It would be helpful if you could attach sha512 number in the PGP message, thanks.
My results are below.

Hashes of:
"BitShares Blockchain Snapshot 31-05-2015 del.fav.zip"

MD5:
698674c1a47ee35de2f2075681670141

SHA1:
11cbb2f2b6efb8e3a04513b194e57f3b265b1f05

SHA256:
b4680b29d041e86ea9eee8261b1a1d4ef1f7e5e70bdc80d16febfa9ba31a74b7

SHA512:
44d3400e1ea5565d74f51f875ff75897bc7f9ea7198d1f53807e22a05bfd1640617224046eee7872833cbd03a3057fc3df2c60383317363f3b8f6bd0ee74669d

3) Same question for Ripple

I have read that Ripple "transaction validators" don't need prior "ledgers" to operate, they just sign current ones and not necessarily store previous ledgers (in fact ledger before #32570 is already lost and not "recoverable", someone says.)
They claim they solved "scalability problems" by adopting this method and many people say Ripple does not use "Blockchain" technology.

That's actually a problem currently - there is no server on the network that has any ledger before 32570 (the older ledgers got corrupted in "ye olden days" and nobody got around to fixing them). ...

(https://forum.ripple.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4717&f=1&t=4717#p28026)

Btw, regarding consensus technology (which is the most basic foundation of crypto and the most important part, I think),
I found that Nxt's algorithm is super-cool.
Here is the graphical inspiration: (http://nxtportal.org/forgers/)

[Re: Concise but complete technical description of various proof-of-stake (PoS) schemes?]
(Come-from-Beyond says:) The software determines the best chain by analyzing ratio of transactions belonging to well-known participants (e.g. Walmart, Alibaba, Coinbase) of the economical cluster using Nxt. Non-legit chains can't include such transactions because every transaction refers to a block mined several minutes before the transaction timestamp, which prevents inclusion of majority of the transactions into chains with lower cumulative difficulty or into chains generated by an adversary.

(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012241.msg10987520#msg10987520)

If both parties have equal amount of collateral tied up you could force them to settle quicker by applying demurrage to the collateral. The longer they wait the less they will get back at the time where they close the bet position. Demurrage rate could be applied in different proportion based on the VWAP of the last price on the market. Since all the honest betters will have settled earlier the VWAP will be difficult to manipulate. For instance, if demurrage rate is 2% per day and the vwap is 0.9, the loser will bear 0.9*2=1.8% demurrage whereas the winner will bear only 0.1*2=0.2% demurrage. In this condition, the loser is better off settling quickly.

Whatever the specific way this is inplemented, the counter-incentive of waiting should always be higher than the incentive of waiting so that the equilibrium will form on (tell the truth,settle early).

.
This is clever. I'm scary participating this though.

This shows an example demand is stronger when dedicating purely to "money-ness".

Quote from: dna_gym on December 07, 2014, 06:54:00 am

I think the faucet is not working now.
I'd like to register an account: BTSX6SSp4NEQcWcS9F8DEw3QehG1oYMmPs7aajSrZfafmkr1t5nWuj
Thank you!

Sent

 

MEMO
Good Luck!

Thank you! 

Well discussed 'issue', including semi-serious thread yesterday.

The good part is you can flip the market in the GUI, so you can see the market the way you like it better.

Thank you for the reply.
What's the yesterday's semi-serious thread?

I noticed the two different notations describing how much price one asset is relative to some other assets.

For example, I can write that Bitshares' price is 54 BTS/BITUSD (54 Bitshares per BITUSD).
But sometimes one can write that the conversion ratio of BTS/BITUSD is 0.0185 (Bitshares to(by) BITUSD is 0.0185?).

The latter notation comes from the mind of one can exchange 1 BTS to 0.0185 BITUSD, or assuming some hypothetical value unit of Universal_Value_Unit:
BTS = x Universal_Value_Unit .
and
BITUSD = y Universal_Value_Unit .

So the ratio BTS/BITUSD = x/y = 0.0185 .

I think the second notation is more familiar at various sites which I visit, for example:
ttp://k.sosobtc.com/bts_btc38.html
ttps://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/bitstamp/btcusd
ttp://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=EURUSD=X

And assuming 1 BITUSD is more valuable than 1 BTS, my thinking goes like BTS/BITUSD should less than one because the denominator is greater than the numerator.
So the price notation at the market on Bitshares Client like:

PRICE (BTS/BITUSD)
54.0000
54.2974
54.6000
54.6155
54.6900
...

confuses me (although it might be a problem one should overcome by getting accustomed to it).
So I want a change in notation but other poeple might have opinions which are opposed to mine.

How do you think about the price notation? Thank you. 

I cannot understand the motives.
OP hates wasteful uneconomic POW mining or he applauds POW for giving a good clue to light-weight clients. Which is true?
This sort of attack will surely impact the hashrate of bitcoin network as this is simply a bribe. And I think the consequence is introducing chaos only.
Anyway I enjoyed reading your hypothetical scenario, as this is necessary for a cryptocurrency's  security assessment.

edit: I was surprised by this post