I think image issues... Calling it "Litecoin 2.0" will make people undervalue how much innovation there.
Plus litecoin is sort of defined by its POW algorithm innovation, calling it litecoin 2.0 is very clearly just piggybacking off of the brand.

Plus the whole point is that we build DACs that generate demand for themselves. Litecoin 2.0 would not do this.

Just call it proofofconceptfordelegatedproofofstakecoin then? Hahahahahaha!

I only recently discovered that Adam Levine is the lead singer from Maroon 5.

Now I suppose I understand why crypto's Adam B. Levine has the 'B' in his name!

Am I in a minority for not having realised this sooner?

Maybe the singer Adam Levine will soon have to go by the name Adam N. Levine?

Quote from: Hadrian on June 09, 2014, 05:02:27 pm

I was hoping for a comment on my Reply #17 regarding address 14fXr2UTa17CadcZ911N7TBFqMLpqsfNae
How was the http://pastebin.com/u9WKpcAb created?

I'm just curious as to how the discrepancy could have arisen, and whether there are any ramifications...

Generated using:
http://bitshares.org/resources/genesis-blocks/

Maybe you can see if the difference is in the generator or postprocessing on freetrade's side.

That discrepancy is very curious indeed, I would expect it to either be totally off or be right on target.

We will definitely be much more rigorous with AGS before any later snapshot. FreeTrade sort of caught us off guard and neither he nor we have time to write a whole new parser for auditing. IMO him honoring AGS at all is "good enough" for now. Bummer you're 3 lottoshares short though =\

 
Thanks for your time toast.
The figure produced by the generator differs from the figure I calculated from AGS Explorer (subtracting AGS donation from 1st June).

Assuming I've worked it out right (?) I'm baffled - is there a problem with the generator?

Is this genesis block generator to be used for Bitshares X, does anyone know?

I'm not expecting FreeTrade to spend time on this for LottoShares, but am concerned about a potential flaw somewhere which could affect BitShares stuff going forward.

Does anyone think this is worth looking into (sorry, I wouldn't know where to begin)?

I was hoping for a comment on my Reply #17 regarding address 14fXr2UTa17CadcZ911N7TBFqMLpqsfNae
How was the http://pastebin.com/u9WKpcAb created?

I'm just curious as to how the discrepancy could have arisen, and whether there are any ramifications...

I was thinking about various ways to keep a backup of a deterministic wallet seed, or an important private key (e.g. address used to donate to the AGS fund).

Offline or paper wallets risk loss through hardware failure, theft, fire etc.
Encrypted files could be backed up to various locations, but what if the encryption is broken somehow? Or you could suffer memory loss and forget how to decrypt the file!

My novel solution I will call the skin wallet.
Tattoo your wallet seed or private key where the sun doesn't shine!

Just make sure you keep it secure! You'll have to do the tattoo yourself, keep it covered up, and avoid people accessing it by force!
It could be a good solution if you get amnesia.
It would also hopefully enable loved ones to inherit should you pass away.

Has this idea already been talked about?

It could be overwhelming and confusing if too many DACs come at once. If a couple of successful DACs are released first, it would create enough buzz to draw people in. These people would then become familiar with Bitshares and may then be ready to jump in immediately when a new DAC arrives. They may be even more compelled to do so if they feel like they're 'getting in on the ground floor' with something brand new.
This could be something to bear in mind if there are DACs which would be best off with a very rapid adoption rate.

I've just typed this out and after reading through it I've decided that I disagree with myself!
I'm gonna post it anyway...

This one looks wrong:

14fXr2UTa17CadcZ911N7TBFqMLpqsfNae:2705.0254332885834

It should be 2708.822177894737 based on information from AngelShares Explorer (had to subtract 154.79850924 AGS donated on June 1st to get 411.74097104 AGS total)

The error is small, but other addresses I checked didn't have discrepancies like this.

The difference is small enough to be ignored, but perhaps whatever caused the error could be significant in another way?

I'm really curious to know how this could happen (I hope I've not worked it out incorrectly).


P.S. As CalabiYau pointed out earlier, the title in Pastebin is, "AGS distribution 31st May 2004" - should be 2014

...
Blockchain units: __________________  This is the currency our platform is going to use. EVERYTHING will be price in these units.
...

"Notes" would be the obvious choice for this, as it relates to musical notes.
Notes is also a slang term for that old money they had before crypto - referring to bank notes!
It'd be kind of ironic don't you think?