Is anyone selling any options?
Is anyone willing to open a trustless, decentralized way of doing this? The current way that options are bets against my solvency and trustworthiness is not the optimal way. ... What kind of options were you interested in?  I'm sure developers in the Bitcoin 2.0 field are working on ways, and I was just curious since only one new option has been listed since last year and I was wondering what puts and calls were now available, if any...but, I am a bit biased towards calls at the moment  |
|
|
|
|
Can you please update the output to reflect the number of moneroj outstanding currently, preferably keeping the same number of holders?
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone selling any options?
|
|
|
|
If there are only 5 positions and an equal number of candidates why bother with a tedious election process at all? It seems like a waste of time and resources.
Seemingly so, because before I thought of the same point. But mulling it over with David J. before I made the post, he suggested that we keep the candidacy open for those who have missed registering, esp since Judith did tell David she had interest, so we keep it open just in case she and anyone else might be interested (feel free to PM me!). Also, procedurally and symbolically, I think it's important for us to hold an election and try out voting, regardless. It really doesn't take much time on my part to do so, and I have learned quite a bit in these first few days about blockchain based voting, so to me, it's worth it. How many board seats are up for grabs?
5, as per the blog post, albeit information I should've repeated. Ok. There are 5 seats available and (so far) only 5 candidates. Counting the votes will be interesting. Ex. if a person sends dust to all 5 candidates address. Does this mean all 5 get an equal number of votes from the persons Omnis? I suppose in the case dust votes come from one address to multiple candidates, the most logical option to me is that we split the votes evenly amongst the candidates voted for. |
|
|
|
How do you differentiate coins withdrawn by customers from an exchange from coins in an exchange in mixed addresses?
Not sure I understand your question.. Thinking more about it this is along the lines of Bitcoin address blacklisting, and my opinion there is that blacklisting "dirty" coins causes more problems than any problems that are perceived to be associated with allowing use of said coins. What I meant was, if we were to exclude services and exchanges from voting in an automatic fashion, how would you differentiate the coins withdrawn from an exchange from the coins still in an exchange that are not in one central address. And thinking more about it, another approach could possibly be to have an electoral bylaw where candidates must disclose any conflicts of interest they may have regarding any organization they may be affiliated with? |
|
|
|
|
How do you differentiate coins withdrawn by customers from an exchange from coins in an exchange in mixed addresses?
|
|
|
|
Agreed Mish, services and exchanges are not allowed to vote with others' omnis. Good catch. How might we enforce this? The community can audit the votes and we can rely on the honor system so much, but can we think of a way to programmatically ensure that such votes are not counted? Edit: I suppose agoristically, one way the whole community could work against this is to remove their omnis from a centralized exchange or service to counter this. Not very practical, but voluntaristic. I also think such an action by a service would be self-defeating in terms of reputation so that's another counter. Additionally, we have good relationships with the exchanges so I don't think an operator would feel too inclined to do such a thing with their customers' funds against our will. |
|
|
|
How many board seats are up for grabs?
5, as per the blog post, albeit information I should've repeated. |
|
|
|
David Gilman
15fH5mspYMqqRkbUvY1gVbVuiQpsEwMa9
This is not a valid address. Oh no, my copy and paste must've deleted a character. My original post will be updated too, again, many thanks DexX David Gilman's voting address should be:
15fH5mspYMqqRkbUvY1gVbVuiQpsEwMa9FMy sincere apologies, again, working from a phone. |
|
|
|
Did I leave anything else open for interpretation? Thanks, this leaves no questions from my side! Maybe one last question, which might be interesting for some: are candidates allowed to or going to participate in the vote? I encourage it! These people are the ones that want to represent the Omni community and token, they should be able to vote with a proportional stake that they may or may not personally have. It keeps their skins in the game. |
|
|
|
Again, all you have to do is send a dust transaction from an omni-holding address to send an equivalent amount of votes to a candidate. Hi vokain, those instructions are a bit short in my opinion. In particular: - Who is eligible to vote? - When does the vote end? 20th March 2015 12:00 AM EST - How does one vote? Assuming eligible voters are Mastercoin holders, and from what I read of your message, it appears holders should send dust to the above mentioned destinations. I further assume votes are going to be counted based on the Mastercoin balance when the vote ends, but it's unclear to me, if there is any relation between the amount to send (e.g. 0.00001 BTC or 0.001 BTC) and the vote weight? Or does sending "any" amount of BTC equal "vote with the weight of the whole balance I have"? Is a standard Bitcoin transaction sufficient, or does it require a special Master/Omni transaction, or an output to the Exodus address? Anyone is allowed to vote, but seeing as the voting mechanism is determined by omnis, presumably those that have the private key to an omni-holding BTC address can vote. Voting ends at 20th March 2015 12:00 am EST No special omni transaction is necessary aside from any redistribution of votes that you would like to separate addresses. For example, if you intend to vote for candidate A and candidate B and have N omnis in an address, you would send a proportional amount of omnis to a second address that you would assign to candidate B, and send a BTC dust transaction from the first address to candidate A and a BTC dust transaction from the second address to candidate B. The final omni balance in a voting address at the close of the elections is the amount of votes that will be counted towards a candidate. This means that if a voter wants to change their vote, then they would move omnis from the address they voted from to a fresh address and send a new dust transaction from the new address to the candidate they prefer. Did I leave anything else open for interpretation? Thank you for watching out for me Dexx. I don't believe we need an exodus transaction because a dust transaction from an omni holding address is enough of a marker for us to tally the votes. The size of the miner fee probably isn't important because I think 0-confirmation transactions is sufficient for this type of election, in the case we have voters at the voting cutoff date. But please advise as necessary. |
|
|
|
Hi, where is msc ? msc=0.0082 , is dead ? what about msc ? msc=omni ? How?
Thanks MSC DEV's great work ,again .
Littleblue, in our so-called "Great Transition", mastercoins are now termed omnis to reflect the universal nature of the token and protocol. There is no practical or technical difference aside from the name change. The Mastercoin Foundation, incorporated in 2013 in Austin, TX, USA still has custody of the Exodus Fund, of which remains the devMSCs (now presumably to be referred to as devOMNIs or what you wish) and as such, this foundation, which is separate from the newly incorporated Omni Foundation in Switzerland, has responsibility for the disbursement of this fund towards whatever the board as representatives of the community deems to be in the community's and protocol's best interests. The Omni Foundation, on the other hand, is responsible for representing the sponsors of our protocol to direct software development according to the needs of said sponsors that use the Omni Protocol. Any further clarification needed, please ask away! Antony |
|
|
|
Hope they made enough to afford protection for the rest of their lives...
Useless threat. Looking at TerraHash fail and also at BFL I am pretty sure nothing will happen to the 2 liars. I am not referring soul-ly to material payments. |
|
|
|
Painfully listening the audio of the last hearing (Docket 314) and other recent documents on https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/120873/* Some native american indian tribe is buying up everything remaining for $750K (quick statement by the girl attorney in last third) * $1,070,000 in administration claims gets paid out first (Docket 316) * These leaves zero dollars for all of us unsecured creditors * So after many many months of bankruptcy proceedings, the creditors get absolutely nothing. >> Surprisingly, people at HF (Eddie and Simon?) were paid $63,311 in salaries in December. (Docket 319) Never forget that Icebreaker and cypherdoc were both endorsing HF! Were paid to endorse under contract. Rofl... even if they were paid, they got more than us. *snickering intensifies* Hope they made enough to afford protection for the rest of their lives... |
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing that between my English and Spanish I can, for the most part, put together a rough understanding of that wiki |
|
|
|
Margin trading with BTC? That seems too risky for me. May be risky for the exchange as well. And further, margin trading means that there is a strong chance of the exchange collapsing.
What exactly do you mean by "margin trading means that there is a strong chance"? Bitfinex has a pretty well proven model with various safeguards AFAIK. |
|
|
|
|
I'm in Vietnam right now and since I was last here 10 years ago, the VND has depreciated to 21000 VND/USD from 15000 or so. While I'm in an area where no one probably would have heard of Bitcoin, I'm sure that if the ramifications of its usages were made known, Bitcoin would be VERY popular.
|
|
|
|
|
Would anyone be kind enough to point me to a hashrate graph in the XMR network?
|
|
|
|
Isn't this Omni Foundation ? The goal for the Omni Foundation is to put the community members that are building on the platform in the drivers seat when it comes to core development efforts. We want the projects using the Omni Wallet and Omni Core to drive the priorities of development and lead the effort organically.
Thus the structure where the Omni Foundation is supported directly by the members who sponsor the core developers or contribute their own developers time to improving the open source code of the Omni Wallet and Omni Core.
As for the MSC Foundation it will continue to represent the interests of the broader Omni community by managing the developer token pool and will work to see the token holders are representing in important protocol discussions and development work that will make the Omni Layer sustainable and the token monetized.
So if the new Omni Foundation is the vehicle for gathering support from projects on top of the protocol to drive development of new features, then the MSC Foundation is the vehicle for pushing forward the long term value of the platform's token.
Recently J.R. has generously donated 60,000 Omni tokens (as options) in order to grow the developer pool for contributors to the protocol and the eco-system. The MSC Foundation provides transparency and accountability around this developer pool and will attract other large holders to contribute additional Omni tokens to this effort.
MSC Foundation continues to be the primary vehicle for the holders of the Omni token to express their views on the monetization and sustainability of the platform.
Best Regards,
David A. Johnston
Managing Director of the Decentralized Applications Fund |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
