Rand Paul Coin wants to use DPoS

[xeroc]

We should tell svk to remove the feed column from the explorer page

[xeroc]

Nope .. there are no price feeds for userissued assets ..
The are traded freely within the market .. though th GUI soesnt show them atm ... they are relly the same as in NXT and counterparty

[gamey]

I'm having a hard time with this... Hmm it must be because I haven't really seen/used the assets outside bitAssets.

It makes sense though because of the FREE (?) asset that xeroc owns. 

NXT assets are different though, because they have an internal market.  We're just a token system ... The only other asset system I've used is NXT's.  So our difference is we will rely on external markets for price discovery/trading?  NXT which has an internal market would be different.

I think thats right!

[bytemaster]

Internal user issued assets have value fully independent of BTS value... they generally represent a contract or property right or some form of security.

BitAssets depend upon BTS value.

[puppies]

Ultimately the answer is everything, just like the response to the question what does variations in the USD market have on its derivatives markets.  Yes I have taken your suggestion and increased the ethanol volume in my blood.   I'm still pretty sure you're wrong.  I would love to be misproven.

[puppies]

We will see.  I am not forgetting all the times you have  shown me the error of my understanding clout.  I Am still pretty certain your seeming dismissal of the idea that the internal assets value is directly related to the external value is incorrect on many levels.  I know that you are a very intelligent person and I have a hard time reconciling that understanding with posts that read


What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

[gamey]

He is correct ethanol or not.  If BTS inflates or deflates then that impacts the value of the assets that are denoted in it.  A coin wouldn't be pegged to an external source...   Or I'm totally missing something.

[clout]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

of all the things clout.  I am sorry , if it must be me that informs you, but the internal asset, will always be reliant upon the price of BTS.  Up until the point where there is direct asset to specie exchange possible.

This will likely still be reliant on the implied ability to process the exchange, and the willingness of market actors to facilitate that exchange at both a higher risk, and a higher reward than could otherwise be accomplished. 

I know that you are the furthest thing from stupid clout. 

This leads me to be concerned about your actual intention

sorry puppies, with all the respect I have for you; you response is highly unrelated to the clouts comment.

thanks Tony.

I will attempt to explain my position when I have less ethanol in my blood stream than I currently have.  I believed that my response was directly related to clouts concerns. I will either clarify, or retract my position when I address it with less ethanol in my bloodstream..

maybe you need more...

[puppies]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

of all the things clout.  I am sorry , if it must be me that informs you, but the internal asset, will always be reliant upon the price of BTS.  Up until the point where there is direct asset to specie exchange possible.

This will likely still be reliant on the implied ability to process the exchange, and the willingness of market actors to facilitate that exchange at both a higher risk, and a higher reward than could otherwise be accomplished. 

I know that you are the furthest thing from stupid clout. 

This leads me to be concerned about your actual intention

sorry puppies, with all the respect I have for you; you response is highly unrelated to the clouts comment.

thanks Tony.

I will attempt to explain my position when I have less ethanol in my blood stream than I currently have.  I believed that my response was directly related to clouts concerns. I will either clarify, or retract my position when I address it with less ethanol in my bloodstream..

[bytemaster]

I for one welcome the clone wars.... free marketing for us

[Troglodactyl]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

The people behind Rand Paul Coin clearly view an expandable supply with greater suspicion than we do.  If Bitshares somehow hyperinflated to the point of total loss of confidence and value, then delegates would have no incentive.  User issued assets would then be frozen until they could be migrated to a living chain.

Obviously I don't think that would happen, but they probably do, or they wouldn't be forking.

Edit: So the answer to your question is:  Absolutely nothing, unless Bitshares collapsed entirely.

[gamey]

It seems to me that we need more shitcoins or whatever you want to call them.  I don't think they compete with BTS.  If anything they'll let people become familar with the process and then hopefully buy into BTS.

[zerosum]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

of all the things clout.  I am sorry , if it must be me that informs you, but the internal asset, will always be reliant upon the price of BTS.  Up until the point where there is direct asset to specie exchange possible.

This will likely still be reliant on the implied ability to process the exchange, and the willingness of market actors to facilitate that exchange at both a higher risk, and a higher reward than could otherwise be accomplished. 

I know that you are the furthest thing from stupid clout. 

This leads me to be concerned about your actual intention

sorry puppies, with all the respect I have for you; you response is highly unrelated to the clouts comment.

[puppies]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?

of all the things clout.  I am sorry , if it must be me that informs you, but the internal asset, will always be reliant upon the price of BTS.  Up until the point where there is direct asset to specie exchange possible.

This will likely still be reliant on the implied ability to process the exchange, and the willingness of market actors to facilitate that exchange at both a higher risk, and a higher reward than could otherwise be accomplished. 

I know that you are the furthest thing from stupid clout. 

This leads me to be concerned about your actual intention

[clout]

I'd rather see an asset than another chain...

That's a fair point.  With the strong deflationary priority they might be worried that BTS isn't a sound foundation, but it would be easy enough to fork off if Bitshares ever seemed in danger of hyper-inflationary collapse. 

That would save them the overhead of a full new chain and new set of delegates

What does and expansion or contraction of the BTS supply have to do with the supply or price of an asset on the platform?