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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 656
226
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 21, 2015, 07:09:14 pm »
Quote
For example, if you drive above the speed limit you increase the risk of injuring every other drivers/pedestrian near you, even if you don't actually harm anyone. These other people cannot immediately stop you from increasing *their* risk of being injured. That's why society comes up with speed limits.

If you drive the speed limit while all the traffic around you is going 10 over, then you are the one who is endangering everyone else.  In this case, the person following the law is increasing the risk of everyone else.  Meanwhile, everyone who is "breaking the law" is at risk of selective enforcement.  This is a case where society has a whole has nullified the law in practice, but the government still enforces the law selectively.

In the same way, society has effectively nullified copyright law (for personal use). 

Every argument @pc makes has an implicit assumption that the "laws" represent the "will of society" and that the process by which the laws came to be is fair, balanced, and well reasoned.  It is only through nullification that society has the ability to push back against unjust laws.  The system proposed simply gives "society" (the people) a means of pushing back and expressing their opinion. Causes that don't have broad support or sympathy will not get payouts.

For example, even though drunk driving is a victimless crime (when no one is hurt), I doubt they would get many voluntary contributions from their mutual aid society even if they are a paying member.   Perhaps drunks could form their own society, but the rates would be very high and there wouldn't be many who would participate.




227
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 21, 2015, 05:50:43 pm »
The system cannot go bankrupt because returns are never promised nor guaranteed.  Even if 100% of the parties filed claims in the first week the system isn't insolvent. 

I have more information coming out about this soon.

228
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 19, 2015, 10:22:36 pm »
Quote from: bitacer on December 19, 2015, 02:25:07 am
İs this what BM briefly mentioned on mumble session ? He said demand for BTS will increase without dilution.

Yes

229
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 19, 2015, 10:22:00 pm »
Bottom line is that STEALTH is the only thing we can fund without selling BTS to cover it right now.  Hence it is the best bet.

230
General Discussion / Re: Mutual Aid Societies
« on: December 18, 2015, 07:43:28 pm »
I'm working out the details now.   This concept is really resonating with everyone I talk to.

231
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 18, 2015, 02:14:16 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on December 18, 2015, 12:44:32 pm
Quote from: kenCode on December 18, 2015, 08:44:10 am
Quote from: bytemaster on December 18, 2015, 12:56:20 am
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only
...
The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

good lord. this is why (for the past 15+ years) i refuse to hire american devs. sorry Dan, I just think that number is ridiculous.
I bet xeroc and Anonymint could do the front and back themselves for just 20% of that amount.
I definitely couldn't.
Don't think that just because I worked for "almost free" in the BitShares ecospace in the last years means that I can go on like that .. because that certainly is not the case.
Also note that German devs of that quality have AT LEAST the same price. Go find a Valentine, James, or Sigve that works for less and can get the work done as reliably and quick as they can!

Also keep in mind that this is for a COMPANY which has other overhead above and beyond an independent contractor.  With that you get a MIX of skills and parallel development.

232
General Discussion / Re: Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) looking for another Blockchain. Bitshares anyone?
« on: December 18, 2015, 02:09:57 pm »
We have reached out to our contacts at Overstock to follow up.  Please do not spam them.

233
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 18, 2015, 12:56:20 am »
Keep in mind that the $45,000 quote was for GUI work only under the assumption that no changes would be made to the blockchain.  We were comfortable adding a "small" change to reallocate fees paid for stealth transfers.

Introducing something new and unproven to the backend will significantly increase the development costs.

Of the things proposed by anonymint the ones I actually think are worth something are:

1. smaller proofs
2. ring signatures that allow you to combine any random set of outputs.

I do not think the mixing / zerocoin feature is worthwhile because it slows down the transfer rate.  You deposit into the mixer, then you must wait until there is enough cover traffic before you withdraw.  Zerocoin even requires a fixed size commitment. 

The shortest path to privacy is by implementing a GUI on what we have now.   Then we can let the other technologies mature a bit first.

The first step is getting the basic cryptographic operations / primitives working in the FC library.  Once that is done then I can estimate what a blockchain implementation would cost.

234
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 17, 2015, 03:02:37 pm »
Quote from: Marketorder on December 17, 2015, 02:51:36 pm
I'm running the original 2.0 Light Client I don't want to keep updating every week. Will my original 2.o Light Client be fine to run and will my 2.0 coins still work if I send them from my original 2.0 client to an exchange?

The nice thing about light clients is that you don't have to update them if they currently work for you. 

235
General Discussion / Re: Question about BTS2.0 code?
« on: December 16, 2015, 11:51:47 pm »
Quote from: jsidhu on December 16, 2015, 10:55:57 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on December 16, 2015, 09:44:15 pm
Quote from: jsidhu on December 16, 2015, 04:46:23 pm
Looks like its creating copies of objects everywhere.. Why no const references?

Because these API calls are called with newly constructed objects.  No extra copies are made.  Also string is copy on write or small string optimized.

What about the string that is copied upon each call to "set_desired_witness_and_committee_member_count" for example? This should be a const & for strictness and performance reasons. Just an example, it should extend to any params.

With this design it's invoking the copy constructor instead of allocating memory directly into the object space of the variable you need. 1 Extra copy is made and cleaned up by the garbage collector every time. The string's that are passed by value are creating copies every time needlessly?

There are micro optimizations in the API interface that we could implement. If it were in the inner loop of validation I would be more concerned.  If you look at the ACTUAL call site for this method you will see that the string passed in is a temporary (RVALUE) and thus no extra copy is made.

236
General Discussion / Re: How to calculate the value of a Fee Backed Asset (for investment)
« on: December 16, 2015, 10:12:50 pm »
I would simply estimate the total value of the yearly volume in all markets (by whatever means), then I would estimate the average market fee charged by issuers (0.1%).  Then I would estimate the percent of the market fee allocated to the MAKER feature  (50%) then I would take 20% of that as the revenue for the feature.   

To to set an average we assume that all non-BTC volume on crypto exchanges moves to BTS.  This is $5M /day in volume.  This is a reasonable target if we assume the industry is growing and prediction markets, etc start using this feature.

5M * .001*.5*.2 => $500.

This will generate  $500 per day in buying demand for MAKER or $182,000 per year.   If we assume this $182,000 represents a 5% dividend then the market cap of MAKER would be $1 million dollars (est).   
 
*If* you think BTS can achieve $5M / day in volume in assets using this feature with a 50/50 probability within the next 2 years, then I would say MAKER should be valued at between $250,000 and $500,000 after discounting for risk and time value of money.

Now there is some possibility that BTS will hit $100M / day in volume (similar to all of crypto) as the whole market grows to be $1B+ in daily volume.  So you would have to take the weighted probabilities of different outcomes and average them to get the present valuation of the feature.   

If you discount my estimates by 50% just because you think I am overly optimistic then a minimum valuation of $100,000 is how I would estimate it.


237
General Discussion / Re: New release 2.0.151209
« on: December 16, 2015, 09:56:50 pm »
Those who are suffering from crashes are operating in debug mode.  We will have a update for this crash shortly.  In the meantime, running in release mode should fix your problem.

238
General Discussion / Re: Question about BTS2.0 code?
« on: December 16, 2015, 09:44:15 pm »
Quote from: jsidhu on December 16, 2015, 04:46:23 pm
Looks like its creating copies of objects everywhere.. Why no const references?

Because these API calls are called with newly constructed objects.  No extra copies are made.  Also string is copy on write or small string optimized. 

239
General Discussion / Re: Witness Alerts and Status
« on: December 16, 2015, 08:02:47 pm »
We have a new release out that addresses some late breaking security concerns issues.  Most exchanges have already been notified.  There have been a series of releases over the past two days.  The most recent release fixes a operation numbering bug and is only necessary for those using operation ids.  Otherwise, the unannounced release made last night is identical to the release made today.   

We apologize for the rapid release (3 updates in 3 days), but would like to thank the community members (you know who you are) who helped us identify and fix a significant security vulnerability before any money was lost.

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2/releases


240
General Discussion / Re: New Stealth Transfer Worker ($1000)
« on: December 16, 2015, 06:20:30 pm »
Welcome back Anonymint.  I am sure the BTS holders would welcome a Fee Backed Asset for your new improved security provided you also produced a viable GUI to go along with it.   

With a FBA you would benefit from the use of your feature / work across the entire ecosystem and would likely profit more than you would be launching your own coin. 

More developers are always welcome.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 656

Page created in 0.203 seconds with 24 queries.