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 - amencon

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16
General Discussion / Re: IOTA in the DEX?
« on: September 26, 2017, 08:49:41 am »
IOTA is a new currency without mining that uses a kind of graph, called Tangle, without blockchain. It is taking a considerable volume and is practically no more negotiated than in Bitfinex. Would it be a good idea to create OPEN.IOTA and bitIOTA to take advantage of that volume in the DEX?

it's new, untested, unreviewed, centralized (coordinator), not official white paper (other than general tangle paper with many issues) at this point. no incentive to run full nodes despite what they say, no real protection against spam, not a secure coin to add in any capacity to a gateway that wants to be solvent.

While I agree IOTA has a long way to go until it truly matures, I'm not sure what you mean by untested.  Removing the coordinator will be a big milestone and there is good reason to reserve some skepticism about things until that's complete but the network is live and functioning and has survived numerous attacks so far as I understand it.  Also since the cost to send each transaction is processing two other transactions there isn't really such a thing as "spam" since every transaction serves it's function to speed up the network.  Beyond all that, are there extra security concerns inherent with IOTA?

If OPEN.IOTA doesn't share the challenges the exchanges have in implementing the token then it sounds like OPEN.IOTA might be a great idea.  Not sure why people would shy away from storing wealth in IOTA in the context of crypto currencies, it's market cap at $1.5B in the top 10 (over 7x larger than Bitshares if that says anything) shows there are plenty out there comfortable storing value there.

Technical Support / Lookup balance for account from 0.9.3c wallet
« on: June 09, 2017, 02:33:33 am »
Hey guys,

Have a wallet backup that I think has some coins but forgot the passphrase.  I want to see if there is a way to check he balance on an account associated with the wallet.


I think it's great that there will be no audio ads.  It will make it a much easier "sell" to on-board new users quickly.  Whether it's crypto-currencies, messaging apps, social media platforms, many types of games or almost any type of peer-to-peer service the value is in the size of the network.

There has been a fair bit of discussion about the streaming services and I realize I'm still not sure exactly what is being offered.  Most talk about streaming as a Pandora type radio service but will PeerTracks also offer a Spotify type service where I can tag the songs I like and have it stored for replay without having to let PeerTracks choose what I will listen to next?

Personally, as long as my music listening session isn't interrupted, I'm mostly ok with just about any kind of advertising.  Perhaps artists or other companies can pay to be put on a rotation of ads that come as a modal pop-up upon signing into the PeerTracks site?  Banner ads are an obvious option as well.

I think it would be also smart to build in some basic social features for free users with more advanced features for premium users.  The idea being that free users can add friends or join circles or whatever to get them hooked, but then some of the more advanced convenience services would have to be unlocked by upgrading their accounts.  I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to build in some way to message friends, post music finds on some kind of personal feed or wall you can share and also share custom playlists, possibly post them publicly and allow others to up/down vote them for people that don't want to build their own playlists and would rather search for some pre-built ones.

Speaking of social interactions on PeerTracks it might also be nice to build in some integrations other social platforms as well.  For example, that way as a user I could link my PeerTracks account to my Facebook/Twitter/Google+ accounts and then with a button click share songs or playlists with my contacts on those services as well which would be a great way to have users inadvertently advertise PeerTracks to potentially a lot of people on already established social networks.  Also maybe PeerTrack users could share with others more than just the songs such as info on bands or perks as a token holder of various artists as well.

General Discussion / Re: An open challenge to Bytemaster
« on: January 09, 2015, 07:38:46 am »
Wow. Did you get to capture leads from all that traffic bytemaster?

What do you mean by "capture leads"?   

Everything we received in the past 48 hours (one of my biggest days) has resulted in a cookie being delivered to every visitor as part of our referral program.   I am working to optimize my blog to start funneling users into BitShares.
Are you using those cookies for Google remarketing ad campaigns or are funds for direct advertising not being used currently?

I only ask because at my last job we saw much higher conversion success ratios with our remarketing ads than general banner ads.  I'm not sure if Google adsense campaigns will be worth the cost in general for Bitshares but if one was I'd bet it would be a remarketing campaign.

DAC PLAY / Re: Official Announcement for BitShares PLAY Allocation
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:22:03 pm »
Sounds fair enough to me, thanks HackFisher.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Delegate Introduction: alecmenconi
« on: November 07, 2014, 05:21:12 pm »
I've yet to be voted back as a delegate and I'd like to know what I could do to help garner more votes.  So if you aren't voting for me let me know what you'd like to see from me before you do.

I should have some more free time and can build a .NET web app if there is some service or product people want to see.  I'd be happy to build something of not too large a scope on top of all the other delegate stuff for the standard 3% rate.

Please give me your suggestions!


General Discussion / Re: BitShares ASP.NET Web API
« on: November 07, 2014, 05:10:23 pm »
Use cases:

+ Full web api, to administrate your wallet remotely as you said, easily from a web page. Security is a concern, so I would limit what it can be done.

+ The web api would allow you to do integrate with a web wallet, you could use angularjs and even "reuse" the code from the main wallet.

+ A restricted web api can be used for security, adding an extra barrier to break to get into the wallet.

+ The service can be used as the generic interface class for anything :) (An Exchange, a bot, e-commerce)

Mainly you have .net and bitshares the world is your oyster. (same as nodejs, python, c++ )

Just make your life easier and make sure is portable (mono, linux)
Yeah originally I was going to limit the API to only respond to "GET" requests but collating that list of commands seemed like a lot of work unless others actually wanted to use the service.  Unfortunately the sticking point in my mind is how does anyone trust the API information considering it moves through my server first?  In theory couldn't I change data or have my own client version that returns bad results?  It's true there wouldn't be much financial incentive if the API didn't accept any input commands and manage any wallets for others though.

If there is a way to overcome the trust issue I could see how it could be very useful.  Who wants to have to run their own heavyweight client for every little website they want to make that needs some client information, right?

Thanks for the ideas and the heads up on VNext/MVC 6, didn't realize a new version was coming out and I like the idea of them merging the frameworks and making it cloud friendly.

General Discussion / Re: BitShares ASP.NET Web API
« on: November 07, 2014, 08:58:59 am »
Nice... may want to avoid using popups to display result.
Hmm true, the home page was more of an afterthought but your right the pop up is completely pointless, I've tweaked it to return the URL and result in the page.

That's great, you could port it to VNext so it can run in linux. Your service can be reused too if you want to create a bot.
Interesting, I've actually never heard of VNext but I'll definitely check it out.  You see any good use cases in particular for this service?

+5% ... thanks for open sourcing it!!
Of course man.  I'm a big proponent of open source, I just wish I could do the same for a lot of my other work, not that it's groundbreaking or anything.

So now that I know how to communicate with the client in .NET, the question is what kind of web app would people like to see?  Awhile ago of course I thought of doing something similar to, but svk has done such an awesome job with it I didn't see any reason trying to copy it.

General Discussion / BitShares ASP.NET Web API
« on: November 07, 2014, 05:10:21 am »
So I had some extra time last weekend and decided I'd finally get around to building the .NET API for a bitshares client.  This killed 2 birds with 1 stone for me since I've been wanting to build something with the .NET Web API framework as well as figuring out how to communicate with the BitShares client.

You can find the info page at:
API URL structure is **<command>?paramString=<parameterString?>** (or you can go to the info page and fill in the text boxes to see an example in a pop up window).

So what is this good for?  Probably nothing, I suppose a quick way you can get info from a bitshares client remotely if you trust me.  Mostly a side project for my own edification and I might use it to build sites in the future hosted on machines without a local client running, though if someone is using .NET and they think the code might help them with their own project I've thrown up the project files on GitHub here:


testz: Edit post, fix github link.

I support this initiative.  The worst that happens is that this spinoff of DNS DAC is out-competed by BTS.  If some innovation is created with this new DNS DAC and BTS copies it, then all the better.  I'd imagine many people will be invested in both anyway.

Put me on whatever list or mailings you plan if this does move forward.


As I see it, the value proposition can go MUCH farther.  Imagine, for instance, that a talented group of developers decide to fork DNS to make a new chain with different innovations (or to make it more friendly to a certain jurisdiction).  Those Devs essentially snapshot current ownership in the forked chain with a large %, can give themselves a small stake or allot a small % for a crowd sale to gain funding to test their metal against other chains' devs.  Those who are successful have NOW MADE A NAME for themselves to the degree where if BTS doesn't pick them up, another SuperDAC will.  If not, the task of simply building on the DNS fork (or even PTS, VOTE...etc for that matter) will likely have made them capable of building their own SuperDAC to rival others. 

Think bigger guys and girls!  This is a potential Multi-Trillion Dollar Industry!  Imagine being sharedropped on 10 different DNS forks, holding them all for 10 years and 2-3 of them ending up reaching valuations of 1+ Billion Dollars, just to be bought out by a SuperDAC (or maybe even more than 1).  Then you have made off QUITE nicely.  If this game is played right and developers know that supporting the community with significant sharedrops is a viable means by which they can earn attention and work to attain legitimacy in the industry...we have essentially made a very positive feedback loop that also protects us with the power of a diversified marketplace while protecting from corruption and also potentially making original holders very wealthy.... 

People see this as bad but I think that is just fear and impatience talking. I see this as potentially one of the best things I could ever imagine.  Sure, it MIGHT take a very small portion of the BTS valuation (initially) but it will spread the word that the bitshares ecosystem is evolving and not just settling into one static, microsoft-like existence.  Think of it as cheap advertising...

When this market can support literally hundreds of forked chains with their own special attributes (like altcoins have), we will know we have made it to where we all want this to go...the moon.  Let's consider these forks as Wormholes that force us to ask "which moon? There are sooooo many!"
I agree completely fuzz.  I was merely pointing out that the worst case scenario isn't even necessarily a bad thing.  I think there is huge potential in embracing a multiple DAC/chain strategy (and the attraction of more developer talent to DAC technology this will bring).  I understand why BM might feel like he needs to focus his energies, but I see no reason why our community must do the same.  I personally plan to continue to support (whether financially or other) multiple future tech initiatives.

I support this initiative.  The worst that happens is that this spinoff of DNS DAC is out-competed by BTS.  If some innovation is created with this new DNS DAC and BTS copies it, then all the better.  I'd imagine many people will be invested in both anyway.

Put me on whatever list or mailings you plan if this does move forward.


I think people hate to invest something uncertainty. it is so difficult to introduce BTS without max supply limited  to new investor . though fact is the real dilution is lower to 3% per year. the max is
~8% per year. so no one know the max supply of bts. I don`t know why not set a top ceiling.

how about this model
the max supply of BTS is 3.9 billion , max pay rate is 50 BTS per block to delegate  till the supply of BTX is up to 3.2 billion , max pay rate reduce to 25 bts per block if supply of bts between 3.2 billion to 3.55 billion,so:
supply of bts                                max pay per block               how many year it will take if 100% pay                 how many year it will take if 25% pay   
2.5 billion to 3.2 billion                            50                                       ~4.5 years                                                                      ~18 years
3.2 billion to 3.55 billion                          25                                       ~4.5 years                                                                      ~18 years
3.55 billion to 3.725 billion                      12.5                                    ~4.5 years                                                                      ~18 years
3.725 billion to 3.8125 billion                  6.25                                    ~4.5 years                                                                      ~18 years=
+++                                                        6.25/2       

so the max supply of bts is limited to 3.9 billion
compare with BTC , max supply is 21M, and current supply is 13.4M, the totally dilution =21/13.45-1=56%          ,the max supply of bts is 3.9 B, and current supply is 2.5 B ,  the totally dilution=3.9/2.5-1=56%   , some dilution .
the figure show if the pay rate is 25% , situation of 50 bts per block can keep 18 years.
so there are much space to reduce the max dilution ,  if set the max supply of BTS is 3.2 billion ,the totally dilution =3.2/2.5-1=28% , it is half than BTC
I like this compromise and agree with the concept (the specific numbers like fine as well at first glance).  I think it would help to be able to state a max supply possible and still keep inflation in place for early growth.

hi AB, i can understand where you're coming, but i dont think the vision has changed. the timeline for implementing the vision has merely become more realistic

The way i see it, the old vision fragmented development of several products and pigeonholed the bitshares toolkit developers into working on their own projects in relative isolation. from what i can tell, the bitshares toolkit still requires some major development time, and realistically there are only a handful of developers alive that currently have the know how to do so.

 the old plan essentially dictated that key devs like Toast, HackFisher etc would have to stop developing the toolkit (which is critical to DAC industry growth) and work on their own projects. between coding, taking on the role of project manager, providing support for delegates and users, etc i cant imagine there would be any time left for them to help develop the toolkit. software development is rarely a one man job and for good reason imho

developing separate, competing DACs is a great idea (and inevitable if bitshares succeeds) but the infrastructure needs to be sufficient first
I understood it differently.  My take was that there would be independent teams building features for their DAC project but that many of those features after being tested in production would likely find their way back to the toolkit, thereby making it a stronger code base.  Multiple independent teams making their own leaps and innovations, the best of which could be communicated to the other teams and the toolkit itself.

Not only that but with multiple DACs you could essentially do better A/B testing of features.  Let's say dilution works great in a couple different DACs, well maybe it's determined to be added to the toolkit.  What if the few that utilize it crash and burn?  Well at least you have a diverse ecosystem that can assimilate that information and be stronger for it as well.

It may very well be that the merger will help the toolkit grow faster and stronger than it would have under the old paradigm though.  Time will tell.

General Discussion / Re: A BitShares Constitution?
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:15:07 pm »
On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?  We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.   In the free market there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.
Who would trust such a constitution is not the only issue as it seems that you guys don't want to be hamstrung by promises for the future.

Even if you did get people to trust such a constitution and then had to diverge from it based on unforseen circumstances, I think having the constitution in place would end up doing more harm than good at that point.

I feel like this constitution idea is an appeal to calm investors in the short term, but isn't a viable solution long term considering how "agile" BitShares is.

BM himself is stating that nothing is certain and can change at any time in the future.  While the certainty of a constitution feels comforting I think it's more honest to continue without it or anything similar.

General Discussion / Re: What does a BitUSD early adopter look like?
« on: October 31, 2014, 05:05:22 pm »
Alright, but I would add to the list that virtually all early adopters were familiar with /users of bitcoin before coming to BitShares.

I'm trying to look past the crypto community and identify who is most likely to use a BitAsset going forward. What type of person is most likely to convert into a user, not just a wealthy Western speculator...

I see BitShares as a company that offers products (BitAssets) to niche markets that need them most. Wealthy Western speculators will be the ones buying up BTS if they see the product BitShares offers getting adoption. Apple has to sell its computers before investors will buy APPL.

A BitAsset customer will look very different than a BTS investor.
I like your methodology Method, with multiple parties marketing Bitshares and its bitAssets I think that we can afford to have them individually target niche markets.  I think you're correct that successfully closely arch-typing likely conversions for your specific marketing campaigns will result in higher adoption per dollar spent overall.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16