Author Topic: Why BitShares isn't Taking off and What we are doing about it.  (Read 44553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
So what exactly is happening right now?  Is bitshares once again pivoting in a completely new direction?  Has 1.0 been delayed?  I see no milestones have been updated or achieved recently.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Then we can rebrand Bitshares once all these great ideas implemented, we can called it BitsharesX :D

lol....BitShares was called BitSharesX before .....

it was more successful with this name :P

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
As well as easy deposits/withdrawals, the web wallet needs a decent 4 letter domain name. It deserves more than just being a subdomain at wallet.bitshares.org.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
emulating Bitfinex would be a good place to start IMO



The concept is quite simple really.  Copy the user experience of centralized exchanges.  The difference being a backend controlled by the bitshares blockchain instead of a centrally managed database. 

I like to think of it as similar to http vs https.  Users are trained to look for the 's' at the end to know they are on a secure website.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.  They see no difference when interacting with the secure vs non-secure site.  They just know that general consensus is that the 's' means it is secure. 

Users should see no difference between interacting with a centralized exchange vs a decentralized exchange.  Perhaps they see something that says 'Powered by Bitshares' to confirm security, just as they see an 's' to confirm security.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, they just know that 'Powered by Bitshares' means they are in a secure environment, and that secure environment utilizes the bitshares blockchain as the backend instead of a centrally managed database as the backend.


@arhag
advanced orders could be added later.  A simple web-based interface for trading between bitcoin and USD would be enough to have a working product that could get things up and running.
I was talking about this somewhere else and got the following response from Dan Notestein:

Quote
dannotestein 10:20 PM

I think we'll essentially have this very soon via the web wallet. You'll have your account there, and it will have a "Deposits/Withdrawal" type page with links to blocktrades and metaexchange.

Offline Markus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
    • View Profile
What about YBitShares?
… the question mark is of course part of the name :)

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Then we can rebrand Bitshares once all these great ideas implemented, we can called it BitsharesX :D

lol....BitShares was called BitSharesX before .....

how about SuperBITnet :D

my top 3:

1. Affiliate System - marketer will bring users, merchants, devs and whatnot.
2. "User Experience like centralized exchanges" (moonstone?)
3. 1.0 features

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Then we can rebrand Bitshares once all these great ideas implemented, we can called it BitsharesX :D

lol....BitShares was called BitSharesX before .....
Then BitSharesY?  :P
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
Then we can rebrand Bitshares once all these great ideas implemented, we can called it BitsharesX :D

lol....BitShares was called BitSharesX before .....
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Then we can rebrand Bitshares once all these great ideas implemented, we can called it BitsharesX :D

Offline botfund

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: botfund
+5%
Also expect to change the rule of "you get what price you ask" to align with almost every other exchange to "get the same or better price". We have dilution and the rule of "you get whatever price you ask no better price" makes no sense now. All in all, make it feel more like a traditional exchange.

For transaction fee purpose, the delegate now has the dilution. For market depth, it's much better to use maker-taker mechanism. With some automation, it's still quite easy to wipe the depth.

Offline botfund

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: botfund
Bitshares hasn't taken off yet because there isn't a working product yet, IMO.  End users are not going to use a resource-intensive full client.  They will use a web or mobile client.  Only delegates need to run full nodes.  We are very close to the end user solution. 

I have used many exchanges:  bitstamp, bitfinex, coinbase, bter, poloniex, mtgox, btc-e, vircurex, mcxnow.  Bitfinex is by far the best as far as functionality and ease of use IMO.   Maybe I can explain this graphically:
...
+5%
Also expect to change the rule of "you get what price you ask" to align with almost every other exchange to "get the same or better price". We have dilution and the rule of "you get whatever price you ask no better price" makes no sense now. All in all, make it feel more like a traditional exchange.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I got to thinking about why it is so hard to bootstrap a business in crypto and it is because NEW investors are always bailing out OLD investors which sucks up all of the capital.   We can easily resolve all of this by placing unclaimed BTS from delegates INTO a yield fund for BTS holders.   Having a yield fund would encourage people to move their money off of exchanges and to hold it for longer periods of time. 

The side effect of a yield fund is that it wouldn't actually debase ANYONE except those who are looking to cash out short term. IE: transfer of value from those who want short term liquidity to those who are in this for the long run.

This adds considerable complication at the risk of not achieving the goals you want. As btswildpig mentioned, the exchanges can simply collect the interest (and design the BTS deposit and withdrawal process to maximize interest collected) and pass that interest on to their customers.

But if you wanted to implement something like this I would demand it be done better than the way BitAsset yield is done. First, the order in which people claim the yield should not effect the yield amount collected. The yield amount collected should purely be a function of the quantity of BTS in the balance and the time elapsed since it was last moved. Second, in order to not penalize delegate voters, updating a BTS balance's delegate slate should not reset the time. Furthermore, it should be possible to withdraw some amount of BTS from a balance and have the remaining BTS balance keep the old move time (so it doesn't negatively impact future yield on the remaining balance).

Personally, I don't think it is worth it.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
emulating Bitfinex would be a good place to start IMO



The concept is quite simple really.  Copy the user experience of centralized exchanges.  The difference being a backend controlled by the bitshares blockchain instead of a centrally managed database. 

I like to think of it as similar to http vs https.  Users are trained to look for the 's' at the end to know they are on a secure website.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.  They see no difference when interacting with the secure vs non-secure site.  They just know that general consensus is that the 's' means it is secure. 

Users should see no difference between interacting with a centralized exchange vs a decentralized exchange.  Perhaps they see something that says 'Powered by Bitshares' to confirm security, just as they see an 's' to confirm security.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, they just know that 'Powered by Bitshares' means they are in a secure environment, and that secure environment utilizes the bitshares blockchain as the backend instead of a centrally managed database
+5% Brilliant. I like the way you think.

I think this is good, but are you suggesting the core devs focus on the front end too or mainly be the backend blockchain & market engine and provide an SDK for other companies to build various UI/UX (ie. Etrade/Think or Swim/Tradestation/Bitfinex/Kraken etc.)?  I think the current BitShares webwallet can be combined with a good UI/UX trading platform, but there is so many ways to go with the UI/UX I'm wondering if it could be left to other companies to run with it just like for wallets.  I think it would be good to use Bitfinex as the model for the bitShares version because it's one of the better ones out there.  I think even Bitfinex can significantly be improved, but they have a relatively simple UI/UX which is very good compared to others.  They get most of their volume through leverage, ability to margin/short & earn interest on Bitcoin.  The UI/UX is very good, but it's secondary to the features.   
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline bluebit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
    • View Profile
From what you all tell me of Dark, it looks like they are supporting their price NuBits style, offering interest to encourage holding.  As long as the interest rate is above the long-term price decline everyone holding is breaking even.

I got to thinking about why it is so hard to bootstrap a business in crypto and it is because NEW investors are always bailing out OLD investors which sucks up all of the capital.   We can easily resolve all of this by placing unclaimed BTS from delegates INTO a yield fund for BTS holders.   Having a yield fund would encourage people to move their money off of exchanges and to hold it for longer periods of time. 

The side effect of a yield fund is that it wouldn't actually debase ANYONE except those who are looking to cash out short term. IE: transfer of value from those who want short term liquidity to those who are in this for the long run.

In effect YIELD == DRK model.  Whether or not this is a good idea remains to be seen.

I mentioned this once in the forums but nobody listened. It needs to be at least 5% interest per year, more would be better. Anything lower and you will not attract many investors.

In the code you should make it possible that the longer you keep it in your wallet, the more interest you earn. You get paid every week interest. This encourages holding. Once the price moves up, naturally people will start to sell.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 12:33:18 am by bluebit »
BTSX TipMe: bluebit

Offline godzirra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
emulating Bitfinex would be a good place to start IMO



The concept is quite simple really.  Copy the user experience of centralized exchanges.  The difference being a backend controlled by the bitshares blockchain instead of a centrally managed database. 

I like to think of it as similar to http vs https.  Users are trained to look for the 's' at the end to know they are on a secure website.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.  They see no difference when interacting with the secure vs non-secure site.  They just know that general consensus is that the 's' means it is secure. 

Users should see no difference between interacting with a centralized exchange vs a decentralized exchange.  Perhaps they see something that says 'Powered by Bitshares' to confirm security, just as they see an 's' to confirm security.  They have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, they just know that 'Powered by Bitshares' means they are in a secure environment, and that secure environment utilizes the bitshares blockchain as the backend instead of a centrally managed database
+5% Brilliant. I like the way you think.