... but then how do we get it so a contract can be created by a customer i.e. a business using a normal webpage & then other parties i.e. residents able to join the contract  at a later date.

Any thoughts/ideas would be most helpful!!

thanks
Shane

Here is a category that might be helpful: Smart-Contract-Types.
On Bitshares (Graphene) you have certain TYPES of contracts / operations (an operation would only become a contract if a certain condition is attached; but an operation illustrates my point as good) that are available to be used by your customers. Example: In Bitshares there is the operation "create user issued asset" that can be combined with whitelisting so that only whitelisted people can trade this asset and of course your customers could make use of this operation. So in Bitshares your customers can be active within what is possible with the contract types available on Bitshares. Conclusion: IF Bitshares has the types of operations you need for your business then it's the better option because its faster, cheaper etc than Ethereum. If not then you have to use Ethereum (or make a graphene chain with all the contract types you need - either an own chain or propose the code changes to the Bitshares shareholders that are necessary to incorporate the contract types you need into Bitshares)

The "Try out" button on bitshares.org should be replaced by a selection of front ends (Openleader, freedompledger, dacplay, are there others?). This would increase competition for stability and usability. Also people would stop confusing OL with Bitshares. Who is maintaining bitshares.org? @cass ?

Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on June 02, 2016, 05:08:12 pm

It's sad to see some workers get paid but don't work.

Which workers are you referring to? If you're referring to the blockchain maintenance worker, I've already posted that we will not draw from the fund except when we do some work, and if the fund builds up too much, we'll just send it back to reserve fund. To date, we plan to draw $1K from the fund for fixes to memo encryption, but I haven't bothered to do that yet. We're also at work on a dividend feature currently, and we'll draw some for that as well.

In other news, I have hired a new web programmer who will start in 2 weeks, and I plan to assign him some tasks related to improvement of the web wallet. If there's no major objections, I would pay him part of his salary from the blockchain maintenance worker and I'll subsidize the rest.

That sounds very reasonable. Thanks Dan. Do you plan to post all funds that you actually use /draw in you worker thread? I think that would be a good idea in this case (and in all cases of reasonable self governance becoming appropriate in such unexpected cases). 

Quote from: santaclause102 on May 02, 2016, 10:28:14 pm

That is ridiculous! I guess that is exactly the (public) reaction they want. Too funny.... Someone from the steem team needs to confirm the 100k before I believe it

Here's an explanation from Dan Larimer himself (dantheman)
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-interpret-steemits-post-valuations

//update:  Also I believe the payouts are paid in "vests"  so you would not be able to cash out and dump your rewards immediately, but weekly over a 2 year period whenever you decided to divest your "vests".

Thanks for your answers. I made a comment on steem in the thread xeldal posted above), but there is no share link. Otherwise I could share my exact comment outside of steem (in this case, here).

Am I getting this right: https://steemit.com/politics/@donaldtrump/lets-talk-politics <- The OP of this post is getting paid 105 USD for having made that post?

@adam I think it would help if the title was more simple, such as: "Honest and verifiable election" and potentially not even mention blockchain tec in the tile

Thank you @bytemaster for your timely response. It is much appreciated.

I am also pleased with your response itself, demonstrating your confidence in the readiness of the core protocol and GUI,  and the ability of the infrastructure to scale with significant increased demand once responsible management ensues at OL.

I just would like to ask for advice from the core BTS community and whatever governance committee structure is in place, if they would support or strongly advise against, use of the term "3.0 Blockchain" in reference to BitShares blockchain, within my marketing communications and materials currently under development. Thanks in advance.

@BunkerChain Labs:
Noted re Windows 95, although MSFT certainly had the manpower to provide robust customer support, which level of manpower I don't think BitShares currently has...  or even plans to have, given the dac model

I'd avoid saying Bitshares is 3.0. That, especially if it comes from someone with an interest in Bitshares's growth, comes across as "making ourselves bigger just by giving us grandiose names". It comes across as having to pull that "naming trigger" because there is no substance.

For one: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21546.msg280544.html#msg280544

And then a technicality such as the consensus mechanism if boiled down to a phrase such as "delegated proof of stake" isn't suited as a core concept for marketing.

For marketing you need a mantra that is meaningful (something capable of creating emotions and/or a vision about the future) and simple:
Dash - the privacy alternative to Bitcoin.
Ethereum - the (universal) smart contract platform.
etc.

What I wanted to say is that the core vision and the central argument for Bitshares shouldn't be about DPOS (or whatever else) - Ethereum (which is excellent at marketing itself we have to admit) also isn't about POW vs. Casper at it's core.

It's admittedly hard to come up with a mantra for Bitshares though. Maybe: The most salable, decentralized financial platform.