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 - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 64
766
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Books
« on: April 27, 2014, 04:26:17 am »
Have you read this thread?  It provides a lot of closely related background.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7.0

767
General Discussion / Re: Mumble Server Issues?
« on: April 26, 2014, 09:31:38 pm »
Quote from: fuznuts on April 26, 2014, 07:38:22 am
I will be setting Dan as "Priority Speaker" from now on during the sessions, which is supposed to fix this problem.  I think we'll see if that works, but if not I will definitely be taking your advice into consideration.

Sounds good.

768
BitShares PTS / Re: 42 days estimated for Difficulty to retarget. Could this kill PTS?
« on: April 26, 2014, 09:10:34 pm »
Quote from: toast on April 26, 2014, 08:50:44 pm
+1 hard fork to stop producing blocks at 2m shares. Fix difficulty while we're at it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't know that we need to actually keep mining until 2m, as long as the final distribution is completely scaled from the total mined at the snapshot with no post-mine component.  I'm just afraid a post-mine for airdrops or promotions as Stan mentioned could undermine trust.

769
General Discussion / Re: Achieving consensus through crypto-random leader election
« on: April 26, 2014, 09:05:15 pm »
Quote from: tipon on April 26, 2014, 08:50:48 pm
Hi, why does achieving consensus implies on massive resources waste in bitcoin?

Why is that? whats the idea behind that?

...

Achieving consensus in Bitcoin relies on massive resource waste because it uses Proof of Work.  In order to prove that you've done the work, you actually have to do the work.  Therefore, Bitcoin consensus relies on lots of people doing lots of work.

770
BitShares PTS / Re: 42 days estimated for Difficulty to retarget. Could this kill PTS?
« on: April 26, 2014, 08:41:53 pm »
To keep things consistent with the initial introduction of PTS and easy to follow for those who are watching less closely, I recommend that that whenever PTS is snapshotted and relaunched as DPOS, the PTS snapshot be scaled to the original 2 million unit total supply.  Leaving them unmined is equivalent proportionally, but making the numbers match would give people who don't see that comfort and a sense of closure.  Using any non-mining distribution for the other PTS shares seems like it would be terrible for PR, since it changes the proportional deal offered to miners.  As much as I want mining to go away, I think there's a strong consensus that PTS initial distribution was all mining with no premine.  Adding in a "postmine" would ruin that.

771
Keyhotee / Re: Keyhotee Status Update
« on: April 26, 2014, 06:45:51 am »
Quote from: AdamBLevine on April 25, 2014, 11:30:23 pm
...

You're really only giving five days notice?

Is this going to be shared anywhere besides pages deep in an update thread on a forum?

How many founders do you anticipate losing?

They did send an email to founders on the 15th stating that IDs should be registered using the new client, but it didn't specify a deadline.  They should definitely send another email if there are any still unregistered.  Hopefully we can avoid losing any founders without too much more delay.

772
General Discussion / Re: New Economic Paradigm, Collaborative Commons
« on: April 26, 2014, 03:01:24 am »
Quote from: tipon on April 25, 2014, 02:00:54 pm
Compulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition)  tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability  .

Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments)  of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way .
...

Technological developments can lower barriers to entry and non-scaling overhead costs, which can make decentralized or small scale approaches more competitive, but I don't see what that has to do with a "post capitalist" system.  People already collaborate when they think doing so is beneficial, and I expect that will continue.

See Fred Wilson's megatrends here: http://www.datafox.co/blog/fred-wilsons-talk-at-leweb-the-3-big-megatrends/

773
General Discussion / Re: Supply Side Economics
« on: April 24, 2014, 04:36:50 am »
Quote from: luckybit on April 24, 2014, 04:24:34 am
Quote from: bytemaster on April 24, 2014, 01:08:52 am
BitAssets are not backed by nothing, they are backed by equity in a bank which is earning revenue from transaction fees. 

I am a follower of human action as the root of all price discovery.  Supply is just one component of human action.  A rare item can have 0 value and an abundant item can have a lot of value.   All value is perceived.

How do we increase the value and utility in our shares in the shortest amount of time?

I would say network effect.  As the number of active users increases, utility increases because each Nth user adds N-1 new pathways between users (increasing utility, and thus indirectly demand) while simultaneously directly increasing demand because each user wants shares.

774
General Discussion / Re: descentralized forum based on blockchains?
« on: April 23, 2014, 01:23:24 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on April 23, 2014, 01:16:24 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on April 23, 2014, 01:08:43 pm
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/

This project I've been watching for a while.  It already has decentralized forums and encrypted communication, but the key distribution process for adding someone to your contacts is horribly awkward.  Maybe we can get some RetroShare devs into the Mumble room sometime.  I'd love to see RetroShare adopt Keyhotee for private key management eventually, and I think there are some good features Keyhotee could learn from RetroShare.
+5%  almost forgot about that great project .. thx for the reminder

Seriously, I think these guys are great candidates for collaboration.  I'll try to make contact when I get a chance, but odds are better if others try also.  Try to get them into the Mumble session, or onto the forum.

775
General Discussion / Re: descentralized forum based on blockchains?
« on: April 23, 2014, 01:08:43 pm »
http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/

This project I've been watching for a while.  It already has decentralized forums and encrypted communication, but the key distribution process for adding someone to your contacts is horribly awkward.  Maybe we can get some RetroShare devs into the Mumble room sometime.  I'd love to see RetroShare adopt Keyhotee for private key management eventually, and I think there are some good features Keyhotee could learn from RetroShare.

776
Meta / Re: Critique Section
« on: April 22, 2014, 01:12:44 pm »
As long as it's run as a more private place to discuss possible issues in smaller groups, rather than a "free speech zone" into which we herd those from whom we don't wish to hear, this sounds like a good idea.  I think moving posts to the less public section is a bad policy, but I can see how some critics might want to start discussions less publicly.

777
General Discussion / Re: MaidSafe IPO on Mastercoin
« on: April 22, 2014, 12:30:29 am »
Quote from: phoenix on April 21, 2014, 11:58:59 pm
...
The economic model is confusing for sure, but the system itself is incredible

Hopefully whoever fixes the economic model will give the original developers a stake in the new genesis block.  Ideally whoever fixes it should do so working with them, but I'm sure it will get done eventually either way.

778
General Discussion / Re: Suggestions for improvement of the website, spelling errors.
« on: April 21, 2014, 01:31:55 pm »
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares.org

I just submitted a fix for the "candidate" misspelling.  You can fix these issues yourself and request that your changes be merged into the site, if you like.

779
BitShares AGS / Re: Today .I made a too bad mistake
« on: April 21, 2014, 01:48:52 am »
Average donation for the previous 10 days was 1203, and the total for the 20th was 6971.  Here are the donations, and the refund amounts necessary to scale everyone's AGS ratio to the 10 day average.  The remaining decision is the appropriate penalty/reduction for ebit's refund.

Code: [Select]
Address,Donation,ScaledRefund
Pk2cJUUbXLRhfP2kw7yLbYJpYpBKeKARSW ,46.65,38.59683546
PjdcRCpvxNaR4RYqf52rQ5dmBGmGkTmQNX ,50,41.36852675
PaoJXg3x1xfPaZAVrP4Bk8NHWCJC6DdQ24 ,20,16.5474107
PpzcJXGWuN8HnKVpyeWH29eSq44LFh2Y6c ,0.25,0.20684263
PogMGCjw3sTh8j24tVAx54pUEMRyNQqZmo ,30,24.82111605
PqhqYxZVu75aN1Pa6VGvj5BGXnH9yqgaPx ,1.11111111,0.91930059
PagB51VKf4NkDxisU6EH5wtpHFvH5mQnc1 ,6120,5063.50767465
PadMoGsbU4n3vmephvG5wzumeRLn3RWayL ,30.661,25.36800798
PiywY9RJGTFY41gKku1m6gRTeJhTbHEafX ,10,8.27370535
PuF15NGfegzbxQ6PPqRMBhoZsZbW6kpo6p ,20,16.5474107
PjRCm4xf3KmpzuxYcpa9sN14iRcuPYfGtB ,2,1.65474107
PjHugwLoCrKBCXERgiuPgK7RFbTt1AiU29 ,4,3.30948214
PfFLim8RPGPkpAn8kAmQhVxn6t2FnQfGig ,107.613,89.03582539
PgbP2zDWz8vwpz9CDKi18Lj7YS5GjCeA7X ,5,4.13685268
PnrYHrsZcQxHabETusASqRdGTjyVa5WiLd ,49.4999,40.95475875
Pmyuw6iFTuAN4m8HV1dCfPTWLdjbpxPsw8 ,40,33.0948214
Ph3hw9fLcTnMZCgQBsHMXqhqhzvQxuaRpW ,0.4,0.33094821
PuaeYFCwsYCm25e6mSPA1SjSUsYpQzqZw2 ,1.77,1.46444585
PokVwdh2qSXDGwkkCMKa1wBKEwR47LF7rJ ,50,41.36852675
PnEYDvtFJqdFniBU3sQDSk1tqEzYGtA5hg ,1,0.82737054
PtwYmXAuksDYTaXHGFM9XhCY9VBtRESvz7 ,2.19,1.81194147
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.276,0.22835427
PjhYHRZMEKhdiKx6WWwhoDdH3WFsCTRpE6 ,3.33,2.75514388
PgY5bwLhkh9vB9vv3VUHa3qvYQ4Vr9RK4e ,4,3.30948214
PoKXVpCNkQ4qRLz5PXxH2JP9vckeBNgwDG ,10,8.27370535
PrpTbeN4UKPgrHii4cJS5JHWrwQriSvEHM ,0.5,0.41368527
PpMjQWhYf9mSWGqC3nc3jT2VNALVPVFng3 ,1,0.82737054
PqPZ5WTBEzvzogPuQ7JULLTHNTC5hhPJm8 ,10,8.27370535
PaFTVnAVGBXVm2M9JwzTWBg4grZF3Dq4EY ,20,16.5474107
PjEwaTLiaCV2Zev1gDR5RnoaP5FRt9qwf7 ,2,1.65474107
Pd5T7JkvMcdPq8kJMy83KeEtf3tGcKjraa ,20,16.5474107
Pqco7LoTLqEDq7xhbXCHNnCZ1WaShd7fi7 ,6,4.96422321
PmCtXtJZecdPyefSaU8pNBJPJMevbEKXfX ,1,0.82737054
PuPWyYWVV9b74iMxjZpF3ERvW3L417cU7b ,8,6.61896428
PZKnCeunEfmqFYHk4iFkDwmhGtvGLD39t5 ,1.3,1.0755817
PuiR9SqVFqytPrtZ9ZkZn2i5Jg15haGphP ,0.86,0.71153866
PqZxZm4BBhCNdfDEMDsGcWijzyMWi4Tzpm ,0.39,0.32267451
Phxxvxy3LAwvNUPRCZbBwuY55jZySXjXgn ,12.1212,10.02872373
PdbbYvKZGDT8Lh1fw1q6jeM1QdEA7aRTwZ ,4.71237204,3.89887778
PgjNdTXCQQV97eBd5vaCHiqUtAvFF9B4xK ,4.17027992,3.45036673
PXzib3XBtfRCvX4xjfR8me2rBk6k6CeJ7S ,50,41.36852675
Pw8yBPMupPFYSr31jbcDeuvcBiSA6L2Zha ,100,82.73705351
PuMfGuoiMe9fmrwCwuJYEMY6mQmSpe6KyS ,120,99.28446421

780
General Discussion / Re: Blackshares, can it be done? Is it in our mutual benefit? Brainstorm here
« on: April 21, 2014, 01:09:55 am »
Good thoughts there, fuz.

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 64

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 23 queries.