Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2019, 04:48:13 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / PSA: Don't buy "Cold Storage" wallets off eBay on: September 20, 2017, 03:02:35 PM

When purchasing this, your private key should already be considered compromised. This is NOT cold storage, as the private key was generated by a means out of your control. While I have no proof that this seller is a scammer, they have all the power to be one, and by that virtue is being dishonest by claiming that these are secure.

If you want a real cold storage solution, refer to this guide.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: May 03, 2017, 01:45:59 PM

Thanks for remembering those details. Also I should add to automate the vote would be what most people will do. I was thinking we might have to add another option to that dropdown box which is "vote towards target" and have them vote to a target supply or price. Its possible to only let those decisions for each user run for a week or so to force them to occasionally check the software again to recast it. These are mostly user interface decisions but not protocol.

The idea of how centric do we want to make an algorithm gets closer to the heart of protocol.

Actually the frozen supply can effect demand in a good way. There is a bylaw being added to allow transfer of frozen supply on the condition it is locked in a 1 month time lock. This "slows" the frozen funds so you could just say there are variable speeds of liquidity. The slowed funds are used for bonds, credit swaps or trustless loans and really all kinds of cool instruments never before thought possible in crypto.

If there becomes a speculative market, i would think the frozen/slowed funds would become the speculative market. Because those give access to voting power, can be staked for interest and also serve as a future. It will be one helluva fun trading game.

I can see the peg falling into the situation you described. A few potential risks is it is deflated too much so the price goes way too high and cannot be recovered to that target. Another risk is the network can't agree on a supply so it gets stuck at a certain level.

But consider that there is always changes to the economy and the ones holding. So most likely it would never really get stuck at a specific supply. Someone who buys up 100% of the liquidity would end up seeing the supply inflate. So i think as long as there is consistent demand that is something we shouldn't worry about.

But lets say this happens. Then we would want to consider forking to update the algorithms perhaps?! The cool part about this is that its an awesome social experiment so we can see how it goes and adjust and get inspired to improve upon it with better algorithms.

In theory, we can do it based purely on algorithms without voting but for now I really like combining the two.

Thanks David, definitely looking forward to seeing all this unfold Smiley
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: May 02, 2017, 06:14:13 PM
Just to make sure I understand correctly...

By being able to change the liquid supply, we can manipulate the spot price. This shouldn't affect market cap, however, because we're decreasing the supply to increase the spot price, and increasing the supply to decrease spot price. Since market cap = (supply x spot price), in theory, we should be able to keep the price constant.

My questions:

1. At what frequency is the liquid supply updated? It's not uncommon for crypto to have ±10% in a few minutes, and this could be troublesome for a consistent peg.
2. Is voting really going to be effective enough to keep track? It seems like it would be a full time job to constantly adjust the liquid supply manually.
3. Does the existence of illiquid supply affect the demand in any passive way? The dynamics here seem complex.
4. Will we ever get into a situation where BAY will be locked away indefinitely, in a sort of "checkmate" between keeping the peg consistent, and the inevitability of a drop in demand if the peg were to change (to release illiquid funds)?
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: April 27, 2017, 03:55:02 PM
I just don't understand how the idea continues to perpetuate that the arbitrary division of coin supply somehow affects the worth of the crypto on the whole. I've been seeing this shit for years, either there's some FUD intentions or people are just so dense.

Reminds me of this:
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: April 24, 2017, 03:08:04 PM
Wouldn't exchanges have to cooperate to a high degree here? The coins in each user's accounts usually just correlate to a percentage of some total supply owned by the exchange. If I transfer 100 coins to an exchange right before a 50% freeze, I'll still be able to trade all 100 of my coins, even though the exchange's wallets will have the funds tied up. The problem will be when I try to withdraw, or rather, when more than 50% of their stored funds are withdrawn. It would benefit those who withdrew earlier, and it seems possible that this could avalanche into a bank-run type scenario. In order to avoid this issue, all exchanges would have to artificially implement the coin's logic within their trade mechanics. Thoughts?
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: April 24, 2017, 05:26:19 AM
I'm highly skeptical as to whether freezing coins can actually tame the market forces into a predictable/stable token value, especially with voting. Voting takes time, and the market moves instantly. Through what process do stakeholders determine what amount of coins to freeze, and can we trust them to accurately make that determination? Do you have insight on the incentive/game theory behind this, and perhaps investigated if there is any tragedy-of-the-commons scenario to look out for?

If I remember correctly, NuShares tried to do this and failed spectacularly. Let's not make the same mistakes.
7  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: March 03, 2015, 04:00:20 PM
Still looking for offers!
8  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: February 26, 2015, 03:31:27 PM
how much do you want for it then? it shouldnt be too much then

Make me an offer if you are serious. Thank you.
9  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: February 23, 2015, 05:41:27 PM
was it used for anything before? if yes how much visitors did it have regulary?

This domain has not been used for anything before.
10  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: February 20, 2015, 08:41:49 PM
11  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: February 19, 2015, 06:14:07 PM
How come that you aren't running a faucet or made a page with a list of Bitcoin faucets ??
Anyway do you mind giving more informations please ?
  • Website registered where ? Namecheap / GoDaddy / etc..
  • How much you are looking for ? and what are the payment methods do you take

Btw , willing to go first or using an Escrow ?
~ Madness

I don't have the intention of developing this domain because I am simply a domain investor, and I don't have the time to research how to make a profitable faucet website.

Domain is registered at

I have no asking price, however I am open to all offers. I accept Bitcoin and BitUSD, however I am open to other forms of payment as well.

Escrow can be through a company like, or through a trusted escrow BCT member.
12  Economy / Digital goods / Re: [WTS] on: February 19, 2015, 03:02:45 PM
13  Economy / Digital goods / [WTS] on: February 17, 2015, 08:24:12 PM
Selling domain:

Perfect generic, brandable, concise, memorable, SEO-friendly domain for your bitcoin faucet directory website.

Post or PM me your offers.
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [Announce] Project Quixote - BitShares, BitNames and 'BitMessage' on: January 30, 2015, 04:09:31 PM
You might want to start a new topic... this topic is severely outdated.
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! on: January 28, 2015, 05:31:24 AM
These are actually really well done and hilarious. Keep 'em coming DE

The theory that SL == DE is going to keep me up wondering all night.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Official BitBay Thread |Smart Contracts Wallet UPDATE|Decentralized Marketplace on: January 25, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
Mac wallet crashing on startup. Any fix?
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! on: January 20, 2015, 04:28:14 AM
bureaucracy |byo͝oˈräkrəsē| noun
1. A system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

This does not seem to describe the bitshares system very well.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: High Risk Investment... 300% Payouts!! on: January 19, 2015, 03:30:24 AM
The Altcoin forum is now officially comprised of topics that are either screaming "_____ IS A SCAM!", or topics that are actually scams themselves.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Communist Bitshares Wealth Redistribution IS THEFT! on: January 17, 2015, 05:13:46 PM
This is a fascinating line of thought and worthy of further discussion. 

Yes, but both sides need each other.  The big guys hold the market cap up and are likely to invest further in the ecosystem. The little guys keep the big guys honest.  Signers are those with the biggest consensus. The current system has network effect, so you don't fork off from it lightly.  If you abuse your influence, competition can arise and honor the stake of a subset of the stakeholders and take them away from you.

We are trying to form a balanced ecosystem with all the right feedback mechanisms to keep it balanced.  In some sense, this is a microcosm of the real world field of competition.  We are trying to engineer an incorruptibly fair playing field, at least much better than the current system. 

After that, let the market game theory begin!

I want to clarify, when I said "large stakeholder" I meant holders owning something like 30%+. So "the big guys keep the market cap up", however with somebody owning 30% of all stake, that market cap doesn't mean as much for you (a holder of <0.1%) in relative terms. You have much more to gain by forking him out, assuming he is not contributing anything else besides holding.

You said 'the current system has network effect' in regards to forking out shareholders, however in many cases, you could effectively kick out that 30% shareholder on the main chain. You would just need 31% of shareholders to vote in delegates that are willing to do so. If current delegates saw they were about to lose their jobs unless they complied with that 31%, then they would also have high incentive to.

The little guys benefit from demand for their stake.  Any chain that just forked over a major investor would not likely see much further demand from major investors. 

Like I said, if Donald Trump tried to buy up 30% of BitShares, I'm thinking that would be insanely great.

Best thing to do in these thought experiments is to ask, "What happens in such situations for traditional companies?"

Presumably all the old human strategies apply.  It's just that now, it must happen transparently on a level playing field where all owners can see what's coming and make their next moves accordingly.

Right, this makes sense. In the event there is a clearly malicious 'investor' who is trying to attack the network, what will happen in practice is probably very hard to predict. If the attacker gets wind that he's going to be forked out, he'll then try to sell everything back as fast as possible. But, if an attacker knew that being forked out would be a possibility, he wouldn't even try attacking this way to start with.

I'm liking DPOS more and more. Another thought:

Protocol-wise, DPOS does not consider 'individuals'. It just keeps a balance-sheet of addresses, how much they own, and what delegates they are voting for. However, since "community forks" are determined extrinsically, perhaps by downloading a modified version of the client, it now indeed matters more as to how many individuals collaborate regardless of their total stake. Does this make sense?
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Even though BTS devs are greedy, it's still better tech than NXT and NuBits on: January 17, 2015, 04:35:56 PM
Come-from-Beyond, I think some of that may be outdated, describing an older version of DPOS. Specifically,

- At all times no delegate may have more than 2% of the vote. Any transaction or block that would give a delegate more than 2% of the vote is to be rejected.

I could be somehow mistaken, but this does not seem to be the case.
Pages: [1] 2
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!