Quote from: dacoinminster on August 06, 2013, 03:24:16 PM

Quote from: ripper234 on August 06, 2013, 02:33:53 PM

Sweet! I love how it only requires actually permission to the Exodus!

How about setting up a "mastercoin-foundation" github organization, that will hold all the different repos? (mastercoin, greesemonkey, website, etc.)

I went ahead and forked Armory in anticipation of tearing it all apart:
https://github.com/dacoinminster/MasterCoin-Adviser

The greasemonkey script probably won't change much. I have no idea what I want to do for a website. Probably just contract it out at some point, since I don't really enjoy working on static pages.

And still ... how about developing these things not on your dacoinminster account, but as an organization account?
(It's really quite seamless and easy on github, it doesn't add any complications)

Quote from: dacoinminster on August 06, 2013, 05:39:38 PM

Cool.

I don't think any bitcoin client implements multi-sig yet, although armory is getting close. Perhaps the veto power should be informal at first, and once a way to do multi-sig becomes available, we can codify it using m-of-n multisig.

Does that sound good to you guys?

Well, ad this stage I certainly wouldn't advise changing the whitepaper to make the official exodus address a multisig address.

However, I would make it a priority, pending on a successful, tested implementation of multisig in a major client.
Until we have a clear, secure way to implement multisig without a chance of funds being lost, I'm ok with you guarding the funds, as long as it's clear the Foundation has to approve any significant expense (we can debate what 'significant' means ... as the project director / , you'll have a discretionary budget which you can spend without needing such approval).

Quote from: dacoinminster on August 06, 2013, 06:56:54 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on August 06, 2013, 06:45:26 PM

Last I heard from TheZerg he said the new BitShares system is much harder to find fault with. That said, I am still willing to pay a 1 BTC bounty to anyone who can find a fault with the BitShares protocol that will result in me making a change and 10 BTC to anyone who can convince me to abandon BitShares all together. Note: Charles & I are the sole judge of whether or not to award the 10 BTC bounty, but we have a history of being fair/honest in our judgements. If you can convince us of fundamental problems you will save us money and we would gladly pay 10 BTC... if you cannot convince us then we will be rolling out BitShares as the proof of your failure to convince us.

MasterCoin seems unwilling to risk 10 BTC on the potential that the flaws in his system might be discovered. If he is so confident his approach will work then it is a 0 risk proposition to offer a 10 BTC bounty. At the very least his investors will know that he has put up enough money to insure his ideas are properly vetted.

I don't mind posting such a bounty if my oversight board (currently Ripper and vokain) thinks it would be a good use of funds from the Exodus Address. However, the posts so far don't even come close to convincing me that the idea can't work at all. The closest they have come is pointing out the trade-offs involved with this kind of system. There are clearly scenarios where excrow funds break down, but to claim the idea couldn't work for any amount of time is over-reaching.

Also, welcome back to the thread

I suggest opening a separate thread for this discussion (perhaps for every major financial decision). We will soon need a dedicated forum (place a bounty for that?)

This might be a good idea, but the bounty's conditions must be very well defined. I think it's best to discuss this on a separate thread.

Wow, there seems to be a lot of discussions that I missed. No time to read it all.
Anything important?
Kudos to dacoinminster for his patience in replying to this thread, it's really quite tiring