said there crowdsale was a bit of a disaster. Their technology however is coming along quite nicely from what I've seen. We build our tech on the blockchain, whereas they have their own flavor of P2P. If their tech pans out we already have plans to integrate them. Storj builds apps and protocols, we can play nicely with everyone.

Well if you send a transaction to store the metadata for a file in the blockchain. We could just eliminate the need for mining if we used Bytemaster's system, and it would work perfectly.

As far as devs if we could find some common technologies (like Transactions as Proof-of-Stake) that we both need, Storj would be happy to put some devs and resources towards it.