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.
I am afraid that BM may not take too kindly to me with my post history as they are usually quite critical.
I bet he appreciates it more than post's that are saying only good words...
Smart people can benefit more from criticism...
Verification code thingamajig is not working correctly for registration.
we have fixed it.
Tapatalk functionality has been restored. Please post here if you encounter any issues.
Ahhhh, awesome! These 1 second block times are making my head spin!
Is this just testing for private internal systems or is this really being considered a possibility for the public BTS blockchain?
From bitshares.org:
"As soon as the software is ready, it will enter a public testing period for gathering community feedback. This testing period will last until the community is satisfied with the new system, after which an upgrade snapshot date will be announced with at least 30 days notice.
At the snapshot, the current BitShares network will stop producing blocks and BitShares 2.0 will be launched within hours. All accounts and balances will be fully migrated to BitShares 2.0.
See Migrating to BitShares 2.0 for more details."
Ahhhh, awesome! These 1 second block times are making my head spin!
Looks like the majority of the very small minority of the bitshares community that actually voted in this thread chose to redistribute 26-22 and of those the "10% to 38PTSWarior, 21% to bitsharesbreakout, 18% to btstools.digitalgaia, 18% to fav, 18% to Bunkermining" seems to be the majority choice.
As mining has become more centralized, BTC Guild has continuously shrunk in proportion to the network, now being less than 3% of the network hash rate. The costs of running the pool have not changed, and the amount of funds at risk in the event of a compromise is significantly higher than what the pool could ever recover from. When the pool was 20-30% of the network, the amount of funds at risk was slightly higher, but the ability for the pool to recover from that loss was present. At 3% of the network, the pool would not be able to recover from such a loss..
@Dan and Stan:
We just hope that you can consider a "better" aligning of interest between BTS, the devs and cryptonomex. A great example is RippleLabs, the legal entity's success is closely tied to the success of the protocol. RippleLabs helps integrations, consults partners and trains more devs. They actively seek deals and partnerships to expand the ecosystem. So their aim is to make Ripple successful so their (the legal entity's) stash will be worth billions. On the other hand, i was given the impression that cryptonomex (the devs) and BTS's interests have never been less aligned. In the last hangout, fuzzy asked whether cryptonomex will be holding fund in BTS because of this concern i believe, but Dan didn't see it.
All the issues with IP and licenses aside, I hope cryptonomex reconsiders its business strategy and direction. Let's try to work out a relationship analogous to Ripple - RippleLabs, because it seems like it works (big partners coming in, better prospect of mainstream adoption, millions of funding, all the mistakes that can be learnt from). The details should be of course modified to fit our ecosystem here at BTS.
All in all, I am not saying that cryptonomex and the devs are abandoning BTS, and not that they are not bringing in deals and partnerships; but a better alignment of interests and goals would be even better.
Ripple labs has a huge sake in ripple, thus their interest are aligned, I3 has a good stake in PTS then BTS, but the greedy stan and BM are not happy, they tried everything in the books to increase their stake, AGS/PTS, DPOS, Merger and paid delegate, still not enough, now Cryptonomex and toolkit, how many ways to fleece the BTS holders? take your buggy toolkit and leave please! BTS community should kick them out, byebye BM!
Thanks for the quick posting fellas.
