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.


Topics - emski

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
31
General Discussion / 0.4.18 Issues
« on: September 28, 2014, 05:14:40 pm »
0.4.18 "froze". The process was still running but there was no output and apparently the client wasn't signing blocks.

Code: [Select]
debug_list_errors_brief
[[
    "20140921T073236.695498",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T073239.606532",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T074040.440579",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T075005.683440",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T075110.221327",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T075110.732240",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140921T204747.803572",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140925T053612.521647",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140925T054027.605496",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T150744.609798",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T150745.356679",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T151129.256737",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T153826.816657",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T153826.985026",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ],[
    "20140928T170955.557677",
    "block is older than our undo history allows us to process"
  ]
]

I haven't done anything differently during this update and I haven't seen this before.

As the process was still running the watchdog script was unable to determine if there is something wrong with it. Perhaps I'll have to run another client and make the watchdog check if each delegate is signing blocks properly.



32
General Discussion / Interesting Article
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:55:37 pm »
I've stumbled upon this:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-jeff-garzik-believes-nxt-is-a-scamcoin/

It outlines some significant topics.
Any thoughts?

33
Stakeholder Proposals / Price Feed Frequency
« on: September 25, 2014, 10:35:51 pm »
Currently the price feeds serve as protection from shorting below the "real" price.
Is it OK to assume that if the feed is higher than the "real" price for a while it is not a big deal.
And if the feed is lower than "real" price it should be instantly updated?

34
Stakeholder Proposals / Price Feed Difference
« on: September 25, 2014, 10:32:22 pm »
There are 2 widely used price feed scripts.
Alt's and Xeroc's version.
They produce different results due to additional exchanges added by xeroc.
However the volume on these exchanges is much lower and some might argue their weight in the price calculation should be reduced.
See the volume for yourself at http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-x/#markets.
I'd say mean price weighted by volume might be the best choice here.
Other suggestions ?

35
General Discussion / Price Feed Precision Issue
« on: September 25, 2014, 09:49:21 pm »
The following command:

wallet_publish_price_feed emski 0.1914 CNY

generated the following feed:

2014-09-25T16:23:39 578771    emski               emski               0.00000 BTSX            publish price 0.19139999999999996 CNY / ... 0.50000 BTSX        7c78e050
2

Is the insignificant inaccuracy in the published feed expected ?

36
General Discussion / Ripple Deal
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:11:14 pm »
http://www.coindesk.com/us-banks-announce-ripple-protocol-integration/

Strong isn't it?

37
DAC PLAY / Alternative Chess DAC Proposal
« on: September 23, 2014, 02:10:38 pm »
In response to Bytemaster's chess DAC proposal that can be found here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9199.0

Here is my proposal:
Two account types: Players and Gamblers.
Players have ELO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) and compete against each other in direct 1v1 chess battles. Possibly tournaments etc...
All the games are played on the blockchain all the moves are transactions signed by respective Players' private keys.
Before each game a winning odds are calculated based on the Players' ELO. Gamblers can bet on the winner and any other statistic (who will get first piece, what will be the next move, how many turns to check (mate), etc) .
2% of all bets go to the winner.
1% of all bets go to the loser.
In case of a tie each player gets 1%.
2% are burned. (3% in case of a tie).

This way we have a Game with verifiable players, ELO, ratings and so on. Just as competitive as anywhere else. And as the players take some of the fees -> there are some rewards for them.
However, player moves are feeds for the Gamblers, where the actual money are.

Thoughts ?

PS: Of course the Players should be public figures , maybe real chess players who play for honor and will not cheat in order for some Gamblers to benefit.

38
General Discussion / I'll just put this here
« on: September 23, 2014, 02:20:45 am »

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache Server at bitsharestalk.org Port 443

39
KeyID / DNS DAC Question About Current Model
« on: September 22, 2014, 06:19:12 pm »
I have a question related to the usefulness of the DNS DAC.
Suppose I have a business and I plan on creating a website.
Suppose I have to choose between DNS DAC and traditional dns registration (assume all browsers support both and there are no compatibility issues).
Assume I have an unique unregistered name.

Traditional dns registration will cost me $15 per year and traditional security certificate (https://www.rapidssl.com/) about $50 => totaling $65 per year.
How can I plan the cost for the new DNS DAC ? It is actionable for every timeperiod. This year it could cost me $30 next year $3000.

Given the above scenario what should I pick and why? What benefits will I get using the DNS DAC ?

Am I the right target for DNS DAC? If not what is the target?

40
General Discussion / Open Transactions Promise
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:45:14 pm »
Is anyone familiar with this:
http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/About

How does it compare to other projects?

Some details from their site:
  • Any user can issue new digital currencies and digital asset types, by uploading the new [currency contract] to the server. (This functionality is comparable to Ricardo by Ian Grigg.)
  • Users can open asset accounts of any type. You can have as many as you want, associated with each user account. (See Loom by Patrick Chkoreff.)
  • Open Transactions also features markets. Any two asset types can be traded against each other. The markets are full-featured and include limit orders, stop orders, fill-or-kill, day orders (date ranges), and stop limits.
  • Open Transactions also supports basket currencies. Users can define their own, and the server handles the process of exchanging in and out of basket accounts. Baskets are treated by the software like any other asset type, (you can open accounts, transfer funds, withdraw cash, write cheques, and even trade basket currencies on markets.)
  • Smart contracts: Multi-party agreements with scriptable clauses... including hooks, callbacks, internal state, etc. This concept was originated by Nick Szabo: smart contracts.

41
General Discussion / [Proposal] Protection Against Account Impersonation And Mimicry
« on: September 19, 2014, 12:16:14 pm »
I've been thinking about an alternative to robohashes.

I've outlined my idea here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-dGHkyXgG649BJaWPnHX5ALMTQubUG5V9JNsB05z7ms/edit?usp=sharing .

One of my projects uses such techniques to detect similar images and similar strings ( to correct for imperfect OCR - tesseract).
I have implemented similar to the proposed features for my project and I'm confident it will work out well for BitsharesX.

It will be cool for anyone to be able to pick customized avatar while we still avoid malicious behavior.

Thoughts?

42
General Discussion / Food For Thought
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:49:13 am »
We've seen a lot of examples where automated traders drive the price significantly upwards/downwards.
This is more likely to happen in shallow markets like BTSX bitAsset markets.
And it is even more troublesome when you can flash-lose collateral due to margin calls.
I think providing open source bots that might be similarly configured will only make such scenarios more likely.
Regardless of that anyone with sufficient capital could drive prices upwards and downwards as he pleases in order to harvest as much collateral as possible. Note this is not fault of BitsharesX but is due to the shallow market.
Furthermore anyone with lower capital and some knowledge about the configuration of the automated traders could also try to exploit this.

I'm not saying that the system is flawed in any way. It is just young and market needs more depth.

BTW: about the depth part I'm sure crosschain trading BTC<->BTSX will do miracles. You can see my proposals about this here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9075.0

43
General Discussion / 0.4.16-RC1 Issues
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:14:19 am »
Here is the output of 0.4.16-RC1

Code: [Select]
(wallet closed) >>> blockchain_list_blocks
HEIGHT  TIMESTAMP           SIGNING DELEGATE                # TXS   SIZE    LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================
524633  2014-09-19T07:11:00 dc-delegate                     0       166     0       0.001018
524632  2014-09-19T07:10:50 b.delegate.xeroc                0       166     0       0.000921
524631  2014-09-19T07:10:40 anchor.crazybit                 0       166     1       0.001981
524630  2014-09-19T07:10:30 delegate1-galt                  0       166     0       0.000916
524629  2014-09-19T07:10:20 a.delegate.xeroc                0       166     0       0.000973
524628  2014-09-19T07:10:10 delegate2.adam                  0       166     0       0.000837
524627  2014-09-19T07:10:00 immortal.bitdelegate            0       166     0       0.001771
524626  2014-09-19T07:09:50 www.minebitshares-com           0       166     5       0.000647
524625  2014-09-19T07:09:40 delegate.webber                 0       166     15      0.000731
524624  2014-09-19T07:09:30 mrs.agsexplorer                 0       166     25      0.000679
524623  2014-09-19T07:09:20 delegate-baozi                  0       166     35      0.000648
524622  2014-09-19T07:09:10 happyshares-2                   0       166     45      0.000649
524621  2014-09-19T07:09:00 init43                          0       166     55      0.000664
524620  2014-09-19T07:08:50 delegate.liondani               0       166     65      0.000689
524619  2014-09-19T07:08:40 init53                          0       166     75      0.000695
524618  2014-09-19T07:08:30 wackou-delegate                 0       166     85      0.000673
524617  2014-09-19T07:08:20 riverhead-del-server-1          0       166     95      0.005542
524616  2014-09-19T07:08:10 emski                           8       1458    105     0.001207
524615  2014-09-19T07:08:00 mr.agsexplorer                  0       166     115     0.000699
524614  2014-09-19T07:07:50 delegate.xeroc                  0       166     125     0.000671
(wallet closed) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 524633,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "10 seconds old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-09-19T07:11:00",
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "99.02 %",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 1,
  "blockchain_delegate_pay_rate": "2.68357 BTSX",
  "blockchain_share_supply": "1,999,872,545.30412 BTSX",
  "blockchain_blocks_left_in_round": 62,
  "blockchain_next_round_time": "at least 10 minutes in the future",
  "blockchain_next_round_timestamp": "2014-09-19T07:21:30",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "c1d44518e765cb16437ac0080b45e678e14547ab",
  "client_data_dir": "/home/emski/bitsharesExperimental/bitsharesx/programs/client/v0.4.15-RC1",
  "client_version": "v0.4.16-RC1",
  "network_num_connections": 10,
  "network_num_connections_max": 200,
  "ntp_time": "2014-09-19T07:11:10",
  "ntp_time_error": 0.000687,
  "wallet_open": false,
  "wallet_unlocked": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_scan_progress": null,
  "wallet_block_production_enabled": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}

And here is the output of 0.4.15-RC1:

Code: [Select]
(wallet closed) >>> blockchain_list_blocks
HEIGHT  TIMESTAMP           SIGNING DELEGATE                # TXS   SIZE    TOTAL FEES      LATENCY PROCESSING TIME
===================================================================================================================
524633  2014-09-19T07:11:00 dc-delegate                     0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001959
524632  2014-09-19T07:10:50 b.delegate.xeroc                0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000941
524631  2014-09-19T07:10:40 anchor.crazybit                 0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.002007
524630  2014-09-19T07:10:30 delegate1-galt                  0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.002048
524629  2014-09-19T07:10:20 a.delegate.xeroc                0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000939
524628  2014-09-19T07:10:10 delegate2.adam                  0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.002081
524627  2014-09-19T07:10:00 immortal.bitdelegate            0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001859
524626  2014-09-19T07:09:50 www.minebitshares-com           0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001804
524625  2014-09-19T07:09:40 delegate.webber                 0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000893
524624  2014-09-19T07:09:30 mrs.agsexplorer                 0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001424
524623  2014-09-19T07:09:20 delegate-baozi                  0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001942
524622  2014-09-19T07:09:10 happyshares-2                   0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.002074
524621  2014-09-19T07:09:00 init43                          0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000896
524620  2014-09-19T07:08:50 delegate.liondani               0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001869
524619  2014-09-19T07:08:40 init53                          0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000943
524618  2014-09-19T07:08:30 wackou-delegate                 0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000913
524617  2014-09-19T07:08:20 riverhead-del-server-1          0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.014054
524616  2014-09-19T07:08:10 emski                           8       1458    4.00000 BTSX    0       0.001857
524615  2014-09-19T07:08:00 mr.agsexplorer                  0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.000883
524614  2014-09-19T07:07:50 delegate.xeroc                  0       166     0.00000 BTSX    0       0.001772
--- there are now 105 active connections to the p2p network
(wallet closed) >>> info
{
  "blockchain_head_block_num": 524633,
  "blockchain_head_block_age": "3 seconds old",
  "blockchain_head_block_timestamp": "2014-09-19T07:11:00",
  "blockchain_average_delegate_participation": "100.00 %",
  "blockchain_confirmation_requirement": 1,
  "blockchain_accumulated_fees": "324,604.86432 BTSX",
  "blockchain_delegate_pay_rate": "2.68357 BTSX",
  "blockchain_share_supply": "1,999,872,545.34366 BTSX",
  "blockchain_blocks_left_in_round": 62,
  "blockchain_next_round_time": "at least 10 minutes in the future",
  "blockchain_next_round_timestamp": "2014-09-19T07:21:20",
  "blockchain_random_seed": "c1d44518e765cb16437ac0080b45e678e14547ab",
  "client_data_dir": "/home/emski/bitsharesSeed/bitsharesx/programs/client/v0.4.15-RC1",
  "client_version": "v0.4.15-RC1",
  "network_num_connections": 105,
  "network_num_connections_max": 400,
  "ntp_time": "2014-09-19T07:11:03",
  "ntp_time_error": 0.0051399999999999996,
  "wallet_open": false,
  "wallet_unlocked": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until": null,
  "wallet_unlocked_until_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_last_scanned_block_timestamp": null,
  "wallet_scan_progress": null,
  "wallet_block_production_enabled": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_time": null,
  "wallet_next_block_production_timestamp": null
}


As you can see there is significant difference in latency reported by both versions.
I'll delay the update until it is confirmed OK.
UPDATE: It seems however this is only due to synchronization. I haven't seen such latency after that. I'll monitor it for a while before updating.

44
Meta / Why was https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8818.0 locked
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:50:50 pm »
This is question related to https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8924.0 which went unanswered.
I'm trying to find the proper sub-forum for this so I can get the answers required.
I'll post the questions here again for your convenience.

Why was https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8818.0 locked?
Who owns the forum?
Where are the forum rules ?
Who decides if a post/topic should be moderated? What criteria is used about that?

Thanks,
Emil

45
General Discussion / Crosschain Trading Proposals
« on: September 18, 2014, 07:40:48 pm »
I'm back from holiday (Cyprus is excellent place to visit in September) and I managed to fulfill my promise to better describe the topics discussed in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8818.0 .

In the following proposals a method for cross-chain monitoring is outlined including optimizations that should minimize nodes' overhead.

1st Proposal:
It describes means for trust-less BTC-> 1 BTSX  trading. Any user owning BTC can buy 1 BTSX from any user willing to sell under specified conditions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XMu0Sxhx31qY0B2iWDoMZ_Fe12rF31Eu0y2vZ_Kdgpk/edit?usp=sharing

2nd Proposal:
It describes means for trust-less BTC <-> BTSX trading similar to current bitAsset trade. Any user owning BTC AND BTSX can post/accept orders to sell/buy BTC/BTSX similarly to current bitAsset market.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huR6eIJ-P1BR91P0l6IDVp4DGad5tLe9L4FTefFSFDI/edit?usp=sharing

I believe bypassing exchanges (at least for cryptocurrencies for now) is huge step towards global decentralized trust-less market.

Comments are welcome.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Page created in 0.19 seconds with 21 queries.