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.


Topics - CoinHoarder

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I've been thinking of how best to implement this, and I think we may not need any new API calls to make this a reality. It is fairly straightforward GUI work once the design is finalized.

Most custom operations to make this work are used just to record information permanently on the blockchain in a pre-determined schema. Everything else can be done client-side by leveraging the current implementation of multi-signature accounts.

command (description):
provide_escrow (offer escrow services)
publish_offer (sell/buy a crypto token)
cancel_offer (cancel an offer)
initiate_trade (match an existing offer)
request_arbitration (ping the escrow agent to let them know arbitration is needed)
rate_account (rate the counterparty/escrow agent in a trade)

Schema:
provide_escrow:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "provide_escrow",
  "publisher": String (account ID),
  "escrow": Boolean (true... currently providing escrow OR false... not currently providing escrow)
 }

publish_offer:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "publish_offer",
  "offer_id": String (a unique ID... similar to how there are IDs for uias, tokens, etc.),
  "publisher": String (account ID),
  "offer_type": String ("ask"... selling crypto OR "bid"... buying crypto),
  "crypto_id": String (UIA/Smartcoin/Token ID that they want to buy/sell),
  "accepting": Array of Strings (what the user will accept in return ["bitcoin", "cash in the mail", "chase bank deposit"] etc.),
  "price": Integer (Price offered),
  "amount": Integer (Amount offered),
  "terms": String (details including terms for the trade... ID required? Time limit? Restrictions? etc.),
  "escrow_options": Array (array of account IDs that the user is willing to use as Escrow Agents for the trade)
 }

cancel_offer:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "cancel_offer",
  "offer_id": String (a unique ID... similar to how there are IDs for uias, tokens, etc.),
  "publisher": String (account ID),
 }

initiate_trade:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "initiate_trade",
  "offer_id": String (a unique ID... similar to how there are IDs for uias, tokens, etc.),
  "escrow_agent": String (an account ID that has declared themselves as available for escrow using provide_escrow, and that the offer has included in the array of preferred escrow agents: escrow_options),
  "publisher": String (account ID)
}

request_arbitration:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "request_arbitration",
  "offer_id": String (the unique ID of the offer... similar to how there are IDs for uias, tokens, etc.),
  "publisher": String (account ID)
}

rate_account:
{
  "meta_type": "p2p_trade",
  "sub_type": "rate_account",
  "offer_id": String (the unique offer ID of the escrow agent or counterparty you are rating ... similar to how there are IDs for uias, tokens, etc.),
  "rating": Integer (a rating of your experience with the counterparty or escrow agent... 1 through 4),
  "comment": String (a description of your rating)
  "publisher": String (account ID)
}

How it works:

Escrow Agents
Escrow Agents will be used as arbitrators. Anyone can be an Escrow Agent by declaring themselves available for such services using the provide_escrow command. Initially it will likely be trusted community members, but the reputation system allows new users to build reputations as Escrow Agents too.

Publish Offer
Like publishing a listing on LocalBitcoins.com, each offer to buy/sell a token will be published on the blockchain using publish_offer. This will contain all applicable information including which token, escrow agents, price, etc... then one of two things can happen:

The publisher of the offer can cancel it using cancel_offer, or someone can choose to be the counterparty to a trade by using initiate_trade.

Initiate Trade
initiate_trade first creates a 2 of 3 multi-signature account with the original offerer, the counterparty initiating the trade, and the escrow agent the counterparty chose from the list of escrow agents the offerer is willing to use.

Requesting Arbitration or Completing The Trade
If both parties in the trade agree that it was completed successfully, then there is no need for the Escrow Agent to do anything. In this case, a transaction out if the multi-signature account can be proposed. If arbitration is meccessary, then request_arbitration can be used to notify the escrow agent of the neccesity of arbitration.

Establishing Reputations
After trades, users can permanently record their experience with the escrow/counterparty on the blockchain with a simple star rating and description to elaborate. rate_account should only count if the account has completed a trade with the escrow agent or counterparty. The last rate_account should be used, which will allow accounts to update their rating after the fact if problems arise.

Sybil Attack Detterents:
Sybil attacks on the ratings can be solved several ways completelu client-side. By simply giving more weight (or sorting in descending order) to  the amount of BTS the reviewer owns. A web of trust system can also be created where people add other BTS accounts they trust. Obviously, filtering reviews to only show if the accounts have successfully completed a trade.

---------


The schema is not completely thought out. I have not spent much time on it, but you guys get the idea. It can be improved upon if there is interest.

The meta_type property of the schema can be used to filter applicable data from the blockchain, and the sub_type can be used to process (or further filter) them.

2
General Discussion / 5+ character assets should be cheaper
« on: December 20, 2017, 01:16:17 am »
Asset create‡   -   -   -
   -  3-character symbol   21,197 USD   4,239 USD*   0.026 USD
   -  4-character symbol   5,299 USD   1,060 USD*   0.026 USD
   -  5-character symbol or longer   132 USD   26 USD*   0.026 USD

I have a project I am working on where I will need to create about 25 assets.. a tradable card game: http://www.cryptohun.ch/

$3300 is too much for this when I can spend $250 or less on other blockchains. I know I get $2650 of this back AFTER 90 days if I'm a Lifetime member, but still... it's such a waste of money from a business perspective when I could spend $250 on another chain, and then spend the rest on advertising (or something more beneficial than registration fees at least...).

5+ character assets should be cheaper. I will probably build on another chain like Waves or something else if the Bitshares comittee doesn't change them. I wanted to build on Bitshares though. Heck, even a simple ERC20 token would be much cheaper to make and the cards could be traded through ETH's DEXs.

You get my point though... not a good value proposition from an asset issuer. Especially considering the value I think my project would bring into Bitshares... you guys should be paying me those fees instead.  ;)

3
Technical Support / How to verify a signed message?
« on: December 09, 2017, 01:23:46 am »
The wallet now has a feature to create a signed message like:

-----BEGIN BITSHARES SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Secretcode
-----BEGIN META-----
account=coinhoarder1
memokey=BTS5VoKnbC9zdFg3XfkayjXC9u6c2YAVc95ZrYQPN1TKU7JT6Hkhh
block=22486470
timestamp=Sat, 09 Dec 2017 01:07:42 GMT
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
2070c5e86c9584a6ef6a6cd13a3e1d0ef5d2a2f2e88899f78e388f9b09004900e87f999ec6c43430908a6087f5f9408fdebb8c3e88e4acf27a060f81d0824b6b8a
-----END BITSHARES SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Can someone give me a nudge in the right direction as to how I would confirm the validity of the signed message?

Any help would be more than welcome, but I will be implementing the solution in Javascript (well... Node.js).

They are AES-256 encrypted???

I am trying to test this to see if Bitshares may be a good place for me to build a game that I am designing.

Thanks!

4
General Discussion / Bitshares will be missing out on a huge market if...
« on: November 21, 2017, 05:26:16 pm »
Atomic Swaps are not implemented ASAP for both the BTS token and all of its its SmartCoins.

The Lightning Network and Atomic Cross Chain swaps will enable high interoperability between blockchains. The DEX is no longer Bitshares' killer feature. There are better designed (with no derivatives or IOUs) DEXs coming.

IMO, bitUSD is Bitshares' last hoorah. It is the oldest, and most trusted, decentralized $1 USD-pegged derivative in existence.

Making Atomic Cross Chain swaps work for bitUSD could establish it as the go-to option (a base trading pair) for other better designed DEXs. They will need a trustable USD pegged token.

If Tether gets Atomic Cross Chain swaps first, then it might be game over for Bitshares... they already have the centralized exchange market on lockdown. The decentralized market is the only market left for bitUSD.

Forget the crypto derivatives like bitBTC etc, cross chain swaps will make them obsolete. FIAT, stock, index fund, and other commodity derivates are a different story though. Bitshares' killer feature is these types of SmartCoins, not the DEX (unless cross chain swaps are implemented in the Bitshares DEX that is...)

5
I am looking for a home for a dApp I will be developing shortly, and had an idea recently that it may be possible to create a dApp in Bitshares without any changes to the Bitshares protocol.

I am looking for feedback:

- Create an alternative GUI for Bitshares specifically for the decentralized application
- The decentralized application logic will be stored client-side. Everyone will have a copy, and know what the rules are.
- Issue a PARENT asset representing ownership in the application
- Issue CHILD assets of the above PARENT asset representing the game cards
- Leverage dynamic account permissions to autonomously change the PARENT account permissions proportionately to CHILD asset owners.
- Consensus will be reached by majority rules. Someone would need to obtain 51%+ of the active (online & participating in the governance) asset supply to do an attack.
- The rules of the dApp will be enforceable by majority rules autonomous asset seizing.
- Allow users to choose a proxy so they do not need to maintain an online client to secure the decentralized app.
- The accounts that remain online and active in the governance of the dApp (involved with proposing and voting for different actions or transactions via the dynamic permissions) earn proportionally:
+ the market fees associated with the trading of game assets
+ a percentage of all fees that any referrals generate (the dApp account would be a Lifetime member)
+ gameplay-related transactions (RNG crypto proofs, etc.)

The idea is pretty simple really... what do you guys think?

6
General Discussion / Bancor: Smartcoins With Infinity Liquidity
« on: May 14, 2017, 03:31:30 am »
What do you guys think of the economics behind Bancor? I would ask on Bitcointalk, but I think this is the best place to have this discussion. I am still digesting the economics of it, but essentially the Bancor project is purporting that they have conceptualized a way to create Smartcoins with infinity liquidity.

https://www.bancor.network/
https://www.bancor.network/whitepaper/en
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1789222.0

So far the best proposals I have seen for highly liquid Bitshares Smartcoins are:
- Using inflation to provide autonomous market depth:
https://www.docdroid.net/2OcoImM/autonomous-smartcoin-liquidity-funded-by-dilution.pdf.html
- Tonyk's idea to make BTS unspendable, thus all BTS trading would take place on the BTS chain (unless exchanges program a special IOU trading module specifically for Bitshares trading... which is unlikely IMO due to the risk/reward):
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21409.0.html
- Using a worker proposal to use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them into the market at feed price plus 10%:
Discussed many places
- Using inflation to pay people to provide liquidity, similar to how Nubits does (this was not the reason Nubits failed btw):
Again, discussed many places.

But... the main question I am proposing in this thread... has Bancor come up with a better idea than all of the above (and better than Bitshares' historical idea of a "if you build it, they will come" mentality)?

[off topic]
If the economics of Bancor are sound, then this could be a Bitshares killer considering the DEX space is getting quite competitive recently (some implementations of which are better IMO, as far as decentralization goes). Again, IMO, Smartcoins is one of the last few things Bitshares has going for it.

In the DEX space... you now have:

Bitshares (derivative and IOU based)
cons: derivative and IOU based
pros: convenient and more established market

Waves (IOU based)
cons: IOU based
pros: highly funded project, big userbase and hype, clean and easy to use GUI

Supernet is apparently nearing a release of a DEX (autonomous multisig)
cons: multisig
pros: convenient and hold/trade real assets, not derivatives

Blocknet (atomic swap based)
cons: Have to download the entire blockchain, but this inconvenience can later be reduced to simply running SPV nodes of coins you want to trade. This inconvenience could technically be further reduced by building a multi coin SPV wallet which is integrated in the Blocknet wallet.
pros: fully decentralized, no IOUs and no derivatives or IOUs

Honorable mention to: B&C Exchange ... although the Nubits dev abandoned the project, they did conceptualize a great idea for how to implement a DEX that would be superior to IOU and derivative DEXs.

There are too many autonomous multisig and IOU-based DEX projects to list really...

Considering Bitshares is derivative based and/or IOU based, I value it around the same level as other autonomous multi sig, derivative, and IOU exchanges. I think Blocknet has the best design for a DEX thus far (as long as it is made to be convenient by implementing multicoin SPV wallets directly in the Blocknet client).

So, that leaves Smartcoins as Bitshares main "killer feature", which is why I am interested when new smartcoin-like proposals come out.
[/off topic]

7
General Discussion / A plan to revive the value of the BTS token
« on: March 16, 2017, 06:40:07 am »
The original dream of BTS consisted of making a profitable DAC, thus increasing the value of the BTS token.

There is a stupid easy way to do so, and it has been under our nose the whole time. This will be a controversial proposal, but I have no doubt it will send Bitshares to the moon, and pull it out of the downward spiral it is on.

The proposal is simple. Delegates should get paid nothing... zilch, nada. It should be a volunteer-based, non-profit venture. With no inflation, each token holders' equity will increase proportionally with every token that is burned.

I posit that there are enough stakeholders with enough skin in the game to run delegate nodes for free. Stakeholders of which that are incentivezed enough due to their holdings of BTS tokens to not try anything stupid, and of course they could be voted out quickly if they did.

Only one small tweak would need to be made to the codebase (other than reducing delegate pay to zero, which I think can be done by comittee.) Eventually, all coins would get burned in fees, leaving no BTS tokens in existence. A stock split every so often would be needed to issue tokens proportionally to all stakeholders so this never happens.

A profitable DAC = An appreciating BTS token = Happy investors = More investors entering the ecosystem = Trickle down effect to liquidity in BTS' DEX

Ez game

8
General Discussion / Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« on: June 27, 2016, 12:36:56 am »
Faith in Bitshares is feigning. That is proven by the value of the BTS token, the lessening involvement/enthusiasm of the community on these forums, Bytemaster moving on to other projects, and the overall cryptocurrency community's attitude about Bitshares.

It is time for BTS 3.0 - This is my plan to save Bitshares.

1. One of the biggest gripes about Bitshares is that consensus is obtained through dPoS. I suggest lessening Bitshares' reliance on DPoS. I am not suggesting we abandon dPoS entirely, but instead reduce its power by adding an auxiliary PoW component to the consensus algorithm. In other words, both the delegates and PoW miners will have a chance to find the next block. The PoW miners will have a 60% chance to fine the next block, and the delegates will have a 40% chance to find the next block. The percentages are arbitrary, as long as PoW is valued above the chances of the delegates to find the next block. This way, even if someone were able to commit a 51% attack on the dPoS chain, then Bitshares chain would still be secured via PoW.
1a. The logic behind the overall cryptocurrency community's dislike of dPoS is that a 51% attack can be prolonged indefinitely for very cheap once the attacker obtains 51% of the network. However, a 51% on a PoW chain requires a lot of money (electricity) to sustain an attack indefinitely. By implementing #1, IMO, a lot of people in the cryptocurrency community would reconsider Bitshares, because a lot of them immediately write it off simply because it is dPoS/PoS-based.

2. Liquidity needs to be bolstered on the DEX. There are three proposals, of which the community has to choose from. If the liquidity problem is not solved, then I posit Bitshares will never succeed. It is considered in this community as a "chicken and egg" problem, but it is not, and there are things we can do about it! After a lot of thought, I have reversed course over my opinion about TonyK's proposal, so I suggest that we adopt a combination of TonyK's proposal, a variation of Bytemaster's proposal (but more along the way it was tweaked towards the end of the thread), and ZERO trading fees for an indefinite amount of time.. Their proposals are less economically risky, and more straightforward than mine is. Before another cryptocurrency comes along and eats our lunch, we need to get serious about bolstering liquidity.
2a. TonyK's Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21409.0.html
2b. Bytemaster's Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html
2c. My Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=276084;topic=21197.45
2d. No trading fees for an indefinite amount of time. Once a sufficient amount of volume on the DEX is obtained, then the shareholders can revisit trading fees via voting.

3. The Bitshares' community's enthusiasm needs to be bolstered, and money needs to be raised for development. I suggest doing this in two ways:
3a. Creating a road map for future development (IE, We will implement parts 1, 2a, 2b, and 2d of this proposal). This will give them a renewed enthusiasm for the project.
3b. Increasing the value of the BTS token.
3c. Bitshares 3.0 will be a fork of Bitshares Graphene, and it will be distributed evenly:
3c1. 40% By taking a snapshot of BTS chain. Reasoning: snapshots increase the value of the BTS token.
3c2. 60% By doing an IPO. Reasoning: This is the time of the IPOs... projects are raising millions of dollars (DAO, etc). We can raise a lot of money for development, and bring in new skin/investors to the game that will be vested in Bitshares' success.
3c3. The reasoning for weighting the IPO more than the snapshot: At the same time as accomplishing the main goals (raising money for development, and restoring the Bitshares community's enthusiasm via a higher price per share), we can reduce one of the other biggest gripes about Bitshares by reducing the Larimer's/insiders stake in Bitshares. Let's stop beating around the bush. The Larimer's have done a great service to the community for their participation, hard work, and ideas, but at some point we need to come to the realization that a lot of people don't like how they have handled a lot of issues throughout Bitshares' history, and their large voting power influence. Since only 40% of Bitshares 3.0 will be created by BTS snap shot, then they would need to pay money to sustain their voting power (which in turn goes directly towards development of BTS 3.0, so shareholders win either way.) This will bolster enthusiasm/acceptance both inside our community and outside our community, as there those that feel this way in both.
3c4. Alternatively, we could 100% snapshot BTS, but then we would need to figure out a way to pay for development. For example, the NXT 2.0 (Ardor) idea has really increased Nxt value:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/

4. Some are not be able to get past Smartcoins. They will not trust them, think they will fail, and fail to see the benefits compared to holding the real assets themselves (not bitBTC, or open.BTC, but actual BTC). We should cater to these individuals. If SuperNext and B&C Exchange can solve this problem, and incorporate real assets into a DEX, then so can Bitshares. Actual token trading should be incorporated into Bitshares 3.0, and we should let the market decide which is more important- actual token trading or smartcoins.
4a. Implementing this feature protects Bitshares against possible competitors by implementing Bitshares' competitor's main features, while maintaining Bitshare's original features (leveraged trading). There is literally nothing to lose.

9
General Discussion / Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 23, 2016, 06:31:17 am »
Feel free to poke holes in this... I am the king of horrible ideas apparently.

A. User wants to buy BTS
B. The committee members publish the Bitcoin address, so delegates can monitor it using a Bitcoin blockchain data API (multiple ones in case of down time.)
C. A BTS user sends BTC to a multi-signature address setup by committee members.
D. A smart contract then "prints" BTS for the user using the current market value (via delegate feeds) worth of BTS whenever over 51% of the delegates agree someone has deposited money to the address. It would then be redeemable similar to PTS/AGS shares.
E. The user has BTS that he will likely not dump immediately, as he got no discount and paid the current market value.
F. The BTS token supply grows, but there is no immediate (or certain) downward pressure to the BTS value.
G. Downward pressure by the developers selling the coins for expenses happens on other chains, positively affecting BTS value by reducing downward pressure.

This could possibly be gamed with any coin other than Bitcoin, which is why I suggest we only allow Bitcoin deposits. The cryptocurrency used in this must have large enough liquidity so that it cannot be easily gamed. Maybe you could tie bridge services into this idea somehow since they already have the bridge part taken care of.

10
General Discussion / Crypsty has officially goxxed its users
« on: January 15, 2016, 07:18:25 am »

11
Everyone has been so negative around here lately, so it sucks I need to write this post but I would like to give my candid opinion on a few matters. I was recently called a "brown noser"... that is hilarious because that is and never has been the case as yet again evidenced by this post. I just prefer we all talk to each other decently while still allowing people to freely dissent. I do not like the direction the project is heading. I have been investing because I still believe in the underlying technology and Bytemaster, but there are apparent risks ahead of us and I feel less certain about the future of Bitshares than ever before.

Bitshares needs to start thinking about its customers every now and then rather than making all decisions purely based on its shareholders (more than half of which seemed OK with the stealth proposal as it is regardless.) That is a sure fire way to put a company out of business. Being that it is so early in the game, Bitshares needs to cater more to the consumer/customer rather than just to shareholders. IMO- the price has been falling forever, at this point screw the shareholders. The only chance of righting the ship is to cater to customers/consumers and grow the Bitshares brand before we are crushed by the competition.

Nushares/B&C Exchange is behind us as far as volume and market cap, but I think they are really gaining steam. They are positioning themselves to completely take over the original target market of Bitshares (a decentralized exchange.) B&C will allow the exchange of real assets (not derivatives), and Nubits is way more liquid than BitAssets. We technically have the better solution, but because of that better solution we have no liquidity, and because there's no liquidity no one uses it, and without anyone using bitassets Bitshares tokens will eventually end up useless.

Maybe Bytemaster already realizes this and is trying to pivot the direction of Bitshares (regarding stealth transactions and mutual aid societies). To pivot is certainly one option. A second option would be to simply copy Nushare's implementation and let Bitshares' customers choose in between the technologies by using the free market and letting it work itself out over time (IMO the second option should have been taken a year ago, but of course hindsight is 20/20.) Many cryptocurrencies borrow ideas from other cryptocurrencies, there is nothing to be ashamed about that... that is how opensourced ecosystems operate.

Dilute my shares as much as you want AND create as many FBAs as you need. Bitshares needs to stay ahead in this race or else it will quickly be left behind. Shareholders, be prepared to dilute like crazy and give up future profit sources in the short term in order to have a chance to not be crushed by the competition. Otherwise, we can all just wait to be crushed by the competition. Owning 1% of a billion dollar company is better than 99% of a million dollar company, and 1 million users spending 1 BTS on fees per transaction spend more on fees 1 thousand users spending 999 BTS on fees per transaction.

Short term greed (in the case of shareholders continually raising fees) and pride (in the case of dismissing Nushares' and B&C Exchanges' implementations) will kill this company like it has many companies before it. Stealth transfers and Mutual Aid Societies (although they will help) will not save this project. Both of those projects certainly need to be completed, but still more work needs to be done and I don't think many shareholders realize that.

I suggest we start with shamelessly admitting that Nushares/Nubits/B&C Exchange have a quality (albeit different) solution to the same problem, and that merging those solutions into Bitshares so they can exist in harmony with SmartCoins is advantageous for both shareholders and "customers". From there, let Bitshares' users/customers decide which implementations they prefer. I think we would still have an advantage if we can get both solutions (SmartCoins and Nushares' and B&Cs' implementations) working harmoniously. An advantage in exposure, market cap, and utility due to all our other features. Let's make sure we secure the decentralized exchange market before branching off too much.

12
Debating PoW vs PoS (yet again) on Bitcointalk today made me think of something that I think would be neat. It was an idea proposed by Mike Caldwell (Casascius) for Litecoin in 2013, and I think it could work for Bitshares chains. It requires cooperation from both (or in our case multiple) chains, which is why it never really took off for Bitcoin/Litecoin. However, considering the close relationship that already exists in between Bitshares chains the politics of it may work out, and I think it is a great idea if we can make it work.

It seems like this idea (or something similar) can help the Bitshares ecosystem be more resilient to 51% attacks. BTS, MUSE, PLAY, Etc... (which I hereinafter refer to as Bitshares chains) can "backup" each other. I edited the original post to cut out the opinion pieces, for readability reasons, and to make it easier to understand as far as how it would work in the Bitshares ecosystem.  Obviously,  all of the below subject to change after review from those smarter than I, and honestly I wrote this without giving it much thought but I am positive it could be made to work. I am busy with other things- I just wanted to make sure the Bitshares community knew of this idea.

Quote
A General Overview:

I believe I have thought of an idea that would make each Bitshares chain more secure, and far more important & relevant in the Bitshares/cryptocurrency ecosystem... by each Bitshares chain being ready in wait in case any certain Bitshares chain experiences a 51% attack. Add a mandatory "merge-mining" feature to each Bitshares chain so that it is always "merge-mining" all other Bitshares chains. All chains should have the option of "let's subscribe to a different Bitshares chain(s)" as a secondary means of block validation, which in turn would be a way to resolve future 51% attack on any certain Bitshares chain.

How It May Work:

1. Add a new requirement to all Bitshares chains, such that a valid Bitshares chain's block must contain either a record of the most recent block header hash of all other Bitshares chains, or a repeat of the hash found in the prior Bitshares chain's block (with a limit of repetitions.) Bitshares blocks that contain outdated Bitshares chains' intelligence should be disfavored by nodes and/or delegates capable of detecting that. Further impose the requirement that all Bitshares chains' block headers must be represented contiguously in each Bitshares chain. Each Bitshares chains' blocks cannot be skipped by all other chains and must be recorded in each chain's blockchain.

2. In the event there is an active block chain fork on any certain Bitshares chain, the requirement is loosened such that the block header hash requirement of the Bitshares chain under attack can be satisfied by any leg of the chain, not just the leg that the Bitshares chain under attack considers valid.

3. Add a feature to all Bitshares chains' clients that allow Bitshares users to decide to prefer or not-prefer branches of a certain Bitshares chain's fork (while one is in progress.) The default for this should always favor the Bitshares leg with the most longevity, and should disfavor long chains that suddenly appear to replace a large amount of the known Bitshares chains' block chain that's under attack. The stakeholders/delegates should always have an easy way to have the final say, such as by pasting in a preformatted message either exiling or checkpointing a certain Bitshares chains' blocks.

Anticipated Benefits:

1. Each Bitshares chains' stakeholders would have a ready made remedy to a 51% attack that they can switch to, and thus be far more resilient to 51% attacks.
2. Each Bitshares chain would be seen as far more important and valuable (by those who do not see it that way.)

13
That clearly state you are using a centralized service and there is risk involved. Don't get me wrong.. I love the services there. I have only used Metaexchange's bridge (a few times... super convenient), but I see the value in the other Gateways as well if the exchange truly takes off and has decent liquidity. They are awesome features that no other cryptocurrency has built in to their wallet, but the way it is presented does not properly convey the risks of using such features.

14
General Discussion / The GUI.....
« on: December 12, 2015, 06:53:44 am »
is getting so sexy. Mad props to the developers that have been working on it... you guys are making some huge improvements quickly.  +5%


15
This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I feel I must speak up. The way I see it, the operators are trying to cash in immediately and shift most of the risks of their businesses to those who buy their UIA. If they think their businesses will be wildly successful, then it makes little sense to me as to why they would try to sell so much equity this early in the game. Take a look at the list of cryptocurrency exchanges and notice how many of them have little to no volume. I gave the same warning to the Nxt community when they were largely investing in many UIAs immediately following the creation of their UIA exchange. I think a majority of them wish they would of taken my advice. You have been warned. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers and mean no offence to those who are selling these assets, as you guys likely do not have any bad intentions in offering these sales.

*promptly looks for an underground bunker to hide in for eternity*

Pages: [1] 2 3