Newmine should know by now that saying shit doesn't make it true!
The devs are NOT proposing a hard code. It's not the best idea but it's put out there to stimulate discussion.

Feedback helps people resolve what is true and in their interests.

Newmine would like you to just believe his bullshit.. just ignore and appreciate that BitShares is trying to find the best ways forward, rather than having a dictatorship.

I think you can compile 32bit on 64bit but you need the libraries for that as 32bit. Google compiling 32bit on 64bit or similar..

With most still linked to BTC, look to those that might break that dependency and become accessible on their own.

Avoid Ripple and Stellar unless you are wanting short term risk.. where is Paycoin now.. that was in same class no?..

Look then to Bitcoin2.0 that can be more than just an altcoin linked to BTC. BitShares; CounterParty; Mastercoin relaunch as Omni; even longshots like NXT and NEM might come alive, though those seem more amateur. Perhaps PeerShares will come alive, though maybe they've had their day with PPC.

Look also then to assets on those Bitcoin2.0 offerings.. BitShares bitUSD, bitGold, bitCNY, bitBTC etc are exciting; PeerTracks on BitShares; Koinify:GEMZ on CounterParty; MaidSafe via Mastercoin could go really big if they get it right. Ethereum will like see a sharp pump and dump initially, whatever they end up as.

and of course the one we've not seen yet which will make everyone rich overnight with no effort..

That's naive. The -tards who support Ripple cannot make a clear case for how it is better than real blockchain technologies that outclass it. While wet farts like Ripple and others do offer substantial saving in the short-medium term, they are not a realistic medium-long term prospect. There is every chance that bitAssest like BitShares will do money transport better.

Ripple is a scam because it's short term and a weak solution that requires that value is added to XRP to enable the network but that is a waste of value and wealth.. and is unnecessary for better offerings. I expect that Ripple Inc will do well from Ripple, in the same way that other pump and dump have done.. you create 100 Billion tokens and sell one to yourself for 0.01 and you're a billionaire.. a legend in your own mind.

I wouldn't advise anyone individual putting money to XRP and I would caution any mid size business too that it's a short term prospect. In the medium term, when there is not perpetual growth in requests for transport of money, then people will start pulling out the wealth they have invested to XRP and it will collapse from there to a duopoly or monopoly of a couple of big players struggling to survive in a world that will have moved on from the halfway house that is Ripple.

Ripple is a scam where it suggests that it is more than a short term prospect for ye olde banksters to make some quick money. It might be useful to us, in having banksters and financial businesses engage with digital currencies and learn basic skills that allow them to move beyond what is really just another old form of money transport and into blockchain technologies proper. Ripple is not Bitcoin, it's a weak attempt to take advantage of an opportunity but it's an illusion of grandeur. Good luck to them, but don't suggest they are more than they are.

> If Ripple can more efficiently empower small to medium sized banks, good for them.

Let's do away with old style banks and make something that is sustainable and more about people than institutions..

There are already quite a few.. just need to make use of them.
List at BitsharesBlocks: http://bitsharesblocks.com/assets

I wonder that we are already moving beyond simple notions of digital currency, sufficiently that it would be worth considering whether the structure of the forum here could be better. I'm aware of BTT's thought relative to simple altcoins but what is available is already more complex. If BTT wants to be useful it needs to reflect what blockchain technology is becoming.


I would suggest there are these classes of blockchain technology and as such there is a good opportunity to rationalise the forum to reflect these:

Class 1: Money
BTC certainly; and others whose ambition is principally to be the most simple digital altcoins. So, by all means keep a simple alt forum for LTC; DGC and others.

Class 2: Money transport
Ripple XRP - are there others? I'd be happy Ripple was separate.

Class 3: Tokens with value pegged to match other assets
BitShares bitUSD, bitCNY; bitGOLD etc; CounterParty assets; ?Peershares and whatever others are trying the same.

Class 4: Tokens that are explicitly linked to real world assets
Mastercoin [property tokens]; CounterParty-Overstock-market; BitShares DACs and perhaps Ethereum - distributed businesses et al exotic capabilities that are not Class 5.

Class 5: Zero value applications, such as private key signing.
Interesting proof of person applications and other zero value applications I haven't imagined.


Organising by type of capability might allow discussions to be more focused on what those capabilities are offering rather than shouting amongst a crowd of others. I expect it might help the main forum pair back down to be more directly Bitcoin focused too?


0.00000002

Value follows from utility, so I would suggest there are different classes to be considered.

Class 1: Money
BTC certainly; PPC maybe; LTC perhaps - any other with a large community consensus. Volatile and really more like investment than money. Those that survive will have good number of devs; good size consensus==community; and good utility as spendable currency. Stick with BTC.

Class 2: Money transport
Ripple XRP - limited short to medium term potential but only for large players, everyone else loses and I expect it might fall apart into a duopoly or monopoly as Class 3 does remittances better.

Class 3: Tokens with value pegged to match other assets
BitShares bitUSD, bitGOLD etc - Huge potential to be practical and useful in the real world as currency that's not volatile like Class 1 investments.

Class 4: Tokens that are explicitly linked to real world assets
CounterParty; Mastercoin; BitShares DACs and perhaps Ethereum all have huge potential here - This is where the big money from business will go - real world asset ownership and potential for distributed businesses.

Class 5: Zero value applications, such as private key signing.
Interesting proof of person application in the long run.

Good work matt608.. BitShares is the most exciting prospect out there at the moment.

I'll leave this here too..
BitShares Wiki http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Main_Page

If you create 100 Billion coins and sell one to yourself for a dollar, you'll be a billionaire..

It is curious it's market cap is increasing.. even if they capture a large fraction of the ~$500 Billion remittance market that was in 2013, I can't see why the XCP needs that amount of value.. it's not holding the value for a long period. $500 Billion/365 days/24 hours.. even if they were holding each transaction for an hour.. the market cap seems excessive.

I expect bitAssets the like that BitShares is creating will do the same in a few years and you won't need to put the money up front in anticipation of the demand. Ripple will be left with a few very large bag holders and Ripple Inc perhaps will have made a bundle and moved into real digital currencies.

It's not a Ripple, it's a bubble! ™

Local media might be interested on a slow news day, something art and something tech. Do a demonstration for them of how it works.

Ripple can do what Western Union and other money transport does, better and cheaper.. but it's more old world money transport than digital currency. There is a lot of money to be made by Ripple Inc - and perhaps a few lucky short term businesses that get in grab a slice of the $500B remittance market and get out.

However, the idea of putting money into XRP is ridiculous. XRP is overvalued now even IF Ripple cornered the entire remittance market. I can't see Ripple's money transport lasting long term, as near zero initial cost digital pegged currency exchange will rule in the long term. There is a lot of money to be made in the short term but I would expect medium term, it'll all collapse into a reluctant duopoly of a couple of really big players that cannot get out because they hold too much value in XRP.. and then they lose anyway to pegged asset exchange. People communicate the idea it's a scam in different ways. Certainly it would appear any individual or any small player in that market will lose and potential could lose big. Given the amount of total XRP and only a third of it being in a market that could already handle all remittances, you have to wonder.

If there's more to it than that, I can't see it. 

Yes, that could work. A strong move in that direction should give new investors another reason to look to MSC. Currently the market does appear stalled and badly undervalued.

A statement on the limits to the volume in the sell side from JR coupled with a clearer effort to communicate where developments are relative to utility, can only help. The only factor might be the size of whatever JR's holding is now and whether such a statement would suggest an inevitable sell with a volume relative to the buy side that might pose a problem. Given the intention to rebrand in the new year as above, perhaps there is an opportunity to fix what seems to be a stalled market and then engage a wider community through 2015. I don't know how dependant Mastercoin devs are on JR's selling. Perhaps a break for six months of any risk of his selling beyond what the market buy side will easily accommodate would be useful too.

I don't see how Mastercoin's fate affects Maidsafe holders. As I understand it, Safecoins will exist regardless once that network goes to ~beta and as I understand it that will be the end of Maidsafe's engagement with Mastercoin or BTC blockchain.. except for their MSC holdings which will either become of no consequence or will become useful to them later.



You make valid points and there is no doubt Mastercoin's engagement with community and opportunities could be much better.

Certainly, I would like to see those core to the project respond in some way that suggests refocusing or at least a restated intent, in order they can encourage us that all is well.

The only point I would add is that if such turnaround can be acheived with JR on board, then that would be hugely advantagous. Splitting what is one of the bigger offerings in Bitcoin2.0 space, at such an early stage, might be an error, for the all the good intentions.

Those are rare people, that are good at all aspects of business. Management; Productivity; and Adminsitration are very different skills. Fair questions then about who leads Mastercoin and how, given the state of play.

Frustration with Mastercoin is understandable but I am not convinced by what has been suggested above.

OP's major objections appears to be JR's holdings. I'm unclear what is being suggested for others holding MSC but it would be odd to resolve that problem without JR's input.

Having a coup and grabbing the utility and community, is all very well as a simple idea but what about developers? Developers are the most fundamental element but nothing in the OP seemed to address what development team any new fork would have.

If there is value in Mastercoin's utility; its developers; and its community, then it would be better those assets are retained and the frustration with JR's holdings is resolved directly. Mastercoin could easily come alive on the back of interest in other Bitcoin2.0 projects. Everyone seems to overstate where we are right now - there's a long way to go, I expect at least three years before mainstream.


OP appears more concerned about the value of OPs stake to be talking for Maidsafe
> It would be terrible to let the failures of Mastercoin impact projects like Maidsafe.
but has Maidsafe expressed such concern. They might well be wise to the long term potential of project's like their own and Mastercoin.


There seems little doubt mistakes were made with Mastercoin's use of resources to date; and its PR sucks but it's not easy to market before there is real utility - even BitShares understands that.. there is huge potential here and the OP appears to be suggesting a nuclear option that is perhaps coming far too soon.

For all other offering having a larger market cap, the market cap is an illusion until mainstream are on board and there isn't the utility anywhere yet for that.


Even if there was clear evidence that the whole dev team less JR was on board with such a radical idea, then there would still be a question about the sense of it in the absence of JR's input. It seems JR's input has been substantial to date, I think there remain better ways to resolve this and JR should be provided opportunity to respond to these concerns.

Looking for short term profits, tends to prompt short term answers to what appear to be difficult problems - but those answers are not always the best.

Also don't let envy of big stashes get the better of you. In the event that JR evidenced use of his holdings for the benefit of Mastercoin, then there would be no problem. Indeed the way Mastercoin was setup, was exactly expecting that such holdings would be used in this way, so I wonder that the OP mistakes the reality of the way that Mastercoin IPO worked. Remember there have been many different approaches to IPOs, and really noone can say yet which has worked and which has not. Again, market cap is an illusion until the point that mainstream consensus is behind a project, all value is an illusion - you cannot sell more than a small fraction of any marketcap, including Bitcoin without the market collapsing.


The core question is properly when will Mastercoin have utility and what can be done to support that. Then there is another concern about that relative to other offerings and mainstream users coming on board. Remember how large the potential market is. Forking for forking sake as the OP appears to encourage, does not convince me.

 

Would hidden service hosts not be relatively obvious, if only for the amount of data they upload? Users of dark and normal web through Tor would be downloading more than they ever upload. Does Tor use distributed storage? I2P I expect is even more obvious, just disrupt the connections and see a site go offline. 

I don't know who the devs are but having achieved what it has and having sustained its price for a while now, there's always a chance it could come alive again. I have a few along with a number of other random long shots, as they are cheap enough penny stocks there's nothing to loose. Likely playing a lottery with most of these coins. Some obviously have potential but QRK is one I count as a gamble.

Don't feed the trolls; just put them on ignore. 

If BitStamp, then large number of user errors??..


It is exciting and I wonder that one significant difference could be that businesses will use it, rather than just being individuals looking for an alt.

They've already done tests with the NHS! http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/27/maidsafe-bitcloud

MaidSafe at least has proven capability for making people act like arses. We should start selling "I'm with stupid tee-shirts"

I don't know why those who are not interested are wasting their time here.

also buymaid.com in BTC; LTC; MSC and apparently also DOGE and perhaps others.