As for a visit to cb, it is hard to beat a trip around the Cabot Trail. I would recommend waiting for October though for the colours.

I was just thinking... 2 Nova Scotians into bts. That is 1/450,000. If worldwide adoption was 1/450,000 there would be 15,500 bts users, which is way more than the 6000ish there is now. We are way above average!

Guess we are not so backwoods afterall huh! 

After our media campaign working with bitshares though, that average is going to change dramatically.

Quote from: nethyb on January 31, 2015, 06:52:29 am

And thanks for mining at minebitshares

BM said in mumble that minebitshares will have 5% additional profit to miners and will pay in bitUSD, when this be available?

Soon as they switch to bitUSD BM said he would activate the  then.

http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/Feeds

Ok.. no excuses I agree.  

Votes are included into the blockchain by delegates. I'm curious what may happen if votes are about to fire 51 delegates...

Then then ones directly below them would move up. There is always 101, they would just change who are in that space.

Just tried Shapeshift for the first time.

Was a bit disappointed I couldn't send more that .99 BTC to my BTS wallet. Any chance this is going to increase to more reasonable larger levels like 10 BTC?

Love the idea of it being in the wallet just because it is more convenient.. though I think it would be a better fit in the bitwallet. QTwallet feels heavy already and I would prefer not to load on top of it for only that reason.

Total transaction time for the Shapeshift from BTC send to BTS showing in my wallet btw.. 5 minutes. Not to shabby as far as BTC transactions go.

We need easier onramps for general adoption. Shapeshift only works in crypto.. but it's a great step in simplification.

  to simplified onramps overall!

I can imagine in a stateless society coordinated shunning - otherwise known as social ostracism - would be the go-to choice for private defense agencies dealing with criminals and other distasteful behavior. There's nothing immoral with socially ostracizing others - your just denying them access to your property. It's by far the most efficient way at curbing behaviors - from both an economical point of view & from a punishment point of view; we're social animals, we can't survive without the tribe.

If a person doesn't uphold a contract, or commits a petty crime, I would imagine their name would be placed on a database (maybe a blockchain) which would be sent out to all businesses in a local or national area.  These businesses would have an incentive not to do businesses with this person as if they are caught they would likewise be shunned. This would mean the criminal would have no access to private roads or be served by businesses. Very quickly the criminal is going to realize he is going to have to offer restitution for his behaviors unless he wants to live the rest of his life isolated from civilization.

 

This is an adaptation of an ideal that is used in some religions. It is often referred to or known as being 'ex-communicated'. When an individual doesn't yield to counsel and continues to persist in their bad behaviour they could be ex-communicated until they have taken corrective action. The idea being similar to what you illustrated.. they would be on the outside of the community. I believe your thoughts on this are spot on in how they maybe applied.

I tend to disagree with this comparison to bitcoin getting it's foothold thanks to gambling justification. That was a LONG time ago in Internet years. this is a new age now, filled with far more regulations that have caught up. The average Internet user is more sophisticated now compared to back then.

I understand the economic benefits to some people with this... but if that is what we have to show front and center in a showroom, then the real magic of bitshares is going to be lost and detracted from.

We need more user cases. We need success stories in the ecosystem. Everything is so new and everyone expects it all to just take off overnight, but that's just not how it happens. There is a tipping point.. and as we keep on bringing on useful things that compliment the DPOS ecosystem there will come a point where it just takes off and discussions like this will not be held in the light of being some kind of Monorail savior to bitshares.


Lets be frank though. This is not something for bitshares to develop anyways. If there is a 3rd party gaming entity that wants to use the bitshares platform for their transactions there is nothing stopping them. So for all those pro-gamblers, instead of just talking about it here, you could be reaching out to various gaming places that currently user bitcoin.. include your refer id! talk with them about how they could get first mover advantage.

For OPs proposal.. sounds like a great third party project to pursue, but the client is not where it belongs. You got plenty of other channels to utilize for advertising and for the game to work through your own client or web based. If it's to be distributed, yes, it would involve running a DAC.

At the end of the day, putting a slot machine right at the same counter where you go to get your banking or investments done is just so disassociated from anything anybody has ever used it makes no sense... unless we are now making the wallet for the purpose of scooting into the casino to gamble... then thats how most will perceive this to be.

It is a huge improvement!

Is the source of the website hosted on GitHub somewhere? The last commit to https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares.org was May 15, 2014, so that can't be it. There are a few typos or minor issues on the website that I would find more convenient to correct myself as I discover them and submit as a pull request. And I assume more will pop up as the website continues to evolve, so collaborative editing would be useful.

I would also like to reiterate that downloading the client binaries from the website is currently insecure. The best way to solve it would be to implement HTTPS on bitshares.org as soon as possible. Until then, a better-than-nothing fix is to point the download links to the binaries hosted on GitHub (protected by HTTPS), get rid of the SHA1 hashes on bitshares.org (because that provides a false sense of security since they can be changed by a MITM attacker of bitshares.org serving its own SHA1 over HTTP), and just tell people to refer to the SHA1 hashes on https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases if they want to verify the binaries downloaded from a source other than GitHub. This is of course not a great solution, because victims visiting a MITM-modified bitshares.org may not pay attention to (or realize the security implications of) the fact that they are downloading the executable via HTTP. I don't want to hear about a user complaining that their money was stolen even though they downloaded THE client from the official "bitshares.org" website, which gives us a bad name.

Good catch arhag. Yes, all downloads should be https at least. I am sure they are watching this thread and will make the changes asap.