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 - CoinHoarder

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 44
166
General Discussion / Re: Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 24, 2016, 12:35:42 am »
This would have the same impact as any other solution. Price is a function of supply and demand.

It reminds me of the first minute of this video. Which glass has more juice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtLEWVu815o

Good point, so it seems that my original idea as listed in the OP would not really work. I feel like it may have some legs as I altered it in my reply to empirical though.

If a premium were charged then only true supporters (read: hodlers) of the project would utilize it. I think true long-term believers are much less likely to sell than any random speculator, which allows for less downward pressure on the price as far as dilution goes. Thus, supply changes on paper, but not in the market on the sale side where it matters most. CNX (or any other contractor) needs to pay bills, pay its employees, and diversify its paycheck, which exerts a lot of downward pressure on the price. I feel like overall the downward pressure on the market is reduced with this method as it is shifted onto a different chain's market... Bitcoin's. It is also an improvement over the traditional fundraising efforts of coins such as Bitcoin or Litecoin, where stakeholder donate coins and receive nothing tangible in return. In this case, money is raised for development, but the donator gets something immediately tangible in return which IMO would increase the likelihood that someone would donate in the first place. I think that this method has a lesser effect on the price than with worker proposals as they currently exist.

167
General Discussion / Re: Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 23, 2016, 08:30:28 pm »
I don't get it.

Increased demand for existing BTS is what increases the value of BTS.

You seem to be suggesting that whenever there is new demand we should print new BTS to meet that demand. 

This will reduce demand for existing BTS and lower the value BTS would otherwise have had.

Yes, it would slightly reduce the demand for Bitshares on the open market. However, I do not think it would have a great effect. Since everyone still pays the going market rate, then people will still buy via the other currently existing avenues. This would simply be an extra option available to someone that wanted to purchase BTS tokens. I think it would mainly be used by people that are deeply involved with the ecosystem already.

If you think it is necessary, a premium could be charged so that this doesn't affect buy support too much (in this scenario most people would choose to purchase via original avenues.) Then it would work similar to how other coins raise money for development with one large difference... the "donator" gets something tangible in return for their donation. The amount raised for development would be smaller, but it would have all of the same benefits and have less effect on buy support.

168
General Discussion / Re: Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 23, 2016, 07:36:42 pm »
Admittedly most of my ideas are "half baked", but can someone explain to me the issue with this? There are no replies so that makes me think there is an obvious issue, yet, I am still not able to see it.

169
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 23, 2016, 06:59:08 pm »
The fees should remain as low as possible until the DEX has some resemblance of liquidity. Once there is sufficient liquidity, we can revisit the fee structure.

170
Some services on the deposit/withdrawal page are subject to permanent centralized risk. The reserves that back the said asset can be compromised or stolen. Such as OPEN.BTC, META.BTC, etc...

All services are subject to at least momentary third party risks.

Either way there should be a disclaimer on the withdrawal/deposit page and when someone pulls up the exchange interface when a centralized asset is at least one of the two assets in the trading pair.

171
General Discussion / Minimizing the impact of dilution
« on: January 23, 2016, 06:31:17 am »
Feel free to poke holes in this... I am the king of horrible ideas apparently.

A. User wants to buy BTS
B. The committee members publish the Bitcoin address, so delegates can monitor it using a Bitcoin blockchain data API (multiple ones in case of down time.)
C. A BTS user sends BTC to a multi-signature address setup by committee members.
D. A smart contract then "prints" BTS for the user using the current market value (via delegate feeds) worth of BTS whenever over 51% of the delegates agree someone has deposited money to the address. It would then be redeemable similar to PTS/AGS shares.
E. The user has BTS that he will likely not dump immediately, as he got no discount and paid the current market value.
F. The BTS token supply grows, but there is no immediate (or certain) downward pressure to the BTS value.
G. Downward pressure by the developers selling the coins for expenses happens on other chains, positively affecting BTS value by reducing downward pressure.

This could possibly be gamed with any coin other than Bitcoin, which is why I suggest we only allow Bitcoin deposits. The cryptocurrency used in this must have large enough liquidity so that it cannot be easily gamed. Maybe you could tie bridge services into this idea somehow since they already have the bridge part taken care of.

172
General Discussion / Re: why bts lack users????????
« on: January 22, 2016, 05:35:37 am »
No liquidity in the DEX, and stakeholders are too cheap to fix it (dilution is the only surefire way to fix it.)

173
bump.

Yet another 100% centralized feature has been added to the Deposit/Withdraw page with no mention of the risks of using such services in our client. The first service to go bankrupt and lose user funds is going to be a big black eye on Bitshares if we as stakeholders don't decide to put an obvious disclaimer in there that they are exiting the safety net of a decentralized and autonomous cryptocurrency.

174
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH / Confidential Milestones
« on: January 16, 2016, 07:25:41 am »
Nice!

Also, liked the detail of "stupid wallet makes me register to browse". That's definitely something that needs to change. Not being able to check it without registering puts people off.

Very good point. I hate having to register to try things out! It also wastes aliases, puts dust on the blockchain, and wastes the money of the referrer (if the account it "thrown away" and never used again).

EDIT: The Stealth GUI looks really nice so far.

175
General Discussion / Re: Crowd Donations for Mike Hearn Hangout
« on: January 16, 2016, 07:21:58 am »
What was his crime?

Well, you edited out the important part, but generally working to undermine a basic human liberty that all humans should be allowed (privacy). Not to mention attempting to make Bitcoins non fungible...

176
General Discussion / Re: Crowd Donations for Mike Hearn Hangout
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:34:06 pm »
Meh.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

 I can't take this guy seriously since then

177
General Discussion / Re: Mt Gox > Cryptsy - Time for BTS?
« on: January 15, 2016, 07:35:52 am »
Oops, I missed your thread..

TL;DR:
- Cryptsy was hacked
- 13,000 BTC and 300,000 LTC was stolen
- ran for a long time on fractional reserves
- blackmails their users at the end.. pretty much saying "don't light torches to come after crypsty, or you'll never get paid"
- they blame a "libelous article" for being the reason their exchange which was operating on fractional reserves failed...
- all withdrawals and trades have been frozen


http://blog.cryptsy.com

Quote
Cryptsy has had problems for some time now and it’s time to let everybody know exactly why.  These problems were NOT because of any recent phishing attacks, or even a ddos attack, nor does it have anything to do with me personally.
About a year and a half ago, we were alerted in the early AM of a reduction in our safe/cold wallet balances of Bitcoin and Litecoin, as well as a couple other smaller cryptocurrencies.   After a period of time of investigation it was found that the developer of Lucky7Coin had placed an IRC backdoor into the code of wallet, which allowed it to act as a sort of a Trojan, or command and control unit.   This Trojan had likely been there for months before it was able to collect enough information to perform the attack.  It does not appear that this was the original developer for LK7, as on 5/22/2014, we received this message from the new developer who wanted to maintain the codebase:

Hello,
Lucky7Coin is not maintained and I would like to take care of it. I have announced that on bitcointalk.org in Lucky7Coin thread. You’re the only exchange for this coin and I hope you will let me take care of it. I’m responsible. You don’t have to be afraid of errors or forks. I’m developing multipool and I know bitcoin internals and protocol.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295157.msg6861797#msg6861797
For a start I’ve changed irc network, so clients could synchronize blockchain. Please upgrade as soon as you can.
Github repo:
https://github.com/alerj78/lucky7coin
Branch “master” will always be for stable version, branch “devel” could be dirty. In a 2-3 weeks I’ll release new version with p2pool support and checkpoints. Before that I’ll contact you to check few blocks hashes for checkpoints and make sure there is no fork.
I hope we can cooperate and make this coin live again!
Jack

These are the approximate figures taken:
Bitcoin:  13,000 BTC
Litecoin:  300,000 LTC
This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand.   The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time.   This worked fine for awhile, as profits decreased due to low volume and low Bitcoin prices, we would adjust our spending accordingly.  It wasn’t until an article from Coinfire came out that contained many false accusations that things began to crumble.   The article basically caused a bank-run, and since we only had so much in reserves for those currencies problems began. 
Our current customer liabilities for BTC is around 10,000 BTC, so as you can see we would like to see the Bitcoins returned for both our users and for ourselves.
Here are the transaction details from the Bitcoin wallet:
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/0c07e0bec1002bd2
As you can see,  2014-07-29 13:17:36 is when the event occurred.   A very interesting fact here, however, is that those Bitcoins have not moved once since this happened.    This gives rise to the possibility they can be recovered.   In fact, I’m offering a bounty of 1000 BTC for information which leads to the recovery of the stolen coins.
If you happen to be the perpetrator of this crime, and want to send the coins back no questions asked, then you can simply send them to this address: 
1KNi4E4MTsF7gfuPKPNAbrZWQvtdQBTAAa
If they are returned, then we will assume that no harm was meant and will not take any action to reveal who you are.  If not, well, then I suppose the entire community will be looking for you.
Some may ask why we didn’t report this to the authorities when this occurred, and the answer is that we just didn’t know what happened, didn’t want to cause panic, and were unsure who exactly we should be contacting.   At one time we had a open communication with Secret Service Agent Shaun Bridges on an unrelated matter, but I think we all know what happened with him – so he was no longer somebody we could report this to.    Recently I attempted to contact the Miami FBI office to report this, but they instead directed me to report it on the I3C website.  I’ve not heard anything from them.
I think the only real people who can assist with this are the people of the Bitcoin community itself.
Trades and withdrawals will be suspended on the site indefinately until some sort of resolution can be made.
Here are our options:
1.   We shut down the website and file bankruptcy, letting users file claims via the bankruptcy process and letting the court make the disbursements.
-   or –
2.   Somebody else comes in to purchase and run Cryptsy while also making good on requested withdrawals.
-   or –
3.   If somehow we are able to re-aquire the stolen funds, then we allow all withdrawal requests to process.
I’m obviously open to any other ideas people may have on this.

I feel for all of the people affected, but at the same time I think this is a good time for Bitshares to advertise itself within the crypto community. Let's get people in the cryptocurrency community to take a fresh look at Bitshares.

Let's start here? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1328530.0

178
General Discussion / Crypsty has officially goxxed its users
« on: January 15, 2016, 07:18:25 am »

179
General Discussion / Re: Can private and public blockchains be connected?
« on: January 12, 2016, 03:56:56 am »
Yes, this exists and is possible. Crypti has private blockchains... each dApp uses its own blockchain. It also exists with merge-mined coins (namecoin, devcoin) and protocols built on top of Bitcoin (counterparty, mastercoin, rootstock). There are probably a lot of other examples that don't immediate come to mind.
How are merged mined chains private.?

I misunderstood the question haha... disregard my post.


I am not sure if it is possible. You may be able to encrypt the data stored in the merge mined coin's block chain and split the encryption key among numerous privately-controlled nodes (m of n style... in case one or a few are compromised).

180
General Discussion / Re: Can private and public blockchains be connected?
« on: January 10, 2016, 11:19:11 pm »
Yes, this exists and is possible. Crypti has private blockchains... each dApp uses its own blockchain. It also exists with merge-mined coins (namecoin, devcoin) and protocols built on top of Bitcoin (counterparty, mastercoin, rootstock). There are probably a lot of other examples that don't immediate come to mind.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 44