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 - fussyhands

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8
16
Technical Support / Re: tried to upgrade from 4.23.1 to 9.2
« on: September 25, 2015, 05:01:34 pm »
Considering that it has not made any progress whatsoever since I posted that, I don't think waiting till it is synced is going to do it.

Any other suggestions?

17
Technical Support / Re: tried to upgrade from 4.23.1 to 9.2
« on: September 25, 2015, 02:25:27 pm »
OK.  I did that.  Please see output below and let me know what I should try next.  Thanks!

(wallet closed) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 3395126,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "34 days old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2015-08-23T02:39:40",
  "blockchain_head_block_id": "dd464a4e071b012d4e8a82630f860eea83d90864",
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "0.03 %",
  "blockchain_share_supply": "2,526,282,008.96156 BTS",
  "blockchain_blocks_left_in_round": 90,
  "blockchain_next_round_time": "at least 15 minutes in the future",
  "blockchain_next_round_timestamp": "2015-09-25T14:35:10",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "8bce60e5c84c71b407a519b31f6e9402cfefcf73",
  "client_data_dir": "C:/Users/Isaac/AppData/Roaming/BitShares",
  "client_version": "0.9.2",
  "network_num_connections": 17,
  "network_num_connections_max": 200,
  "network_chain_downloader_running": false,
  "network_chain_downloader_blocks_remaining": null,
  "ntp_time": "2015-09-25T14:20:16",
  "ntp_time_error": 0.033186,
  "wallet_open": false,
  "wallet_unlocked": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_scan_progress": null,
  "wallet_block_production_enabled": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}

18
Technical Support / Re: tried to upgrade from 4.23.1 to 9.2
« on: September 25, 2015, 01:57:19 pm »
OK.  I'll try that.  In the meantime I got a message that 'Bitshares has stopped working' when closing the GUI.  :-(

19
Technical Support / tried to upgrade from 4.23.1 to 9.2
« on: September 25, 2015, 01:03:45 pm »
After many months of not using BitShares I'm trying to upgrade...

After upgrading to 9.2, the new software seemed to recognize my wallet fine and began syncing blocks with the message "Sever network problems | Last block was synced ...".  It got to 92% synced and then completely stalled out, and hasn't made any progress since.  Since it stalled, it has sometimes given a message that less than 60% of delegates are active (but its not saying that right now).

I would like to get completely up-to-date before the switch over to 2.0, but so far the process has been plagued with issues.  Please advise what I should try next.  Thanks!

20
Technical Support / how to I upgrade from 4.23.1?
« on: September 22, 2015, 02:19:12 am »
I haven't logged into my client in a long time and it won't connect to the network.  Do I have to do anything special to upgrade to the current client or can I just install it and go?

Thanks in advance for your help.

21
This is awesome news.  This is a *huge* improvement!  If the development community keeps making good decisions like this, BitShares might actually have a chance.

22
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 17, 2014, 10:27:33 am »
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line.  This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable.  The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.

But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.

I actually think you are trolling.

Nope.  I'm just not deluded.

I've actually had people on this message board tell me that the buying power of gold is not extremely volatile!!!  All it takes is a 10 second Google search to see how absurd that is.

That's a special kind of delusion.  The religiously motivated kind.  In this case is the religion of libertarianism.

23
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:26:29 pm »
USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government. 

I recommend you start by reconsidering every individual word in this sentence.   :)

I know it's pointless to even have a conversation with libertarian ideologues, but yes USD buying power has had very low volatility for many many decades and followed a smooth predictable trend line.  This makes it very useful as currency and unit of account, because it has been easy to predict how much it will be worth, and over the period of a few years its worth is pretty stable.  The same cannot be said for gold (whose buying power is EXTREMELY volatile), or for the dollar when it was on the gold standard.

But of course, there is not much point in even trying to discuss this with libertarian ideologues.

24
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:13:27 pm »
Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

I think I finally understand your point of view. You don't care about Bitcoin or blockchain technology at all. You might still care about cryptocurrency in the sense of the push rather than pull model (meaning you sign specific transactions for specific amounts rather than giving away the keys to the kingdom with our current system of credit cards and ACH). What you want is essentially DPOS but where the number of delegates is exactly 1 (the corporation/government owning the system) and they cannot be voted in/out (hey that means you get faster confirmation times and better scalability than BitShares X!  :P). Decentralization? Who needs it (according to you). Either you personally don't care about decentralization of power, or you believe the masses will never care about it despite the benefits it provides.

I think decentralization is essential for a *cryptocurrency* to gain adoption.  But for a fiat currency (like USD) or for a bank, users don't much care.  I'm not that concerned about decentralization of power in regards to USD.  USD has been doing fine and is already decentralized in the sense that it is managed by a democratically elected government.  It's only the libertarian ideologues who are motivated by decentralization, because their eyes start to bleed every time they have to pay their tax bills.  I'm not one of those.  What I like about cryptocurrency is the technological barriers it can help us over come.

25
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets ... aren't a killer feature
« on: October 08, 2014, 01:45:33 pm »
Stocks and the like have an advantage being centralized since they can pay dividends anyway. The "killer app" feature of bitAssets is bitUSD. It's cryptocurrency without the volatility downside and it is secure in a verifiable way (and not a ponzi like nubits). BitAssets also provide an incredibly convenient way for local cryptocurrency trade, localbitcoins style (spread/fee will be a lot more transparent for even a noob user)

+5% The OP is basically arguing against crypto as a concept. The reason Bitcoin became so massive is because we all see a financial shitstorm brewing on the horizon. When that happens, crypto will be there to step in and take over.

Nonsense.  There are plenty of things crypto does better than any other system, for now.  Fast, inexpensive, fraud resistant, international, semi-anonymous, programmable transactions to anyone without rules.  That is what crypto means to me.  That is the innovation and the revolution.  Decentralization as in spreading the power *is* important because it allows for reliable provision of the above attributes, but you ideologues take it too far.  The way I see decentralization as a plus is that an Apple coin or an Amazon coin would probably ultimately be abused.  Similarly the world is wary of USD even as it depends on it.  A single currency that the whole world could use and know will not be abused by the issuer is revolutionary.

That is Bitcoin.

But does decentralization mean that nobody will ever park their money at a company for safe keeping?  That's just libertarian cryptonerd masturbation.

I'm not arguing against crypto coins.  I'm merely arguing that BitUSD is not a killer app.  BitShares is a technically superior system compared to Bitcoin, but it needs a killer app to make it stand out.  BitUSD isn't it.


In the mean time, we still have massive utility for BitUSD.
  • Interest on BitUSD
  • Blackmarket
  • Remittances
  • Money laundering
Anything Bitcoin can do, BitUSD can do better.

Interesting.  BitUSD for *blackmarket*!!  There is a place it might actually be useful.  It takes time to deliver drugs and launder your cryptocoin so having it denominated in dollars during the weeks it is unavailable could be very useful.  On the other hand, I think the Silk Road offered a USD pegging service... but decentralized versions of the Silk Road such as Open Bazaar (which seem like the future of internet black market trade) may not be able to offer that, so if it could be built into the currency itself...

Ah hah!  Perhaps this could be BitShares killer application.  If OpenBazaar was perfected it could end up replacing most street level drug trade over the course of a decade.  We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars... the extremely slow velocity of money for internet drug trading would mean HUGE coin price.  With BitUSD, BitShares should have a lock on the decentralized black market compared to Bitcoin.  Unfortunately I doubt anyone is working on an OpenBazaar equivalent using BitShares.

Note that OpenBazaar is a TOTALLY different situation compared to legitimate transactions where payment processing companies like BitPay and Coinbase can instantly and freely transform the bitcoin you receive into USD, so you aren't expose to any volatility.  Black market internet drug dealers have to deal with *weeks* of volatility so the BitUSD might actually be useful.  And if the black market is really moving towards decentralized solutions they won't be able to depend on a centralized service to insure against the volatility...

I found BitShares killer app!  The black market.  Now someone needs to make it happen.

26
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets ... aren't a killer feature
« on: October 08, 2014, 01:31:22 pm »
E-Gold 2.0? The SEC will shut it down just like MtGox was shut down and Litecoinglobal.

There is a reason why everyone pushed to create decentralized exchanges. Newbies typically don't learn from history and have to experience it for themselves.

That's why scammers always gonna scam .. unfortunately ..

Ha!  I'm not a newbie.  And I'm sure I learned a more painful lesson with MtGox than you did.  Nevertheless MtGox is not the equivalent of Coinbase or Circle, and nothing at all like a big regulated US bank (which in will also offer such services in a few years).  When is the last time a big US bank lost all its clients funds?  Bear Stearns depositors (as distinguished from equity holders) got all their money back and even the MF Global victims mostly got their money back...  Regulation (e.g. FDIC) keeps you much safer than a brand new cryptocurrency which could have bugs, NSA encryption backdoors, or simply not be used *perfectly* which is how you need to use cryptocurrency for it to be safe (and with the recent announcement that there is an unfixable hole in the USB specification, it's not even clear that it's *possible* to use cryptocurrency safely perfectly, even with cold storage). 

Centralization is not inherently more risky than decentralization.  Even after 5 years of development time, I bet more people will lose their BitUSD than lose their CircleUSD.

But libertarian cryptonerds only know how to hate the government and banks... so what is the point of even having the conversation?  I don't know.

27
General Discussion / BitAssets ... aren't a killer feature
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:46:48 pm »
Take a look at this news:

http://www.coindesk.com/new-fund-gives-traders-blue-chip-stock-exposure-bitcoin/

As I've said in previous threads:  BitAssets are just not a killer feature of BitShares.

Centralized versions, like the one in the article above, will be just as easy to use, and the truth is that the vast majority of people do not care about their accounts being decentralized.  That's only really important to libertarian cryptonerds, who are a tiny fraction of the population.

To make progress Bitshares needs a killer app.  BitAssets are not it.  They are a massive distraction.

28
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:58:18 pm »
I just don't understand your point of view at all.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees

To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

So, in order to save 2-3%, merchants will offer discounts? For a net savings of at least 0%, but probably less since merchants will have to offer more than 2-3% in discounts to attract mass amounts of people. In other words, this is a ridiculous argument for Bitcoin adoption.

Well considering that a major way that credit compete these days is by offering 1-3% back, yes I think 1-3% could attract masses of people.  BUT, credit cards already offer that!  So you're right, this is a ridiculous argument.  Maybe there won't be mass adoption...

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

First of all, BitUSD transaction fees will always be less than Bitcoins, by its very design. Secondly, low transaction fees will not be the reason "the masses" move to crypto (if they ever do).

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Bitcoins killer app has always been holding your own private keys. That's the reason it was invented. Private keys + stability = game changer. Simple as that.

Well all the VC money is flowing to web wallets (Circle, Coinbase, Xapos) so there are a lot of experienced people who totally disagree with you, including me.  Most people don't care about being their own bank.  In fact they would prefer not to be.

But I think you might have convinced me... there will be no BTC mass adoption.  There will be no cryptocurrency mass adoption.  Unless there is something really new and interesting that can be done with cryptocurrency.  And no, reduced stock trading fees is not going to do it.

Maybe last mile wifi mesh internet connectivity... but that is a complicated technical project.  I wonder if anyone will ever come up with something interesting to do with cryptocurrencies...  In the meantime I'm seriously considering sell out (at what will probably end up being the bottom of the market).

29
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:39:34 pm »
Quote from: fussyhands
No I didn't.  I already answered them in a previous post in this thread.  To recap:  mainstream adopters do not care about centralization regardless of how upset libertarian cryptonerds feels about it.  Circle, Coinbase, etc are planning to offer pegged balances.  For most people a balance denominated in USD on Circle is the equivalent or even better than BitUSD.

I'm assuming these solutions you speak of will be like the current Locks system offered by Coinapult. Basically e-Gold. I'm not convinced.

What aren't you convinced?

Its a centralized solution subject to local regulations. For example, Coinapult won't offer Locks to the U.S. currently because of legal concerns. You also can't directly transact with the pegged asset like you can with bitUSD. The user would have to manually use a pegging service. I also can't see there ever being a yield offered. An e-Gold type pegging service will be expensive to run, considering they're actually buying the physical asset with the BTC.

Of course, I'll know more when / if these services are ever offered. I suspect if it were as easy as you're suggesting, it would have been implemented long ago. Hence, I remain unconvinced.

Interesting.  Do you know what the specific legal obstacles are?  Will these legal obstacles apply to BitAssets like BitUSD?  It might seem like decentralization makes BitUSD immune to regulation, but to actually be useful directly in transactions,  BitUSD needs to be integrated into the payments systems of the companies that you actually make payments to, almost all of whom will follow the rules pretty closely (mortgage company, utilities, cellular providers, restaurants/bars, groceries/retail, taxis/buses/airplanes/uber, shooting range, Amazon, whatever...all easy to regulate).  I don't see how decentralization is a big advantage legally.

I also don't see much problem with account balances in USD and transfers in BTC.  What does the user care how the money is transferred if it shows up as USD in their account?  Directly transacting in the pegged assets doesn't seem very important.

Also, my Bitshares X client shows zero yield.  Am I doing something wrong?  What is the yield expected to be?  You remain unconvinced because you haven't seen pegging services in the US yet.  By the same token, I'm unconvinced about the yield because I haven't seen it yet, and I don't see any reason that it would be substantial.

Bitcoin related services like Locks are a risky idea and contrary to the whole concept of Bitcoin. Remember that the whole point of Bitcoin is that you can be your own bank and hold the private keys. You don't need to trust someone else to look after your bitcoins for you. Otherwise, why use bitcoin at all? Locks is basically the existing fiat system that uses Bitcoin as a payment mechanism; and there aren't any advantages Average Joe will care about to using bitcoin as a payment mechanism over the existing fiat system.

The only way Average Joe will adopt crypto is if they're literally forced into it. Bank runs, bail ins, hyperinflation. Until that starts happening, Bitcoin isn't going to go up much in value because for average people, its utility is negligible. When the aforementioned scenario inevitably happens, Average Joe will demand direct control of his own money. Something Locks and systems like it will never be able to offer. I really don't like the idea of re-introducing trust when BitUSD can eliminate the need for it while truly keeping all the benefits Bitcoin offers.

TL;DR: The point of Bitcoin is to be your own bank, otherwise stick with the legacy banking system. It sounds to me like you're against crypto as a concept.

Merchants will like bitcoin because it saves them 2-3% credit card processing fees.  When margins are only 2-3% to begin with, those 2-3% processing fees can make a HUGE difference to profitability.  To entice users to pay with Bitcoin they will offer discounts for payment with Bitcoin like many online shops have already done.

Average Joe will use Bitcoin to get those discounts.  And also to feel safer from identity theft.

Or alternatively, Stripe or PayPal or some other big payment company will start offering fast low fee transfers before Bitcoin reaches critical mass and every cryptocoin will be consigned to be the play things of libertarian cryptonerds forever more.

I like Bitcoin because I think it's obscene that we pay a 3% tax on every card transaction we do.  Moving money around should not cost 3%.  It's flipping a few bits.  It should cost almost nothing.

I like cryptocurrency because of the possibility of building things like distributed meshnets for sharing internet connectivity.  In other words, because its reduces the constraints on creative freedom.

But if there are no killer apps, if there is nothing legitimately new and transformative that is enabled by cryptocurrency, I don't much care about it.

Eliminating the global 3% tax on card payments seems important.  Eliminating fees for stock trading... not so much.  I have a tradeking account.  In my whole life I've probably paid less than a few hundred dollars in trading fees.  Getting rid of those isn't transformative disruption.

30
General Discussion / Re: mesh networking, last mile problem, and BTSX
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:32:03 pm »
Merchants are already using Bitcoin.  How many of them are experiencing double spend problems by accepting zero confirmation transactions?  Almost none?  If they end up losing 0.05% of income to double spend attacks do you think it's that big a deal?  No.  What they are excited about is not having to pay 3% transaction fees, and losing 5% in charge backs.  7% improvements are a big deal.  0.05% improvements hardly even register.

A business account with Bitpay cost 300$ / month that 3600 $ a year. With BitshareX this could be much much less. I'm pretty sure merchants will care about that.

Ummm...no.  Bitpay is free:  https://bitpay.com/pricing.  A $300/month business account adds *phone* support.  I'm pretty sure Bitshares X will not offer phone support for free.

User doesn't care about any of that.  They just go to Circle and click the "peg to USD" button
Unless I missed something there is no "peg to USD", Circle is doing what Coinbase does, exchange between bitcoin and usd nothing much nothing less, yeah you may be able to use a credit card to purchase bitcoin that's about it.
Circle is a US company that offer 100% insurance on your found.  A guy for China or Greece has no access to it . 

Take a look at the "Locks" that coinapult offers today:  https://coinapult.com/locks/info.  Circle has discussed adding a similar feature.  Circle is going international:  http://www.coindesk.com/circle-global-launch/.

Circle is a company that can bankrupt like any other company, or can be closed bu the government, or if US dollars goes crazy well you are screwed, What users will do when they'll know there is a better solution out there and you can eliminate those risks ? 

I think users are very comfortable with the idea of insured deposits.  Remember: libertarian cryptonerds are not the mainstream.  Most people just want something easy to use with a stamp of approval.

You seems to underestimate the power of  bitAssets, there is nothing out there that can replace that. Now imagine if you tell a user, in your bank you can keep : 1 once of gold , 1 barrel of petroleum, 1/2 Google action, 1000 CNY etc., you can trade them when you want, you can sell them, you can do whatever, without  the need to go on Stock Market, Exchanges etc and it is global and almost no fees.  This has so much value even without yield. 

Sounds like a stock/commodity exchange.  Guess what:  we already have those.  Go get yourself an e*trade account.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8