Anyone know when ledger will enable support for this?

I just went through the refund process (selling my kexcoin back for BTC). I was the 100 BTC buyer and I see 99.8099 in my wallet now after withdrawing from bitshares. The 0.2% was lost between buying and selling kexcoin but they where bought and sold at the same price. Was this a built in fee on the exchange of kexcoin? who did it go to? I'm not at all upset about this, its in-line with the fees I get on several exchanges, just curious.

I am very happy with the way the kexcoin team conducted themselves, the refund was done very quickly. We can say that the low participation in the sale was not an accurate signal about the quality of the integrity of the kexcoin team, they have conducted themselves honourably.

If the sale ends under funded and participants vote to continue anyway will the founders burn enough tokens so that their share of the kexcoin is not an unreasonable percentage of the total supply?

If the sale fails to hit the target will you consider relaunching the ICO using the ethereum platform. I think you have demonstrated that bitshares is more than capable of dealing with the transaction volume but nevertheless it is not a hugely popular platform and I think that is discouraging people or at the very least failing to hook into the network effect that ethereum has built for itself with its ERC20 tokens. People expect erc20 tokens to be listed on regular exchanges because it is easy for regular exchanges to do so. People also know how to secure their ERC20 tokens with a hardware wallet and dont have to trust a web based system with the large amounts of funds required to meet the project requirements.

If you refund first and then re-launch you will have also very publicly demonstrated your trustworthiness.

 

Here is an example of some helper contracts that would make it easy for a single trusted party to offer an IOU:

https://gist.github.com/anonymous/6befb1d7b9a421207134ce6c1f9662c7

One contract would sit on the ethereum chain and simply emit an event that would alert a web3 script that could then generate the signed data for claiming the token on the nekonium chain, technically you dont need a contract for this but when it comes to redeeming the ETH funds this is the contract that allows a user to do that without a transaction from the trusted party, just their signature of the specific claim data.

The other contract is the token for the nekonium chain which allows anyone to generate your iou given the signed data of the claim from the trusted party. It contains a burn function that emits an event for the trusted party to be alarted to publish the claim for ETH on the other contract.

I have not put fees into this system but it would be trivial to add.

Some means of publishing the signed data would also be needed but with this system it would be relatively easy for anyone to audit the behaviour of the trusted party by comparing the emitted events of one contract against the claims on the other contract on the other chain.

All signatures are a hash of the data for the claim including an id and the contract address. This should prevent replay attacks if the contracts are simply deployed on each chain although in the event of a chain split having additional replay protection might be needed.



Feel free to donate nekonium tokens if you like my ideas: 0x0283b7d0d2224dd22f6bcecf4eb0cebdf8f5d282

Hey guys. Just discovered your altcoin. I see there are no exchanges for it. Have you considered building a decentralised exchange for it rather than waiting for a centralised exchange? I can see a couple of ways to do it:

If you have a trusted individual or group you could deposit ETH (easiest to implement the logic for this) and in return get a signed piece of data that allows you to generate an IOU on nekonium that is an ERC20 token. You could then trade that using a copy of the contracts on ethereum that implement decentralised exchanges like maker market/oasisdex, etherdelta and crryptoderivatives then when the seller wants to get ETH they could burn the token to alert the trusted party to release the ETH to their address (minus some fee to reward them for running both a nekonium and ethereum node and providing the service) the trusted party would not have to perform any transactions in this way as all they do is create signed data allowing the ones withdrawing or claiming tokens to perform the on chain transaction.

The other alternative way to do it would be atomic cross chain transactions. You would have a contract on ethereum and nekonium that locks funds from one individual and releases them to another individual after a challenge period if they know the data that resolves to some value when hashed. Revealing another hash-data in the challenge period cancels the exchange. The same contract but addresses (and currency) would be on the other chain with a cancel on one chain allowing a cancel on the other. This would have to be designed more thoughtfully than a simple IOU but it would be trustless.

You could even do these exchanges between the other etehereum alts and eventually rootstock and try and build some network effect as a low cost hub for exchange between these systems.

For anyone excited about this idea with some programming experience I recommend checking out open zepplin: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/zeppelin-solidity which is a repository of solidity contracts / patterns.

I also have my own library of example contracts: https://github.com/JonnyLatte/MiscSolidity

I posted a link to an article that explains the transition. If you had read that then you would have the new address. You can also get it by looking up REP on etherscan. You can also lookup your address in etherscan to quickly check if your REP is at the address.

If you want to know how to follow a token thats going to depend on what ethereum client you are using. I have never used Exodus wallet but a quick google says that you need to rescan your balances: http://support.exodus.io/knowledge_base/topics/my-balance-is-not-correct

If that doesn't work and your REP is not at your address on etherscan then you have ruled out the funds being at your address and you can move on to bugging bittrex. Etherscan has a tab for viewing all of the ERC20 token transactions, I would start by identifying the transaction of the old token contract or new where you sent the funds to the exchange address and include that in your support ticket. If there is no transaction and your funds are on the old REP contract and not on the new one you need to contract the Augur developers and see if they can help you: augur.net has a slack invite link or you could just make a reddit post in /r/augur. I doubt that this would be your problem, its most likeley that your funds are just not being shown by exodus. If it is exodus then you could contact their support or try and transfer your keys to a different client like myetherwallet.com mist or parity depending on the format of the keys, I dont know if its a regular json or if its a seed since I dont use exodus.



 

I am able to withdraw REP from bittrex no problem. I have not tested deposits but presumably they have that sorted out as well. The error is in attempting to use the old REP contract to deposit with. It is no longer functional and will just throw wasting your transaction. You need to use the new address.

Every SHA round the hash function throws away information. That is there are more inputs to the round than there are uniquely determined outputs, each round is not reversible in the formal sense. If you wanted to reverse this process you would have to guess what this information is that has been thrown away. You cant just guess any arbitrary set of bits though because when you reverse back to the start of the rounds you have to generate the magic number or you will have an impossible starting value for the function and you cant set enough of the bits in the step just before to generate the magic number because there is only so  much thrown away each round that can be guessed at in reversal. The effect of this is that you need to be guessing at the right bits throughout all of the process and the complex mathematical relationship you have to solve becomes unpractical to solve with current known techniques.

Now what of the values of the magic numbers? well they could all be zero as far as I am concerned. You still have to do the same amount of work guessing the bits that are thrown away in every round to generate a string of zeros or a string of prime numbers or what have you. If you had complete freedom to set the magic numbers and the inputs you could make a sha function that hashes to any chosen value, you just have to reverse the function and then decree that whatever value you have in the magic numbers are the magic numbers so its important that these values are fixed and for the sake of not being able to determine that one hash value, not something that is completely arbitrary and unexplained.

Prime numbers seem as good as anything because it is highly unlikely that they are the garden of Eden state of some specific hash that the developers of the algorithm wanted to be able to generate. It is possible that there is some deeper mathematical relationship between the numbers and the hash algorithm itself but that relationship would also have to be shared with the input data because it is part of the same uniform mathematical process involved in a round.

https://medium.com/@AugurProject/serpent-compiler-vulnerability-rep-solidity-migration-5d91e4ae90dd


The REP contract and the contracts in development where written in the programming language Serpent. They used this language because they started before solidity became popular. As part of their development process they had the Serpent compiler audited and in the process uncovered bugs in the Serpent compiler that critically affected their ERC20 token in a way that would prevent transfers.

So in response they deployed a new contract for the REP token written in solidity and intentionally used the exploit they found to halt the original REP contract. If you have REP at an address you will have it at the same address in the new contract. You may have to tell your client to watch this new address for REP tokens or rescan for balances in some clients.

Hopefully when they Audit the Solidtity compiler they dont find bugs in it as well.

@MirkoIta

They give you the option to give them all the identity information and say that if they cannot verify that then you can verify with a phone number to get a basic account. I extrapolated from that that 2FA could result in being identified but I dont know. It does seem better to me to just verify with an SMS than all the other details. Not sure if you can skip strait to the phone verification but I dont see why not.

Again my main issue with all of this is not that verification is required. My issue is the way in which they have done it. People should have been given an email or notification on login for the change of policy. It should not be something they would have to actively look up each time they use the system or in the case of polo something that could change even while they are using the system according to their new terms of service.

Personally I would prefer if none of this was required and will direct my business towards exchanges that exist in regulatory jurisdictions where it isnt wherever possible but I cant blame exchanges that would otherwise get shut down for complying with the demands of regulators, only for how they go about it where they do have choice.

No worries, I was going to reply with a snarky comment but then I realized its possible that there is some small difference. Do you have 2FA enabled? If you do then maybe thats all they need to pin down your identity enough to comply with AML/KYC laws, I dont know the specific regulations in America not being American. Or is your account not "new", mine was created about 3 months back. You can click on settings and it will show your account type.

In other news I just got my blackbytes, so thanks to the developers for making byteball the platform and to the users for making it valuable.

I just realized too that last distribution I sold some byteball using changelly, I should have just done that.

https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/231701788-Verification-Withdraw-Limits-and-Troubleshooting

Its 0.025 for unverified accounts unless the account is created on or after 08/01/17 in which case the limit is zero

I'll give it a try next time I have something to trade. It doesn't help for the ~4 BTC I have stuck on there right now though, 4 withdrawals has tuned into 160 withdrawals without sending them some identifying information. It just seems rude not to give clear advanced warning, I may have even verified if they had given a reasonable argument as to how they will be responsible with the information (last time I verified on an exchange my identifying information was leaked publicly and I am just having none of that now).

Be careful with bittrex if you are an unverified user. They just dropped their withdrawal limit from 1BTC to 0.025 BTC without warning.

Its actually been over 10 hours now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07So_lJQyqw

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Also changing the rules in that way breaks the image that it is a continuation of bitcoin a little even though in the long run it doesn't change monetary policy. If thats the case then its sacrificing functionality for image which is not great.

Why didnt they just drop the difficulty to say 1% of the current bitcoin difficulty on the block after the fork then let the difficulty adjust back up to the right value?

I am already trusting the ledger wallet software and the ledger nano s device to keep my BTC funds secure. I tried a test transfer using a different device first and it was fine. Splitting the rest of my coins also went fine. I wasn't really risking anything more than I already was holding bitcoin. If no one wants to by the BCH that I split off then that is also fine, I can wait until it becomes easier to trade.

Bittrex is not taking deposits right now and besides I am not verified so it would take me forever to get my funds off the exchange. I am not willing to take the exchange risk. Maybe the price will fall from here maybe not, I'm not here to debate that, I am just making an offer. If you want to counter offer I will consider it otherwise I dont care about where you think the price will go, its just noise.