I think something that's been insufficiently considered with bit assets is the obligation to participate. Usually the price of a traded commodity is determined by the intersection of the price at which people want to sell versus the price at which others want to buy.

A pegged asset is saying: regardless of what you want to pay or receive, this is the price. So for a seller where the price is lower than what they want, they'll refuse to participate. For a buyer where the price is higher than what they want, they'll refuse to participate.

If we ignore all the feel-good analogies and just-around-the-corner promises, the fundamental reason why bit assets don't have liquidity is because no one is participating because a bit asset isn't the same as the real asset.

I like RaiBlocks because there's no limit to the number of representatives, voting on them becomes unnecessary.

My impression is I saw person A say [this is the problem I see] responded with [no everything is fine] and person B says [this is hard and inconsistent] responded with [were not perfect but getting better].

That doesn't seem like feedback is being listened to, that seems like hand waving and people just walk away.

Yes it's always good to back up your wallet.  More information about backups and restoring are on the wiki https://github.com/clemahieu/raiblocks/wiki/Wallet-Backups

Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 06:20:48 am

Quote from: fuzzy on February 10, 2016, 05:49:22 am

Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 03:22:29 am

Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 10, 2016, 03:07:14 am

KISS - an acronym that bitshares needs to learn to apply

Instead we are more MICAHI...

That's funny, that's our tagline

'We've applied the philosophy of "Do one thing and do it well", giving you performance and scalability unmatched by any other platform.'

though i agree to a certain level...i also think people are impatient.  most people who know a little about coding will tell you it is riddled with unexpected turns of events.  and our dreams are big...that is true, but i think, @lil_jay890 it has some great benefits to be so broad thinking.  though i can also see the point that do one thing and do it well is necessary, i also am very proud to say bitshares already has one thing it does in unparalleled fashion: tx speed & scalability. 

This is saying nothing of sexiness IOTA could bring...hehe.

Understood, as a c++ compiler engineer myself, performance is near and dear to my heart.

One thing I noticed with the BTS 2.0 document was [embracing the inherently single threaded nature of a blockchain].  With RaiBlocks we broke the ledger in to a graph where each account manages their own chain; essentially each account can have its own thread because its impossible for their transactions to conflict.  We found an incredible degree of scalability by making this modification to the traditional blockchain concept.

Do you see BTS 3.0 as making a similar performance enhancement?

If only everything were as simple as currency transfers. The model of blockchain-per-account is extremely elegant but makes designing applications much more complex.

It seems like it applies to any situation where signing key can perform operations.

Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 03:22:29 am

Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 10, 2016, 03:07:14 am

KISS - an acronym that bitshares needs to learn to apply

Instead we are more MICAHI...

That's funny, that's our tagline

'We've applied the philosophy of "Do one thing and do it well", giving you performance and scalability unmatched by any other platform.'

though i agree to a certain level...i also think people are impatient.  most people who know a little about coding will tell you it is riddled with unexpected turns of events.  and our dreams are big...that is true, but i think, @lil_jay890 it has some great benefits to be so broad thinking.  though i can also see the point that do one thing and do it well is necessary, i also am very proud to say bitshares already has one thing it does in unparalleled fashion: tx speed & scalability. 

This is saying nothing of sexiness IOTA could bring...hehe.

Understood, as a c++ compiler engineer myself, performance is near and dear to my heart.

One thing I noticed with the BTS 2.0 document was [embracing the inherently single threaded nature of a blockchain].  With RaiBlocks we broke the ledger in to a graph where each account manages their own chain; essentially each account can have its own thread because its impossible for their transactions to conflict.  We found an incredible degree of scalability by making this modification to the traditional blockchain concept.

Do you see BTS 3.0 as making a similar performance enhancement?

The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

IMO fee PoS never had any advantages toward the larger ideal of cryptocurrency adoption.

We use a small piece of proof of work, ~5 seconds, created by the transaction publisher to rate limit network traffic.  Combined with the fact that we use a UDP network instead of TCP network traffic is highly minimized.