601
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.
602
General Discussion / Re: Welcome new bitshares website (ioex.top)and witness(ioex)
« on: March 19, 2018, 06:06:03 pm »
What are your plans for publishing price feeds? Would you consider publishing feeds for Hertz?
603
General Discussion / Re: Unfortunately, it seems clear to me ..
« on: March 18, 2018, 10:44:45 pm »A social contract between some parties who no longer associate with BTS, ultimately the only social contract which should have been established is a worker proposal.In this case, not only need approval of BTS holders but also STEALTH holders. There is a somewhat "social contract".In a hardfork, yes.This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
But that requires (as usual) a BSIP and the approval of BTS holders.
604
General Discussion / Re: [Committee Announcement] - BitShares Commitee becomes Advisory Board to the BBF
« on: March 18, 2018, 02:33:10 am »I object to chris4210 advising anybody about anythinghttps://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0022.md is likely the only way to lose votes from committee positions, lol
Time to join the committee?
605
General Discussion / Re: Unfortunately, it seems clear to me ..
« on: March 18, 2018, 02:28:28 am »This will ultimately raise a few questions about the STEALTH token which is a FeeBacked Asset that has been given by Dan for the development of Stealth. If the backend devs where to continue its development using funds from the reserves, it would only be fair to re-evaluate how well those that currently hold STEALTH (those that have interest in its development and usage), performed in the last 2-3 years.If solely implemented by the bitshares-core dev worker proposal then non-FBA is appropriate, otherwise fair enough. There'd be nothing stopping the copy/pasting of the stealth code without the FBA though right?
For me, it never made sense to work on STEALTH only so that some other people (STEALTH holders) can earn money of it.
606
General Discussion / Re: 5 Node Verified Price Feed - Python
« on: March 18, 2018, 02:25:18 am »
> working under the assumption that any node can provide rogue price feeds at any given time,
You can select witnesses, committee or 25 private price feed publishers, so just don't provide permission to untrustworthy entities?
You can select witnesses, committee or 25 private price feed publishers, so just don't provide permission to untrustworthy entities?
607
General Discussion / Re: BitEthereum: The Upgraded Version of Bitcoin and Ethereum
« on: March 16, 2018, 02:03:14 pm »
"The deadline of claiming BITE: 2018/4/2 00:00 GMT+8."
Such an artificial sharedrop claim deadline is unapealling, BTS2.0 has no limit on sharedrop claims & BITE shouldn't either.
Such an artificial sharedrop claim deadline is unapealling, BTS2.0 has no limit on sharedrop claims & BITE shouldn't either.
608
General Discussion / Re: HERTZ - Oscillating Formula Based Asset
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:50:39 pm »
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/hertz-aba-whitepaper-markdown-edition-translations-inbound
Whitepaper in markdown format for steemit (for PDF phobic users).
Cheers.
Whitepaper in markdown format for steemit (for PDF phobic users).
Cheers.
609
General Discussion / Re: BTS dropped from Shapeshift? Alternatives?
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:47:47 pm »
The flyp.me devs seemed in support of Bitshares on Telegram, I'd imagine that the foundation reaching out to them would be successful.
610
General Discussion / Re: Unfortunately, it seems clear to me ..
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:47:01 pm »
> Dan has gone off the deep end about the privacy topic,
Dan is not involved in BTS anymore, so who cares?
> Stan is all about regulation and playing nice with the SEC now
One can certainly have private transactions whilst still being SEC compliant.
> Could it be that I'm just out of the loop?
Yes. https://t.me/Agorise
Dan is not involved in BTS anymore, so who cares?
> Stan is all about regulation and playing nice with the SEC now
One can certainly have private transactions whilst still being SEC compliant.
> Could it be that I'm just out of the loop?
Yes. https://t.me/Agorise
611
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Network Fee Adjustment (627%) 1.10.8736
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:45:29 pm »
Oh dang, I was enjoying those low fees haha
612
General Discussion / Re: HERTZ - Oscillating Formula Based Asset
« on: March 12, 2018, 11:54:03 pm »
Had an interesting discussion with an user on the /r/cryptomarkets subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoMarkets/comments/811cv0/hertz_an_oscillating_usd_pegged_algorithm_based/dv01paz/
Their idea for algorithm based assets:
Their idea for algorithm based assets:
613
General Discussion / Re: 0.1% Fee for bitCNY, bitUSD, and bitEUR Markets?
« on: March 12, 2018, 09:20:47 pm »
Don't want market fees? Use Hertz http://open-explorer.io/#/assets/HERTZ
615
General Discussion / Bitshares.org domain transfered to a for-profit company?!
« on: March 11, 2018, 11:54:09 pm »
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/bitshares-org-gets-long-awaited-face-lift
Stan/Cryptonomex apparently just transferred ownership of bitshares.org to Apasia.tech - a for-profit entity that isn't an active witness/committee member nor a part of the Bitshares foundation.
Is anyone else concerned by this? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for the ownership transfer to have been made to the committee, witnesses or to the bitshares foundation instead of a private for-profit company?
Take precautions - I'd consider using the light wallet over the reference org wallet until we know what's going on.
Cheers
Stan/Cryptonomex apparently just transferred ownership of bitshares.org to Apasia.tech - a for-profit entity that isn't an active witness/committee member nor a part of the Bitshares foundation.
Is anyone else concerned by this? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for the ownership transfer to have been made to the committee, witnesses or to the bitshares foundation instead of a private for-profit company?
Take precautions - I'd consider using the light wallet over the reference org wallet until we know what's going on.
Cheers