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 - kyletorpey

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Discussion / Re: 0.4.10 Testers Wanted
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:28:25 pm »
Quote from: bitmeat on September 01, 2014, 05:03:38 pm
Quote from: kyletorpey on September 01, 2014, 05:01:17 pm
BitShares X has not synced the correct account balance, transaction history, or the fact that my account is registered for the past few versions. When attempting to rescan the blockchain, it crashes during the process. I'm on Lubuntu. This latest install was in a brand new folder as I renamed the old folder "BitShares X.old". I did notice that there was also a hidden .BitSharesX folder that could be holding some old config files or something. Should I try renaming that folder as well?

The .BitSharesX hidden folder is where all the data is stored including all your wallet backups. Yes, rename it, but BACK IT UP somewhere as well.

Still crashing when trying to scan the blockchain. It seems that the problematic block is 321978.

2
General Discussion / Re: 0.4.10 Testers Wanted
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:01:17 pm »
BitShares X has not synced the correct account balance, transaction history, or the fact that my account is registered for the past few versions. When attempting to rescan the blockchain, it crashes during the process. I'm on Lubuntu. This latest install was in a brand new folder as I renamed the old folder "BitShares X.old". I did notice that there was also a hidden .BitSharesX folder that could be holding some old config files or something. Should I try renaming that folder as well?

3
Technical Support / Re: Updated BitSharesX, asking me to create an account?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:02:32 am »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on August 29, 2014, 12:38:52 am
Quote from: kyletorpey on August 29, 2014, 12:10:17 am
Actually found your other post about automatic backups while searching around for answers. I'm on Linux but I found the /.backups folder in ./BitShares X/wallets/

Imported that wallet. It brought up my old account, but now it says I am unregistered and have no balance. Hopefully the wallet just needs to be synced and then everything will show up?

edit: rescanning the blockchain and hoping for the best. thanks for the help.

Yes a rescan should work to bring up your balance and transactions if it recognized your account.

Thanks for the info on Linux, I'll have to add that to my post.

No problem & Cheers  :D

The rescan seemed to work up to the point until the BitSharesX client crashed. This is what came up in the terminal after the crash:

Quote
QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with QThread
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Tried again and it just said:

Quote
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Any ideas? It seems my keys are not lost. One incoming transaction is missing from my account and it also still says it is unregistered.

4
General Discussion / Do Bitassets Create Inflation?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:40:26 am »
For example, if BitShares X is widely used, there would be a lot of BitUSD, BitGLD, BitBTC, etc. in circulation. Does BitShares X cause inflation for these real world assets? Is there really a hard 21 million cap on Bitcoin if there are also 1 million BitBTCs in circulation?

5
Technical Support / Re: Updated BitSharesX, asking me to create an account?
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:10:17 am »
Actually found your other post about automatic backups while searching around for answers. I'm on Linux but I found the /.backups folder in ./BitShares X/wallets/

Imported that wallet. It brought up my old account, but now it says I am unregistered and have no balance. Hopefully the wallet just needs to be synced and then everything will show up?

edit: rescanning the blockchain and hoping for the best. thanks for the help.

6
Technical Support / Updated BitSharesX, asking me to create an account?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:52:08 pm »
Just updated BitSharesX and it's asking me to create an account instead of typing in my password. What happened to my account? Have I lost it?

7
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: April 23, 2014, 11:17:20 pm »
So what happens when someone forks Safecoin with an initial coin distribution based on the current distribution of bitcoins?

8
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: April 09, 2014, 11:31:08 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on April 09, 2014, 01:55:01 am
We talked with maidsafe today and will be using our Dns system and they will be consulting with us on the economics of their system. 

In the end the mastercoin ipo will be insignificant compared to our partnership potential. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured they would have figured out the economics by now if they're launching an IPO later this month. What are your thoughts on their token-based system vs a system that just uses Bitcoin for escrow? We've thought about the economics of a token-based system for something like MaidSafe/Bitcloud a lot at Bitcloud, but it seems that tokens really complicate things. Here are a few issues:

1) Most people in this space would rather use bitcoins than convert to a new token.
2) A token basically averages out the quality of the storage nodes on the network, so you have low quality nodes and high quality nodes getting paid the same rate. This leads to average quality storage and hosting.
3) Legal implications of profiting off a system that will undoubtedly be used for illegal purposes.
4) How can you increase the value of a token without also having the services paid for with that token become more expensive (for example storage)?

9
General Discussion / Re: Why isn't Bitshares Being Built Directly on Top of Bitcoin?
« on: December 29, 2013, 07:29:13 pm »
Quote from: Stan on December 29, 2013, 12:35:56 am

Bitcoin is mined and getting dangerously centralized because of it.
BitShares will not need mining and be much more profitable and decentralized because of it.

So BitShares will be Proof of Stake?

Quote from: luckybit on December 29, 2013, 07:14:29 am
And this is the problem. People say Satoshi was a genius and he was, but he's not the end of and he's not the only. We should be pushing the innovation rather than looking at Bitcoin.

Win or lose, you have to try to improve on whatever already exists.

I agree improvements on Bitcoin are possible, but I haven't seen any yet. Perhaps I need to take a second look at Proof of Stake.

Quote from: bytemaster on December 29, 2013, 07:21:10 am
Let me boil it down to a few simple facts....

1) The volatility of BitShares is irrelevant because those that want stability use BitAssets instead.
2) Multiple blockchains are necessary for scalability (exchanges have higher transaction volume)
3) Mining is wasteful
4) We can build more profitable DACs, Bitcoin has a 12% wealth tax and 0 returns.

1. Thank you for pointing this out to me. This was my original question. So if I want to use the BitShares exchange, I don't need to buy BitShares? I'll be able to load bitcoins into the client and trade them directly for BitGold, BitUSD, etc? So I guess the only function of BitShares is to pay dividends to the people who hold them? The users of the decentralized exchange don't need to use them at all?

2. I know Bitcoin can currenly only handle something like seven transactions per second, but I thought this was one of the main things being worked on by Bitcoin developers.

3. If Proof of Stake turns out to be viable, then yes. I suppose I need to take a second look at it.

4. I'm not sure what you mean by the 12% wealth tax.

10
General Discussion / Re: Why isn't Bitshares Being Built Directly on Top of Bitcoin?
« on: December 28, 2013, 11:29:07 pm »
Quote from: seraphim on December 28, 2013, 11:19:35 pm
Price of BTC is volatile already, so that's no reason to build on top of it.
You don't know what happens in the future, maybe BTC will be replaced by something advanced.
By using an own blockchain we're on the safe side and not dependent on the fate of BTC.

To address your other point - why should people holding BTC but not supporting further development benefit from it?

BTC is volatile, but it will be less volatile than BitShares because BTC has more liquidity. It's true that Bitcoin could fail, but BitShares could then be moved to be on top of the new popular crypto coin.

I suppose bitcoin holders would benefit from BitShares if Open Transactions and Colored Coins did not exist. I think the fact that you can go directly from BTC to USD or Gold or whatever else is an advantage over BitShares and Mastercoin.

11
General Discussion / Re: Why isn't Bitshares Being Built Directly on Top of Bitcoin?
« on: December 28, 2013, 11:10:26 pm »
Quote from: seraphim on December 28, 2013, 10:58:04 pm
Bitcoin's been the first, but by far not the best innovation. For example, currently 75% of hash power is controlled by only a few people/organizations (big server farms). I am happy that the development of bitshares brings a lot of ideas for the whole crypto world.

This doesn't really answer my question. The point is that the price of Bitshares will float in price. People won't be able to convert bitcoins to BitUSD, they will have to convert into Bitshares first. It would be better if they didn't have to deal with the volatility of Bitshares along the way. Unless I am mistaken in how all of this works.

12
General Discussion / Why isn't Bitshares Being Built Directly on Top of Bitcoin?
« on: December 28, 2013, 10:05:48 pm »
Wouldn't it be better to have people converting bitcoins directly to BitUSD, BitGold, BitEuro, etc. rather than having Bitshares as the middle man? I also don't mean anything like what Mastercoin is doing, as I think they should also be building all of their features directly on top of Bitcoin. I know that some people say the reason that the middleman is needed is to give people an incentive to build the project in the first place, but don't people who already own bitcoins benefit from new features built on top of Bitcoin?

13
General Discussion / Re: Datacoin is a DAC for Cloud Storage
« on: December 22, 2013, 09:01:06 am »
Quote from: itnom on December 21, 2013, 10:11:23 pm
Isn't this already implemented to a limited extend in the latest Bitcoin release? I think OP_RETURN could be used for that?

I think it is possible to store data in the Bitcoin blockchain, but it is extremely limited.

14
General Discussion / Re: PowerBall, DAC - Lottery Based Mining Experiment
« on: December 21, 2013, 12:55:06 am »
Wouldn't it be better if the people who were in the lottery were the ones who owned the actual coins? For example, anyone with a Lotterycoin could send a transaction into the blockchain to be added to the next block. Once the next block is mined, a transaction is chosen as the winner and gets the sum of all the coins from the transactions in that block, minus a reward for the miners. Maybe your odds of winning could be increased depending on the size of your transaction. This would give the coin serious utility as a DAC and also give miners an incentive to mine.

15
General Discussion / Re: Forever NOTE DAC
« on: December 13, 2013, 05:46:16 pm »
It seems to be going well. They have a few developers working on the project, and the coin should be available on Cryptsy soon. I don't think much is known when it comes to everything that will be possible with Datacoin.

Pages: [1] 2

Page created in 0.218 seconds with 23 queries.