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 - bytemaster

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 656
General Discussion / Re: Roger Ver Bonus Hangout: (SILVERTICKET Entry Fee)
« on: February 14, 2016, 05:19:17 pm »
Hi Everyone,

I don't know what the problem was,  but I wasn't informed of the platform for the event until 6 minutes before the scheduled start time. Then, when I tried to log into the mumble server, there was the following error:

I copied all the login credentials exactly from the website.
Anyhow, sorry to let everyone down.
I would be happy to do hang out via Skype or Google hang out some other time in the future. Good luck with all of your projects!

Sorry we missed you today, it appears others are having the same technical difficulty you are having.

i just listend to the last mumble session

i have a question

1. to which share account is the capacatiy calclulated? to the claimed or to all bitshares?

I am not sure I understand your question.

General Discussion / Re: Roger Ver Bonus Hangout: (SILVERTICKET Entry Fee)
« on: February 14, 2016, 05:10:19 pm »
Any update?

Show me at least one worker who take responsibility for the shareholder,please.
proposal like:"I will develop a function,one year after this function launch,the market cap will be twice to now,or I won't get any bts as payment.

no one now  are willing to  take this responsibility, right.They just happy to to see shareholder surffer and grad USD for themselves.

"I have written so many many document! BTS will go to die without our work!just give me 100K bts a day! "(So what?We have only 10% left  of our investment thanks to your "hard work" since 2014 )

I could have a high pay job outside! (So again,why are you still here?Strongly doubt that you can get a serious job outside.)

Somebody still think these amazing inflation work can raise the market cap  base on 2013-2016,huh,wow.

Look at it another way, you want the programmer to only get paid *if* the blockchain is a success, but success is not something the programmer can control.  A programmer can only control whether or not their CODE works and is delivered on time.

Would you take a job where you only get paid if your co-workers do their job?

Is that mean, that we could keep private keys in blockchain, like private key to BTC account, which is used to create a bitcoin sidechain:D

Is that mean, that witnesses could also sign a transaction without knowing a key? :D

Please say yes, please say yes.


Bitcoin Wallet
1. Decentralized private key generation – Multiple Enigma nodes locally create a segment of
the key, whereas the full key is only ever assembled by the user. No trail of evidence is left
2. Decentralized transaction signing – Transactions signed without ever exposing the private
key or leaving a trail.


[member=5]bytemaster[/member] [member=5]bytemaster[/member] [member=5]bytemaster[/member]

Using the salaries example... every witness knows their own but collectively they compute the average without revealing their
individual salaries.   This is similar to collectively calculating a signature without any one party knowing the private key. 

The problem is that the parties can still collude to calculate the private key and share it.  Furthermore, they could collude to calculate the signature on an arbitrary transactions.  In effect, it reduces to multisig. 


Just wanted to resurrect the sidechain thread with an idea/question.  Since there's risk (perhaps intolerable risk) of collusion  associated with witnesses signing off on transfers to a multi-sig BTC wallet, would it be possible for the BTS blockchain to hold the private key for such a BTC wallet and automatically make transfers out of it (and into a user's individual BTC wallet) whenever a user sells their SIDE.BTC on the DEX?

It is possible to do secure multi-party computation among the witnesses.  Doesn't prevent collusion of witnesses though.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:58:54 pm »
It is his right.. Although id like to know if he is selling because as a dev myself i know what this means.

It may mean something for you , but it means nothing in BM's case even if he did sell . Because he can always find ways to generate more BTS to make up for the ones he sold eventually(by know) . So selling at the low price doesn't mean he has no hope for BTS . It just mean he is pretty sure that he has more influence on the dilution budget than the voters think .

Of course if I sold I would have less direct influence. Also, payment via dilution for work is the same as if I payed cash for the diluted shares and then bts stakeholders got to decide where the cash was spent.   

If this were StarCraft you have minerals, gas, and supply depos.    Warcraft: Gold and Wood and Barracks.

Throw in some Dragon Kill Points and fuzzy will be very happy!

I like the idea of having two different tokens to representing different powers.  The price of bandwidth vs storage is very different and some people may create much more of one vs the other. 

So we have the following resources:

Disk usage is the long-term cost of keeping records and downloading the chain. Someone who consumes a small amount of bandwidth over a long period of time will consume much more Disk than someone who periodically bursts at high bandwidth. 

The only thing I will say is that sometimes keeping it simple is better.... complexity kills.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:09:50 pm »
localhost just sent 5 million to Poloniex, has 32 million BTS in account who's that?

in my view BM (or close relative)

wrong on both counts.

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 06:42:43 pm »
I don't think we can make this change without impacting the implied right of transfer for BTS.

All this change does is use the value of "transferring BTS" to fund liquidity in the on chain markets. The impact on BTS price would be like allocating a worker proposal to subsidize the same liquidity.  The difference is that it wouldn't be disruptive to the holders of BTS and the exchanges.

BigChainDB is an impressive solution and certainly has a place in the market. But let's think about things from a purely information-theory point of view.

BCDB scales by adding nodes. This means the nodes are not processing the SAME information, instead each node is processing a subset of the information. 

I can reach 1 million transactions per second with Graphene through having 10 chains each operating on an independent set of data.  It could probably even all run on one computer.

There is inherently sequential business logic that cannot take advantage of BCDB's parallelism approach.

Tony, this is a great idea :)  Almost makes up for all of your other posts!

The way I understand it is that the only way to enter or exit a BTS position is through the internal market.

This would end up cutting off any exchange that didn't become a gateway *or* list BitUSD.  The impact would be to get BTS off of the exchanges.

The work around would be for an exchange to offer EXCHANGE.BTS that they offer to buy/sell at 1:1... then you transfer EXCHANGE.BTS into the exchange. This extra difficulty would probably cause the internal exchange to be preferred and few exchanges would jump through that hoop.

The only downside is that the value of BTS would fall in the short-term due to loss of liquidity.  The conversion would take a long time as people would need to withdraw from exchanges before the shares get locked up.

How to get a stable measurement of real world value without relying on a price feed.

Proof of Work difficulty has a long lag time relative to price changes and also has efficiency improvements factored in.

So once could use mining as an objective source that is slightly biased.... all other things being equal, efficiency gains would cause the value of a proof of work to fall over time. 

If there was a way to measure / compensate for efficiency gains in an objective manner then we would be a step closer. One basic method is to guess what the efficiency gains should be.  This will give us something closer to the truth, but still error based upon the accuracy of the model.

Another means is to have several different proof-of-work systems using different algorithms. Not all algorithms will have efficiency growth spurts at the same time. By using the algorithm that grows the least in hash power at any point in time we can remove all efficiency gains that are not universal (impacting all proof of work variants at the same time).   

Any other ideas? 


General Discussion / Re: Do we need feed price? Is it a malaputed market?
« on: February 10, 2016, 10:25:46 pm »
This is fine if we have a USD market with USD IOUs on the internal exchange.  This will work unless the IOUs default in which case the internal exchange price won't match to the real value.

If there was a way to get a real unit of value into the blockchain that would be helpful.

To be fair, speculating and trading are very different skills than software development and thus something we wouldn't necessarily use.

I get the point about eating our own dog food though. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 656