GLBSE 2.0 open for testing

[REF]

Didnt realize we had the ability to revote/change our vote. makes sense thanks for clearing it up. Nice work seems you worked hard all day setting up google auth, havent used it myself before but im excited to try it once its ready. I think its a better option then those long auth and private keys we had for glbse 1.0 just because it was hard for some people to figure it out.

[1714933948]

1714933948

[1714933948]

1714933948

[1714933948]

1714933948

[Inaba]

Yubikey and Google Auth, while accomplishing the same thing, are different and not mutually exclusive in the sense that each has their advantages.

First and foremost, one could argue Yubikey is a bit more secure than Google Auth.  (But for practical purposes, it's largely irrelevant).  Additionally, Google Auth is not supported on all devices.  Yubikey, also, is not supported on all devices (namely, those devices without a USB port).  Yubikey is more convenient in terms of entering your OTP, less convenient since you have to carry something around in addition to your phone (for Google Auth).

I would vote to add the ability to use one or the other, not just Google Auth.  I use Yubikey in several places and Google Auth in other places, depending on the situation and I find them both useful in their own ways, while neither of them are perfect, sadly.  Now... Google Auth would be awesome if paired with NFC and the computers I use had NFC readers.

[Nefario]

Yubikey and Google Auth, while accomplishing the same thing, are different and not mutually exclusive in the sense that each has their advantages.

First and foremost, one could argue Yubikey is a bit more secure than Google Auth.  (But for practical purposes, it's largely irrelevant).  Additionally, Google Auth is not supported on all devices.  Yubikey, also, is not supported on all devices (namely, those devices without a USB port).  Yubikey is more convenient in terms of entering your OTP, less convenient since you have to carry something around in addition to your phone (for Google Auth).

I would vote to add the ability to use one or the other, not just Google Auth.  I use Yubikey in several places and Google Auth in other places, depending on the situation and I find them both useful in their own ways, while neither of them are perfect, sadly.  Now... Google Auth would be awesome if paired with NFC and the computers I use had NFC readers.

Thanks for point out GoogleAuth to me, it was exactly what I was looking for.

Don't care too much for Yubikey on three grounds.

1) I would have to buy one to get started integrating it into GLBSE, just the pain of having to wait and the price

2)My users would have to buy one, some would already have them, most would not.

3)GoogleAuth is just about good enough and took me a little over 1/2 a day from first hearing about it to rolling it out. The Yubikey wouldn't even have arrived by then.

[mila]

can you please remove that annoying captcha

I don't like it either but I would disagree, as it makes brute force attempts harder and in end effect improves a bit glbse
(even if you pay a service to solve captcha for you it would cost money and anyway introduce a delay between attempts)

[Kluge]

can you please remove that annoying captcha

I don't like it either but I would disagree, as it makes brute force attempts harder and in end effect improves a bit glbse
(even if you pay a service to solve captcha for you it would cost money and anyway introduce a delay between attempts)

Wouldn't it make more sense to not force users to solve Captchas until at least one login attempt has failed since last successful login?

[Inaba]

I understand about Yubikey - but it's cost free to implement would just be an added feature for GLBSE.  I can show you how to implement it without buying a Yubikey if you want, it's actually pretty straight forward.  There's no real drawback to offering it, once you get it setup, it pretty much is hands off at that point.

[mila]

can you please remove that annoying captcha

I don't like it either but I would disagree, as it makes brute force attempts harder and in end effect improves a bit glbse
(even if you pay a service to solve captcha for you it would cost money and anyway introduce a delay between attempts)

Wouldn't it make more sense to not force users to solve Captchas until at least one login attempt has failed since last successful login?

yes, that makes perfect sense. thanks for the comment.

btw could we after login land on the portfolio page automatically? same as after registering new account. that would also save a mouse click on every login

[Nefario]

can you please remove that annoying captcha

I don't like it either but I would disagree, as it makes brute force attempts harder and in end effect improves a bit glbse
(even if you pay a service to solve captcha for you it would cost money and anyway introduce a delay between attempts)

Wouldn't it make more sense to not force users to solve Captchas until at least one login attempt has failed since last successful login?

yes, that makes perfect sense. thanks for the comment.

btw could we after login land on the portfolio page automatically? same as after registering new account. that would also save a mouse click on every login

Yeah we can implement all those, although after registration it takes you to your TwoAuth page where you have the option of getting your code. But I know what you mean and will do those in time, sleep first.

[marked]

Didnt realize we had the ability to revote/change our vote. makes sense thanks for clearing it up.

You also need this if you buy additional shares in the asset before the motion closes. You may or may not have changed your mind in the meantime, and you may or may not have changed the voting of those shares from that of the previous owner.

marked

[Nefario]

Didnt realize we had the ability to revote/change our vote. makes sense thanks for clearing it up.

You also need this if you buy additional shares in the asset before the motion closes. You may or may not have changed your mind in the meantime, and you may or may not have changed the voting of those shares from that of the previous owner.

marked

It's interesting, this allows people to influence votes by buying others out for a time. Hmm never thought of that. This is acceptable behavior you think (being able to change votes)?

[Inaba]

I think keeping the vote open until the closing time is fine, but the vote should not be "public" in so far as only you know what you voted until it's closed.

[Nefario]

I think keeping the vote open until the closing time is fine, but the vote should not be "public" in so far as only you know what you voted until it's closed.

Thats the situation as it currently stands.

[OgNasty]

Nefario,

How do I update the company details for my company?
https://glbse.com/asset/view/MERGEDMINING

I would like to provide the missing information as well as have it look as clean as the new assets released on GLBSE 2.0.

[JL421]

Nefario, none of my assets are showing a verified status yet...can you fix this when you get a chance?

[Garr255]

Nefario,

How do I update the company details for my company?
https://glbse.com/asset/view/MERGEDMINING

I would like to provide the missing information as well as have it look as clean as the new assets released on GLBSE 2.0.

He told me he will be integrating this into the site soon.

[rdponticelli]

Is there any plan to integrate any other cryptocurrency onto the glbse? I think that it would be reasonable worthwhile to include at least namecoin and litecoin.

A pretty obvious use case for namecoin would be for existing merged mining companies who could pay dividends in namecoins without having to dump them onto the market, helping to  stabilize both currencies.

And as bitcoin mining specializes with dedicated hardware built on fpgas and asics, litecoin could be soon taking the post on the home miners market, who will be kicked out of bitcoin mining because of huge difficulty increases, and they will possible switch to litecoin, making it lot more worthwhile than it is now.

[BinaryMage]

Is there any plan to integrate any other cryptocurrency onto the glbse? I think that it would be reasonable worthwhile to include at least namecoin and litecoin.

A pretty obvious use case for namecoin would be for existing merged mining companies who could pay dividends in namecoins without having to dump them onto the market, helping to  stabilize both currencies.

And as bitcoin mining specializes with dedicated hardware built on fpgas and asics, litecoin could be soon taking the post on the home miners market, who will be kicked out of bitcoin mining because of huge difficulty increases, and they will possible switch to litecoin, making it lot more worthwhile than it is now.

(1) Litecoin is inherently useless.
(2) No one mines with CPUs seriously anymore, for any cryptocurrency.
(3) More miners isn't synonymous with higher value.

In fewer words, it's the GLBSE, and there's a darn good reason for that.

[rdponticelli]

(1) Litecoin is inherently useless.

It may be indeed useless, or it may be not. Nice to hear your opinion on the matter. Mine is not so certain.

(2) No one mines with CPUs seriously anymore, for any cryptocurrency.

Lots of people mines with CPUs. You may not consider this "serious" mining, but it happens, and at least for those people, there should be some value in doing it.

(3) More miners isn't synonymous with higher value.

More miners means more people, more human resources if you prefer, doing something they found valuable. That's the way anything becomes valuable.

In fewer words, it's the GLBSE, and there's a darn good reason for that.

So, just because bitcoin is hardcoded on the name, we should make separate projects for any other currency? Ok, fair with me, but I think it would be almost trivial to integrate other cryptocurrencies on the existing infrastructure, and it certainly would aggregate value to it.

I know that all of us who are longing bitcoin would like that someday all the value in the universe would be measured in bitcoin, but sadly this isn't going to happen. There will always be lots of units of measure and people will be choosing arbitrarily between them.

And I think that a more complex cryptocurrency ecosystem would be beneficial for bitcoin as a whole. I tend to see it as in the free software ecosystem. Just because linux exists and is the kernel chosen by the big majority of people, that doen't meant that we should abandon projects like gnu/hurd, *bsd and every other competing kernel. On the contrary, the existence of alternatives and competition makes the big projects even more valuable.

[Nefario]

I could have other blockchain based systems (litecoin, namecoin etc) as an asset being traded, and you would be able to trade it in the same way you do anything else, by buying and selling for BTC.

The extra effort comes when I need to install the daemon, and ensure the wallet is secure yadda yadda, this is the hard part and at the moment not a top priority right now.

I've got a few updates on the way with simple improvements.

Nefario.

[OgNasty]

Nefario,

There appears to be a bug in the way your script decides what color to make a stock in the assets list.  MergedMining shares are currently showing up as red, which seems to indicate they have dropped in value.  However, looking at the list of share sales, you can see that shares are currently at a monthly high.  So it should be green, right?

http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/mergedmining