121
General Discussion / Re: Roger Ver Bonus Hangout: (SILVERTICKET Entry Fee)
« on: February 12, 2016, 05:12:57 pm »
Wow, nice! Is there an agenda for this hangout or is it open discussion?
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.
122
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposals] Documentation and Technical Support + Python Dev and Apps
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:55:26 am »
Looks good! 
123
General Discussion / Snowdrift - MAS for freely licensed digital works
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:54:23 am »
Came across this project, they have a nice website and an interesting approach for donation matching.
"Patrons pledge to donate based on how many other patrons donate with them.
Thus, when you join, others will donate more."
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism
The Economics of Public Goods
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/economics
They had a Tilt campaign and raised $9k (goal was $3k):
https://snowdrift.tilt.com/launch-snowdrift-coop
"Patrons pledge to donate based on how many other patrons donate with them.
Thus, when you join, others will donate more."
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism
The Economics of Public Goods
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/economics
They had a Tilt campaign and raised $9k (goal was $3k):
https://snowdrift.tilt.com/launch-snowdrift-coop
Quote
Snowdrift.coop uses network effects to put the power back in the hands of the people instead of the platform owners. At Snowdrift.coop, you become a project's patron with a monthly donation pledge: For each additional patron who gives with you, you will donate a little more (limited by the amount of funds you choose to make available to the system overall).
This way, those of us already pledged invite the rest of the world to join us. The existing patrons of a project will together match the donation from each new patron (although our exact proposal includes additional measures to accommodate varying pledge levels from different patrons).
This approach is something like the mutual assurance and reduced risk that we get from a hard threshold for a crowdfunding campaign… Except with Snowdrift.coop, the mutual assurance isn't all or nothing. It's flexible, sustainable, and designed specifically for the needs of funding free/libre/open digital works.
124
General Discussion / Re: How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:56:46 pm »
Great analysis.. the ISP metaphor makes a lot of sense. Transactions are free yet prioritized. Micropayments viable unless a bandwidth hog drives the price up. Businesses compete for bandwidth & get higher priority for their customers by acquiring more stake.
125
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:37:58 pm »
The committee might not get anything done if they don't have a place to talk free of attacks & distractions. And this forum is not the platform most conducive for coming to consensus... but no system is perfect.
Politics is always accompanied by accusations of "backroom deals" and always will be. But you can (1) show respect and trust for people making proposals, and (2) judge them by their results, not personal fears. We CAN help bridge the gap by finding or creating tools that make transparency easier yet more productive (whereas typically transparency and productivity are inversely related, imo).
I was truly impressed by xeroc's effort on the fee proposal. When you compare it to the conversations the Bitcoin community is having, it's clear we are miles ahead, and it's easy to lose sight of that.
I've missed out on a lot of these fee/politics conversations because I've been busy with cryptofresh. I've been working on some experiments that I hope the community will be able to help me with soon.. it's almost ready for testing.. hope you guys will all still be around, lol.
Politics is always accompanied by accusations of "backroom deals" and always will be. But you can (1) show respect and trust for people making proposals, and (2) judge them by their results, not personal fears. We CAN help bridge the gap by finding or creating tools that make transparency easier yet more productive (whereas typically transparency and productivity are inversely related, imo).
I was truly impressed by xeroc's effort on the fee proposal. When you compare it to the conversations the Bitcoin community is having, it's clear we are miles ahead, and it's easy to lose sight of that.
I've missed out on a lot of these fee/politics conversations because I've been busy with cryptofresh. I've been working on some experiments that I hope the community will be able to help me with soon.. it's almost ready for testing.. hope you guys will all still be around, lol.
126
General Discussion / Re: Appearance of Deflation vs No Dilution
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:11:12 pm »I don't think the price would react at all. It's a non-event. non-change. purely perceptual.
Anyone selling or buying on this non-change doesn't care enough about the project to understand this non-difference, and likely wouldn't even notice.
IMO, I don't think it makes sense to change for CMC reporting though, because the supply is not actually available, even if you accounted for what could conceivably be released over a year or two, it still doesn't amount to much.
However, I do think it makes sense to change the way we communicate and talk about the supply. Having a supply that goes down, and can *only go down is a very positive and healthy way of looking at it. Anywhere you might mention the supply just start with the total supply and if necessary derive the available supply.
127
General Discussion / Re: The Currency Distribution Problem [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:05:06 pm »
Interesting points in your post, thanks for the writeup!
Having less choice is always good, as long as you able to successfully identify the ones that are net losses. Or also if you can combine several choices into one that's just as expressive. But it's tricky to make the correct sacrifices.
If pay is a consistent flow, is the challenge then to channel it efficiently? Would pay need to be defined in terms of percentages/weights rather than absolutes?
What if voters had just a series of sliders representing continuous choices:
1. Reserve release rate (100% = 5BTS/s) ____100____ (%)
2. Worker pay proportion (the rest is split by witnesses) ____95____(%)
3. Pay priority for worker1 ____30____ (1-100)
4. Pay priority for worker2 ____80____ (1-100)
These values would then be weighed with each voter's stake when building the final "flow tree".
Having less choice is always good, as long as you able to successfully identify the ones that are net losses. Or also if you can combine several choices into one that's just as expressive. But it's tricky to make the correct sacrifices.
If pay is a consistent flow, is the challenge then to channel it efficiently? Would pay need to be defined in terms of percentages/weights rather than absolutes?
What if voters had just a series of sliders representing continuous choices:
1. Reserve release rate (100% = 5BTS/s) ____100____ (%)
2. Worker pay proportion (the rest is split by witnesses) ____95____(%)
3. Pay priority for worker1 ____30____ (1-100)
4. Pay priority for worker2 ____80____ (1-100)
These values would then be weighed with each voter's stake when building the final "flow tree".
128
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 09, 2016, 08:23:56 pm »
This is a well thought-out proposal and the most professional work I've seen from committee members.. well done!!
I've briefly scanned the rationale for operations and I'll provide some feedback shortly. Great job documenting this so thoroughly.. https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/blob/master/usd-denominated-fees/fee-schedule-proposed-by-xeroc.py very impressive
I've briefly scanned the rationale for operations and I'll provide some feedback shortly. Great job documenting this so thoroughly.. https://github.com/BitShares-Committee/Instructions/blob/master/usd-denominated-fees/fee-schedule-proposed-by-xeroc.py very impressive
129
General Discussion / Re: Cryptofresh Block Explorer + MUSE now available
« on: February 08, 2016, 10:08:52 pm »price is for example, btc:bts, can we have it bts:btc? http://cryptofresh.com/a/OPENBTC
or a button to switch it? So it is consistent with the price showcased on other exchanges?
If you check here for exampel http://cryptofresh.com/a/OPEN.EMC people don't care about bts:emc they care about emc:btc
Thank you for the feedback.. it sounds like for each asset, I should highlight the highest-volume trading pair, and display it whichever way people are most accustomed to. I will do this as part of the market rehaul I have planned.. just waiting on those new APIs!
In the meantime, I'm continuing to make backend upgrades and working to make the site more resilient against forks. There may be 15 minutes of downtime or so as I make some changes to the database in the next hour or two..
130
General Discussion / Re: Appearance of Deflation vs No Dilution
« on: February 06, 2016, 10:37:47 pm »
It's a smart idea 
131
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 03, 2016, 05:39:20 am »
Yeah, "high" but fair price.. it's important low-level work and Dan N & team are very well fit to do it. Could you list some examples of the big and small issues you'd focus on? Would this be purely maintenance work or will you be adding/improving features?
132
Technical Support / Re: Bitshares RPC Issues
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:28:24 pm »the command i use for the rpc has not changed,
cli_wallet -H 0.0.0.0:8092
in fact nothing in our set up has changed whatsoever.... really confused what could cause the rpc to stop responding like this,
can you @xeroc confirm you have no issues currently with your own rpc?
@roadscape can you?
i wouldnt be posting here if i hadnt exaused all my other attempts to resolve this for 8+ hours so im sorry for dragging you all in
all i get when i try my rpc is:
curl: (56) Recv failure: Connection reset by peer
No issues on my end.. not sure what would cause this.. fwiw, I always start it with something like
Code: [Select]
./programs/cli_wallet/cli_wallet --rpc-http-endpoint="127.0.0.1:8081" -s ws://127.0.0.1:8082
133
Technical Support / Re: Issue in creating QR code for transfer
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:33:51 pm »
134
General Discussion / Re: [Fees][Referrals] Incentivize users to pay a higher fee
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:30:37 pm »They do require code changes and they do require a hardfork (if you askhow about we restrict most "advanced operations" to require LTM and only have the basic stuff in the basic membership included:
- transfers (also blind)
- trading
require LTM:
- proposals
- bond market (eventually)
- withdraw permissions
- creating assets
- creating accounts (already implemented that way)
This is a very interesting idea, and wouldn't require any code changes..
me) simply because those if/not checks are currently hard coded in the
graphene code .. Having them a blockchain parameter would be awesome!
Ah, I was thinking basic/LTM fees were separate for some reason.. Then you could set the basic fee to some huge number to "disable" the feature (like what Muse did with asset creation fees)
135
Follow My Vote / Re: Follow My Vote Press Release!
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:26:58 pm »
Legit.. excited to see what you guys are cooking up.
Full report: https://webrootsdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/secure-voting-webroots-democracy.pdf
Full report: https://webrootsdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/secure-voting-webroots-democracy.pdf
