Oh no, im getting really worried with this. Even the backup i did when i first migrated to 2.0 restores and shows the new account. Can i use the original brainkey to get back to my original account? I mean, i have multiple backups and the brainkey.

@bytemaster @zeroc - I have restored the backup but it shows my new account. I have my original brainkey, how can i use that?

For me it's a loose collection of people, each of the them represents some kind of unique political view & experience and they do not really need to work together, apart from coordinating the usage of the mulit-sig account they share and control. All they need to do (free of charge), is discuss things publicly between each other, so that voters can form a view who is right and who is not. This way it's more like a panel of independent judges, each having his own wisdom.

I think your are missing the point. If I wanted I could copy-paste all your debates into the forum to make them public.
But that's not really the point.

The point is that when you are hiding behind Telegram, the validity of your arguments is not challenged by anyone.
You may say something stupid, and it will go unnoticed because nobody really can be bothered to go through Telegram and trace who said what.
On the forum though, there are still a few people left who will bother to comment and will point it out when you're talking rubbish.

Why do you think BM asked you yesterday to make formal notes of your debates? Because he's that interested in all those details you discuss?
I'd rather think he wants your logic to be exposed to the public scrutiny.

Well, this is all based on trust. I understand jakub's view on this. Transparency is good and people can keep up with the discussions, see who is active, who is not, if the committee is "wasting" time debating over something that I think it's not relevant, etc, basically, to monitor if I should support them or not.

However I also understand the committee's opinion that sometimes there should be some privacy. There has been lack of communication and understanding in the past so the fact one member brings a controversial topic up, people can immediately panic and make a storm out of something that didn't really have importance. That privacy is good to avoid those things and imo, also because without people constantly in the middle they can (or should) work faster.

Like I said in the beggining, it's a matter of trust. If you don't like the way the committee operates, vote them down, vote for people who are more transparent. People always have the choice to vote for what they want right?

What I would suggest is:
Create a slack channel, it might be me but telegram sucks. I really don't like it. I don't want to install the app and I tried the web browser version, now it asks for a number again, etc. Also people might not want to share their phone number. It might not seem much for some but for others it can be. It needs to be easily accessible to everyone By using telegram you're already limiting people's access to the discussions.

Slack seems way better, saves the history, you can have a public channel and a private channel for committee to discuss. Or I imagine (not sure though) you could create one channel for committee discussion that everyone can see but only the committee members can participate, to avoid spam and loosing time. People then discuss what they see on the other channel.

It's way better. Telegram is just bad. It might be just me, but please consider moving to slack.

Btw: BitShares slack channel requires a CNX email... Not well thought. CNX should have their own slack, BitShares should have one for the community.

Quote from: Bhuz on February 03, 2016, 02:22:41 pm

Businesses should never found their success, win, and revenue merely on referral system. It can be a plus for sure, but not the backbone.

@Bhuz
One more issue has crossed my mind: what is your proposal for people like fav or Max Wright?
They run blogs and make educational videos but don't have the resources to run their own hosted wallet service.
The majority of their audience does not include advanced users.

What is your solution for them?

The only problem that remains is this: if I wanted to offer a LTM subscription but sell it below $20, I could not do this, could I?
I'm not saying it's a major flaw, I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.

And the other problem is this: what prevents me from modifying and recompiling the desktop GUI to avoid the fees?

So you can forget about any significant income from LTM upgrades  - of course all this applies only in case of "non-advanced" referral businesses like kenCode's.

But with this freedom comes the burden of setting up some kind of referral program yourself, as the standard in-built referral program will no longer work for you.

So you say that thanks to upgrading to LTM I'll pay 10 BTS fee instead of 5 BTS fee.
Not a very attractive offer. If I was a non-advanced user, I'd never buy LTM. There will be practically no demand for it among non-advanced users.

The point is: there is a certain level (e.g. 12 BTS) and if we set the flat transfer fee below this level, there is no way referral business, targeted to non-advanced users, can count on any income from LTM.
If they are fine with that, I'm fine with it too.

Indeed, I can see that kenCode is already drifting in this direction - he does not treat LTM as the basis of his income any more.
(So why did he attack bitcrab's 1BTS proposal so passionately? There must have been some misunderstanding.)