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 - gamey

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 151
91
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 16, 2016, 10:37:22 pm »
Quote from: julian1 on April 16, 2016, 08:49:19 pm
The promise that was made, was to align the various competing chains and interests (vote, dns, bitshares etc) under the one umbrella, and to retain developer resources.

This is the promise that was broken.

It's quite normal for agreements to set aside when the original intention of the agreement cannot be fulfilled or when one side to the agreement fails to perform.

(And in the real world, damages would ordinarily be paid for breach and loss).

It is also real normal for others to want to take money from others without their consent in the real world, but that doesn't make it right.

There is a selectivity at play. It is completely not fair and will give Bitshares such a bad rep. There are a dozen ways you can spin how people were screwed. This time intentional.  Those shares were paid for just as much as the shares that haven't been vested. All the shares are investments.

Those balances *are* the property of their owners.  If you can't agree by that simple principle any longer, then why would ANYONE ever invest in this cryptocurrency again?

I find it baffling that so many people support this. Truly utterly baffling. 

92
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 16, 2016, 06:39:39 pm »

If anything the vesting period should just be delayed .. so if BTS survives then these people are treated fairly and not robbed.  If it doesn't, well not as much harm done.

I no longer hold any BTS except my vesting balance which I hadn't planned on selling, but with the support in this thread it makes me think I should get moving ASAP.

93
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 16, 2016, 06:29:43 pm »
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on April 16, 2016, 05:41:42 pm
if they are done developing, then yes, that's why the vesting period was created (to guarantee support for the duration of the vesting period). if the devs are  still developing, then no.

IMO it was done for serveral reasons. One was because it gave Bytemaster a way to not have to work on DNS and let him pursue what he really wanted to do. This was a huge mistake as he should have just left DNS alone.  I don't think censorship resistant applications hold much interest to BM. 

The main reason however is that it prevented people who donated and paid for development of BTS to not be 100% robbed. I don't think there was ever any 'guaranteed support'.

It would also be a huge blackeye on Bytemaster's reputation.  He could shuffle his feet around and go '.but ... if... not my fault ..... karma is a bitch'  but thats not how a lot of people will see it.

94
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 16, 2016, 06:25:44 pm »
It would be a huge blackeye on the project further removing any faith in the project what so ever.  Exponential compounding of errors it would seem.

If you didn't donate to AGS post snapshot #1 for the original vision then I have no idea why anyone donated period.

THe people who vote yes are people who probably don't have any vested balances.

95
General Discussion / Re: Steam 7 days to sweat equity (sorry both with an 'e')
« on: April 16, 2016, 06:19:06 pm »
Quote from: thereverseflash on April 16, 2016, 01:02:14 pm
Technically vests can be transferred and sold by transferring the account.  It just isn't easy.  Not including vests in supply would be grossly misrepresentation of investor interest.  Furthermore vests are required to transact and vote and govern.  They are voluntarily created and held.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a limitation of CMC. They're trying to provide their users with what they want. Adding a 'vesting' portion to CMC would make things needlessly complex.

CMC got rid of Banx because of a similar approach. It is very unlikely it'll happen the way you wish it would. While your project should be upfront about vesting and all that, don't expect CMC to count them. (And they shouldn't)


96
General Discussion / Re: Should BTS end merger vesting BTS early?
« on: April 16, 2016, 02:39:57 pm »

End it as in pay out remaining balances or completely stiff the people who signed up for the original vision ?

97
General Discussion / Congrats to the no-dilution crowd.
« on: April 16, 2016, 10:11:28 am »

Well we're down to 1 worker and he won't last long as this rate.

I wonder how long the block-explorer will last?  Hopefully for awhile still. Once that is gone, even the service I worked on that integrates a rudimentary Bitshares support will no longer be viable. It is probably worth it for him to keep it running, given that it'd allow him to get a decent job given the professionalism of the site.

Maybe Chinese will get one last pump in for the rubes left ?

Regardless, mission accomplished guys. Excellent job. lol

What is expected of a developer when the blockchain fires him?  Is he supposed to finish up his work for free or just immediately quit and go do something else?  Anyone ever had this discussion?

98
General Discussion / Re: So what is everyone's thoughts on the Bitshares platform & ecosystem now?
« on: April 16, 2016, 04:21:31 am »
Quote from: btswildpig on April 16, 2016, 01:54:37 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 15, 2016, 08:20:07 pm
There is not going to be a share drop.

The biggest benefit to this is that bitshares is no longer the guinea pig for cnx.

What I find absolutely hilarious is how earlier this year Dan said his new year's resolution was to become a "better leader for bitshares"... Quits 4 months later.

The biggest benefit of this is for people to recognize the reality and be less serious about people's random commitment without a legal contract . Of course , same goes to every new ICO project out there .
People shouldn't even take the sharedrop theory seriously in the first place........What , just because a guy said so , then he will give you 10% of everything he built in the future ? Just because this guy sounded serious ?

The sharedrop thing was never given any sort of chance. Mining gives away far more than 10%.  10% for a premade dedicated community to support your product isn't that bad of a deal. If someone gives you 10% then it either will be in the code or it won't.

99
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 11, 2016, 03:49:30 am »

The above attack happened to me on a NXT blockchain when I decided to ignore the security recommendation while testing something. It is quite epic to see your account hacked within seconds. Literally. Thinking about it, it seems like perhaps that was bad programming on their part. (I'm not suggesting NXT still has this issue. I have no clue.)

I was aware of salting, but didn't realize it could be stored publicly along with the hash.  +5% for teaching me stuff.

100
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 11, 2016, 01:57:03 am »
Quote from: Thom on April 11, 2016, 01:28:31 am
You are correct on both counts tbone. @Erlich Bachman - allowing short or insecure keys isn't an option for anyone. The last thing BitShares needs is someone loosing their life savings b/c they failed to provide a good brain key.

I got a lot out of BM's discussion on last Friday's mumble. Two important points:

1) There are higher risks for putting wallets on the blockchain, significantly b/c attackers can hammer their target trying to crack the password without any delays between each attempt. They could employ many computers in parallel in the attempt also.You might be surprised at how quickly a password can be guessed via brute force means like that.

2) It's not sufficient to only save private keys. That could work if you're saving a BitShares wallet with only standard accounts, but not if the wallet contains stealth addresses. And, unless a limit is put on how many accounts and stealth accounts a wallet may contain the size of the backup could get prohibitively large to store on the blockchain, even without transaction history.

Regarding the use of blinded transfers as a replacement, I'm not a big fan of that approach. I would want to see more details about the viability of that, focused on the time required to implement it, what the exposure it has on existing code to new bugs, both front end and backend, not to mention who will implement it with this no-dilution cloud hanging overhead.

It is worse than #1. They can store the hashes and then clear out any account that goes forward and uses that hash. With 5 TB drives costing so cheap, you can create really really big hash stores .  So as soon as any transaction hits the network, this actor looks up their list of hashes and sees if it is crackable.

101
General Discussion / Re: Moonstone?
« on: April 09, 2016, 05:50:01 am »
Guys, think about it...  Scaling issues come up AFTER the thing has been implemented.  Like they're load-testing Graphene instead of writing a wallet? 

<DELETED FROM NET> <-- Tonyk sent me messages that I was being too frank

102
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 08, 2016, 04:56:25 am »
Can someone please point me in the direction of the best description of how this works?


103
General Discussion / Re: Yunbi started voting against all workers except refund/burn workers
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:06:03 am »
Quote from: Pheonike on April 07, 2016, 11:54:52 pm
Its very simple, "He who holds the private key holds the vote". They gave their right to vote away when they gave their shares to POLO. Therefore it's more valuable to them to use the POLO exchange than it is to hold BTS. The only way to change this is to make our DEX a more valuable place to trade on than any other exchange when it comes to BTS. Anything outside of that is a waste of time an energy.

Just think if Polo pulled a Yunbi but with their own workers.  It isn't going to happen, but I wonder whose opinions would change.

104
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:04:35 am »
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on April 05, 2016, 12:03:45 pm

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

I think they are mainly a hack to get around the anti-dilution crowd.

IMO it just adds complexity that isn't needed.  Complexity that can bring in more bugs. 

Complexity is something you fight against in software development, just like libertarian types fight against more laws.

I'd still like to see this explained somewhere so I can know it isn't another TITAN.

105
General Discussion / Re: [ANN][BITLANDGLOBAL]|ICO|Decentralized Land Registry
« on: April 07, 2016, 07:12:28 pm »


FCT/Factom has been approaching this problem for some time. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 151

Page created in 0.195 seconds with 23 queries.