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 - BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ... 168
451
General Discussion / Re: No dilution. Now what? Everyone anti dilution please report.
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:22:30 pm »
Quote from: merockstar on February 22, 2016, 01:39:11 pm

Development may stagnant for a while and be limited to what people are willing to contribute voluntarily. The project doesn't die. We employ patience. During this time speculators become more confident that they won't be buying into just an ATM for the devs (and their sponsors). Given enough time, there will be a new pump or two, which will leave the price a little higher than it had previously been.

Rinse and repeat this process a few times, then all of a sudden we're in a position to fund a new feature without shooting ourselves in the foot in the process.

Yes, Bitcoin, my example above, does dilute, but this is different because that's not what's funding development. Miners are in more of a position to hold until the price goes up and sell at a time when it's more appropriate and healthy for the market. Let's dilute for new features at times when it's appropriate and healthy for the market, not at times when it will drive the price into the toilet.

Obviously I can't speak for the chinese, but this is my logic as a temporary anti-diluter.

So the expectation is that there is going to be a sudden rush of volunteer developers that are going to appear out of nowhere. Where are those volunteer developers now? If there were these volunteer contributors, don't you think we would not have any workers voted for now, because they rolls are already being fulfilled by these volunteers?

What is the PLAN to have these volunteers do programming that they are paid to do at a rate of $150 per/hr or more at other places? Why would they look at CMC and say: 'gee, I think I am going to ignore Ethereum and all these other alts and focus on this random Bitshares place down in the lower Top 10 area.' ?

This sort of denotes the whole problem with the position of anti-dilution.. there is no clear plan for growth... it seems entirely predicated on this crypto-currency 1.0 'we're a coin' type thinking that says if we have no spending of any kind, then value should increase.. and everything is sunshine lollipops and rainbows everyday then.

If you think leaving it to chance is really a competitive advantage over other networks that are well funded to the tune of millions to further develop their core platforms.. just who do you think is going to be in the lead of that race over time?

452
General Discussion / Re: dShares Name discussion
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:08:12 pm »
Tonyk needs to put up a worker proposal to fund forking Btishares for his experiment.

This thread is filled with so much ass-backwards I figured I would throw that one out there. :)


453
General Discussion / Re: No dilution. Now what? Everyone anti dilution please report.
« on: February 22, 2016, 05:23:32 am »
Quote from: btswildpig on February 22, 2016, 04:48:34 am
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 21, 2016, 09:16:57 pm
What if the entire anti-dilution movement which is primarily coming out of China is merely them seeing the rate of pay for Westerners and comparing it to their own and they are being told that they are taking too much from BTS and have to be stopped?

What if it was something that simple?

We have seen threads talking about 'shame' ... maybe this is how they are viewing things?

You can say it better . It may because they've believed the magical sentence "if you don't let us dilute , development will stop ., price will be down to 90% or be taken by Vote the monster DAC" . Oh , that was when the price was still high before the merger .

They've also believed prior to 2.0 , BM said "all dilution in 2.0 will vest in years , no fear of dilution anymore " , and then ............

Tell me something, do you still feel like this anti-dilution movement is out-of-the-blue and totally unreasonable after all the reason I've presented to you ? 

Still feel this is a Chinese issue ? Or BM issue ?

Yes... none of it comes anywhere close to answering the very reasonable question the OP has put forward as to the anti-dilution voting against ALL workers.

Instead all you have showcased is some kind of grudge particularly aimed at BM with no real rational plan for Bitshares. The objective here is to give the anti-dilution a forum to explain the reasoning and how it is going to help bitshares. Based on your reply, I would have to conclude it is nothing more than a blame game designed to 'shame' BM perhaps into doing more work for free? That is about the only positive accomplishment I think it is expecting to achieve. I certainly hope that is not the case. I think the OP and others are still waiting for some kind of real 'report'. 

Please stop leaving us all guessing here.

454
General Discussion / Re: No dilution. Now what? Everyone anti dilution please report.
« on: February 22, 2016, 04:39:17 am »
Quote from: sudo on February 22, 2016, 04:25:23 am
see what   BTSdac do
why develop  must dilution????

What did they do?

455
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] - 1.6.49 - datasecuritynode - The Nuclear Option.
« on: February 22, 2016, 02:29:14 am »
DataSecurityNode is now running with the latest 2.0.160216 release.

I recently gave this release the name 'Chamelean' because it's biggest feature is the new Privacy Mode.

I created a meme to help promote this release since it is an important feature that can attract new users.



We still maintain the TOP 5 highest availability of all witnesses.

If you like to continue to know that your Bitshares is nuclear bunker protected, be sure to vote for datasecuritynode witness today.

456
General Discussion / Re: No dilution. Now what? Everyone anti dilution please report.
« on: February 21, 2016, 09:16:57 pm »
What if the entire anti-dilution movement which is primarily coming out of China is merely them seeing the rate of pay for Westerners and comparing it to their own and they are being told that they are taking too much from BTS and have to be stopped?

What if it was something that simple?

We have seen threads talking about 'shame' ... maybe this is how they are viewing things?

457
General Discussion / Re: No dilution. Now what? Everyone anti dilution please report.
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:21:03 pm »
I would like to see the OPs question answered also.

I would like to know what the grand master plan is because it seems like a go nowhere proposition.

I have attempted to get clarification in numerous conversations only to be lead in circles from one topic to another with no clear answers.

I can't imagine any other way to ask in more open and clear terms than the OP has to explain the reasoning.

So it would be great if @alt  would join in here along with all his supporters to explain the grand plan.


458
General Discussion / Re: dShares Name discussion
« on: February 21, 2016, 03:21:39 pm »
Quote from: Samupaha on February 21, 2016, 07:06:50 am
Quote from: Pheonike on February 21, 2016, 06:57:38 am
The cat is out of the bag as far bts goes. Its nearly impossible to teturn all bts back onto dex. The amount of resources it would take would be  better used going forward with liquidity plans already in place. A system like this has to be implemented from scratch in a new chain. Its a waste of time trying to undo what has been done in bts.

I still think that creation of bitBTS would solve the transition problem from current system to a non-transferable BTS. Other exchanges could easily transform their BTS to bitBTS (or trade it in our internal exchange) and continue like nothing happened.

I thought about this idea... when I think about how it would go I believe it would just never allow the entire transfer to become complete. All it takes is  a few jerks to keep from the completion of the transfer. We couldn't unilaterally remove their rights, it would all have to be voluntary.

459
General Discussion / Re: dShares Name discussion
« on: February 21, 2016, 03:44:48 am »
Quote from: mint chocolate chip on February 21, 2016, 03:22:59 am
Why the redacted OP tonyk?

Advantium, because we so want the name to sound like Etherium.

How about the name... Mutiny/Mutinous

Mutiny :) ...



The idea of another chain launching like this does seem scary at first.. but as far as the testing out of this whole idea goes.. I don't see any other way to do it without causing real damage to Bitshares in the process. If it ever gets to execution is another matter.

I wasn't thinking of Ethereum when I thought of it.. I just thought what would sound cool... someone else thought it was more Marvel Comicish ... obviously it reminded them of Wolverines badass blades which are made of indestructible Adamantium..



I guess that makes it another good derivative :)  .. badass really... and that is what I was going for.. just something that would sound cool and attractive and advanced.


460
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?
« on: February 21, 2016, 03:16:32 am »
Quote from: tbone on February 13, 2016, 03:56:18 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 13, 2016, 12:20:55 am
Quote from: tbone on February 12, 2016, 11:40:39 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 12, 2016, 08:49:56 pm
Quote from: tbone on February 12, 2016, 05:58:47 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on February 12, 2016, 05:50:00 pm
Quote from: tbone on February 12, 2016, 05:42:21 pm
@bytemaster:

Just wanted to resurrect the sidechain thread with an idea/question.  Since there's risk (perhaps intolerable risk) of collusion  associated with witnesses signing off on transfers to a multi-sig BTC wallet, would it be possible for the BTS blockchain to hold the private key for such a BTC wallet and automatically make transfers out of it (and into a user's individual BTC wallet) whenever a user sells their SIDE.BTC on the DEX?

It is possible to do secure multi-party computation among the witnesses.  Doesn't prevent collusion of witnesses though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_multi-party_computation

So is it not possible for the Bitshares blockchain to hold the private key for the common wallet and automate the transfers so witnesses don't need to be involved?

You want to do it with witnesses since they are elected by shareholders.

There are ways that collusion could be minimized.

I'm trying to get at a way to do this without human involvement, otherwise I think it just won't be trusted.  Plus how would it work, witnesses would have to manually approve each transaction?  I don't see that as a viable solution.  And I think there's a better way.

@bytemaster:
Couldn't you write some code into graphene that would utilize, for example, the blockchain.info API to create a Bitcoin wallet for the DEX, and store the returned private key on the blockchain?  So first the straightforward part: when someone wants to transfer BTC to the DEX, they send BTC to a designated BTC address and then the blockchain automatically issues them the corresponding amount of SIDE.BTC on the DEX.  Then the trickier part, when they are ready to withdraw, they surrender their SIDE.BTC and the blockchain uses the private key it stored previously in order to send the appropriate sum of BTC to the user's designated external BTC wallet.  Is this not possible?   

@abit, do you have any thoughts about this?

It's trusted just fine with how other networks do this.. only they are using a handful of bitcoin exchanges .. far less secure that what we are proposing: http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

This is the only practical means to executing... that's what they came up with with $21 million to work with. You think we can do better? :)

What you described is essentially what the witnesses would be done.. but your recommendation introduces more threats.

It would not be manual it would all be automatic and would have witnesses ensuring that the nodes are operating as optimal as possible for Bitshares vs. other networks that wouldn't care, and might not have any redundancy like we would have with the witnesses.

DPOS means trusting humans to maintain and keep things working right. If they don't, they get voted out.

Multi-sig for bitcoin wallets is limited to a maximum of 15 I believe. If we had all witnesses participating but had an algo that changed the multi-sig assignments in some type of interval configuration it would require basically all witnesses to agree to steel all the bitcoin. Note that this would be far more secure than Liquid.. they got $21m for that.. we should at least get that in added valuation for Bitshares if not more. :)  I have said this all before, maybe it was in Telegram.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare this to Liquid.  Liquid is a federated sidechain of centralized services (BitFinex, Kraken, BTCC, Xapo, Unocoin).  To begin with, the users of these services have to trust those companies.  On top of that, the Liquid sidechain depends on the participating companies trusting each other.  So you really can't compare that to what we're trying to accomplish here.

By the way, it looks like you modified your post before I got a chance to respond.  But since you were wondering why I wasn't taking your explanation at face value, it's because you're not the expert.  So I continue to address @bytemaster with my questions since he IS the expert.  And I asked for @abit's opinion since he is a developer and, for all we know, he could be the one to code this up ultimately.  Surely you can understand where I'm coming from.

In any event, I'm really not sure, but something tells me that what I'm proposing is very much doable.  It would be great if @bytemaster would speak to it specifically.  If it can't be done, please explain why.  Thanks!

Did you get to listen to the hangout this week @tbone ?

Bytemaster described in fairly step by step detail exactly the same process I described as how this would be implemented in Bitshares. That is the feedback you were looking for to confirm.

To recap.. witnesses would act as the multi-sig authority and the UIA counterparty would be backed by the real world counterparty BTC, thus effecting a sidechain.

I am already looking at the costs involved in developing this. Guess we are going to see Sidechain Backed Assets (SBA) this year! :)

461
General Discussion / Re: Small is beautiful - dShares distribution - Community lead crowd funding
« on: February 21, 2016, 01:19:32 am »
Thanks for clarifying what the d was all about..

I have been talking about this idea with others and off the cuff I came up with a name I thought would be more attractive.

Advantium

Derivative for Advance.. or Advantage.

All together gets away from the 'shares' name to show a real separation and reduce confusion in the market.



462
General Discussion / Re: Is Diluting BTS 2.5% for +5% BitAsset Yield very low cost to Shareholders?
« on: February 20, 2016, 03:05:15 pm »
Quote from: BTS熊 on February 20, 2016, 05:33:40 am
+5% +5% +5%, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!

My man  8)  +5%

I have a few questions.

1. If we do this, and things seem to go sideways, wouldn't it be just a matter of the Committee adjusting the rate? We can put an end to the experiment going wrong. Or even more direct, shareholders can vote out the Worker, In which case, the risk is manageable on two fronts.

2. Would this mean a much tighter peg to real USD? ie. a premium in the neighbourhood of 1% instead of 50%?

3. What will it cost us if we don't do this?

4. Can anybody think of a better way to utilize 50% of the reserve in the short term?


As I see it.. traders will go where they see market depth.. and as already noted in other places on the forum, this would make ours by orders of magnitude deeper than others.

If we are talking about a USD market where people can buy at reasonable premium then it will become adoptable by merchants and we then have a settlement vehicle without counterparty risk that merchants can use without having to each create their own UIAs and keeping the wealth outside the DEX. Of course this depends on if my question on #2 is indeed the case.

If we go ahead with this.. I would like to see a nicely coordinated marketing effort both before and after.

463
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 19, 2016, 09:24:32 pm »
How long would it be until this hardfork would be ready?

464
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 2.0.160216 Released
« on: February 18, 2016, 09:29:49 pm »
Here is a version with just the Coming message as some requested:



465
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 2.0.160216 Released
« on: February 18, 2016, 04:16:44 am »
Quote from: onceuponatime on February 18, 2016, 03:50:19 am

Thanks a lot for your help!

First line is not legible enough. Could you outline it, or darken it or somehow make it stand out just a little more? And the "a"s and "o"s appear to be virtually the same. Can they be more distinguishable?

The whole thing is too "busy". Please try combining 3rd line into 2nd line, drop the "now", and make the 2nd line's font size smaller than top line:  BitShares 2.0 with Privacy Mode

I think that would do it. I appreciate your efforts!

I tried a few different fonts regarding the A and O but nothing looked better.. In the end I spaced it out a bit more and I think it helps define them. Also darkened the background like u asked and everything else.


Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ... 168

Page created in 0.205 seconds with 23 queries.