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 - slacking

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: MUSE how to import Bitcon IPO keys
« on: November 01, 2015, 09:31:05 pm »
I used Electrum Bitcoin wallet to send funds during the IPO. Electrum had an option to export private keys into a .csv file and I had no problem importing this into Muse.

General Discussion / Re: Testnet Light Wallets for Mac & Windows
« on: October 07, 2015, 01:44:03 am »
I get invalid format when importing the json file from 0.9.3.c.

General Discussion / Re: Testnet Light Wallets for Mac & Windows
« on: October 06, 2015, 03:27:27 am »
 I get same error. Running Windows 10 64bit.

Get blank screen on windows 10.  Dev tools console filled with the following error

WebSocket connection to 'wss://' failed: Error during WebSocket handshake: Unexpected response code: 502

General Discussion / Re: is this project still alive?
« on: May 22, 2015, 03:13:47 am »
What about Protoshares? Is that project still alive?

I was running out of the house when I posted this, so forgive the lack of detail here. What I meant to say is that the forum should be reorganized in a manner that is more consistent with the current structure of our community. Before the merger we had I3, DACSunlimited, and the blockchain. The forum was a Bitshares Toolkit forum primarily directed towards advancing the interests of the Toolkit, and BTSX was just one of many 3rd party DACs built on the Toolkit.

Today, there is no I3 and there is no DACSunlimited. Only the BTS blockchain remains. As a result, this forum is now primarily directed towards the development of the BitShares DAC. I believe the top-level "Discussion" forum should just be renamed to "BitShares" and the "BitShares" subforum should be removed from "Distributed Autonomous Companies". The "Distributed Autonomous Companies" subforum should then be renamed to "Third-party DACs". This will make it clear that this forum is the BTS forum and that other DACs which share a common ancestry with BTS are third party (PTS, Music, Sparkle, etc).

I agree. The forum does need to be streamlined so good idea.

General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 27, 2014, 09:10:20 am »
I apriciate everyones concern and feedback, but please back off.  We all get the point and this discussion is interfering with actual productive R&D.   

If we are talking about principles here:

1) PTS should live on and be supported by who ever wants to buy in / share drop to it.
2) BTS should ask for a reasonable recognition (20% or less) share drop in future chains.
3) AGS is what it is. It is just another share drop target.   I personally thing PTS should have share dropped 10% on AGS for funding its upgrade and freeing it from mining.   
4) I don't want DVS to set any precedents.

Not necessarily what I wanted to hear but agree this has been argued out and it's time to move on.

General Discussion / Re: You guys don't understand devshares.
« on: December 26, 2014, 11:04:14 pm »
First of all, glad to have Bytemaster weigh in on this finally. IMO, only  his opinion has the weight to end the bickering and unite us. It is quite distressing that this is being argued under a thread called "You guys don't understand devshares" since I don't think this is about devshares, it's really about this:

Alphabar using the Bitshares name and I3 social consensus. This just seems wrong to most of us. What Alphabar seeks to create is a kind of universal sharedrop token for any future DAC and that seems like a completely new venture with it's philosophical roots in Sharedrop Theory and not in the old PTS social consensus. Yet he uses the Bitshares name, yet he uses the PTS name, yet he claims the right to market as the preferred sharedrop target for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit.

The fact that Devshares effectively "recognized" his claim has only further irked people that feel Bitshares developers are essentially encouraging Alphabar instead of promoting sharedrops to BTS. To be clear, I'm talking about sharedrops from future DAC's that use the Bitshares toolkit (important point).

It is my opinion that if Alphabar would change the name of his DAC and drop the references to being the preferred sharedrop token for DAC's using the Bitshares Toolkit, then all this would go away.

On the other hand if Bytemaster prefers to gift Alphabar the Bitshares name and preferred sharedrop status then that needs to be said as well. Then we can all move on.


General Discussion / Re: PTS - the insane gift that keeps on giving!
« on: December 26, 2014, 12:11:20 pm »
We arent mad about this because of the value ofthe sharedrop.

We are mad because of the PRECEDENT it demonstrates, in regards to future sharedrops, which WILL have value.

This sharedrop should be 100% BTS, no fucking shares at all to PTS or AGS because we bought them out.

Any other allocation and I am upset.

Actually IIRC the purpose of the merger was to buy *BM* out, not AGS/PTS. Also, it seems like PLAY, RPC, etc are all deciding to honor AGS/PTS anyway despite what BM said.

What you're saying is that I3 *failed to kill the old social consensus*. How is that their fault?

I disagree. The purpose of the merger was two fold:
1)   to focus our project efforts by buying out DNS and Vote.
2) to streamline (and to make less confusing )  our business and market image by consolodatin the multiple investment vehicals for future BTS(X) products -(BTSX/AGS/PTS) into just one... BTS.  Therefore the share inflation that was used to pay AGS/PTS represented the present value of all future investment gains. This is how we liquidated our responsibility to the two original/ privaleged investment groups -(AGS/PTS).  As of 11/5 there is no more social consensus requirement to drop to AGS/PTS.  However the share inflation paid to PTS & AGS created a new social consensus to do 100% of future drops to BTS.

You nailed it! This is what most people thought. There also appears to be a disturbing trend of posting proposals, getting feedback and then declaring in a newsletter "there was no consensus" so we did something completely different. Should not the revision to an original proposal ALSO have appeared in the forum as a ***DRAFT*** for a second round of feedback before being finalized? Maybe all of this could have been avoided if this simple step had taken place? I agree on one point though, this has turned into a disaster right as 1.0 is due to be sad.

General Discussion / Re: Step by step forum updates happening
« on: December 24, 2014, 11:07:41 pm »
Get rid of the PTS subforum while you're at it. It no longer is related to Bitshares.

General Discussion / So insane!
« on: December 24, 2014, 10:36:21 pm »
One of the worst things is that with Bitshares 1.0 release coming out, there will be a big marketing and advertising push for the first time. People will be searching for Bitshare related news and info and one of the thing that will be showing up is Bitshares PTS, a DAC that has nothing to do with Bitshares! They'll be getting free exposure by continuing to use fraudulently use the Bitshares name!

Stan makes the statement "The concept of merging PTS and AGS was brought up as a proposal for discussion but the idea of such a merger did not reach consensus.  The whole discussion lasted but a few days and the idea was abandoned, as many are after strongly opposing community input." so maybe he can show me where the community consented to having Alphabar...

1) Use the existing Bitshares PTS brand for a project of his own unrelated undertaking?
2) Claim the right to DAC (created from Bitshares toolkit no less) sharedrops from BTS?
3) Be GIVEN %33 DEVSHARES SHAREDROP, further legitimizing his claim of being the preferred sharedrop instrument for all future DAC's?

All of this leaves a very bad taste in my and many others mouths, the fact that the Chinese redacted it from the latest newsletter says that they fear their readers would not react well to it either. I wholeheartedly endorse any effort to start voting out delegates who don't switch to a %100 BTS sharedropped Devshares fork.

General Discussion / Re: [ANN] BitShares PTS - new chain is launched!!!
« on: December 18, 2014, 05:13:42 pm »
Can we get a mac version please?

I'm with you - cube is working on it!

What is pts goinv to be used to buy? Why would someone use a sharedrop target to buy stuff? This doesnt make sense.

It only makes sense if you're in the "pump" phase of your pump n dump and you're trying to give the impression that this coin has multiple great's a coin, it's dpos, it's sharedrop, it's non-inflation, it's upgrade, it's endorsed by Bytemaster, it's no pre-mine (even though all are owned already), it's where new DAC's will gift you shares. Gotta drum up some buzz to create dat market.

General Discussion / Re: Charles Hoskinson - Business Development Delegate
« on: December 18, 2014, 04:55:45 am »
I would vote for him!

PTS-DPOS is not legitimately developed as they went against the social consensus. They should be removed and no support provided.
I am sure that is "hell" of a discussion .. can you link me there? I have an opinion on that one too!

Boycott PTS-DPOS! They are impostors.

BitShares PTS / Re: [ANN] BitShares-PTS Dry Run #1 launched
« on: December 13, 2014, 06:01:31 pm »
I thought the idea was that PTS was to be merged into BTS and the social consensus would be taken from BTS.. PTS serves no purpose now, why are you wasting your time on this? Stop making things confusing for newbies and let PTS die already.

There is no purpose for it. Apparently a few people must've bought up a lot of PTS cheap after it was declared dead by Bytemaster and now they won't shut up about resurrecting it so they can pump and dump it.

Is it a new Fed or an update? >:D

It's just some guy named "Fed" and he's telling everybody his dollar is a mandatory upgrade.

Can we fork him?

I wish you would.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4