I wrote http://docs.bitshares.eu/migration
it should contain all you need for the migration (inclduing from wallet.bitshares.org)

Please tell me if you miss anything in the guide

Thanks I found that guide a few minutes after posting the question.  I do wonder though if my recovery key will remain the same.  I find that I often need to use different computers, the ability to log in via that recovery key really made a difference in my life. 

I'm still getting a black screen when I try to load the web wallet, I found out that my ISP ( a mobile provider) actively breaks websockets.  I don't have a choice in ISPs where I live, so I'm not sure how long that will be an issue.  In the meantime I'm flying blind.

Quote from: kingjohal on October 14, 2015, 12:36:47 pm

Quote from: devlux on October 14, 2015, 07:20:11 am

Quote from: Ander on October 13, 2015, 07:39:52 am

They really didnt know about the upgrade, seriously?

Its important that they shut off and upgrade, otheriwse everyone wouldve been dumping millions of worthless BTS 0.9 on them.

Yeah it also looks like MetaExchange has BTS turned off too.  Anyone have an ETA on either of these guys?  I woke up this morning with my bitUSD worth $2.25 each and I'm fixin to sell some of mine

How is BITUSD worth that much when it's supposed to be pegged to the value of UDS?

It isn't, it's simply due to my api feed to Coinmarketcap pulling data from the old chain. I've set the price to feed price and volumes to 0 until I can get a new version up, but not before they pulled some incorrect data..

If you wanna see the price of bitUSD right now it's here: https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/exchange/trade/USD_BTS

Your site is down...
----- App.willTransitionTo error -----> CustomEvent {} Error
    at https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:4:8904
    at l (https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:153)
    at https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:288
    at MutationObserver.d (https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:2711)(anonymous function) @ app.js:4l @ app.js:2(anonymous function) @ app.js:2d @ app.js:2
app.js:4 ----- App.willTransitionTo error -----> CustomEvent {} Error
    at https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:4:8904
    at l (https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:153)
    at https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:288
    at MutationObserver.d (https://bitshares.openledger.info/graphene_ui/app.js:2:2711)(anonymous function) @ app.js:4l @ app.js:2(anonymous function) @ app.js:2d @ app.js:2
app.js:50 ChainStore Init
app.js:2 Unhandled promise rejection TypeError: Cannot read property 'exec' of undefined(…)(anonymous function) @ app.js:2
app.js:2 Unhandled promise rejection TypeError: Cannot read property 'exec' of undefined(…)(anonymous function) @ app.js:2
app.js:74 -- InitError.render --> Object {params: Object, query: Object, rpc_connection_status: "error", apis: Array[2], connection: "wss://bitshares.openledger.info/ws"}
app.js:7 WebSocket connection to 'wss://bitshares.openledger.info/ws' failed: WebSocket is closed before the connection is established.
app.js:74 -- InitError.render --> Object {params: Object, query: Object, rpc_connection_status: "error", apis: Array[2], connection: "wss://bitshares.openledger.info/ws"}
app.js:7 WebSocket connection to 'wss://bitshares.openledger.info/ws' failed: WebSocket is closed before the connection is established.
app.js:74 -- InitError.render --> Object {params: Object, query: Object, rpc_connection_status: "error", apis: Array[2], connection: "wss://bitshares.openledger.info/ws"}


I dunno, but bitUSD is suddenly worth $2.25 each according to coinmarket cap.  At the current rate of growth it will be less than 10 days for bitUSD to reach BTC parity

I've finally managed to get this bad boy to build on Linux and I wanted to share how I managed to do it.
My server is Ubuntu 15.04 and my Desktop is Linux Mint which I think is based on 14.04 LTS, none of the directions out there really explain either setup very well, for instance they still reference "graphene". 

The method below should work fine for any recent debian based distro, note that it is not just copy/pasta from the github instructions.  I actually had to add some things that were missing like automake

Here is how to do it assuming a fresh install.

First of all don't mess around with sudo just do a
sudo /bin/bash
Now you're root.
cd /root
apt-get install gcc-4.9 g++-4.9 cmake make automake libbz2-dev libdb++-dev libdb-dev libssl-dev openssl libreadline-dev autoconf libtool git

BOOST_ROOT=$HOME/opt/boost_1_57_0
apt-get update
apt-get install autotools-dev build-essential g++ libbz2-dev libicu-dev python-dev
wget -c 'http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.57.0/boost_1_57_0.tar.bz2/download' -O boost_1_57_0.tar.bz2
[ $( sha256sum boost_1_57_0.tar.bz2 | cut -d ' ' -f 1 ) == "910c8c022a33ccec7f088bd65d4f14b466588dda94ba2124e78b8c57db264967" ] || ( echo 'Corrupt download' ; exit 1 )
tar xjf boost_1_57_0.tar.bz2
cd boost_1_57_0/
./bootstrap.sh "--prefix=$BOOST_ROOT"
./b2 install

cd /root

git clone https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2.git
cd bitshares-2
cmake -DBOOST_ROOT="$BOOST_ROOT" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug .
make

If you get an error about boost not linking correctly
CC=gcc-4.9 CXX=g++-4.9 cmake .

At this point you now have the binaries built.  You should install them properly. 
I don't recommend you run it as root for obvious reasons. 
I put the binaries in /usr/bin the config files should all go into /etc/bts
You'll need an init script and you should have a bitshares user who the script will run as. 
You should also have a config.json and drop it into /etc/bts/
The working directory should be /usr/lib/bts and that directory should be owned by the bitshares user.

You should also deny login to the bitshares user by editing /etc/passwd and setting the shell to /bin/false
Then you just need to register it to services and make sure it starts at boot after the network interface is up, so run levels 3,4,5 

Quote from: fuzzy on October 04, 2015, 06:53:31 am

Quote from: clayop on October 02, 2015, 06:50:19 am

Is gemstone still related to BitShares?

http://gemspace.net

They moved to NXT because their technical advisor recommended it.  I suspect that he held a good few NXT though personally.

So,this announcement dead too？
what a joke.

Wow, really what?  No we didn't move to NXT, but we were put in the very difficult position of not knowing when BTS 2.0 would be launched and therefore when we would have to rewrite our entire code base and standup new infrastructure had we launched prior to now.  NXT was on the table as a possible stop-gap solution, but I don't think anyone seriously advocated it for what we're doing.  Bitshares has features we need that NXT doesn't.  Right tool for the right job.

Now the super secret BTS 2.0 source sauce has finally spilled we can work to stand it up.  First step is getting Bitshares 2.0 to actually compile and run, while trying to track down docs on the new API.  Thank god we waited, because not much I'm seeing matched what was there before.

Both Gemspace & the ATM/Kiosks use Bitshares.  Gemspace uses it for helping companies to use it for issuing literal shares on the blockchain and the ATM uses it for settlement.

Quote from: luckybit on September 20, 2015, 05:23:31 pm

Quote from: Samupaha on September 19, 2015, 06:31:12 pm

Quote from: luckybit on September 19, 2015, 01:07:05 am

Features aren't what increases market cap. You do need a functional Bitshares 2.0 which can scale but once you have that you need people with big money to use Bitshares.

Why would people with big money use Bitshares if it doesn't have the features they need?

Bitcoin doesn't have many features but has a market cap in the billions with VCs lining up along with banks and ETFs.

Market cap has more to do with adoption than features. Over time if people move to decentralized exchanges that will favor Bitshares. But then you have to convince people with a lot of money that decentralized exchanges have some advantage over the Bitcoin ETF.

Compliance is important. Make it easy for people to comply with the law and Bitshares has a chance.

Bitcoin has been going down for months now and it's not a coincidence. Except for a drug market it doesn't have much real world usage. Most people are just speculating with the price and not really using it. It has a big market cap only because it was first and everybody knows it. But it will continue to shrink unless somebody finds useful applications for it.

That's why I think there has to be a better blockchain with more useful features if we want to see a cryptorevolution. People with big money are usually more careful with their investments and are not going to put their money to a project that is only massively hyped without any proofs that it will create real value.

A lot of projects including several I'm involved in are in a holding pattern waiting for the 2.0 launch.  It's simple really.  The tech is effectively unpublished.  Sure I can go to github and read the source code and hammer out what the API "might" look like.  However there is no way to test that and frankly unless someone documents it I'm not going to rely on reading the source code since documentation boils down to "we made it do this and it's official", vs some programmer's comments on a feature that may or may not be transient.

According to the countdown timer there are 10 hours left.  I'm still not seeing an official release of code at the normal github, but managed to stumble on this.  https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2  looks official to me, but I don't know for certain that it is the final resting place of the released code base.  Logically it stands to reason that it is, but I'm always suspect until I see something stated officially by the devs.

I took quite a bit longer to get everything fully functional than I thought it would.  The cable we had planned to replace the Pi with ended up not doing the job so we had to find a new supplier.  I apologize for that, but I won't let something ship unless it's solid and reliable.  We had to raise the MSRP in order to cover the costs of the new hardware, but it's not that much higher.

We have several demo units ready, and we'd like to sell an entire production run. 
We've decided to skip the master reseller arrangement in favor of local franchises for those who are interested.

In the meantime, while we work to build up our network, we are selling units for as low as $777 off this first production run. 

The MSRP is $1495.
We will be batching them out in 100 unit orders.

You can find more info here... 
http://gemspace.net/citykiosk/

Of course we accept bitUSD, although the cart doesn't yet. 
Just contact alec@gemspace.net to arrange for payment.

Enjoy!

I'm not a securities lawyer, I've been around long enough to speak from a place of confidence, but of course I'm not an expert.
Also no lawyer could or should answer your question because then you would be relying upon their advice rather than doing your own homework or asking someone who is familiar with your own situation.  There may be outliers that would change the outcome of even the best advice.

I'm going to answer your question with the best answer I can give you.  However I'm not an expert.  My advice isn't worth anything here to a court of law, it should not be relied upon for personal guidance.  It is solely my own opinion and does not reflect the views or opinions of anyone else.

To answer your questions...

First off this is an adminstrative decision and only applies to the USA and very likely Canada since they are so intertwined. 
If you're outside the USA & Canada, that link probably doesn't mean anything to you, you need to research the applicable laws in your own country.

If you're in USA or Canada then you still don't have much to worry about here...
 
You are mixing up the concept of "restrictions on regulated speakers" while forgetting that you have a constitutional right of free speech.

You as an individual, are not liable for giving advice, legal, financial or otherwise unless you are "holding yourself out" as an expert.
Holding yourself out can feel like a very vague term.  There is an enormous amount of case law on the subject, but generally it boils down to how you present yourself.  While compensation is part of that, the bigger part is your own statements and intent.

For example, I can tell you all day long that I think that Coca-Cola shares are going to the moon, but as long I'm not speaking from a position of perceived expertise it doesn't matter at all what I say. 

As soon as I speak from a position of expertise, perceived or real, that's when my speech (or yours) becomes a regulated activity.
There is a thin bright line, and that bright line is the "perception of expertise" in the subject matter at hand and whether a reasonable person could be lead to believe it that I am someone who should be listened to.

Going back to the Coca-Cola example.  If I tell you I'm a day trader and I study all the latest news reports and charts, and I that I think Coca-cola will double in the next 30 days.  Here is my affiliate link to e-trade if you sign up with it you'll get a discount on your fees and I'll make a small percentage.  That treads on the line, but does not cross it.  Why?

Because I'm just a day-trader.  I'm managing my money, but I'm not making a living managing the money of others.  I'm not selling you anything and you're not buying a regulated product from me.

In the final analysis, my advice may be better or it may be worse than what you get from your investment advisor, but you aren't trusting me with your money.  You're simply considering my opinion and since you did not pay me for my opinion, the old adage "you get what you pay for" tends to hold true.

Now, what if I sell a newsletter by subscription? You're one of thousands of subscribers and I give you the same advice via my weekly column.  I'm widely heralded in the news as the next Warren Buffet and everyone of my subscribers does whatever I say like they think I'm the next Rush Limbaugh? 

You may think that my advice would be regulated.
And in this case it is, but only cursorly.  In this case I would need to state clearly up front, whether or not I hold, or intend to hold the security I'm recommending and whether or not I am a registered broker.  As a CYA move I should also state up front that what I'm saying is my own personal belief and is not intended to be advice particular to anyone's situation and that they should consult their registered investment advisor prior to making any decisions based on the information given.

As long as I cover those points I can say any dang thing I want to.  So can you.  If you ever read any of the "investment advice" columns, you'll note that they all pretty much say exactly what I just said.  Disclaimers exist for a reason and legal liabilities would be the reason for said disclaimers. 

These guys/gals you're reading are all considered "laymen", they are not investment advisers and even if they are, they are still very likely not YOUR investment advisor.

So where do we cross the line?  As soon as we accept money for "particular advice" or actively encourage a particular action.

If I say to you.  "Give me $1,000 and I will give you $2,000 in a month because I know a hot stock", that is obviously me attempting to function as a broker, this is regulated.  I can really only say things like that if I'm a registered broker.  *that particular statement crosses other lines, but I won't go there right now*.

Now what happens if you, and 10 other folks all decide to pitch in $500 each and you ask me to manage it with the condition that we all split the profits? You choose to do this, because I'm an awesome day trader with a proven track record that you happened to meet standing in line at a starbucks?

Believe it or not, this is not being a broker. What I've just described is called an investment club and as long as we all know eachother personally that's not regulated.  However if I say "Give me $50 and I'll tell you the next hot stock I think you should buy.", that would be investment advice and that is regulated.

Clear as mud?

Let me simplify. 

If you are giving advice about what to invest in, and that advice is particular to an individual's situation and you are holding yourself out as an expert, then you're acting as an unregistered investment advisor. 

Furthermore, if you take an individual's money and give them shares in anything, then you are acting as an unregistered broker. 

However if you are being compensated for people signing up for something such as via a referal program, you're in the clear, but you should make it crystal clear that you are being compensated and you are giving advice in the general sense, not "particular advice".

If you say "I think everyone should buy bitshares it's the next hot thing, You saw what happened with bitcoin right?  Bitshares is the next bitcoin! Here's a link to get a bitshares wallet."
 
This is no problem, the advice is general "I think EVERYONE should buy bitshares".

If you say "I think you should buy bitshares, it's the next hot thing.  You saw what happened with bitcoin right?  Bitshares is the next bitcoin!", that's actually a problem even if you're just telling it someone you meet at random at a coffee shop.

Here, you are holding yourself out as an expert as sooon as you said "I think YOU should buy bitshares."

The only major difference between the two statements is in the tailoring of the message to a specific person, but it's enough to potentially get you in trouble because you're putting out an aire of expertise.

Hope that's helpful, take it for what it's worth and remember I'm not a lawyer and this isn't intended to be legal advice just my 2c.