Welcome back alt!

Good job!

Who is "dantheman" on Steemit?

Is it Dan Larimer or Dan Notestein?

Larimer

Inviato dal mio Nexus 4 utilizzando Tapatalk

Quote from: onceuponatime on May 19, 2016, 03:11:22 am

@xeroc, do you?

I totally do!

Though I have some critiques on it:

* If you focus on OpenLedger, then Openledger should pay you.
* I would love to see (already in the very beginning) an explanation video that distinguishes BitShares from OpenLedger/FreedomLedger/MakerX(and whatever comes next). This is where we TOTALLY failed. People believe BitShares is owned bit OpenLedger.
* Then I would like to see more walk-throughs and don't think we need all the tech lectures just yet. Tell people how to do things, then tell people how it works later on. There is documentation (in text form) for this already, so I don't think we needs this just yet.

Go for it!

 

Paging @xeroc

I previously had a bts webwallet over at  https://wallet.bitshares.org/

I've created a wallet on openledger and used the (very long) brainkey(?) to restore my account name to openledger. In the wallet management console, I can see my account name under "active wallet" however, I cannot see any balance.

Could anyone assist by advising or pointing me toward the necessary steps to recover my BTS balance?

Wallet management console -->  Balance claims (lookup balances)

Inviato dal mio Nexus 4 utilizzando Tapatalk

My initial thought: these suggestions may be useful, but are contrary to the "no new features / enhancements" approach we discussed with BM in a mumble session recently.

An evaluation needs to be done to estimate the cost of adding these enhancements. Can you do that xeroc? If the cost is relatively minor this may be reasonable to do as a maintenance effort. Even so, there are always risks to changing the code, and if stability and reliability is a high priority any changes need to be made carefully.

IMO, these would impact on one of the core side of BTS. No matter if it is saw as new features or enhancements, it really would be development towards strengthening the core of bts revenue stream... Working with the current fee structure I (and I think all the committee) realize that it really needs some improvements and diversifications to better adapt to different kind of markets and to better improve the overall revenue model.

@abit could probably estimate the cost and time needed for some of the suggested changes

Quote from: noisy on March 30, 2016, 08:40:36 am

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

Quote from: noisy on March 30, 2016, 02:16:53 pm

Quote from: dannotestein on March 30, 2016, 02:08:31 pm

Quote from: noisy on March 30, 2016, 08:40:36 am

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

THE MOST important thing is consistency. So they can be called superUSD, superCNY... or just plain symbols $... but they have to be called everywhere exactly the same.

If you're suggesting that we make them consistent by referring to them as Bit... in the wallet, I have no argument with that. It would probably solve problems like "what is OPEN.BTC versus BTC" we get from newbies, although I'm not sure it's worth the work involved. But if we use the wallet symbols in the bridge, I think it's likely to create a great deal of confusion if we refer to BitBTC as BTC, since we accept deposits of actual  BTC as well.