Quote from: Thom on April 06, 2016, 12:56:27 pm

Quote from: inertia on April 06, 2016, 04:39:36 am

If I were to create a centralized exchange, call it Alphabet Soup Exchange, and I wanted to ethically offer trading pairs for BTS, would this forum approve if I added a checkbox with an "I Agree" option and a text box with the following statement, before displaying the account/memo needed for deposits?

"I agree to deposit BitShares with the full knowledge that Alphabet Soup Exchange is delegated a temporary stake until these funds are withdrawn."

In other words, it just draws attention to the facts and nothing about the intent.

The above is better than nothing, but Once's disclaimer is better. It leaves out any mention of a specific intent, but is explicit on stating the exchange is given power through the deposit to vote as they please, which may or may not coincide with the depositor's best interests.

Leaving that out is manipulative IMO.

Got it, and will we expect Bitshares to also display non-manipulative disclaimers when it offers trade pairs for future DPOS sidechains?

Possibly. Please expand upon your analogy so that we can discuss.

I personally would be outraged if I called my stockbroker and ordered 1000 shares of Company A, and found out six weeks later that my stock broker had voted my 1000 shares at Company A's annual meeting to elect a Board which starved Company A of development funds. Although my 1000 shares are stored by the stockbroker, rather than sent to my custody, in order to facilitate trading, they have no right to vote those shares as if they were owned by the broker.

Quote from: onceuponatime on April 06, 2016, 01:44:50 am

Quote from: yvv on April 06, 2016, 01:05:39 am

Quote from: donkeypong on April 05, 2016, 11:30:32 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on April 04, 2016, 04:43:27 am

there is actually strong emotion of anti-dilution in China community, yunbi voted as requested by China community

It is a completely unethical action for an entity that considers itself an exchange.

If you want to change BitShares, then fork and build something yourself.

Why should they fork if they can take under their control what already exists? How is this unethical if they don't violate any rules defined by network?  If you think that following your rules is unethical you have to adjust your ethic plank.

Some actions may be "legal" and yet still be "unethical". It is unethical for the same reason that fractional reserve banking and naked shorting are unethical. 

The "ethical plank" does not need to be adjusted; it is the rules that need to be adjusted to conform with honesty and fairness.

Do your realize that your understanding of honesty and fairness is very different from what several billion of people on this Earth think?

You have to determine what you think is honest and fair when you do busyness with me, otherwise I will use my definitions.

I fully realize that my understanding  of honesty and fairness does not match that of billions of people in this world. That is why I went "all in"  first in Bitcoin and now in BitShares. I assumed that Satoshi and Bytemaster were building ethical platforms. But there is no getting around the machinations of inferior humans. Superior humans will hopefully continue to build the platforms in ways that they become as trustless as possible - because you just can't trust most people to do what is ethical (ie. not to use deceptive practices and to follow the non-aggression principle). And to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, perhaps better, do not do unto others what you do not want done onto you.

At a minimum, Yunbi should state very clearly on their deposit page, before taking a deposit, that they intend to vote the stake of the depositor as they see fit  which may or may not conform with the depositor's wishes. 

Quote from: bytemaster on April 05, 2016, 07:46:28 pm

Quote from: void on April 05, 2016, 06:48:03 pm

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on April 05, 2016, 12:03:45 pm

I don't like private profits being made from something that should be a core feature of bitshares.

I understand and appreciate that @onceuponatime has taken on risk and reduced sell pressure on BTS get Stealth asset implemented but I think this feature would be better as just a standard feature .

I'd like to see @onceuponatime  to sell this feature to bitshares and delete the Stealth asset.

He could sell it for whatever he paid +25% to cover costs and make a profit. This could be done as a worker proposal.

I've never thought Fee Backed Assets for core bitshares functions made any sense whatsoever.

 

I would support this move as well.  The easiest way to do so is to create a worker, get it voted in, and refund once upon a time his money.  That would require about 7.5 million BTS.  Maximum dilution for about 3 weeks should do the trick if my math is right.

Who thinks we can get that approved by shareholders?

Have you asked onceuponatime ?

Bytemaster and I have discussed the situation. There are some issues that I am still mulling over in my mind. For instance I had promised a distribution of 20,000 STEALTH each to the 5 accounts that agreed to share responsibility of the 3 of 5 signatory power over the Maintenance Account, and to act as an advisory board. I intend to keep my word on that matter by making that distribution.

Quote from: onceuponatime on March 31, 2016, 09:37:48 pm

After I downloaded the STEALTH light wallet and entered my e-mail for server backup, and then entered the url I recieved to my e-mail

I am taken to http://stealth.cnx.rocks/#/wallet/backup/server/

Server Backup

Write down your Wallet Key (it is case-sensitive)

xxxx

PASSWORD

What do I enter for "PASSWORD"?  When I enter the password I chose upon downloading the STEALTH wallet beta
It returns the message "wallet not found"

This is the only case:  You have the correct Wallet Key and password then you can recover the wallet from the server.   If either are incorrect or you don't have a wallet on the server you will see "wallet not found".   You are correct, you use your original password.

Your making it clear that this was confusing for you.  We all want this to be easy.   Keep in mind, the server does not know much about you by design.  So, it is not possible for us to know if their is no wallet or the password does not match.  Since you used the link we know the Wallet Key is correct (the link will know if it was changed).  So, it is either the wrong password or you did not have a backup on the server.  We never change the server URL so that is the only backup server.  Your wallet is kept in your browser too.  Does is show you a "Dashboard" or "Create Account" in the toolbar?  The first means it has a wallet the second means it does not.

You only need your password to login to the wallet backup in your browser.

@jcalfee1

Here is what is happening:

I have a light client. I have opened an account in it. I have funded that account with 1000BTS.

I have made a named Private Account. I have not used it yet.

I put in my e-mail to do a server backup and clicked on "Email A Token".

I received an e-mail from noreply@cnx.rocks

 I clickied the confirmation therein and was taken to a web wallet, and not to my light wallet. The landing place is the "Wallet Management Console" and it has a 4 digit Wallet Key and asks me to input my password.

When I enter my password (which is from the light client mentioned above) and I click on "check server"  I get the response in a pop out message: "Wallet was not found"

Quote from: liondani on March 31, 2016, 10:03:11 pm

Anybody signed an agreement? Do we gave to MS any BTS  rights to let us get on Azure? 

The developers of NEM are very skeptical about their integration...

We spent a considerable amount of time getting this done. Unfortunately,
at the last stage of our submission we were shown the agreement.
In the agreement, to put our solution up there, requires us to give away all our rights.
This is not quite palatable.
read more.... http://blog.nem.io/status-on-the-azure-project/

What if all these pumps with each blockchain that got into Azure was being backed by Microsoft itself as a way to get everyone to give up their rights so they could get into the network without realizing all the consequences?

Lets be honest.. is anybody here surprised at all.. this is Microsoft after all.

I don't understand how anyone would have the authority to sign away any rights to the BitShares blockchain  over to Microsoft. Is NEM different?

Quote from: [member=42086]viz10nari[/member] on March 28, 2016, 09:53:07 pm

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.

Santaclause102 (with 2445 posts)  formerly known as ......?

            Culture is Everything

"Some business cultures place a high value on treating the counterparty in a transaction with respect and dignity.  In those cultures, it's important that every business transaction is a win-win, where both sides are better off for doing business together, regardless of the contractual details. 

In other business cultures, business transactions are highly competitive.  In those cultures, it's important to win every business transaction and contractual details are used as a weapon to bludgeon the counterparty into submission.

See the difference in approach due to culture?

What should also be obvious from this example is that cultures differ.  They can be wildly different.

They aren't equally effective, they usually don't mix well, and some can be toxic".

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/01/culture-is-everything.html

I get contacted from young hipsters Russian news site: http://cryptach.info
They want to publish small text interview with BitShares developer(s) with one photo (683px+ width) where developer answers for following easy questions: 

1. How you came to the project and why he became interested in you?
2. How many people are directly involved in the development of BTS?
3. What exactly are you doing in the team?
4. What cool features and innovation in BTS, you can select among other forks?
5. Where it has actively used the BTS?
6. Can BTS revolutionize the world of finance? If so, how soon?
7. What is new we will see in the near future in BTS?
8. When to the moon?

I know that @bytemaster is very busy but I hope he found 15 minutes and answer this simple questions. In order to save Bytemaster time, everybody can post here answers and when Bytemaster will review our answers he can just select ones which he like. 

Let's try to make the answers small and funny. 

Sounds like they want one of the developers that Bytemaster has attracted to BitShares to answer these questions.