http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coGpmA4saEk

...BitShares Music.

Thanks cob for attending the mumble session yesterday! The following questions remained with me or others in the community.

What would be modifications to BTSX other than the possibility for dilution?

How will your legal set up be for the presale (if you are allowed to say anything about that)?

How does the dilution exactly work? Say 1 delegate is running a campaign promoting he will dilute notes to raise capital. Then that delegate is voted in. By how much can that 1 delegate dilute all the shares or is a 51% majority of delegates required for dilution? Is that dilution caped?

Fact: Ethereum and others that did a fundraiser in btc lost quite a bit of their funds? Solution: Not raise in Bitcoin or exchange to USD/BitUSD/BTSX as soon as funds are received .

I would encourage you again to allocate enough funds to your company so you don't have to take a service fee which would be a principal (shareholders) - agent (peertracks) problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem

Allocation specific (that is just my opinion): 30/30/10/30 would give those that buy into the presale the feeling that they are welcome and treated fairly.
Worth considering imo would be to split up the fundraiser into two presales. The second one would bring in more money probably when you have proven that the business model and the software is working.

Suggestion: Advertise the PTS Snapshot -> drives up PTS market cap which is great marketing for BitShares Music -> then do the presale which will bring in more money because PTS market cap is higher and presale price will be roughly according to PTS market cap.

Joeyd suggested to to either fix the allocation so that PTS investors know what they are actually getting from the Snapshot or to confirm that the allocation is not known yet and that PTS investors should be prepared for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyrOaNH4PUs&feature=youtu.be beginning at min 5:00

--> Ripple is our real competitor not Bitcoin!

I lost a bit the overview of all the tools that can be used to tweak the market mechanics. I find it useful to have a list when trying to figure out how things can be improved. May it help others too.

- Varying required collateral
- Varying fees offered by the side that has abundance
- price feed restrictions for lenders / borrowers (within a range, at par)
- a fund for a black swan event to cover bitusd (funded by market fees)
- varying the distribution of market fees (yield) either to bitusd or btsx holders
- expiration dates of shorts / maximum short holding periods
- market adjusted interest rates (bitusd5 etc.; problem: who determines the rate?)
- hardcoded interest rate (I don't know how that would work....?)

What else is implemented or has been suggested or could make sense if we look at established financial markets?

I relistened to todays mumble session. BM said that all shorts will have to redeem their collateral at least once a month which will help make the market more liquid.

So I though: Why not make it more costly (how?) to keep your short position for long. The longer you want to keep it the more costly it is.

Questions: What types of costs could apply ? And would the period be determined at the beginning of going short or when redeeming the collateral?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZaTdEtK-8

...just nice to see that again and see how the overall big picture idea materializes

It is titled Keyhotee but spans across several DACs (BTSX, DNS, KeyID).

Hats off to Dan for his passion, dedication and vision!

Here is the issue:

I imported my AGS private keys into wallet 1 via the command line client. I made a backup into a json file. That all was with 0.4.6 or so, one of the earlier versions for sure.

I have two issues:

1) I imported the json file in the GUI (most recent release; installed 0.4.15 and then updated inside the GUI: File: Check for updates). I this only gives me about half the funds I imported initially into wallet 1.

2) I tried to make a new json backup from the command line client but it crashes all the time. I can't get beyond wallet_open.

I followed all the instructions here http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/RecoveringFunds
(performed with the console of the GUI client). This didn't help.

Are there any other instructions I can follow or any other information I can share to help resolve the issue?

I could update the command line client via
git pull
git submodule update
make
make forcebuildweb
make BitSharesXWould that help?



 

I don't think we can get further off topic but it's fun. Here is a little controversy I had with arhag and it did not fit the OP: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8933.msg116621#msg116621
This is where it began https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8933.msg116475#msg116475 and arhag referd to http://www.soylent.me/

Quote from: delulo on September 16, 2014, 11:34:50 pm

Quote

My intention is not at all to diminish what you are doing. It sounds really cool. But I am interested to see what your thoughts are on something like Soylent? I mean in some sense it is a very depressing way forward for humanity. People enjoy eating fresh natural food. But there is a lot of efficiency to be gained by taking advantage of economies of scale to farm nutrients and then convert the nutrition into a form that can travel really well over long distances without spoiling. And I don't even think it would need to travel that far. Someday in the future, it could be possible to grow the nutrients in well-controlled, large bio-factories powered by nuclear power located not too far away from major population centers.

This is a bit off topic and has nothing to do with Gingerbread's DAC proposal.
It is a myth that food can be enhanced by braking it down into its "essential" parts where after only the valuable parts are taken and put into a product (powder or liquid).
A few things to mention are:
If we take away some parts, what are the parts we don't need? Mostly fibers and water are left out which are crucial too. There is nothing not crucial in natural foods. There is just imbalances. But you can not make a product out of that...
Second: There are many new discoveries made about substances science did not see any value in or did not know before. It is hybris to believe we have come to an end (or even have gotten far) in this process of understanding nature.
Third: Our bodies (incl. digesting organs) have adapted over a long time to the types of foods we consume (not a proof but an indicator that condensing them could be not suited to our bodies).
Who profits from such believes that foods can be condensed is the supplement industry.

The parts we don't need are the excess that the body must dispose of either through urine or feces or sweat. Some amount of fiber is also necessary it seems. There is also the worry of building up the excess in the body (hypertoxicity). The idea is to get the balance right (at least good enough) for each human to minimize the waste and negative consequences, and to do this at a low cost.

I am not claiming we know everything about nutrition. My only claim is that we cannot learn more without scientific experimentation. To the extent people are voluntarily willing to try these sorts of diets that have very precise measurements of the nutrients contained within, we can learn a lot about what we still do not know about the human body's needs. That is after all how we learned about so many vitamins (people suffered from malnutrition because their diet wasn't giving them the essential vitamins they needed, and it was only after investigating the reason behind their suffering that we were able to learn that fact and improve our understanding of the biology).

You are right that this is getting off topic. So, perhaps we should carry this conversation into the random discussion sub-forum if people are still interested to continue.

I don't share the believe that it is possible yet (and I doubt it will ever be possible) to engineering food better than it appears in it's natural form (better as in prolonging life, making us feel better, having less dissease etc.) I agree that there is a lot of benefit from scientific research and experimentation. It is difficult though in clinical research to identify the effects we refer to here.

The parts we don't need are the excess that the body must dispose of either through urine or feces or sweat.

That is not always true. All the fibers for example end up in feces but play an essential role with a healthy digestion and prevent stomach cancer long term.

The idea is to get the balance right (at least good enough) for each human to minimize the waste and negative consequences

I also doubt that scientific experimentation can come up with a superior formula than evolution. Over hundreds of thousands of years we have adopted to the unprocessed stuff we can find out there.   

people suffered from malnutrition because their diet wasn't giving them the essential vitamins they needed, and it was only after investigating the reason behind their suffering that we were able to learn that fact and improve our understanding of the biology

I agree that there is a benefit from scientific research to avoid inefficiencies of certain vitamins or minerals but that is not the same as replacing all our food with one product. 

Let's take an example: Lettuce. I doubt that one could enhance the health benefits of lettuce by taking away some of it's parts. What would you take away? Water, fibers, long chained carbon hydrates, the protein the fat, the vitamin, the minerals?