Quote from: xeroc on September 25, 2015, 07:33:47 AM
shareholders can indeed be "socially engineered" (read: manipulated)

very true +5%

Quote from: kenCode on September 25, 2015, 07:00:54 AM
As our market cap grows, it then becomes 31 Witnesses, then 23, then 88, and on up. Network security decisions should be instantaneous as Code cannot be socially engineered.

The number of witnesses are defined by SHAREHOLDERS .. and executed by the code ..
shareholders can indeed be "socially engineered" (read: manipulated)

Our block producing Witnesses define our security. 17 can start as the minimum, but the actual number should be dynamic and at least based on:

#1 A 99% uptime, low latency & ping times
#2 Rapid updates (and logged on a separate chain)
#3 Unique, geographically diverse IP address, port number, Environment Variables AND Webhost (for example: "WhoisHostingThis")

Is our code verifying that Witnesses are geographically unique, every possible attack vector is closed, and as much Sybil resistance is coded in as possible now?

As our market cap grows, it then becomes 31 Witnesses, then 23, then 88, and on up. Network security decisions should be instantaneous as Code cannot be socially engineered.

Acc. to toast virtualized smart contracts can be almost as "fast" as natively implemented ones. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18415.msg236127.html#msg236127
If scalability is not an advantage to the native approach (is it not?) what is it then?

And what dimensions (tx throuput, settlement speed, cost) are effected by the virtualized vs native way of providing smart contracts?

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on September 04, 2015, 07:38:48 AM

Quote from: xeroc on August 23, 2015, 04:14:03 PM
Excuse the noobish design:

duuuude, yer a Gawd! I wish I could code 1/8th as good as you.

I love it too...
That made me laugh when I read it. 

Quote from: liondani on September 19, 2015, 03:41:52 AM

Quote from: Akado on September 19, 2015, 12:50:30 AM
Does anyone have the hangout for 18/9? This Friday?

I am also interested!

This is a raw version that was shared by testz https://soundcloud.com/testzcrypto/e107-2015-09-18-developer-hangout-with-bytemaster-raw

Quote from: Akado on September 19, 2015, 12:50:30 AM
Does anyone have the hangout for 18/9? This Friday?

I am also interested!

Does anyone have the hangout for 18/9? This Friday?

Chat Questions from 9/18 Hangout that may not have been answered...

Quote[9:43:00 AM] (Channel) Fox: How can the code enforce a single witness per node?

Quote[9:45:29 AM] (Channel) yellowecho: Does Cryptonomex have any plans to run a witness node at the moment?

Quote[9:46:15 AM] (Channel) lil_jay890: 12 or 24 witnesses? sounds very centralized

My question ...

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on September 12, 2015, 04:06:08 PM
@bytemaster

Quote from: https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-pitchfork-countdown-release-date/
[00:36:57] bytemaster: Are you asking about gateways that don't do KYC? I don't think that you're going to find any legitimate fiat gateways that don't do KYC that are not at risk of being shut down. But, I do think that you'll probably see lots of people performing bridge functions. And bridge functions are an entirely different animal.

[00:37:25] bytemaster: They allow one person to trade one asset for another asset with no ongoing liability. No deposit. It's just like buying or selling a baseball card. If you have that type of thing going on then there's probably a lot of potential there. I can see people wanting to do that with local BitShares type things where you meet people locally.

[00:37:51] bytemaster: Once we have escrow transactions in a future hard fork. Probably the same one that supports the payment channels we discussed earlier. Then you'll probably have lots of direct person to person trades of fiat for bitUSD. You have to go person to person. If you go through any type of centralized exchange doing large volumes, it's more convenient but it's going to be KYC enforced.

- versus -

Quote from: https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-transaction-propagation-voting-peer-to-peer-protocols/

[00:31:18] bytemaster: I've said it before, I don't think atomic cross-chain trading ... I think it's a niche. It's something you do because you can, not because it makes any type of economic sense. The only time I can see atomic cross-chain trading going on is in a world where governments shut down all intermediary exchanges like Shapeshift. Those intermediaries are so much more efficient than doing direct peer-to-peer trades between chains. Most users aren't going to go through the ACCT path. I think it's an interesting concept but it's doing something just because you can.

What is the difference between a "bridge function" and "atomic cross-chain transactions"?

I don't see a difference. Two people want to cut out a third party to make a trade. The only difference then is how it's done.

What makes a "bridge function" better than ACCT and what makes it more desirable for "lots" of people to do p2p trades versus only few (niche) wanting to do p2p on ACCT?

How does a "bridge function" create "lots" of users who want to p2p trade when you say doing p2p trades is only a niche ... when applied to ACCT?

Do any more of the (8) aforementioned exchanges plan to make announcements before the Oct. 13 launch date? 

Moving Questions from last week's announcement here.  I missed them because they were asked in the wrong thread :P

Quote from: emailtooaj on September 11, 2015, 12:52:35 AM
So Dan, where and when are you hosting the 2.0 launch party? ;)

Quote from: Fox on September 11, 2015, 01:37:48 AM
How decentralized do you foresee BTS2 network to be at launch and how quickly do you expect it to move toward decentralized witness nodes? Do you have any goals? Why so?

Quote from: puppies on September 11, 2015, 02:39:06 AM

Quote from: Fox on September 11, 2015, 01:37:48 AM
How decentralized do you foresee BTS2 network to be at launch and how quickly do you expect it to move toward decentralized witness nodes? Do you have any goals? Why so?

Are we going to be using the nodejs means of syncing, or are we going back to the standard p2p means?

Good Questions! :)

@bytemaster

Quote from: https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-pitchfork-countdown-release-date/
[00:36:57] bytemaster: Are you asking about gateways that don't do KYC? I don't think that you're going to find any legitimate fiat gateways that don't do KYC that are not at risk of being shut down. But, I do think that you'll probably see lots of people performing bridge functions. And bridge functions are an entirely different animal.

[00:37:25] bytemaster: They allow one person to trade one asset for another asset with no ongoing liability. No deposit. It's just like buying or selling a baseball card. If you have that type of thing going on then there's probably a lot of potential there. I can see people wanting to do that with local BitShares type things where you meet people locally.

[00:37:51] bytemaster: Once we have escrow transactions in a future hard fork. Probably the same one that supports the payment channels we discussed earlier. Then you'll probably have lots of direct person to person trades of fiat for bitUSD. You have to go person to person. If you go through any type of centralized exchange doing large volumes, it's more convenient but it's going to be KYC enforced.

- versus -

Quote from: https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-transaction-propagation-voting-peer-to-peer-protocols/

[00:31:18] bytemaster: I've said it before, I don't think atomic cross-chain trading ... I think it's a niche. It's something you do because you can, not because it makes any type of economic sense. The only time I can see atomic cross-chain trading going on is in a world where governments shut down all intermediary exchanges like Shapeshift. Those intermediaries are so much more efficient than doing direct peer-to-peer trades between chains. Most users aren't going to go through the ACCT path. I think it's an interesting concept but it's doing something just because you can.

What is the difference between a "bridge function" and "atomic cross-chain transactions"?

I don't see a difference. Two people want to cut out a third party to make a trade. The only difference then is how it's done.

What makes a "bridge function" better than ACCT and what makes it more desirable for "lots" of people to do p2p trades versus only few (niche) wanting to do p2p on ACCT?

How does a "bridge function" create "lots" of users who want to p2p trade when you say doing p2p trades is only a niche ... when applied to ACCT?

Quote from: kenCode on September 11, 2015, 12:59:53 PM

Quote from: fav on September 11, 2015, 11:57:34 AM
Q: can we test the referral system prior to the launch? Can you please post some info on linkbuilding (eg graphene.bitshares.org/?r=fav ?) - Marketers need some time to prepare and need to know how to build links for the launch.

+5% +5%

+5%