i am really concerned. Many delegates do not publish feeds. At this moment in time only 59 delegates provide bitUSD feeds. I believe if the market will shut down because we have not much feeds it will have a bad impact on BTS.

So every delegate provide feeds or quit your job. Especially every delegate paid more than 3%.
- why we have still so many INIT delegate without feeds? do we still need them? if yes, install a feed script.

everyone should consider to take everyone out of their votes and maybe we can elect more reliable people.

i think delegates and voting are more important and it would make sense to move this section behind "General, Marketing and "Delegates" "

we are facing voter appaty so we should make it much easier for anyone to get informed.

after updating to .2.24 i can't cover my short positions. is this a known problem?

I would like to know why some delegates don't provide feeds?

- if there is no technical reason you should take action to post feeds.

maybe we could include rules to exclude none posting delegates as active delegates. At the moment delegates have 2 important jobs. 1) confirm the blocks 2) post feeds. Only feeds provide the possibility to trade on our blockchain, without feeds at the moment BTSX or BTS in the future looses purpose.

https://www.coingateway.net/

i found this company who will accept via api the implementiation of altcoins.

we could implement bitUSD so anyone can spend via there service on bitcoin merchants bitUSD.

could improve the buying side of bitUSD.

1.
I am a supporter of the merger, because I see a need to only trade bitUSD on a single blockchain. Much easier for the user
2.
If you followed my posts it is not suprising, that I don’t support the proposed allocation of Bytemaster. But reality is, it would be impossible to change Bytemasters view, so I suppose it will be :
80% BTSX 7 % AGS 7% PTS 3% DNS 3% VOTE

Instead of complaining all the day I dicided to make a better proposal to fix some issues I see. My proposal will not change the BTS allocation, but will include some new entity.

Why is the allocation wrong?

If you take a calm look, it is clear that the merger is in favor of the Feb. 28 Snapshot and didn’t consider the risk the AGS and PTS donors took who donored of bought PTS after this snapshot. They are diluted the most.

So what can we do, to fix this unfairness?

I propose to create on BTS the first Asset on the exchange – GENESIS (GNS).

Genesis will hold the promises given AGS and PTS for the use of bitshares toolkit from 3rd parties with 20 % in the sharedrops.

The tweak with Genesis is, we will reverse the allocation done for the BTS creation:

20% BTSX : 40% AGS : 40% PTS or 1:2:2 = = 5 Million GNS

To give Genesis more value I propose as well to use them for the creation of new assets on the exchange instead of BTSX.

With this approach we could smooth some unfair allocations in favor on the Feb. 28 Snapshot.

I hope you like my idea!

More details:

Genesis – 5 Million  GNS – 1 BTSX : 2 AGS : 2 PTS allocation

What are GNS good for?

• If a new DAC with the toolkit is created, GNS holders will get at least a sharedrop after the max. Sharecount of 20%
• To issue assets on the BTS exchange you need to pay the fees in Genesis shares!

To make it much simpler for the enduser I would like to price all the fees in bitUSD and we could buy the needed GNS in the backround without confusing the user.

Creation of new assets:

a) BitAssets

BitAssets should be created by vote and every holder of Genesis will be deducted with the needed GNS for creating a new bitAsset. Everyone has to pay, because it benefits the whole community.
   Or
If someone is willing to pay the fees, he can also create a bitAsset

Assume a Altcoin want to be traded as bitAsset, the Altcoin community can create this new bitAsset and can fund it by crowdsale.



b) user issued Assets

Bitshares ME: (no restrictions)
       x bitUSD has to be paid, but in the backround the blockchain will buy the needed Genesis shares on the market and will increase the value with buying pressure of GNS
suppose to create a bitAsset without restriction you have to pay 100 bitUSD and the system will buy the needed GNS

 Bitshares X (for companies like Overstock; legal problems solved etc.)
suppose we charge 0,5% bitUSD for the issued valued shares
example: you create a new asset with 1.000.000 Overstock shares and the nominal value is 1 bitUSD. So the fees will be 5.000 bitUSD to be paid

this is just a quick idea, but i am looking for a solution everyone can agree. with GNS in place the late AGS and PTS donors can compensate overtime the cutted allocation in new DACs and the BTSX holder will also get a fair share.

we should integrate a possibility for the DACs to submit news thru the clients of the partner DACs to catch network effects. right now the userbase would be similar, but in the future maybe some DAC catch the attention and now is a good possibility to take him/her to the sister chains.

maybe we could structure it like a auction so you have to pay fees to send the news to all clients and the fees goes to the delegates or burned.

would it be possible to integrate in the Client to change the "AppData" Path to a new Path on my Computer?

i run my OS Win7 on an SSD harddrive and 2 times happened that the client shut down, because the client produced a huge amount of data and filled my SSD up.

so it occured to me. if i not only could decide where my client will be installed, but also my AppData files - relocated! Would also be possible to run the stuff via USB Stick.