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 - tonyk

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 221
46
BTS holders are still paying off the merger, the intent of which was to prevent the fracturing of development effort/code/chains/community.

Yet this fork receives official blessing and assistance.

It must be April Fools.

Friendly advise. If you believe in BM's new vision (as opposed to his ex-vision i.e. BTS) you better get on board with steem...

I personally find his early ideas far better and consider him more or less lost currently, so I have no interest in this STEEM, but it is just me.

So act accordingly to your take on things in that regard.


47
what the hell is vested amount on IOU/UIA?

48
"Finally, I find low-profile/vague announcement strategy used by thereverseflash to be both amusing and perfectly rational. "

me too... well at least on the amusing part...


but then again who is  arhag? ....kidding...


"Now the question is will bytemaster's strategy work, or will it cause the Bitcoin community to treat this DAC like a pariah and stubbornly refuse to use it while yelling out words like "instamine." I can't wait to find out."

49

We didn't announce this on BitShares earlier because we figured this community would better understand the value of what we are doing and make it
difficult execute the strategy bytemaster recently blogged about:

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.

So the main innovation is  secretly premining in open view? It is pretty sad where "innovation" effort go in this community as of late.

Thanks, but no thanks... I have experienced a 1,5 years of constant sell pressure by whales that openly quick mined PTS, to have the desire to experience the same by people that found a way to premine, sorry "secure " 80% stake for themselves secretly in open view.


--------------------------
Q: Is there STEALTH in steem's GUI?

At the moment Steem has no GUI and the blockchain doesn't support stealth.

I wanted to make sure Steem didn't compete with BitShares market.  In fact, one of the reasons I was willing to help with Steem was that its feature set is fundamentally incompatible with BitShares and we could not hardfork BitShares to implement what Steem does.

Steem is designed to encourage long-term holders and discourage the dumping that BTS has experienced. It is good for them to have a large stake and not give it away to miners who will dump it.  Now they can give it away strategically to grow Steem.

So does this means that, one the record, you claim this STEEM project is not yours (lead by you etc) BM? * **

Or are you simply claiming the last 7 blog posts of yours were written by someone else?

* I find the POW algo is very innovative (well scientifically proposed, but not tried in real world as far as I know)
** The value of slowing money down is not new idea (actually it is probably the oldest one around) but if I have to bet who will try it first in crypto? It will be you.

50
I have changed my mind. Following Bm's logic I now think STEEM will be the best  SCREW around. Can you change the name, thereverseflash?

51

We didn't announce this on BitShares earlier because we figured this community would better understand the value of what we are doing and make it
difficult execute the strategy bytemaster recently blogged about:

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

We have secured ~80% of the initial STEEM via mining.

So the main innovation is  secretly premining in open view? It is pretty sad where "innovation" effort go in this community as of late.

Thanks, but no thanks... I have experienced a 1,5 years of constant sell pressure by whales that openly quick mined PTS, to have the desire to experience the same by people that found a way to premine, sorry "secure " 80% stake for themselves secretly in open view.


--------------------------
Q: Is there STEALTH in steem's GUI?

52
Sidechains can be implemented on DPOS in a way that is superior to any other consensus algorithm.
False... actually very false

@tonyk, can you please elaborate?  Thanks.

It is pretty simple actually.

POW is a superior system to POS (or DPOS) if not for:
- It wastefulness ( 100 computers doing useless stuff just so 1 computer actually wins the lottery and is given the block reward).
- it is slowness to come to a decision who the block producer is.

so if we somehow forget those 2 above ( :) ), POW is far more decentralized fair and trustless...
and given the right improvements to the protocol it can make completely trustless sidechain transfers based only on a signature and nothing else...while DPOS still relies on trust, voting  etc.... ask @BunkerChain Labs how this "trust based system" was recently gamed (putting someone in charge of fees (and more) while he works on a competitor chain).... humans cannot be trust period.


So to sum it up... DPOS is the more logical decision right now....
"Sidechains can be implemented on DPOS  in a way that is superior to any other consensus algorithm. "
the superiority over any other consensus algo is just.... wrong/false... fan boy-ism... just a joke really.
Let's get real...let's call a spade a spade...and let's for sure decide to stop living in the clouds of our own dreams... not too many new followers up there anyway.

53

So, I guess it is more of a question. How " multi-sig" or  "cold storage " makes something "100% decentralized platform"  or "decentralized platform" for that matter. 1*

1* More to the problem at hand in this particular issue - one not strives for decentralized , as much as one strives for trust free solution.  Money backing assurances/bonds are the closest thing to trust... as far as  substitutes go , imho.

yeah, my choice of the word "decentralized" would have perhaps been better expressed by the word "trustless".

I like the idea of having bonded mulit-sig authorities...but how much money would they need to lock away for that to actually work? I mean, what's to guarantee that they don't ditch their deposit for a bigger slice of pie?

I have my extended  thoughts on that (granted buried under a pile of  posts regarding other issues and/or non issues at all) not more than a month back.
Anyway the point is - the assurance bond should be sufficient if it covers the average 1 day transfers ...say 5 to 10 times over (that is to say 5 -10 btc bond(s) for each 1 btc average daily total transfers).
so If we have 20 escrow-sidechain-agents acting as such, each one has to put 1/4 to 1/2 the daily transfer volume (o.25 to 0.50 BTC each) as a assurance bond in order to participate.

54
If you have any suggestions, experience, expertise or even just opinions

Me personally... "Just opinions"...but then again  just opinions.... :)

Sidechains can be implemented on DPOS
True

Sidechains can be implemented on DPOS in a way that is superior to any other consensus algorithm.
[/b]
False... actually very false

We should be exploring every option to make this a reality!
I do not see anything wrong with exploring it.... as for making it a reality.... we should see what the exploration yields.

Right now, we have a decentralized ledger, but we are still trading centralized proxy tokens for other major blockchains (OPEN.BTC, TRADE.DODGE, METAEX.ETH, etc.).
Could not agree more with that!


We need to come up with a robust multi-sig cold storage token solution to offer our users, so we can finally be a 100% decentralized platform in every way.
I am not sure I followed the reasoning there....
even removing the pump up ,strong / unnecessary, PR or/trendy terms... does not help much :
"We need to come up with a multi-sig cold storage  solution to offer our users, so we can be a 100% decentralized platform ."

So, I guess it is more of a question. How " multi-sig" or  "cold storage " makes something "100% decentralized platform"  or "decentralized platform" for that matter. 1*

1* More to the problem at hand in this particular issue - one not strives for decentralized , as much as one strives for trust free solution.  Money backing assurances/bonds are the closest thing to trust... as far as  substitutes go , imho.

55
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: April 01, 2016, 01:19:24 am »
Quote
Transfer   
poloniexwallet sent 500,995 BTS to wallet.xeroc
block 4,800,768 - 18 hours ago - 2.64174 BTS
Transfer   
poloniexwallet sent 249,995 BTS to wallet.xeroc
block 4,800,767 - 18 hours ago - 2.64174 BTS
Transfer   
poloniexwallet sent 149,995 BTS to wallet.xeroc
block 4,800,766 - 18 hours ago - 2.64174 BTS
Transfer   
poloniexwallet sent 24,995 BTS to wallet.xeroc
block 4,800,766 - 18 hours ago - 2.64174 BTS
Transfer   
poloniexwallet sent 276,443 BTS to wallet.xeroc
block 4,800,582 - 18 hours ago - 2.64174 BTS
That better?

Nope...just the usual day in BTS world..." net sales days, are... any and all days"

http://cryptofresh.com/u/dan
dan sent 2,000,000 BTS to blocktrades
1 days ago
dan sent 1,000,000 BTS to blocktrades
3 days ago

56
General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: April 01, 2016, 01:08:36 am »
In the end I reckon we should remove all non-OPEN assets from Openledger (default pairs) and even the bridges and gateways. They'll all be available in the light client but Openledger should prioritize their own assets in their hosted wallet.

So let me see if I get it right.

BTS pays a worker  for the GUI development... this development 'improves' the wallet by removing non-OPEN assets from the wallet (aka reducing the available choices to customer-owners-BTS-holders).... and this is all done so OL's products are not confused with the products of the competitors.. [products hidden include the BTS flagship product - the bitAssets -as well, isn't it]
In this whole thing OL pays nothing because?... ok, all right, it is the leading wallet for BTS....

Nothing personal svk, I just think this flashes out how the whole worker system is screwed in far more ways than one.... and @BunkerChain Labs  I see how you see the system being attacked by the so called "anti-dilutionalists"... if you are able to see the trueth regardless of your own agenda/bias... the above is an example  how it is attacked by full-on-No-checks-dilutionalists  as well.
Things/stuff is very rarely black or white...

57
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] New Money project & SOLCERT token
« on: March 30, 2016, 08:39:28 am »
Quote
SoLCerts is an example of using a token to represent a portion of the 1 trillion SSS Sollar bond fund. 10,000,000 SSS Sollar bonds will be represented through this (SoLCerts) token.

http://newmoney.sollars.com/new-money-funding-series-part-4-solcerts/

So these 10 million SolCerts represent 0.001% of a total 1 trillion bond fund?

(I don't understand bonds very well, to someone more familiar with limited crypto tokens, this pre-sale seems to be for a very small amount of future supply?)


Thanks for diving deep.  ;D Yes 1 SoLCert essentially equals one future Sollar through the Sollar Bond. But that is too complicated to explain to most people. At the end of the day a SOLCERT is a future Sollar. Sollars and Sense will be a stable unlimited supply coin as we are trying to be a currency with it and not a commodity like Bitcoin or Bitshares. Our commodity is SOLCERTS and Sollar Bonds. That is more like Bitshares or a speculative asset. One can use SoLCerts/Sollar Bonds to speculate on the value of the future Sollar against the future Dollar. If you believe the Dollar will be here forever then no need to follow this project. If you dont then consider the vision and roadmap of our project. Read part 3 of that series.

Check out our General FAQs section too: https://medium.com/@sollarsandsense/new-money-faqs-2d5e8e730caf#.y7lew7tfa

Whether Sollars supply gets to 1 Trillion or 60 Trillion like the Dollars market cap will all depend on adoption of the currency by regular everyday consumers. It is my 10 year goal to get it to 1 Trillion. And to start on that path is with SOLCERTS and Millennials. We are issuing assets the same way Bitcoin, the US government and Bitshares issued assets to fund itself out of thin air. This is no different except that we are creating a mainstream alternative with a brand to actually take on the Dollar. So if you believe in a stable alternative to the Dollar then believe in this... or not. Either way people participating in our pre-sale are essentially buying into that mainstream currency supply now through SOLCERTS. And if we are successful you are going to be glad you did. Hope this info helps.

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.

Quote
At the end of the day a SOLCERT is a future Sollar. Sollars and Sense will be a stable unlimited supply coin

Given that a SOLCERT is a future Sollar and Sollars will be unlimited in supply, I'm still uncertain how the value of my investment will dramatically increase through adoption but I will look into it more at the links provided & hopefully understand it better.


The closest model to what you are offering via Solcerts that we have in crypto at the moment is Nubits. (Nubits, like Sollars and Sense are a stable unlimited supply coin, in their case pegged to the value of USD. https://nubits.com/)

The issuance of NuBits is controlled by NuShares shareholders. https://nubits.com/nushares/introduction
Most traditional investors (crypto or otherwise) would be much more interested in investing in and owning the underlying company, that issues Sollars, while mainstream would be more interested in owning & using NuBits/Sollars (Which a SolCert entitles you too.)

How does someone become a shareholder in the underlying company behind New Money?
(How does someone besides you get to have a say in the issuance of new Sollar bonds and what the received funds are spent on?)
Or will that come later? Thanks.

This is a hundred times worse than anything else I have ever seen*.
1.At least Nubits did not start by selling Nubits first and keeping all the actual shares NuShares (fed chairs) by a single person.
2. At least Nubits did not aim for selling 500K Nushares at different prices (different prices for a stable currency…. But hey this is just one of many inovations in the ‘new money’).
3. At least Nubits did not hide the fact what you are buying, well buried in the sale's pitch.
4.At least Nubits founders had a clear idea and reasoning (be it backed by a wrong theory) behind their model.
5. At least Nubits were not let by a film maker who believes that having a vision and a dream is all that one needs to call himself "Vitalik and ByteMaster" and the best man to lead a tech project as a result of that.

My utter disappointment is not with this project though. My disappointment will be if BM does not come and say something AT LEAST as soft as - "Guys you should seriously reconsider putting this on a more solid ground". Unless he does so he would have lost total respect by me, for being soft indecisive leader. One might even call him 2 faced when it comes to project on his platform as opposed by somewhere else. This has all the writings to be a total train rack and him expressing some caution regarding it is the least he can do to prevent bitshares being a collateral damage in this.
PS
Well, at least my conscious is clear now . I put it here, you read  it and you are warned. The rest is up to you.
I have been wrong more times in my life than I have been correct…. But this thing is such a utter nonsense that I simply cannot be wrong… unless I have been moved to a new parallel reality where the nonsense is the only thing that actually makes sense.

PSS
Since writing this response several days ago I have run into several other things that boggle my mind….
So the “worse than anything else I have ever seen” statement has a good rival now, fighting for the number one spot in my list.

PSSS
BTW Emperical  + 1 on all of your later posts after the one quoted. My mind is so overwhelmed by enormity of the illogicality of this thing that it literally stops me in my tracks when trying to explain the 200 ways it makes no sense what so ever.  I am glad you have the mind to calmly handle such a giant yarn (what yarn stupid tonyk… it is not a yarn it is a not -interconnected pile) of BS.

58
@tonyk this is it:

https://cryptofresh.com/u/shanghai-dragon-cny
shanghai-dragon-cny sent 7,500,000 BTS to poloniexwallet
7 hours ago
shanghai-dragon-cny sent 500,000 BTS to poloniexwallet
8 hours ago

This makes little to no sense to me... and by 'this' I mean supporters of full dilution leaving the ship with virtually no fight (localhost, trust, blablaName-BlaBleName, shanghai-dragon-cny). Those where all big holders deciding to dump after having been voting for all Actual-work-workers before that....

And while I can understand the logic BM expressed (I said understand , not agree) - i.e. "One side have to move to a new chain...eventually."
I find it  not a very smart way to do it.... especially in the part of leaving supporters fight the so called "non-diluters"...while big whales have given up and silently leave the ship.

I honestly do not know what is most disturbing to me right now.... that silent and somewhat mean exit of said whales; the total and utter nonsense of the solar and nonsense project and its kick starter; or me leaving Emperical alone in expressing the true and obvious concerns regarding said project without even giving him a simple "I agree, +1:-[

59
Looks to me like you're wrong here @tonyk , those two accounts never voted or had a proxy set. The account updates you saw added hyperethas to active authorities in the case of garylarimer, and spook to for-gary. The account spook also has active authority over the account for-dana, the whale that dumped ~12M or so BTS over the last couple months, and for-dana uses bytemaster as its proxy.

I too remember Hyperethas as a company used by I3 for payroll services or something like that. Anyway the name gary-larimer does indicate this is an account controlled by or at least related to BM, and for-gary and for-dana thus appear to be linked to him as well.

As for the change in vote amounts, I know I changed my proxy for bitsharesblocks and dev.bitsharesblocks recently before removing it yesterday in order to choose my own votes, that accounts for about 2.8M BTS...

yep... it seems I am wrong on the details.

for-dana is grandma danna btw as far as I can tell...as for gary? no clue but probably granddaddy Gary....
Anyway pathetic voters at best....scummy voters at worst.

-----
2.8 BTS votes, tend to make a difference if one is voting on the margin right now, btw.

60
I have no idea who "for-gary" was voting for, but it's quite obvious that "garylarimer" wasn't voting for anyone, since it just claimed its funds 6 hours ago...
http://cryptofresh.com/u/garylarimer

well, I did not ask for it, but if they wish to explain the justification behind the 35 mil BTS sale from the  trust account ...I am listening!

what's there to talk about , it's tax season in the US   :P

Nope...it does not makes sense [unless they have hired eagle-eye or fuzzy to do their taxes]...
CNX owes virtually nothing....it is not 2014 with millions of donations falling all over them and they doing nothing but waiting to be hit by a tax bill....

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 221