Quote from: infovortice2013 on February 15, 2015, 05:51:26 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/bank-hackers-steal-millions-via-malware.html?_r=0

bter, gox not alone

That's though compromised end user computers, though, not a failure at the bank itself. This can still happen to anyone on bitshares, or any other currency.

Quote from: Stan on February 19, 2015, 02:43:59 am

We agree DNS is important and it is integral to our current design.

But it doesn't double the value of our shares immediately like getting a ready-for-prime-time minimum viable product that the marketeers can market.

Sure would be great if we could move everything to the front burner.  All it takes is cash.  So increasing the value of delegate pay streams must be priority number one.

Agreed.  This is why I suggested 10% towards DNS, and 90% towards what you just said.

Even if there was a golden hour once a week, just for DNS, and the remaining part of the week was "what you just said", I'd be happy.  Every Wednesday between 8am-9am is DNS dev hour.  Then put it all away and forget about it until the next Wednesday [for example]

Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 17, 2015, 04:51:16 am

Quote from: cube on February 17, 2015, 04:42:06 am

https://tether.to/faqs/

"Tether is the world’s first fiat currency token platform to exist on the Blockchain"

I understand that to mean decentralised.  And isn't bitasset's yield close to zero?

You understand incorrectly, but perhaps as intended:

Quote

Tether currency is backed 100% by actual fiat currency assets in our reserve account and always maintains a one-to-one ratio with any currency held. For example 1 USD₮ = 1 USD. With almost zero conversion and transfer fees, Tether currency is redeemable for cash at any time.

So it's a token on a blockchain, issued by a centralized entity, and they promise they'll redeem it for fiat.  Same as Ripple IOUs, CoinoUSD on NXT, or UIA IOUs on BitShares.

Also bitUSD interest is over 2% right now, significantly higher than my bank is offering on even CDs of any term length.

EDIT: Tether might be a good gateway partner if they'd issue their IOUs directly on our chain also.  If they've got the fiat end infrastructure anyway, they might as well use it to its full potential.

I am trying to understand the classification here. It seems 'centralised' = 'counter-party risk'.  Does that mean bitcoin falls into the 'centralised' group (since it requires an centralised exchange for fiat)?

If you have tetherusd why would you want to go to bitusd or another bitasset? Trying to understand

If I may raise my hand let's be a bit more meticulous here,

Bitsappire has just uncovered a major flaw in the incentive structure that maintains the security of the Bitshares network: there is a threshold below which there is not sufficient value at stake for a holder to expend the cognitive work of voting. This threshold is different for everybody for whom it's value is not zero or infinite. That is to say that some people will vote with the dust in their wallet and some will never vote in spite of very significant investment. Bear in mind however that (last time I checked) voting must only occur once and is valid until the voted for delegate ceases operation. So the minimum "Value at Stake" threshold must only be exceeded once for the stake to become "Actively Voting Stake". "Passively Voting Stake" would be the kind held in the hypothetical wallet with default voting settings.

Let us say that the wallet appeals to a specific set of Bitshares users with a generally higher "Value at Stake" threshold for active voting to occur because the cognitive work is greater for them (new user).  They may also start with a lower stake (new user), putting them under their unique threshold. All stake held by these users will be "Passive Voting Stake" controlled by the developers of the Hypothetical wallet - not cool.

Whether or not this presents a problem depends on the quantity of stake held by the wallet's user set, the average initial minimum "Value at Stake" threshold for that user set, the rate at which cognitive work diminishes due to familiarity with the platform, the rate at which the quantity of stake of the users in the set breaches the "Minimum Value at Stake" threshold and the compensatory behavior of the stake controlled by users outside that set. And probably a host of other things too but there is enough here to get confused about.

In the real world this is not a disaster because the "Value at Stake" threshold for veteran users is low due to lower cognitive work required and new users hold comparatively little stake.  People buy in with small amounts to play, explore and as part of that . . . vote. Speculators with strange behavior due to indifference to the platform generally hold their stake on exchanges and even many of them may vote. How many? We can't know but they are the only dark shape in the water. Bigger players can compensate for strange voting patterns by re-targeting the voting power of their stake and the community can shout down "Default Voting" wallets - as we've seen.

This presents an opportunity to study voting passivity that should not be squandered. I'd like to see The Moonstone wallet default target a single delegate that pays a charity of the forum community's choosing. This way we can begin to gather data on which to base an understanding of the voting behavior of the new wallets users rather than speculate about it.

Hope all that made sense.