I'm showing no such certificate errors in chrome - what version/platform are you testing on?

Seems to be working ok now. Weird, I did confirm the certificate fingerprint as I'm accessing through Tor. Even though a misbehaving/malicious exit node is rare in my experience, it can happen.

Did you change anything server side just now?

SSH is protected by denyhosts.

I guess it's no big deal as you're not holding funds.

Quote

Something else, the deposit address seems to be a function of the bitshares account name.

Deposit address is reusable for multiple deposits to the same market, and is not a function of account name, it is randomly generated.

Thanks for testing, though

End result is the same though, have to reuse an address if I want to send funds to the same account >1 time.


So far it seems to be working fine, bitBTC have been credited. Good job!

Loved it how the option to pay the funding of a new reg'd account from the faucet disappeared the moment I had some unwilling BTS in another account.

"Pay for your own shit, son!"

 

The encryption is too weak. You are using TLS 1.0 and with chrome it negotiated AES_128_CBC, with SHA1.

Use TLSv1.2 and at least SHA256 for hashing. Use ephemeral DH.

Also, at least on chrome, the certificate shows as invalid. You probably forgot to include the certificate chain.
No problems on firefox (and yeah, I confirmed the fingerprint, it's not a mitm).

Also, your SSH port is open to the world which is usually not necessary.


As for the service proper, I'll let you know. Just sent a small amount to test.

Do they compete with the real coin necessarily?

With DOGE, LTC or DRK, you can't earn interest. Either I still don't understand something elementary (completely possible, even likely!) or this is a no brainer - assuming enough volume, one can get the original amount plus any interest as BTS, which can then be used to buy the altcoin again - and ending up with more (& more valuable) than the initial investment.

Seems like a killer combo to me.


-----


I was under the impression that 51 delegates publishing the feed was all that was necessary for this to move through. Is this not the case then?

If so, I strongly, strongly suggest that these be added:

- bitDOGE
- bitLTC
- bitDRK

Vericoin looks interesting but it also does staking, so it complicates the situation somewhat. Ditto for Peercoin. Vertcoin might be worth looking into as well, but like Vericoin, it's barely traded right now, so it offers no advantage.

In the case of Peercoin also keep in mind that the transaction fee is fixed at (afair) 0.01, which should the coin valuate, will quickly become expensive. Seems to me that it's meant more as a savings account kind of thing.

Litecoin is as obvious a choice as Dogecoin, even if technologically speaking (much like DOGE, actually) it's no longer got a lot going for it. It's undeniable that it's (LTC) seen good adoption, however.

DOGE is still going strong as well, and adding bitDOGE would give us AND them good publicity.

Have you guys looked into bitvc/okcoin ? How much litecoin lending/borrowing and saving (they offer a flexible savings plan funded from trading fees and what not, for bitcoin a fixed one which offers much greater interest) is done there?

Move just a small part of all the savers there over to us, and allow the DOGE and DRK guys to do the same.. inform their communities of how to take advantage of this... and I see very bright days ahead indeed.

You should talk to fuz. This is like music to his ears.

Who is this ?

The post on bm blog was a misunderstanding. CN members has a tough job of building communication bridges between western com. members and chinese members who suffer more from clumsy communication on BM side because of the language barrier.

I know someone from China who speaks very good Mandarin (well, obviously) and also very good English.

Should I point this person to the forum?

Quote from: karnal on February 25, 2015, 09:32:13 am

How about 'normal' online businesses, and getting paid in bitXXX (possibly not the best abstraction there.. heh) ?

Would this not bring advantages, especially for those on the frontline who are already being paid in crypto? There seems to be good potential there, I'm willing to bet these people would prefer to have stable value on their earnings instead of being subject to btc/altcoin volatility.

Is that a new UIA you plan to create? Might be a money maker... j/k.. anyways yeah I think it can help crypto companies manage salaries..might have been useful for the Bitshares DAC to pay some in bitUSD as well.

Just bouncing thoughts.. if there's demand, it could be arranged

I hereby propose that bitDOGE be added:

- DOGE is one of the oldest altcoins, has a vibrant and resourceful community (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jxmdny8AlI .. who else!)

- Is usually right below bitshares in terms of market cap: https://coinmarketcap.com/

- Is frequently traded as seen in https://bitinfocharts.com/ (eclipses even litecoin, by far)

- Has over 80K reddit subscribers and a very active subreddit, second only to bitcoin.


Given how viral the doge community tends to be, I believe this would be a win-win situation for us and them. It would generate publicity for both communities and teach the big, loyal dogecoin community about bitshares, whom I'm sure will be more than happy to use bitDOGE as well.

DOGE seems to be holding pretty well even amidst bitcoin chaos, the resistance is strong on price drops.

As it lacks staking, it is also useful, in my view, to allow doge holders to hold bitDOGE instead and put their hard earned Ð to work.


They're such a wonderful community who's done such amazing things in the history of crypto so far. Please consider!