Has anyone else been able to get the new light front end released yesterday to work? I went back to 151202 and that is still working but 160309 crashes immediately. I will admit I only know about 90% of what I am doing in linux but I don't think I am doing anything wrong on my end.  Is there something I might be missing in this new version?

Given that everyone is so excited about this debit card I assume that it works like this, if I am wrong please correct me in a similar play by play manor.  (assuming the nanocard actually gets linked to CCEDK in 2 weeks^TM butterflylab).
0) I register my nanocard  with CCEDK and setup an account [me-nanocard] with multisig: activekey weight [CCEDK-nanocard]=1, activekey weight [me-nanocard]=2, threshold=3.
1) I go buy a pizza at dominos for $10.99 USD and swipe my nanocard
2) the BM bank issuing the debitcard pings debitcard holder CCEDK for the $10.99
3) BTS user [CCEDK] issues a multisig transaction from account [me-nanocard] to [CCEDK-nanocard] for 10.99 bitUSD (plus fees)
4) I get some kind of approval popup asking for me to approve transaction as activekey holder of [me-nanocard] which I validate
5) threshold is reached and [me-nanocard] pays [CCEDK-nanocard] 10.99+ bitUSD
6) CCEDK approves request from BM bank issuing debitcard.
7) Debitcard pays dominos $10.99
I leave dominos with pizza in hand and my [me-nanocard] account 10.99+ bitUSD lighter

am I correct here? because this is exactly how it should work IMO

Are we eventually going to allow new users to sign up for new accounts? It seems the only way to get an account at this point is to:

A)already have and import a registered account from 0.9.3
or
B) buy a transferable account from a lifetime member / account spammer

I have tried to bring in several new users but they have all reported that they are unable to make a new account from both the web-wallet and the lite-wallet.
Furthermore, as a non-lifetime member I cannot create an account for them.  I don't care about fees, but it would be nice to be able to use the full functionality of the software without paying $100 for what is turning into the "full version" of bitshares. 

IMO this referral system has broken the ability of bitshares to grow.  If new users cannot enter the system AND new-ish (non-lifetime) users cannot bring in users,  the only way to join the club is to know someone already deep in it.  If this is the case, than the only way for bitshares to grow slightly is for its current users to funnel more capital into it.


EDIT: I have been able to convince some of these people to retry making account given the info in this thread.  I still think it's stupid to not allow free users to register new accounts (without the fee bonus of course) but redact some of my original criticism.

Maybe there's something simple here that I am missing, maybe some of the regulars here can fill in the gaps:

First, 3 things to keep in mind: Please do not try to turn this thread into a debate about these 3 realities.

A)  The BTS collateral system inspires confidence that if a real-world asset revalues significantly, the corresponding bitAsset should maintain its market peg by increasing or decreasing the balance of BTS that that asset corresponds to.  We all know this of course as it is what validates the bitshares platform as a worthwhile cryptocurency.

B) The key vulnerability in the bitShares/bitAssets ecosystem has always been a significant drop in the value of the underlying asset (BTS), this is a very real possibility in an ecosystem with such a relatively small market cap.

C) In the event that the BTS market cap drops bellow it's tipping point, bitAsset shorts would be called and bitAsset holders would realize a significant increase in their underlying BTS balance - unfortunately these BTS would be worth much less. The asset holders would be forced into a large net long position in a now collapsing BTS; furthermore, confidence in the system would be shattered by the rapid calling of shorts and users rebalancing their portfolios out of a newly created BTS long.  The flooding of BTS previously locked up in collateral into the market with no influx of external capital (real world assets) would cause significant further valuation drops in BTS and more and more market peg would be broken.  Again, this is a known limitation/vulnerability that we all accept for the opportunity of investment.

My question is:

Why is the additional layer of abstraction in a more vulnerable cryptocurrency necessary in the first place? As far as I can tell, it only adds an unnecessary level of risk.

Real-world asset=BTC=BTS=bitAsset. 
All of these must retain value to ensure a transition from bitAsset to real-world asset or a gateway will not be able to function.

1) We have a bitAsset, this is "guaranteed" to represent a value-equivalent basket of BTS via held collateral.  OK
2) BTS must retain its value for the reason stated above. ~ Vulnerability
3) For BTS to retain its value BTC must as well.  Without BTC there are no BTS - no one is dealing with banking restrictions to convert asses into BTS.  This is however, largely safe as the size of the BTC market-cap makes it tamper-resistant to all but the largest (ie sovereign) players.

While the BTS market is impressive, the underlying altcoin exposes users to much more valuation risk.
Is there no way to build the bitshares market with 3x collateral directly onto BTC? Maybe through a decentralized sidechain? 

The downside to BTC denominated user issed assets like colored coins is that as an asset holder you trade risk 2 above for risk 1 - ie the issuer can  fail to acknowledge the value of the asset.
I haven't looked into it but my basic understanding of NXT is that it combines both of these risks: faith in user issued  assets (risk 1) and faith in underlying currency (risk 2).  But I don't care to understand NXT at this time so I don't care.

I would think a platform could exist that tracks ownership of digital assets on its own chain (using DPOS - I forgot that is also an important innovation to bitshares) and interfaces with the BTC blockchain to provide collateral to those assets.  The interest generate by shorting those assets could provide incentive to the delegates maintaining the chain.

There's probably something basic I am missing, maybe someone more familiar with the code knows?

Just my 0.02 bitUSD