Show Posts

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.

Messages - speedy

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 78
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 02, 2015, 09:56:02 pm »
I guess the only people* who would want to sell BTS at 1000 sats are those who got it free.

You're giving most crypto-n00bs too much credit. They'll sell at any price just to gtfo. ;)

*only people with millions of free BTS anyway...

As for whether hes only claimed half of his vesting stake - so what? Hes going to claim it all eventually, half of which will have to be dumped to pay taxes and the other half to fund his pipe dream that does squat to help BTS.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 02, 2015, 09:38:50 pm »
Its AE's fault, hes dumping millions of BTS spawned from thin air:

But dont worry, hes registered loads of liberals and conservatives +5%, and he paid yourmom for services rendered.

Technical Support / Re: The way how gateways should work.
« on: November 01, 2015, 05:59:49 pm »
Right now we have:

BTC, bitBTC, TRADE.BTC, OPEN.BTC... and every new gateway will produce new SOMETHING.BTC. From perspective of new user this is far too complicated.

But in my opinion this is not the worst part. The main problem with this approach will always be low liquidity. And this is not only my concern.

Thinking out load here:

What about autobridging to fix this problem? Or could the bitshares webwallet show a combined orderbook with the best prices for TRADE.BTC/OPENBTC against BTS? As long as they are both backed by BTC then it doesnt matter which one you get matched with.

The poll needs a third option: "Not like it works now!!!"

OpenLedger / Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« on: November 01, 2015, 12:35:49 pm »
Who is complaining in response to comments Ronny? Me or you?

1.) I asked you to answer the OP's original question.

2.) I pointed out that your response sounds contradictory to the summer announcement I linked to.

It's ok, though. You've made yourself clear.

Sorry, maybe I just feel a little stressed ight now with too much work, thanks

We appreciate all your doing for BTS +5% and of course youre really busy!

But I agree with phillyguy, when I read your summer announcement about moving to the blockchain, I was hoping that you wouldnt continue to maintain 2 separate orderbooks. I was hoping that would become a frontend to the blockchain and would show exactly the same orders as whats on the webwallet. This is what BitShares really needs to solve its liquidity problem.

OpenLedger / Re: CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« on: November 01, 2015, 10:52:13 am »
Hmm, somehow I feel that is not exactly the way you create market depth, by staying away untill someone else decides to join.

True, but we already have lots of depth on the ccedk website. My original question was could we just merge the 2 orderbooks, so that we can combine our liquidity? Users of could automatically be using the blockchain without even knowing.

General Discussion / Re: If you are a Brownie holder
« on: November 01, 2015, 10:37:21 am »
Ive attended 2 live hangouts recently so that means I have 200 brownies?

I dont know havent claimed my main 2.0 balances yet.

OpenLedger / CCEDK now 10% of all BTS trade volume
« on: October 31, 2015, 04:07:54 pm »
According to this:

CCEDK now has 10% of all BTS trade volume. This must be from their own orderbook on their site:

Are they going to move their orderbook over to the blockchain? Biggest problem right now is that all of the different BTC/BTS blockchain markets have poor liquidity. They are all useless right now.

I dont have an account on CCEDK. I do however have a blockchain account and I would use OPENBTC:BTS if other people would first.

General Discussion / Re: Graphene GUI testing and feedback
« on: October 29, 2015, 01:17:03 am »
Minor suggestion:

Make the chart timeframe default to days - there isnt enough volume yet to show anything in 5min timeframes, and seeing low activity does not engender confidence.

General Discussion / Re: Cryptofresh Block Explorer [alpha]
« on: October 28, 2015, 11:21:10 pm »
Is there a block explorer that shows info on a particular address, eg its balance & whether its claimed or not? This should be possible as most people arent using stealth addresses anymore.

Technical Support / Re: Are 2.0 wallets deterministic when claiming keys?
« on: October 28, 2015, 11:14:08 pm »
Newly created keys are deterministic.  The old brain keys are not compatible so you need to save your backups...  Improvements to this process is in progress.

Thanks, so when a 1.0 balance is imported, is it transfered to a new address created from that deterministic wallet key? It then shouldnt matter if the wallet backup was made pre or post importing of the 1.0 keys.

BitMessage - p2p messaging network that stores a few days worth of messages in a "blockchain" (term used very loosely here).

Twister - p2p version of Twitter. Registers names on a blockchain like Namecoin, but names are registered by proof of work not paying a fee.

Mr Marmot's blockchain I think is tokenless:

General Discussion / Re: We'll be able to compare ourselves vs Nasdaq
« on: October 28, 2015, 12:16:54 am »
Soon BitShares will also support proxy voting for UIAs  (Thanks Follow My Vote)

WWWWWHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

What is the significance of this?

Technical Support / Are 2.0 wallets deterministic when claiming keys?
« on: October 27, 2015, 11:40:25 pm »
When keys are imported and claimed, their ownership goes to a new address which is derived from the wallet key (as I understand). So can those private keys be re-generated deterministically from the wallet key? Or after every address import do we have to make a new backup?

Thats what these docs seem to imply:

After importing your accounts and balances, we recommend to make a new backup of your wallet that will then contain access to your newly imported accounts and corresponding balances.

If thats the case then the docs should be more explicit. I wonder if this is where I messed up...

Technical Support / Imported balances disappeared - non 2.0 account?
« on: October 27, 2015, 01:18:55 am »
I used the light wallet to import my keys.json created from 0.9.3c. I then claimed the balances from those keys into the my account, and they showed up in my overview page. However after closing the light wallet and reopening it, no balances are visible and I have nothing.

Is this because the account that I claimed the keys into was pre 2.0 hard-fork? It was one of the accounts imported from the keys.json backup, not one created from the Openledger faucet. (The light wallet doesnt support stealth accounts.)

Is there anything I can do to get these funds back? I tried going into the import keys screen again and it says they have already been claimed (as expected).

General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:29:39 pm »
Thanks I just learnt in another thread that webwallet Deposits are actually working for everyone expect me/Firefox users.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 78