WOW

Counterparty has dropped all of my addresses after address #3, from my wallet!  That for not logging in for 3 mo.  or what?

Anybody has any idea how to retrieve them?



PS
I have a whole lot of nothing in those, but still...

Quote from: Ben Mason on October 13, 2014, 12:10:47 pm

Can anyone tell me if Blockchain.Info will support claiming Notes?

You can export you private keys from your blockchain.info addresses in the "advanced" menu .. and then import them into your music client (once released)

blockchain.info does not have anything to do with claiming shares .. but they need to offer the private key of your bitcoin address (which they do)

Quote from: Ben Mason on October 10, 2014, 12:54:22 pm

Quote from: AdamBLevine on October 10, 2014, 12:27:13 pm

Quote from: CoinHoarder on October 10, 2014, 12:01:24 pm

Code: [Select]

[6:17:07 PM] Wendell: SWARM… Who else?
[6:17:15 PM] Wendell: Is SWARM even incorporated?
[6:17:52 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Hmmm....CP, Bitshares, Swarm, mastercoin,
[6:18:09 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Ethereum
[6:18:13 PM] Gavin Knight: ethereum would be a likely target do to the mass volume, but they seemed to have tight legal
[6:18:17 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Storj
[6:18:23 PM] Xavier  Hawk: Maidsafe

Most of these companies are not based in the US from what I can tell. I know that Swarm, Ethereum, BitsharesX, and Maidsafe are not at least. CP didn't do an IPO, but burned Bitcoins to get genesis stake.. I'm not sure that would be counted either even though they do seem to be based in the US. Mastercoin probably falls under this category, unfortunately for them. The projects that have launched since them have been more cautionary in terms of regulatory issues.

This is still bad news over all though... just when Bitcoin/crypto is starting to rebound too. The powers that be can't stand it when the 99% have easy access to investing in disruptive technologies when they were blissfully unaware of their existence.

SWARM is US based, and I'll be shocked if Invictus is not getting a knock on the door come raid day for Angelshares.

and before you say "They're not based in the US", they were when they were collecting money for angelshares and that's what matters.

Why would you be shocked Adam?  Angel shares is a private record of a donation of cryptographic digital information....in return for which, those who donated will receive several allocations of cryptographic digital information within open-source software products.  On what basis could someone come after them?  Are we not free to gift an arrangement of harmless digital information to whomever we choose and receive harmless digital information in return?

Try not to panic....this technological innovation cannot be un-invented.  The writing is on the wall.  One way or another, blockchain technology will redistribute the power of money and transform our societies.  It's already happening.  Decentralization is and has always been the key.  Bitshares will endure.

Ben, I'm not sure how long you've been around this community but Angelshares has morphed in "what it is" several times.  It has been a donation, an investment, a trust, etc.  All these words were used in official material and in communications to people who were asked to give money by the people who were recieving it.   Take a look at the disclaimer in posts by Daniel or Stan, you'll notice the disclaimer saying anything they say on these forums is non-binding.  Well, that's great but it was a bit late and much was said in the interim. 

I totally agree none of this can be uninvented, I've never claimed that and *I'm* not panic-ing or really even concerned, but it's naive to say that Invictus won't be on the list because they're "not based in the US".  If you're panic-ing, it probably means you are too vested in the bitshares ecosystem and your incentives are screwed up because of it.   Our viewpoints should be guided by the way things are, not the way we wish they were.

Quote from: Ben Mason on October 05, 2014, 02:54:28 pm

Ok good question.  I don't have the answer....but I would hope the answer would be that the bitshares toolkit core support would extend to all versions of BTSX.  Beyond that, the launching entity or equivalent to dacsunlimited (in the case of btsx) would launch the alternative.  The health of the Bitshares ecosystem would be measured in use/uptake of bitshares toolkit.

Keep in mind support is more than technical support even though that is incredibly important as well. It includes things like getting partners who provide on-ramps for BTSXdilution but not BTSXnodilution. Pushing merchants to support accepting BTSXdilution (while ignoring to mention BTSXnodilution at all). Paying for the cashback credit card reward and referral system that bytemaster talked about which would only work with BTSXdilution. Essentially building real world infrastructure and network effect (the sticky stuff unlike forkable code) around BTSXdilution. Sure, BTSXnodilution is able to free ride off of a lot of the hard work paid for by BTSXdilution holders beyond just the codebase (marketing can help people grok BTSXdilution, but then it also becomes super easy for them to also grok BTSXnodilution; once merchants setup accepting BitUSD on the BTSXdilution chain it isn't much of a burden for them to also accept BitUSD on the BTSXnodilution chain). However, it is still a huge risk to BTSXnodilution holders in terms of not getting enough user adoption and network effect, and at what cost? Perhaps double the fractional ownership of the stake? Doesn't mean very much if the market cap of BTSXnodilution ends up being 1000 times smaller than BTSXdilution.

Ideally it doesn't have to come down to a split of BTSX into BTSXdilution and BTSXnodilution. We could be all better off if we stay united and keep the larger network effect rather than compete with one another for user adoption and network effect. However, if staying united forces us to make bad decisions that can be an existential risk to BitShares X (remember in these early stages a fork of the code by stakeholders with much stronger network effect can easily kill us), then the best decision would be to split and let the smartest decision win.