Hey fellas,

Looking for help here.

When I restore my wallet with brain key and password, my account resolves, but it is listed as "Not your account (Propose)" on the transfer from screen?

Additionally, on my account screen, I have an "unfollow" box directly beneath my name.

Any ideas?

Thanks

It seems to me that when 2.0 goes live, the incentive will quickly be realized for proxies to pay for voting power.
This is where the inevitable politics of BTS 2.0 will become increasingly transparent, IMO.

What might be the possibilities of political deals regarding vote-swaps and quid pro quo among witness approvals, platform proposals, etc.
I suppose high value platform proposals will be the most obvious and likely sources to be first to attempt this type of method to manipulate approvals.

Obviously, community oversight will be necessary to deal with bad actors, but how quickly will the community be able to rally/communicate for prompt action?

Is this worry valid?

If so, I think this is an area we should put effort into considering, whether it is worth concern, the possible likelihood, and if so – what should be done to counter it.

Are sub.accounts going to be possible in 2.0?

If so:

1a. Will the premium account of "maloney" offer a premium umbrella for its sub.accounts, or will each sub.account need to purchase a premium account (ie- bob.maloney, cousin-eddie.maloney, bills.maloney, savings.maloney)

2. What if I own a business? (ie- larrypage.google down to the lowly employees... thx1138.google)

3. Would it be possible to develop a method to determine between personal/family and business accounts? (Maybe the total # of sub.accounts available?)



A little outside the box and into the more distant future:

Could it ever be possible for an account owner to grant permissions for sub.accounts to be generated where the original account owner would not have access to the sub.accounts private key? (some kind of non-hierarchical structure would be required, I assume)
 
Maybe with the ability of the original account holder to remove the sub.account if abusive, but have the assets of that sub.account sent to another predetermined account (preset by the sub.accounts creator) upon close by original account owner.

Since we are most likely going to be voting on awarding the majority of large worker contracts for the foreseeable future to Cryptonomex, I think it is the responsibility of the Bitshares community to require at least a responsible level of transparency regarding the makeup and ownership of what will be our largest contractor.

If there are a few big CNX investors that wish to remain anonymous for the time being - fine - but please allow the community to know that is at their request and weight the information ourselves.
They may wish to keep their anonymity and maybe the large percentage of this community will be OK with that, but in the spirit of what was Bitshares, I request a little more openness from here on out.

Now is the time for the community to set precedent on what requirements will be necessary from contractors, going forward.
I would like to see some answers to this before any of these proposals come to a vote.

My previous post that was unfortunately made at the end of the locked NuMine thread:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16902.msg216862.html#msg216862

I don't see it that way.

I think most people here with legitimate concerns (by now I think most of us know who to read, who to consider and who to skip) are over Cryptonomex as a company.

We don't know the ownership percentages - what little we do know is from the mumble - that bytemaster doesn't own 51%.

But how much do the angels own? Who are they?  What are their goals? Interests? Alignment?  This matters.

bytemaster's claim that they plan to diversify holdings is somewhat bothersome as well and a lot of that part of the mumble came off as kind of like - (not a quote) 'well, things are different now - we are Cryptonomex, you're not - so it's none of your business'

Yes, that is bothersome - and this is coming from someone who has been here since the beginning and trusted in the devs through every minor crisis to date.

If the diversification is short term, to pay for rather immediate expenses - OK, but if Cryptonomex is truly all-in on BTS - their holdings should reflect that.

Also - who is Cryptonomex?

What makes the team? I've been looking for a team page and have yet to find it.

Is Toast part of Cryptonomex? Vikram? Agent86? theoretical? who? - is there a link I'm not seeing?

Again, I think most concerned here have a tremendous amount of trust and faith in the Larimer's and the rest of the dev team, but we have yet to be convinced that Cryptonomex is not something that can run away from them.

I really hope to get some reassuring answers soon. We have our first Bay Area meetup on Thursday and I'm sure most of us have had enough of a hard time trying to get up to speed with the technical and operational 2.0 changes - I really would like this issue to be worked out before being blindsided by a newb with interest and not having an answer.

Lastly, thanks again to everybody in this community - from the devs to the lurkers who show up for 1 or 2 important posts. The last 18 months have been the most optimistic I have ever been that the next 100 years will be one of enlightenment and abundance.

Thank you

Mods: This may have been discussed and flushed out in the past, if so, please link to relevant thread and lock this thread.

Idea:

Setting 100% pay rate for the highest approval delegate and paying down a percentage relative to the highest delegate to 3% pay for 101st delegate. (or some differing calculation if the community believes all 101 deserve >3%)

Advantages I can see:

1. Allows community to set varying pay rate per delegate, rather than requiring a re-approval to change.
2. Allows constant feedback on perceived value/performance of delegate.

Congratulations to Sergio on his new role for the Bitcoin Foundation.

Does anyone know if this will this negatively affect his time and availability for consulting and auditing Bitshares?

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-foundation-sergio-lerner-security-role/

"The time has come for starving artists to finally make real money from their music. As the Internet disrupted the way record labels make their money, the blockchain is taking this another step by threatening to render them useless. PeerTracks is matching the artist up with the audience and allowing them to both make money, all the while spreading knowledge of the blockchain to the mainstream."

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/17500/peertracks-paradigm-shift-in-music-world/