Everything ok with the payouts?  According to the website, a few payouts are not showing up in the wallet even though they are indicated on the website.

These seem to be skipped:
BTS    brekyrse1f3    1174.62592118    4/6/2016 9:21:35 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    312.92976694    4/6/2016 6:47:31 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    289.77028151    2/24/2016 10:37:29 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    177.43976024    1/10/2016 11:09:19 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    77.08215620    1/6/2016 4:21:26 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    118.85506832    1/6/2016 6:16:54 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    74.32134320    1/4/2016 12:36:19 AM

I need to check the following when I get home, not sure if the "recent history" includes these or not since they are old.  They also do not show up on CryptoFresh.
BTS    brekyrse1f3    137.41309900    12/23/2015 10:57:38 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    1064.18212841    12/22/2015 1:04:47 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    233.54878255    12/20/2015 6:36:02 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    488.44238237    12/19/2015 1:19:23 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    765.26706888    12/17/2015 12:41:03 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    766.43377861    12/16/2015 10:31:40 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    403.46890751    12/15/2015 12:40:40 AM

This issue has been brought to the attention of the devs.

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on March 25, 2016, 04:43:16 pm

But...but...cryptofresh says you only have "4,290 BTS"....

 

Glad to see you still hanging in there Andre. You're gonna be one mighty whale when we reach ETH cap "this summer".

 

I still havent claimed my 0.9 BTS in 2.0, so thats probably why it says that.  (Also, it is such BS that any time anyone claims and sends their BTS to polo, the whole world knows about it).    Didnt seem like much point doing so when the price was so low, I wouldnt want to sell at that price, dont want to convert it to bitassets when I think BTS should outperform them because its undervalue,d and didnt want to trade them because people were getting margin called.  Thats changing now I guess though, the internal market has been strengthening.

Also, I felt that if I claimed them, I would probably end up dumping them at some point, and it would be a mistake.

Are you out of Monero Ander? Today there should be plenty of teeth nashings for Monero holders.

HEEEELP  someone.... anyone !!!

Do something!!!

HEEEELP!!!!

Please find or create some good news for ethereum ! This sh!t is falling like a stone!!!!



300M marketcap in 3 months, maybe much much lower!

Oups.. maybe I shouldn't have mentioned scaling.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 08, 2016, 03:55:04 am

Quote from: Ben Mason on April 08, 2016, 03:28:51 am

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

Doing a bit of market research are we? Just where in the world could a business like that store such reserves safely?

Perhaps as you say this poll / thread is all a matter of fun. Regardless, donkeypong has made the best contributions to this thread, and I agree that "No" is the best answer. The failure of Cryptosmith to make even a single sale in the 2 months of operation before Ryan decided to "run with the gold"  is another piece of evidence against this idea.

As for Digx I have nothing. I never heard of them myself.

I understand you're position since you were so close to all that.

Nonetheless.. would you characterize Bitshares today based on what it was last year? I think the capacity and capability to have a real asset backed chain certainly is.

Also.. how that was done with cryptosmith I would define as done COMPLETELY wrong... he could have just made off with the gold the same way he made off with the money. Wrong on all levels.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on April 09, 2016, 02:20:43 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on April 09, 2016, 09:49:11 am

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Exactly they're a centralised entity who were clearly able to raise funds within hours from a handful of institutional investors so they didn't need to crowdfund. It comes across as a pre-orchestrated investment event that was either done as a legal workaround or because as a blockchain based service they think they will benefit from the perception of being crowdfunded like BitReserve. They also unlike most put a cap on funds raised.

Their crowdfunding thread is all of 5 pages long and 1/2 those comments are negative & I can't find one thread with lots of interest for this one year old mature amazing project... I think it has potential but as you say it's clearly attracted a handful of institutional investors vs. the decentralised crowd at this stage which is why I don't think it will be recognised as a valid crowdfund by the market and in the records.

(& I do see it has potential. I think I answered no to your poll originally but while not long term I actually could see myself using a gold backed crypto-currency for brief periods depending on how it was done.)

No.. I think you are conflating some ideas here. Before doing a crowdfund of course every single one of them does a little pre-marketing... nothing wrong with that. The fact that because they are doxable just made it MUCH easier for anybody with real money to invest. Again this is also about physical assets.. soooo very different from sandbox ideas... although the way they plan to operate I admit is very sandbox in itself.

Crypto ventures the way they are presented and as they are structured often have no semblance to how deals everyday are done in the rest of the world.

People everywhere are still shaking their heads over how so many of these offers raised as much as they did.

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Graphene’s architectural shortcomings
Graphene was set up back in the day where it was thought that everyone would run their own node or download a client on their machine. The codebase still reflects that.

What we need is something that can provide an excellent UX while being scalable to millions.
Graphene’s wallet infrastructure makes it possible to host a mere few dozen wallets per virtual machine. This, of course… is not scalable to our needs.

A good solution to this is to have the wallets web based – browser side wallets.

The issue with THAT is that the JavaScript code for the browser side wallet was converted from C++ by an automatic converter making the code huge! (68 megabytes according to BitSapphire)

Loading such a large JS would be a nightmare for anyone trying to access Troopeers and PeerTracks from any phone/tablet/laptop no matter how fast your Internet connection is. Basically the code is far from optimized for this scenario, but it could be reengineered and be brought down to a more reasonable size (under 2 MG)

This is actually the exact problem BitSapphire is attempting to tackle with Moonstone. They are re-writing the JavaScript to solve this very issue.


Now that my excuses are out of the way...

This has no semblance to reality.

If Bitsapphire claims they can't develop Moonstone because of this javascript boogieman that nobody else here has ever even seen or heard of.. how the heck did this happen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLObFOPIzIM&index=13&list=PLjbx3qSmDe7RYkRMIEuFyYyG7_vvKgou0

They didn't take $35k from community members to get a working mobile wallet either. Meanwhile a supposed team of experts in blockchain have failed to deliver even an alpha after an ENTIRE YEAR.

I think it is time that Moonstone returned the funds they took from everyone.. they have not delivered and clearly are in an endless loop (programmer pun intended) of only delivering excuses.

Sorry but the platform we have is MORE than adequate and handles FAR more than what is stated above even right 'now'.

The rest of the update sure.. fine.. but this part about not launching with graphene because of false claims I take issue with.

If I am off my rocker (again, this time with a music pun), then please provide the proof from bitsapphaire regarding these claims. It would be in their best interest also.