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 - lafona

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16
31
Random Discussion / Re: BitShares can monopolize the STEEM trade market by allowing users to vest (OL)
« on: April 21, 2016, 01:34:20 pm »
Hi banano,

while im not sure about vesting in bitshares/openledger. Puppies has put together a bot and tutorial for opening registering an account without linux which would allow you to create and access your wallet through steemit's website.
Puppies signup post: https://steemit.com/steemhelp/@dele-puppy/register-bot

You also might want to try out the steem slack channel: https://steem.herokuapp.com/

Im not sure if you can vest your funds from the steemit site, but that would probably be something people can answer in the slack channel.

32
中文 (Chinese) / Re: transwiser BitUSD<->TetherUSD双向兑换服务上线
« on: April 06, 2016, 04:11:16 pm »
Wow. Nice!  +5%

33
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: March 31, 2016, 09:31:36 pm »
Witness and seed node updated to 2.0.160328. Thanks for your support!

34
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] New Money project & SOLCERT token
« on: March 25, 2016, 12:50:44 pm »
This has also been posted on reddit r/CryptoCurrency/ if you want to give it some love.

35
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: March 21, 2016, 10:14:59 pm »
Quote from: CLains on March 21, 2016, 04:29:25 pm
Quote from: lafona on March 21, 2016, 12:18:29 am
Witness and seed node updated to 2.0.160316b.

Vote for delegate-1.lafona for additional witness and seed node diversity.

 +5% Voting via xeroc!

Thanks! Your support is greatly appreciated.

36
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: March 21, 2016, 12:18:29 am »
Witness and seed node updated to 2.0.160316b.

Vote for delegate-1.lafona for additional witness and seed node diversity.

37
Follow My Vote / Re: Could this be used to conduct anonymous polls of congress?
« on: March 20, 2016, 09:22:38 pm »
Was this what you were looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAz9mZW1_c

38
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 11, 2016, 04:12:54 am »
Quote from: noisy on March 11, 2016, 03:06:09 am
Quote from: Brekyrself on March 11, 2016, 03:03:47 am
Quote from: puppies on March 11, 2016, 02:57:07 am
I guess it is to be expected that we would retrace.  We went up far further than I expected far faster than I expected.  How long do you all think we are going to slip back down?


Going up a significant % along with massive volume is great even if this retreats.  It should open the eyes to those who put off BTS.

It is even better because this still gives a chance to buy below price which later can be easily reached. Nobody want to buy when price is ATH or highest since months.
Good point. Also if it retraces and jumps again soon. We get another day of free advertising. More time for fishing in the Poloniex trollbox.

39
General Discussion / Re: Lets woo basic coins to migrate natively to our blockchain.
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:05:12 pm »
Sounds like we would be a good candidate...
https://twitter.com/super3/status/706564680513363968

40
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Witness: delegate-1.lafona
« on: February 29, 2016, 01:13:06 pm »
Back in again. Thank you for your support!

41
BANX / Re: Sharedrop eta?
« on: February 28, 2016, 10:23:16 pm »
My understanding was that sharedrops were expected if someone used graphene to build a new chain. If they are building on bitshares then bitshares holders will already benefit from the network effect and the fees for use of the blockchain. At that point sharedrops become more of an optional advertising tool for the third party.

42
General Discussion / Re: Are you getting the most out of your votes?
« on: February 26, 2016, 04:22:30 pm »
Quote from: abit on February 26, 2016, 03:57:50 pm
Quote from: xeroc on February 26, 2016, 03:39:53 pm
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
I think it's better to let a smaller proxy do it.
$50 is hardly a barrier for attackers.


Seems like the best solution might be to get rid of the reject option, that way all votes work to increase the barrier for this type of attack.

43
General Discussion / Re: Are you getting the most out of your votes?
« on: February 26, 2016, 03:55:40 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on February 26, 2016, 03:39:53 pm
This was the reasons why I voted FOR the refund/burn workers
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565
Once the new fee proposal executes and the worker_create costs ~$50 .. I intend to remove my approval for refunds/burn entirely
That is a good point. I didn't realized that the create worker fee was so low.

44
General Discussion / Re: Are you getting the most out of your votes?
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:55:12 pm »
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on February 26, 2016, 02:38:36 pm
Excellent explanation, thank you. I've been a horrible participant in this democracy and intend to change that by consistently voting. Since we're on the topic of voting, i wanted to raise this question/issue:

QUESTION: Is it true that only the BTS balance counts towards voting? As in, assets, smartcoins, and open order and borrowed collateral balances (or BTS equivalent value) do not count?

ISSUE: If so, this system severely penalizes investors in our products, traders, and those providing liquidity to our system by borrowing these products into existence.

This system bifurcates incentives--you can either hold a large BTS balance to vote, or you can participate in our markets and thereby lose voting power in how the system is governed.


As far as I know the bts collateral for smartcoins or prediction markets is included but other assets themselves are not.

45
General Discussion / Are you getting the most out of your votes?
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:21:19 pm »
With the recent split over dilution/anti-dilution, I wanted to point out an interesting feature (the reject button) of our worker proposal voting and discuss its implications on how it can be used. Since the reject button subtracts votes from an option, it can be used as a way to amplify the weight of your approval votes. This is because the worker approval process is based on the competition between human workers and the refund/burn workers. Instead of simply voting for the worker of their choice, a shareholder could reject the competing parties to double their weight. To find examples one can look at the current voting report at http://cryptofresh.com/ballots

Because of the current split it is easy to see this technique applied to both sides by looking at the first two columns.
Currently boazi is applying the full strength(2x) of their votes in support of the refund/burn workers.(one far side of the spectrum)
Angel on the other hand is using the full strength(2x) of their votes in support of the human workers. (other far side of the spectrum)
Thus if one wants to look at the potential effect of their votes, they need to look at the difference between the workers they support, and the workers in competition.
I hope this is helpful. I was thinking about it the other day and it ended up influencing the way I voted with my stake. Feel free to comment or correct anything I might have mistaken.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 23 queries.