Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nmywn

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18
General Discussion / Re: OPENBTC vs OPEN.BTC
« on: February 18, 2017, 09:32:16 am »
I don't know the details, but OPENBTC (without dot) looks like mistake from the past.  OPEN.BTC is actually the right one and CAN be withdraw. Any Openledger's asset have that prefix  (with dot).
 Openledger's website is just another graphical interface for the Bitshares blockchain, things works the same. There is not here or there, all happen on the same blockchain. What you see as BTC on OpenLedger, is OPEN.BTC in reality.
They just hide prefixes on their website to avoid confusion.

It's voted in. Maybe Bitshares isn't DOA after all : ).

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [worker] Python-steem and uptick (1.14.52)
« on: February 16, 2017, 01:55:27 pm »
Is Python good enough to start a very simple community based sidechain? By saying sidechain I mean bunch of bots operating as multisig account in minimum 2 blockchains (e.g. steem <=> bitshares). Bots read data from blockchain's apis, voting on transactions and store data about it. Is that sidechain? Workers, pegged assets, custom dividend schemes, mining... All done with python bots, flexible UIA's and multisig groups - with possibility to upgrade to faster language if business model generate enough income to hire devs. Every time I see fractals like that I'm super exited. Is this a way how Graphene blockchain is supposed to scale or my uneducated imagination led me to false conclusions?

Technical Support / Re: Not shared client won't work
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:57:42 am »
Find other machine with different connection and import your backup there. Or turn off firewall/antivirus. Or call your provider and ask why you can't connect.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Advertisement at 8btc
« on: February 14, 2017, 10:09:43 pm »
Some times none of those servers in the list work for me. May be I am just unlucky?
There is always one working for me, I just have to hit retry from time to time.
Nothing new. This is not big problem because when that happen we're loosing users, so next day traffic is low again and everything works fine. : )

Technical Support / Re: Not shared client won't work
« on: February 14, 2017, 07:25:59 pm »

Random Discussion / [found on Steemit] BitShares logo latte art try
« on: February 12, 2017, 11:33:04 pm »

Code: [Select]

How you enforce miners to do what you want? Who will control them?

General Discussion / Re: Suggestion about Max Supply of UIA
« on: February 09, 2017, 07:21:14 pm »
Trading ON Transfers OFF enable possibility to use  assets as in-game tokens. Player can't cheat by harvesting free tokens from multiple accounts.


General Discussion / Re: Suggestion about Max Supply of UIA
« on: February 09, 2017, 12:54:09 am »
I have a list of additional permissions that should be added to UIAs .. wanted to write a new BSIP but haven't had the time.
So what I would like to do is this: Add additional permissions to assets that
* allow you to opt-out of changing max supply
* allow you to prevent trading (but nothing else .. transfers etc...)
* allow you to require an issue to approve a transfer from A->B
* allow you to switch an asset type pm<->mpa<->uia .. if there is no supply ..

I have
           2 different tokens [ A, B].
           3 markets [A:B, A:bts, B:bts].

   And I want this all at once:

*forbid all holders from transfers with my tokens.
*Specify only allowed markets for tokens: (A:B, A:bts, B:bts).
*prevent particular accounts from trading  A:bts, B:bts
*0.1% fee at A:B market.
*5% fee at A:bts B:bts markets.

Is this possible?

General Discussion / Re: Regulation-compatible cryptoasset issuance
« on: February 06, 2017, 06:12:02 pm »
I think you should talk with Blockpay.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [worker] Python-steem and uptick (1.14.52)
« on: February 06, 2017, 05:29:44 pm »
It is going to be exactly like [member=5080]Geneko[/member] described it.
The only thing that is not yet clear to me from the procedure, is
* Should a collective account be used to borrow bitUSD instead of spreading shareholder-owned collateral to multiple accounts?
* Should the account's permissions be set to be committee owned after the expiration, or should it be re-useable?

I personally, prefer to send BTS to a separate account that holds the collateral position and sends back the bitUSD. This makes accounting easier but requires another multisig group to organize and maintain the collateral.
I see one flaw. Collective account income isn't specified. Are they working for free? I would give them 10% of savings that they made, or better to say: if. Fair offer.
Your idea is amazing btw.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18