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 OPEN.xxx  (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.

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?

Quote from: yvv on February 14, 2017, 04:05:22 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. : )

@bitcrab
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22851.msg296524.html#msg296524

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23734.0.html

Trading ON Transfers OFF enable possibility to use  assets as in-game tokens. Player can't cheat by harvesting free tokens from multiple accounts.

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?

It is going to be exactly like @Geneko 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.