Good idea but I'm not sure this can actually work...
EDIT: I found profiles of the lead dev:
https://www.facebook.com/sergei.inyushkin
https://ru.linkedin.com/in/sergei-inyushkin-78783b41
Can anyone send him a message to confirm he's really working on the project (doesn't seem he is)?
Topic: [ANN] Devest - Decentralized Investment Fund [ICO] (Read 2097 times)
They are making the same mistake as The DAO in pooling all the funds together, which is a broken game theory. The investors are better off investing in separate projects.
Also putting this on the Bitcoin block chain means they can't have Bitcoin verify the order of events on their smart contract logic. This is the same problem Counterparty has.
Don't fall for this. These group obviously doesn't really know what they are doing.
Also putting this on the Bitcoin block chain means they can't have Bitcoin verify the order of events on their smart contract logic. This is the same problem Counterparty has.
Don't fall for this. These group obviously doesn't really know what they are doing.
"this project is supported by bittrex"
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Be aware, Bittrex is not associated with Devest in any manner. We have no relationship with them nor have we heard of them.
Devest Team - Please remove our logo from your website and refrain from using us in your promotional material.
Thanks,
richie@bittrex
Sounds legit. To da Moon!
"this project is supported by bittrex"
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Be aware, Bittrex is not associated with Devest in any manner. We have no relationship with them nor have we heard of them.
Devest Team - Please remove our logo from your website and refrain from using us in your promotional material.
Thanks,
richie@bittrex
They had an awesome team on board http://www.devest.io/theteam.html it's what makes this ICO credible but of course we need more information and their Ico is quite expensive minimum is 1 bitcoin think not every body can get in..
if 1 btc = 100 shares then 0.1 btc will probably be 10 shares and 0.01 btc is 1 share, i dont read anywhere that there is a minimum? can u link me
I am in a hurry to read that I might go for this one but we'll see how this ICO will go I always looking for people who are behind any Ico there have been so many Ico with newbie and unknown dev but this ICO offered transparency They had an awesome team on board http://www.devest.io/theteam.html it's what makes this ICO credible but of course we need more information and their Ico is quite expensive minimum is 1 bitcoin think not every body can get in..
if 1 btc = 100 shares then 0.1 btc will probably be 10 shares and 0.01 btc is 1 share, i dont read anywhere that there is a minimum? can u link me
They had an awesome team on board http://www.devest.io/theteam.html it's what makes this ICO credible but of course we need more information and their Ico is quite expensive minimum is 1 bitcoin think not every body can get in..
It's not closed source, they say they will share the code with large investors. Kinda smart to avoid people creating bad clones. Nxt also did this and it worked out pretty well.
Nxt failed. Open source - always.
Interesting, but I think you need to start with some more things to show and escrow is the standard. This is more like early idea stage. Probably also not the best time for the concept with the massive failure of DAO.
Investors Protection:
What about escrow?
What about escrow?
And Closed source? ...Strange...you better go "in the real world" for crowdfunding. This is the wrong place
Everything in this business is normally open source
It's not closed source, they say they will share the code with large investors. Kinda smart to avoid people creating bad clones. Nxt also did this and it worked out pretty well.
if they will use blockchain timestamping proofs from what i can read from the 'code' on the website then it might be better then counterparty. need to know more in detail about this.. need to wait for a presentation or something. dev can u eleborate more on this?
by the way dont bother with the trolls, thanks for the clean announcement thread, i hate all those shitty announcements these days with insane amounts of pictures and 'trying' to convince people to buy in.
by the way dont bother with the trolls, thanks for the clean announcement thread, i hate all those shitty announcements these days with insane amounts of pictures and 'trying' to convince people to buy in.
Another ICO. The Russians are making a killing in ICO. 
. Lisk, Waves, Now Devest
. Lisk, Waves, Now Devestsee the price BTC rissing again...many people making new coin
Another ICO. The Russians are making a killing in ICO. . Lisk, Waves, Now Devest
. Lisk, Waves, Now Devest 
Another day and another ICO, newbie dev, no escrow and bad ann.
At least make a proper effort and do some planning!!!
At least make a proper effort and do some planning!!!
Investors Protection:
What about escrow?
What about escrow?
And Closed source? ...Strange...you better go "in the real world" for crowdfunding. This is the wrong place
Everything in this business is normally open source
Investors Protection:
What about escrow?
What about escrow?
Vitalik
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/
"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and “fairness” is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem"
well yes it can:
If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here...
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/
"However, it does show that there is a fundamental barrier to what can be accomplished, and “fairness” is not something that can be mathematically proven in a theorem"
well yes it can:
If you hold a system will function in a particular way and it does then that is fair, and you can mathematically prove it
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
TL;DR - Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here...
How many times am I going to have to repeat myself and link to my explanation that the quoted Reddit above is INCORRECT!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15273470
Vitalik is correct. The Reddit post is not. Period.
Turning-complete programming on a block chain can't be guaranteed to be secure. There will always be a gap between "intent" and "execution".
The fundamental reason is tied into the Halting problem, in that one can't prove an absolute negative, e.g. prove that no dinosaurs are still alive any where in the universe. It is undecideable.
Fundamentally this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that time is irreversible so entropy is unbounded. The only way that wouldn't be the case would be if the speed-of-light was not finite, but then the past and future would collapse into the same infinitesimal point of nothingness and nothing could exist.
Theorem provers such as Coq produce output that is not Turing-complete. Yet that isn't even relevant, because "intent" can't be absolutely quantified in code or specification because interpretation is relative, i.e. the only account of history which is 100% certain doesn't exist (people will disagree on what happened because no one was every where in real-time, i.e. the speed-of-light is finite).
If you can't grasp this, don't fret. It requires a high level of intellect and also understanding of several fields including computer science and physics.
The bottom line is that Turing-complete programming on a block chain is "a can of worms" which is what we all told Ethereum since back in 2013 when Vitalik first proposed it.
They are making the same mistake as The DAO in pooling all the funds together, which is a broken game theory. The investors are better off investing in separate projects.
Also putting this on the Bitcoin block chain means they can't have Bitcoin verify the order of events on their smart contract logic. This is the same problem Counterparty has.
Don't fall for this. These group obviously doesn't really know what they are doing.
Also putting this on the Bitcoin block chain means they can't have Bitcoin verify the order of events on their smart contract logic. This is the same problem Counterparty has.
Don't fall for this. These group obviously doesn't really know what they are doing.
I like the idea but I'm not sure you are the one to do it... I hope you can make this work.
That is exactly what i thought after reading your post... and it made me laugh
An interesting read from a guy reddit. He gave compelling arguments and it does make you think twice about the viability and security of the current smart contract plaforms and DAOs currently in circulation.
Source: The bug which the "DAO hacker" exploited was *not* "merely in the DAO itself" (ie, *separate* from Ethereum). The bug was in Ethereum's *language design* itself (Solidity / EVM - Ethereum Virtual Machine) - shown by the "recursive call bug discovery" divulged (and dismissed) on slock.it last week.
Here's an excerpt of the post.
Source: The bug which the "DAO hacker" exploited was *not* "merely in the DAO itself" (ie, *separate* from Ethereum). The bug was in Ethereum's *language design* itself (Solidity / EVM - Ethereum Virtual Machine) - shown by the "recursive call bug discovery" divulged (and dismissed) on slock.it last week.
Here's an excerpt of the post.
Quote
Complexity and "Turing completeness" are not the real culprit here - those are all good things that we can have someday. The real culprit is poor language design. Specifically, I would recommend using "functional" (rather than "procedural") languages for mission-critical code which will be driving "smart contracts" - and even better if a high-level "specification" language could be used, allowing formal derivation of a (verifiably correct) program in a low-level "implementation" language (ie, providing mathematical proof that the implementation satisfies the specification - and mitigating the problem where the high-level human-readable "description" is different from the low-level machine-runnable "code"). I suspect many people (raised in a world where JavaScript is the "assembly language of the web") might not know about some of the history and possibly related work. So take this as a stern lecture telling you to take a good look at the history of functional languages (and specification vs implementation languages) as used in mission-critical projects, including finance - which, even when using such tools, are still very hard to get right - as we can see from the decades-long history of failures of major projects in defense, healthcare, aerospace, etc.
I don't think language design can fix "reentrancy-safety". The problem is Turing-completeness which is unbounded recursion. That is not something you can entirely solve with the language design.
If your smart block chain project doesn't know how to explain what I am talking about here, then you should not be investing because they probably don't really know what they are doing. They think they can just slap on a programming language to a block chain. Sorry! The problem is fundamentally insoluble and any breakthrough will have to be a paradigm-shift!
All these Block Chain Alt devs are recreating the mistakes that mathematicians and software engineers have discovered years ago.
And that we all told them back in late 2013 not to do it. I personally told Charles. Vitalik invented "gas" and thought that was sufficient.
Quoting myself from 2011:
Fundamentally, Turing-completeness is one concise requirement, unbounded recursion.
I had already explained why that Reddit post is incorrect:
Just turing complete...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
I haven't studied the specific vulnerability in this case[1], but I think it has to do with the contract code doing mutability aliasing on global state. So this is an issue of synchronizing mutability aliasing.
For example, imagine if some intended to be atomic operation[1] of a check for sending of ETH out of the contract had not set a global count of sent before some recursion which enabled sending more ETH out, thus exceeding the threshold.
So the Reddit post seems to be somewhat clueless about the actual issue. Functional programming and static typing is orthogonal to the issue of dealing with global state and mutability aliasing. I had just finished analyzing this issue at the Rust-lang forum and in my private discussion with keane recently. Although Rust can statically check mutability aliasing, this is restricted to disjoint data structures. We concluded that some semantics can't be modelled with a static checker. Mutability aliasing is thorny issue and I am not familiar enough with Coq to know if it can model it. I would need to really dig into the details of this and study it before I can comment with high degree of confidence.
"this project is supported by bittrex"
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Are u guys getting listed in bittrex after the ico then?
Jump to: