Poll

Which Method of Payment do You Think Will be Best for BitShares, Miners, and the Pool?

MINING UIA Option Only (Mining Interest not Investment)
Payout Via Stratum Password Field
Hybrid default UIA Option Payments in MINING with option to specify Password Field (much more time and work)
I have no idea and don't want to read, just whatever will make me more money
Some other way that is better (provide a post below describing it)
MINING UIA - I WANT TO INVEST!! Freak'en hurry up and get that started NOW!

Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!  (Read 1190 times)

Offline BunkerChain Labs

[POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« on: June 06, 2015, 06:27:19 PM »

We are getting updates done to the pool that include reworking our payment system so its automated.

In order to move up and onward as a pool, we need to find creative ways to keep the pool without a fee, and continue to be able to provide bonuses without continuing to rely on the delegate pay.

We have two options in front of us that with the help and feedback from nethy and others we can do:

MINING UIA Option

Payouts in this option will all be done in UIA and be pegged in value to BTS (Dan suggested BTC in the hangout Friday, but I don't think we should continue to peg our pool to BTC as a BitShares project).

This means when you want to use your balance, you can use the DEX to convert the MINING to BitUSD or BigGOLD etc.

This has the potential to create a whole new market pair across multiple assets as well. How that will look or work is all speculative at this stage because nothing like this has been done.

With this option, we will be able to capture the cost of spreads and transactions that we currently are losing to 3rd parties, and be able to bring it back to the pool.

For those that leave the MINING as a balance, we have the idea to use a portion of the balance to then rent additional hashing power to futher boost the pool and then have the gains return to the pool. It would be quite easy to have all the transactions of this respective process to show the cost of hash purchased and earnings on it's own and when it distributes the bonus to the pool. In other words, the longer you leave your balance in MINING, the further we can multiply it.

With this option we would integrate with Metaexchange as well for a MINING:BTC or even a MINING:LTC in and out option. This would still generate transctions for bitshares, but not as much volume. However, this would allow us to to capture what we normally lose in spreads and fees in conversion from bitUSD:BTC.

This will give the pool a number of sustainable sources for revenues, while being able to remain a no fee network with bonus.

The volume increases and such to BitShares would occur only at the specific times that miners choose to convert their MINING to a BitAsset. The rest of the time earnings are circulating in the pool to make it profitable and sustainable for the miners.


Payout Via Stratum Password Field

In your mining config you enter your username and password. For the username you enter your BTS address now, and put x for password like most anonymous pools.

Instead of putting x, we would enable you to be able to put BitUSD or BitGOLD for example as your preference of payment.

When payments are processed, this would be the way you receive your payment.

With this method, greater volume of BTS is created immediately due to the collateralize of all the assets.

You get the payout immediately in the format you want without needing to do any conversions but still will pay the same to 3rd parties to later convert to BTC etc.

On the pool side of things, we continue to lose in spreads and transaction fees to third parties that reduces overall payouts, and we have no sources of revenue to generate bonuses. In other words, we remain where we are now relying completely on the delegate pay until we later make other updates.

Those are the two options at present we have to vote on primarily now. If you have other suggestions and are familiar with mining pools and the challenges surrounding this area, now is a good time to contribute. :)


Hybrid?

There is also the possibility of combining these two options. This can get a bit complicated on our end though as we would need to come up with some method that rewards those who support the pool keeping a MINING balance, while not allowing those that want to withdraw immediately to bitAsset ride on their backs. It seems like a lot of work for something that I feel ultimately may in the short term increase volume for Bitshares, but in the long term, keeps the pool from being able to grow out and serve more miners... which in turn means more volume.


MINING "Investment" Potential
Perhaps it can work where the balances generated from MINING would be paid out to MINING holders only. This would create an investment opportunity for those looking to increase their BTS via MINING. Because we are working with MINING holdings only, the hash power we purchase would produce returns that are completely transparent. It basically takes the learning curve out of mining and renting hash or cloud mining, and just makes it as easy as putting money into the pool.

So say you have 500k BTS and you want to see it grow. You could buy MINING at the BTS peg of 500k MINING. Our system would add your purchase as shares to the pool hashing system. You could then follow the progress of the systems added hash paid for and the payouts its receives as a pool and determine how much is being earned pretty much in real time. Shares will be distributed to members most likely on an hourly basis.

You could SELL your MINING at any time  on any one of the bitAsset or BTS markets at the BTS peg rate... or possibly even lower or higher if these markets start to take off with arbitrage opportunities to move between what is avaialble in the MINING markets vs. BTS.

Sooooooooo....

I am bringing this to the public here to vote to see what kind of feedback I get, because I have gotten different reactions across the board to these ideas from various conversations I have had with miners.

I also keep in mind the saying.. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” often attributed to Henry Ford. In this case, it's difficult to see what could be a step up compared to what is known.

We need to innovate this space to make it more sustainable, and profitable for everyone. To me the utilization of the UIA will bring a new dimension for miners that adds value to the pool in a way that other pools simply do not.

There are other ways we can start to make it self sustaining in the future, but this is one measure that would see more immediate results towards both growing the pool and creating revenue streams that take us off the delegates.. which btw we STILL need the other 5 voted in! (if you haven't voted yet, go to http://vote.bunkermining.com and get your votes in NOW!)

That's all for now.. looking forward to your feedback!

PS: http://vote.bunkermining TOO!!!!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2015, 06:59:10 PM »
Quote
MINING "Investment" Potential
Perhaps it can work where the balances generated from MINING would be paid out to MINING holders only. This would create an investment opportunity for those looking to increase their BTS via MINING. Because we are working with MINING holdings only, the hash power we purchase would produce returns that are completely transparent. It basically takes the learning curve out of mining and renting hash or cloud mining, and just makes it as easy as putting money into the pool.

So say you have 500k BTS and you want to see it grow. You could buy MINING at the BTS peg of 500k MINING. Our system would add your purchase as shares to the pool hashing system. You could then follow the progress of the systems added hash paid for and the payouts its receives as a pool and determine how much is being earned pretty much in real time. Shares will be distributed to members most likely on an hourly basis.

You could SELL your MINING at any time  on any one of the bitAsset or BTS markets at the BTS peg rate... or possibly even lower or higher if these markets start to take off with arbitrage opportunities to move between what is avaialble in the MINING markets vs. BTS.
I think any way that a casual user can 'make easy money' at the same time as benefiting the pool is going to be quite popular.

I also like the ease of use of the password field for miners, but ultimately miners are chasing profit. If incentivizing outside users to invest in the pool increases the profitability of the pool for miners then I think that is the way to go. 

EDIT: It's also a great advert to attract new users. If payouts can be taken in bitUSD and steady profit can be demonstrated then it should be a lot easier to get a new user to download a wallet and buy the asset. They don't need to care about mining, bitshares or anything other than their balance increasing daily without having to lift a finger.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 07:03:18 PM by Permie »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline proctologic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2015, 10:04:05 PM »
 +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2015, 10:10:32 PM »
Quote
MINING "Investment" Potential
Perhaps it can work where the balances generated from MINING would be paid out to MINING holders only. This would create an investment opportunity for those looking to increase their BTS via MINING. Because we are working with MINING holdings only, the hash power we purchase would produce returns that are completely transparent. It basically takes the learning curve out of mining and renting hash or cloud mining, and just makes it as easy as putting money into the pool.

So say you have 500k BTS and you want to see it grow. You could buy MINING at the BTS peg of 500k MINING. Our system would add your purchase as shares to the pool hashing system. You could then follow the progress of the systems added hash paid for and the payouts its receives as a pool and determine how much is being earned pretty much in real time. Shares will be distributed to members most likely on an hourly basis.

You could SELL your MINING at any time  on any one of the bitAsset or BTS markets at the BTS peg rate... or possibly even lower or higher if these markets start to take off with arbitrage opportunities to move between what is avaialble in the MINING markets vs. BTS.
I think any way that a casual user can 'make easy money' at the same time as benefiting the pool is going to be quite popular.

I also like the ease of use of the password field for miners, but ultimately miners are chasing profit. If incentivizing outside users to invest in the pool increases the profitability of the pool for miners then I think that is the way to go. 

EDIT: It's also a great advert to attract new users. If payouts can be taken in bitUSD and steady profit can be demonstrated then it should be a lot easier to get a new user to download a wallet and buy the asset. They don't need to care about mining, bitshares or anything other than their balance increasing daily without having to lift a finger.

Awesome feedback.

I just spent an hour on the phone with one of the guys from metaexchange talking about all this. He brought me back to an idea I wanted to bring to this project further out, but might be able to do so with their help sooner than later.

Instead of having MINING pegged to BTS, we would not have a peg, but instead operate it as a crypto index.

I cannot say for sure which crypto would make up this index, but the value of the MINING UIA would then act as an index to all these various cryptos that we will hold.

We will be able to also enable exchange of them.. for example MINING:DOGE MINING:LTC so that someone with DOGE could pass through metaexchange and be able to buy the MINING index which in turn continues to grow and hold these coins.

By doing this we are creating a more stable asset which, since it is of it's own as an index of the coins we hold, would create a whole new trading opportunity in the DEX markets.

This means holders of MINING would have it continue to grow like outlined above with growing hash power.

Reserves we carry are going to enable us to open markets for other coins with metaexchange as well. For example. if a major holder of DOGE wants to get into BitShares, he will be able to trade his DOGE for BTS, or even other pairs like the NASDAQ. See where this is all going?

What are your thoughts on this?

Better to create our own index, or should be peg to BTS?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2015, 10:57:42 PM »
Quote
We will be able to also enable exchange of them.. for example MINING:DOGE MINING:LTC so that someone with DOGE could pass through metaexchange and be able to buy the MINING index which in turn continues to grow and hold these coins.

By doing this we are creating a more stable asset which, since it is of it's own as an index of the coins we hold, would create a whole new trading opportunity in the DEX markets.

This means holders of MINING would have it continue to grow like outlined above with growing hash power.

Reserves we carry are going to enable us to open markets for other coins with metaexchange as well. For example. if a major holder of DOGE wants to get into BitShares, he will be able to trade his DOGE for BTS, or even other pairs like the NASDAQ. See where this is all going?
An index of lots of the top 20 coins would attract new investors who wouldn't even have to know about mining pools.
Anyone wanting quick and easy exposure to the entire crypto economy could hold your asset. I quite like the name MINING, but does such branding limit it's appeal to other investors?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2015, 11:06:21 PM »
Quote
We will be able to also enable exchange of them.. for example MINING:DOGE MINING:LTC so that someone with DOGE could pass through metaexchange and be able to buy the MINING index which in turn continues to grow and hold these coins.

By doing this we are creating a more stable asset which, since it is of it's own as an index of the coins we hold, would create a whole new trading opportunity in the DEX markets.

This means holders of MINING would have it continue to grow like outlined above with growing hash power.

Reserves we carry are going to enable us to open markets for other coins with metaexchange as well. For example. if a major holder of DOGE wants to get into BitShares, he will be able to trade his DOGE for BTS, or even other pairs like the NASDAQ. See where this is all going?
An index of lots of the top 20 coins would attract new investors who wouldn't even have to know about mining pools.
Anyone wanting quick and easy exposure to the entire crypto economy could hold your asset. I quite like the name MINING, but does such branding limit it's appeal to other investors?

It's a service.. not an investment product. Purchasing the token only provides a service. Very important to note this.

Are you suggesting that investors are not interested in MINING? Really? :)

Mining to most is synonymous with precious minerals.. when you say mining investors hear gold, silver, diamonds. Not sure anything much more appealing than that. :)

Invest in a crypto operation that is producing real GOLD and SILVER?! YES PLEASE! :)
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 11:25:50 PM by DataSecurityNode »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline nethyb

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 198
    • View Profile
  • BTS: nethyb
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2015, 02:10:53 AM »
I voted for the 'Stratum Password Field'... for payouts for the following reasons...

It's simpler - I can understand it right away, I don't have to do any extra steps, it's provides me with new functionality - I can choose to get paid in BTS or BitGold.

And I expect that I'll have access to the feature sooner as it'll be easier to implement with a tie into services like metaexchange.

In relation to the UIA...

The primary reason for issuing appears to be 'we will be able to capture the cost of spreads and transactions that we currently are losing to 3rd parties, and be able to bring it back to the pool.'
It appears as though the tx fees, spread are being passed to the miner, or the pool will  still have to pay them at some point.
As the UIA will be pegged to BTS, I'll have to sell my MINING to get BTS, to then sell for BitUSD, BTC, BitSilver etc. Unless you intend to place big buy walls for all Pairs.
And if the pool is running multiple MINING Pair DEX markets -  won't you have to cover a spread to be able to payout MINING at the peg

It seems there is more work for the miner with UIA -- and I suspect the apparent complexity may turn off potential new miners coming to the pool in the first place

I like the concept of the MINING  Investment - but I'd suggest looking at that as separate parallel opportunity - don't tie it in to primary pool payouts - yet!

Let me mine BitGOLD profitably please - quick, before someone other pool claims it  :)

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2015, 04:11:19 AM »
I voted for the 'Stratum Password Field'... for payouts for the following reasons...

It's simpler - I can understand it right away, I don't have to do any extra steps, it's provides me with new functionality - I can choose to get paid in BTS or BitGold.

And I expect that I'll have access to the feature sooner as it'll be easier to implement with a tie into services like metaexchange.

In relation to the UIA...

The primary reason for issuing appears to be 'we will be able to capture the cost of spreads and transactions that we currently are losing to 3rd parties, and be able to bring it back to the pool.'
It appears as though the tx fees, spread are being passed to the miner, or the pool will  still have to pay them at some point.
As the UIA will be pegged to BTS, I'll have to sell my MINING to get BTS, to then sell for BitUSD, BTC, BitSilver etc. Unless you intend to place big buy walls for all Pairs.
And if the pool is running multiple MINING Pair DEX markets -  won't you have to cover a spread to be able to payout MINING at the peg

It seems there is more work for the miner with UIA -- and I suspect the apparent complexity may turn off potential new miners coming to the pool in the first place

I like the concept of the MINING  Investment - but I'd suggest looking at that as separate parallel opportunity - don't tie it in to primary pool payouts - yet!

Let me mine BitGOLD profitably please - quick, before someone other pool claims it  :)


The point of ease of use I don't think is that much different from the way things are now.

At present everyone gets paid out in bitUSD. They have to go into the DEX or go to metaexchange to get that converted to BTC if they are looking to take it out in some other currency like BTC.

Initially we would have to have penny BUYs on the DEX to establish the rates miners can expect to be able to sell at instantly and then have a bot monitor the markets so if there is a buy order for the matching amount it will fill it. This assumes we go with the BTS peg approach.

I have proposed initially in the peg of MINING to be to BTS, but upon further discussions have also considered the peg being a new market asset based on an index of the coins we mine and hold. This would significantly reduce our overhead and losses in conversions each day and would turn the MINING DEX into a new and real market where trading would be active.

In that scenario if we are maintaining an index we would maintain multiple bitasset balances and would be able to set SELL walls in the most popular markets regularly. Note that this is possible because we would not just have miner generated liquidity, but now additional investment coming into the pool that brings more hashing to the pool.

Those that specify a particular asset and do not participate in the UIA are still going to benefit from the increased hashing of the pool generating greater profitability, but they simply will not partake in the added bonuses.

I dunno.. are miners really going to want less significantly less profitability in trade of one or two more clicks? If I was given the choice to either keep getting my balance paid out to me daily in one asset or another, or have the option to have my balance contribute to more hashing power that can increase my overall return significantly at least until I choose to withdraw, I would just let it stay in the UIA and enjoy the stellar returns on my mining... When I need/want the balance to pay bills or whatever, I can just go to the market and take it out however I like in a few clicks.

Regardless of these possible changes.. I think I would consider your answer to be more of a Hybrid vote. Between the two options, getting payouts via password field would take a shorter amount of time to implement and likely would be first to happen of the two. Then later we would look at the UIA system.

Following this though, if we are giving users the ability to enter their payout preference in the password field, they should be able to specify our UIA as well if they want to have their mining balance grow beyond what they mine until they choose to withdraw. Otherwise we are then making it more difficult for those miners to participate by making it completely separate from the pool.

Thus far of the votes, we are seeing overwhelming support for the UIA as an investment tool. Still rather early though and still like more feedback like Nethys.

Join in if you have some ideas on this!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tora62

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2015, 08:26:38 AM »
In order to move up and onward as a pool, we need to find creative ways to keep the pool without a fee, and continue to be able to provide bonuses without continuing to rely on the delegate pay.
...
With this option, we will be able to capture the cost of spreads and transactions that we currently are losing to 3rd parties, and be able to bring it back to the pool.

For those that leave the MINING as a balance, we have the idea to use a portion of the balance to then rent additional hashing power to futher boost the pool and then have the gains return to the pool. It would be quite easy to have all the transactions of this respective process to show the cost of hash purchased and earnings on it's own and when it distributes the bonus to the pool. In other words, the longer you leave your balance in MINING, the further we can multiply it.
...
This will give the pool a number of sustainable sources for revenues, while being able to remain a no fee network with bonus.
+5% +5% +5%
 IMO, if you look from a point of view of a "small" miner (several GPUs or one or two mining rigs), taking into consideration an observation that a "sum" of small miners can produce a considerable amount of distributed hashing power, this is the way to go.*
 Why? - 'cause lowering or abolishing fees and adding bonuses is a great way to add to "small" miner profitability; when paired up with the multiplication of balance and an aspect that "small" miners are mostly in for the long haul, my conclusion would be that this kind of a pool would be the go to pool for such miners because it is the most profitable solution (myself included).**
 
I dunno.. are miners really going to want less significantly less profitability in trade of one or two more clicks? If I was given the choice to either keep getting my balance paid out to me daily in one asset or another, or have the option to have my balance contribute to more hashing power that can increase my overall return significantly at least until I choose to withdraw, I would just let it stay in the UIA and enjoy the stellar returns on my mining... When I need/want the balance to pay bills or whatever, I can just go to the market and take it out however I like in a few clicks.
In respect to the first sentence/question of the above qoute; no, they wouldn't. IMO, a lot of miners date to the age when everything was more complicated (setups, types of pools, exchanging currencies, etc.), so a few clicks more or less present a negligible level of added complexity in respect to possible profitability.
In respect to the rest of the above quote: exactly :)

* - Some would argue that summed up power of "small" miners could be disregarded in the grander scheme of things, and that may as well be true. But, look at it from a different perspective; every one of those miners is a crypto-enthusiast who could benefit the community as a whole in marketing ways (spreading word about something new (BitShares) or driving web traffic to related resources (for instance "X11 70% boost...", and such), etc.), market fluidity ways (miners are going to trade), and ways of increasing the divergence of the community in general (miners have other skills as well :) ).

** - "long haul"; small volume mining is a way to gain crypto in terms of simplicity if looked upon it from a stance that trading some of your resources (electrical power) is simpler than a fiat-crypto1-cryptoN trading which involves fees, 3rd parties and so on. Takes more time to "amount to something", but it is basically headless and you already heave the equipment for it (if you're a gamer, chances are that you already own a high end GPU which idles when you are not gaming).

So i voted for the UIA option, because improving the pool and increasing profitability in such terms is a win-win scenario.
Also, I think that hybrid option should be considered in the long term, if circumstances allow it, because it lowers the bar of complexity ("understanding the whole thing") for entry-level ("junior") miners.
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0...

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
  • BTS: frodo
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2015, 10:07:55 AM »
UIA approach seems very interesting but I have some concerns/questions:

1. I don't think a crypto index is the best way to go. I would expect this to be more of a niche market. Or at least a different target audience than miners. Another concern with the index is that it could introduce liquidity problems. If you accumulate large amounts of coins with relatively shallow markets and eventually have to sell to cash people out.

2. How can you guarantee the peg when you invest a part of the BTS in hash power? So this is how I understood the idea, please correct me if I'm mistaken: The UIA is backed 100% by BTS or whatever the underlying assets are. And you just place appropriate buy and sell orders for users to get in and out?

Offline iHashFury

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2015, 12:04:10 PM »
Keep it simple until you have a stable user base and serous hashing power at the pool

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2015, 01:51:32 PM »
UIA approach seems very interesting but I have some concerns/questions:

1. I don't think a crypto index is the best way to go. I would expect this to be more of a niche market. Or at least a different target audience than miners. Another concern with the index is that it could introduce liquidity problems. If you accumulate large amounts of coins with relatively shallow markets and eventually have to sell to cash people out.

2. How can you guarantee the peg when you invest a part of the BTS in hash power? So this is how I understood the idea, please correct me if I'm mistaken: The UIA is backed 100% by BTS or whatever the underlying assets are. And you just place appropriate buy and sell orders for users to get in and out?

To answer some of your concerns as best I can with what is currently the idea:

1. The index would not hold 'all' coins.. only ones that have certain liquidity. There would be certain technical limitations, but we likely would hold something like a TOP 9. We would continue to mine and profit from the smaller coins that we can liquidate immediately, but that liquidation would go straight to BTC or LTC in the index. More likely BTC since that can be used for liquidity in our payouts and hashing power system.

2. I think I may not have been clear in presenting the idea of the index in contrast to the BTS peg. We would either operate by a BTS peg OR an index value of coins we hold. We couldnt do both at the same time. In regards to putting in.. they are getting a service out of it. Money in goes into the pool that powers provides more hash power to the pool that in turn produces more mined shares in the pool that are then paid back in MINING. Their MINING balance would just continue to grow on the shares returned from the pool. It can then be cashed out in any bitAsset of their choosing when they like. All holders of MINING will get shares paid out to them proportional to their holding.

Hope this answered some questions.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChain Labs

Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2015, 02:42:44 PM »
In order to move up and onward as a pool, we need to find creative ways to keep the pool without a fee, and continue to be able to provide bonuses without continuing to rely on the delegate pay.
...
With this option, we will be able to capture the cost of spreads and transactions that we currently are losing to 3rd parties, and be able to bring it back to the pool.

For those that leave the MINING as a balance, we have the idea to use a portion of the balance to then rent additional hashing power to futher boost the pool and then have the gains return to the pool. It would be quite easy to have all the transactions of this respective process to show the cost of hash purchased and earnings on it's own and when it distributes the bonus to the pool. In other words, the longer you leave your balance in MINING, the further we can multiply it.
...
This will give the pool a number of sustainable sources for revenues, while being able to remain a no fee network with bonus.
+5% +5% +5%
 IMO, if you look from a point of view of a "small" miner (several GPUs or one or two mining rigs), taking into consideration an observation that a "sum" of small miners can produce a considerable amount of distributed hashing power, this is the way to go.*
 Why? - 'cause lowering or abolishing fees and adding bonuses is a great way to add to "small" miner profitability; when paired up with the multiplication of balance and an aspect that "small" miners are mostly in for the long haul, my conclusion would be that this kind of a pool would be the go to pool for such miners because it is the most profitable solution (myself included).**
 
I dunno.. are miners really going to want less significantly less profitability in trade of one or two more clicks? If I was given the choice to either keep getting my balance paid out to me daily in one asset or another, or have the option to have my balance contribute to more hashing power that can increase my overall return significantly at least until I choose to withdraw, I would just let it stay in the UIA and enjoy the stellar returns on my mining... When I need/want the balance to pay bills or whatever, I can just go to the market and take it out however I like in a few clicks.
In respect to the first sentence/question of the above qoute; no, they wouldn't. IMO, a lot of miners date to the age when everything was more complicated (setups, types of pools, exchanging currencies, etc.), so a few clicks more or less present a negligible level of added complexity in respect to possible profitability.
In respect to the rest of the above quote: exactly :)

* - Some would argue that summed up power of "small" miners could be disregarded in the grander scheme of things, and that may as well be true. But, look at it from a different perspective; every one of those miners is a crypto-enthusiast who could benefit the community as a whole in marketing ways (spreading word about something new (BitShares) or driving web traffic to related resources (for instance "X11 70% boost...", and such), etc.), market fluidity ways (miners are going to trade), and ways of increasing the divergence of the community in general (miners have other skills as well :) ).

** - "long haul"; small volume mining is a way to gain crypto in terms of simplicity if looked upon it from a stance that trading some of your resources (electrical power) is simpler than a fiat-crypto1-cryptoN trading which involves fees, 3rd parties and so on. Takes more time to "amount to something", but it is basically headless and you already heave the equipment for it (if you're a gamer, chances are that you already own a high end GPU which idles when you are not gaming).

So i voted for the UIA option, because improving the pool and increasing profitability in such terms is a win-win scenario.
Also, I think that hybrid option should be considered in the long term, if circumstances allow it, because it lowers the bar of complexity ("understanding the whole thing") for entry-level ("junior") miners.

Wow...  +5% for so much insight into the market and where things are going. You are right, those gamers that have their systems idle when they are not gaming are a MASSIVE opportunity to bring heavy users of crypto currencies into bitshares. How many gamers would like to say they are 'BunkerMining' when they are not gaming? Ouuu I would say about 100%. :)

Given the response I am seeing so far I am becoming more apt towards:

1. Introduce the Password Payout Field as a feature with integrated metaexchange to our network. When we do this we are likely to have bitUSD as the continued default unless something else is specified.

2. Later develop the UIA hashing model and move from the bitUSD default payout to the MINING payout by default. Unless end users have specified another bitAsset.. we give them the freedom to choose.

Our site will give instructions on both and the miner will be able to choose which best suits them. People who would like to invest some of their crypto into the operation will be able to do so instantly using MetaExchange from our site converting bitAssets BTC LTC DOGE and so on.

The whole pool will benefit overall from the MINING UIA because our overall hashing power will be greater and therefore increase our profits for all users, but the added bonuses generated from the MINING are going to go directly proportional to those that are holders. Very simple for our already fair share payment system.

The MINING operations and transactions are all going to be burned to the wall of the Bitshares account that manages the MINING so that the transactions can be explored and audited by users.

So there will be a progression of features I think going forward. Even though I have heard some people say this is more complex, this is dramatically simpler than some initial ideas on how something similar to this might run. This method utilizes bitshares infrastructure is far more efficient and effective as a vehicle to mine and generate greater volumes of transactions, users, and DEX utilization.

I am still up in the air about how the calculation for the index might look. I noticed in another thread that NTX has done something of an index you can see here: coinoindex.com

They base their criteria on a few foundation elements but primarily on markets. Not all coins are minable, but they are heavily traded. I think this speaks to another comment about the MINING UIA appealing to a different type of user vs. the miner. I would prefer to base our choice of index on something other than just markets as these guys have done. Make it a factor but also include network elements to provide a more real contrast to the state of the coin. We would have to test out some formulas and see what makes sense. If you have ideas on this please share! :)

Anyways.. still like to hear more thoughts and ideas! Each one brings us closer to a better solution.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3307
    • View Profile
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2015, 03:00:07 PM »
With this index proposal you make this thread more and more inappropriate for the marketing subsection of this forum and more and more appropriate for the 'other projects' sub...

And while every project that has some kind of tokens (IOUs) on the BTS platform is probably beneficial to  Bitshares. And everybody is free to do whatever he/she likes with the business she owns, imo. I do not find appropriate each such project to receive delegate funding. Projects such as yours getting such funding should be held to a higher standard and required a higher level of return for the BTS system. I am truly sorry to see it but the first step that you took to separate this pool from Bitshares was to private-brand it as 'bunker-mining' as opposed to Bitshares-mining. Now you propose some index with no clear benefits to Bitshares, and yet you have probably 70 posts promoting the 7 delegates to subsidize the project.

So

What are the benefits for BItshares using the index approach to justify delegate subsidy?

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
  • BTS: frodo
Re: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2015, 03:01:43 PM »

1. The index would not hold 'all' coins.. only ones that have certain liquidity. There would be certain technical limitations, but we likely would hold something like a TOP 9. We would continue to mine and profit from the smaller coins that we can liquidate immediately, but that liquidation would go straight to BTC or LTC in the index. More likely BTC since that can be used for liquidity in our payouts and hashing power system.

Okay. IMO this is only slightly related to mining but having a crypto index would be nice anyway. So if you can, go for it.

2. I think I may not have been clear in presenting the idea of the index in contrast to the BTS peg. We would either operate by a BTS peg OR an index value of coins we hold. We couldnt do both at the same time. In regards to putting in.. they are getting a service out of it. Money in goes into the pool that powers provides more hash power to the pool that in turn produces more mined shares in the pool that are then paid back in MINING. Their MINING balance would just continue to grow on the shares returned from the pool. It can then be cashed out in any bitAsset of their choosing when they like. All holders of MINING will get shares paid out to them proportional to their holding.

Yes, I understand that. I just don't get how you would realize it. For simplicity let's just assume you would choose to peg the UIA 1:1 to BTS.
In this case you would have to hold x BTS if x MINING are held by miners/investors. Otherwise you can't hold the peg if BTS price rises (relatively to the value of  your hashpower investment). So where are you getting the money from to rent hash power as you have to hold all invested/mined BTS in order to guarantee the peg?

Differently said I don't understand how you can have an UIA that is 100% exposed to BTS price and yet generates "dividends" from mining.

The only way I could imagine it to work is by actually using the bonus payouts (generated by fees and spread) to rent the additional hashing power.

 

Google+