Why donate to them instead of just running a full Bitcoin node (or several) yourself?  Solves the same problem (if it is a problem) and doesn't require trusting their group, covering their overhead, or raising their profile.

I actually don't understand the bitshares music model?

How does either model protect against piracy?

Right now, in 2014, any music you want can be obtained online freely?  Is it possible to compete with that?

Yes, it is possible to compete with that.  With BitShares Music, rather than getting good music for free, you can actually earn a profit by finding good music early and investing in it.  Of course you could lose money if you find bad music and invest in it, or if you invest too late.  But still, all the benefits of the current system, plus potential profits, plus being able to verify, quantify, and brag about liking that band before they were cool.

Great! Looking forward to seeing this progress.

Shareholders will receive dividends in LND on the first of every month; the total number of shares will reset to 4MM on the first of every month.

Just my opinion, but this seems a bit messy.  Wouldn't it be easier and eliminate the rounding issues to just do a doubling bitshift on all balances on any new block in which the total supply would otherwise drop below a minimum?

I think the closest you could get to this would be using a Zerocoin approach, and having a group of users with similar quality reputations deposit tokens, and then claim them under new pseudonyms.  There would be significant overhead, significant loss of privacy because the group would be known, and any member of the group losing reputation would hurt the reputation of every new pseudonym, so large groups would be difficult to manage.

I'm no Zerocoin expert, but I think it would be possible but terribly impractical.

How does BitSharesX need a price established by other exchanges any more than any other exchange needs a price established by other exchanges?  Prices on any exchange are established by traders announcing real offers until the offers start being accepted.  Comparison with other exchanges may be useful to slightly accelerate the initial price discovery, and because if prices on different exchanges start diverging it's a good sign that something is going wrong with at least one of them.  I don't see how other exchanges are a requirement at all though.

I'm quite fond of the Keyhotee name myself, but global acceptance of the name is a valid concern.  If Keyhotee needs a new name in order to be internationally appealing, I won't fight the change.

Quote from: delulo on March 24, 2014, 07:12:05 pm

Not having "bit" in the brand sets you apart. Bit is used inflationary by now.
Key-hotee = (Don) Quichotte. I love that

Personally , I like what it is . KEYHOTEE. So very unique. As the good ol Google. It made no sense what it meant back then.

This is a good point.  Hopefully everyone will grow to love "Keyhotee" anyway.

And make sure you are using the right codes in the right places! Your “Founder ID” is just the BTC or
PTS address you used to donate. Your public key is is 16 characters longer.

This is ambiguous.  The Founder ID is the address to which you sent the founder donation, not the one from which you sent the donation.

Great newsletter!

Quote from: bytemaster on March 21, 2014, 10:58:42 pm

Perhaps something with multi-signature addresses.   If you require 2 signatures to spend a balance, but just 1 to mine with it then you may have additional security.

If the pool operator's signature is required to spend your balance, doesn't that mean you can't get your balance back if the pool operator disappears?

If you're considering this idea, I'm pretty sure you'll wind up exactly where I suggested -- having a way to sign over the authority to mine with your balance, but not to spend it.

Exactly, if you use multisig for this, people can have full control of their own wallets, but send a copy of one key to the pool operator to mine for them.  It's possible most people wouldn't care who mined for them, and would thus make their "mining key" basically public, potentially undermining POS.

If mining income could be directed to an address other than the mining address, that would force people to care who mined for them, but then it seems like you might as well just allow full multiple input multiple output mining transactions.