Author Topic: [POLL] THROW DOWN! New Payment Options - Who Will Win?!  (Read 6997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode


Significantly more transactions per day
Unique innovative approach available only through BitShares
Supports at least two other BitShares projects, MetaExchange and CryptoSmith today, and likely more tomorrow
Attract not just miners, but crytpo traders to BitSharesSignificantly more users
Significantly more volume
Additional Markets activity and volume in the DEX between other MIAs

All our Delegate based bonuses and support would not be needed soon after this.




I will put it down in one more form for the benefit of everybody else reading it .

With your 'index approach' you stop trying to sell the main BTS product [BitAssets] and center on selling an IOU (and yes it is IOU, all user issued assets are).
The benefits for BTS go down return-wise, orders of magnitude by this change of priority. What is left is - how much transaction fees can your project bring to the Bitshares ecosystem.

You can claim 'Significantly more users Significantly more volume Additional Markets activity and volume in the DEX ' but the math on that is simple - to break even on 3  100% delegates, the delegate pay must be equal to the new transaction fee volume. Your 3 delegates will get paid 150 BTS for every round of 101 delegates [101 blocks].

With a fee of 0.1BTS, you must generate 150/101/0.1=14.85  ~~ 15 transactions each and every block to just break even...  GoodLuck bringing that much users/transactions...

In other words, changing the idea behind this pool from educating the miners of the benefits of stable bitAssets (i.e. selling the idea of bitAssets to them) to some pool that offer some services while using some features of Bitshares is changing the proposition for all stakeholders and makes the pool not worth sponsoring with delegates. That is one man's opinion of course, but none of your statement is convincing enough that I am even close to being wrong on this.

Well it seems once again I have not explained things well enough. There are three factors which I have tried to convey that make this analysis you just resented based on faulty premises and therefore end in a faulty conclusion.

I wish I had time at present to get into these details.. but it will have to wait for another day. You seem busy tearing apart bitshares 2.0 atm anyways with foregone conclusions. :)

In light of the upcoming changes later this year, what I have talked about here makes even more sense and gives us more vehicles to getting off delegate pay sooner than later.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

Significantly more transactions per day
Unique innovative approach available only through BitShares
Supports at least two other BitShares projects, MetaExchange and CryptoSmith today, and likely more tomorrow
Attract not just miners, but crytpo traders to BitSharesSignificantly more users
Significantly more volume
Additional Markets activity and volume in the DEX between other MIAs

All our Delegate based bonuses and support would not be needed soon after this.




I will put it down in one more form for the benefit of everybody else reading it .

With your 'index approach' you stop trying to sell the main BTS product [BitAssets] and center on selling an IOU (and yes it is IOU, all user issued assets are).
The benefits for BTS go down return-wise, orders of magnitude by this change of priority. What is left is - how much transaction fees can your project bring to the Bitshares ecosystem.

You can claim 'Significantly more users Significantly more volume Additional Markets activity and volume in the DEX ' but the math on that is simple - to break even on 3  100% delegates, the delegate pay must be equal to the new transaction fee volume. Your 3 delegates will get paid 150 BTS for every round of 101 delegates [101 blocks].

With a fee of 0.1BTS, you must generate 150/101/0.1=14.85  ~~ 15 transactions each and every block to just break even...  GoodLuck bringing that much users/transactions...

In other words, changing the idea behind this pool from educating the miners of the benefits of stable bitAssets (i.e. selling the idea of bitAssets to them) to some pool that offer some services while using some features of Bitshares is changing the proposition for all stakeholders and makes the pool not worth sponsoring with delegates. That is one man's opinion of course, but none of your statement is convincing enough that I am even close to being wrong on this.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
This post from a previous thread is relevant to your profit model and is worth repeating here!

There is over 4000BTC in value being mined every day between bitcoin and all the alts, and we aim to capture 9% of that space in a short period with our plan and run it straight into BitShares.

You're aiming to capture ~10% of that market? Sounds pretty ambitious and I'm a little sceptic.  Att the moment, 3600 BTC are mined everyday (that's what I recall reading around, I would appreciate if someone would confirm this).

Also, only small miners will move into alt coin mining, if not, they wouldn't continue to mine bitcoin this far. Meaning I don't see a significant amount of people move from btc mining into alt mining, this situation can change however depending on btc price and mining difficulty.

That leaves us with 400 btc per day, which is already the ~10% you claim to achieve. That means you will make almost >90% of alt coin miners move into your pool? I want it to happen but I honestly don't see it happening. I know I'm doing a lot of assumptions but I just can't see where you took those numbers from.

Also, I know it's relative as I understand it's difficult to put a timespan on these things, but assuming everything goes well (you have the monetary support you need with your delegates, etc), for when do you predict this to happen?

Sure.. to clarify some points.. we are going to be supporting more algos including bitcoin. Large cloud mining operations wil point to various pools for profitability and distribution of difficulty control. Once we are established part of the plan is to seek out agreements with these operations to bring hash to our pool. They want to mine not just bitcoin but anyting else that will support more profitability... for example merge mining. That's where we will position ourselves. So long as we are reliable (bunker helloooo), consistent in our payouts, and of course profitable.. they will happily send their hash our way.

Smaller miners are mining everything they can that makes money. There is more agility in alts because they have often higher profitability at certain points than bitcoin. Same thing big or small though, be reliable, be consistent.. be transparent.. and be most of all profitable.. and they will point their hash our way. I personally know of a handful of small miners whos combined hash generate close to 80BTC a day who are willing to give our pool a try once its ready. There are still a fair number of 'small' miners. Would only take impressing those handful with what they see to make them talk to all the others.

That's all the push... then there is the pull.. we will buy up our own hashing power to boost our overall pool.. leasing, cloud mining, and maybe even some of our own hardware (gpu only.. nuts to buy any asic whatever today).


So to reach 9% would mean approaching close to 400btc a day. That's further along when we have a convergence of pool, exchange, and market. Nonetheless you can see it's quite reachable from a few vectors even earlier on in our pool only operation.

The prospect of mining REAL GOLD and REAL SILVER are going to capture a segment also that wants to move away from bitcoin and/or alts to get real assets. There are potentially new markets even who will see this as an opportunity and will want to buy hash power from us and/or perhaps one of our partner cloud mining sources to mine for real gold silver.

So am not just looking at the current market, but the new markets which we will create.

Hope that answered your questions.
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline mangou007

Tough question, seems hard to find a good answer...
Every possibility has its for and against, password field is just the easier way around... But mining pool sounds really interesting and probably the best way to go as IMO..
BitShares French ConneXion, le portail francophone de BitShares
BitShares French ConneXion, the BitShares French gateway
www.bitsharesfcx.com

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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?


Significantly more transactions per day
Significantly more users
Significantly more volume
Additional Markets activity and volume in the DEX between other MIAs
Unique innovative approach available only through BitShares
Supports at least two other BitShares projects, MetaExchange and CryptoSmith today, and likely more tomorrow
Attract not just miners, but crytpo traders to BitShares
All our Delegate based bonuses and support would not be needed soon after this.



So what would you suggest that would make the pool continue without relying on delegate payouts forever?
What payout forever are you  talking about? You promised to make it the most profitable pool using delegate pay - you are months and months away from that goal (if ever). So reach the first goal before looking to change it to private self sufficient pool


To be clear, when you say 'you', it's not me.. its Rgcrypto, fuzzy, xeldal, and me that are all supporting this project. It was bytemaster and nethyb who ran this before me that made it into the most profitable pool and then got a delegate to continue that and get further development.. until the marketcap fell through and the amount of a 100% delegate didn't even cover the profitability part.

We are months and months away from that goal because we haven't gotten enough delegates voted in to get there. We are dominating in one algo, but not in all of them. We just don't have the funds. Thus the bid for the multiple delegates. It's not the number of delegates that matters, it's the amount that they can bring to the project to make it go forward. The low market cap forces this reality with the current system we have to work with.

Perhaps you don't agree with this, but my very first objective to becoming a 100% Delegate, it to STOP being a 100% as FAST as possible. Every plan going in to becoming a 100% Delegate, and I have posted this in the past, should have an exit strategy. I have lost count of how many times now I have repeated over and over that the multiple delegates are TEMPORARY.

I have no desire to occupy 7 of them for a lengthy period of time. I want this to stand on it's own legs and become the volume and user base powerhouse driver to BitShares I know, and many others here know it can be. This number of delegates is all going to be moot in the coming months. I have stated such in our bid. A single worker proposal would be better suited. We have no business being a witness for this project. Nonetheless, we are working with what is available with the system we got.

What you are saying now about reaching our first goal before going forward seems to suggest that we should just continue to suffer personal losses, take delegate payments towards the project that aren't enough, and just not do anything until we get the delegates elected? That's a plan for failure in my estimation, and will just cause this project to suffer a slow death.

Shortly after we took over this project, a 100% delegate pay floated around $10 a day. It's gone up since then thankfully, but with those amount of funds available, we can't even have a reasonable discussion with a developer about the things we need to get done. The response I have actually gotten has been a 'well lets talk when you get the rest of the delegates elected.. it would be at least a good start' << yes.. this in response to 7 100% delegates pay.

You keep repeating the number 7 as though its some massive number, and while historically its the highest ever (currently 4 100% delegates to btsnow is the highest), it doesn't really amount to much in terms of funds.We are working within its limitations of how the system works to get funded by the blockchain, and the reality of the market cap on what a 100% delegate produces simply is not enough. At the time we got our bid started, if we managed to get ALL of them voted in, we would realize the equivalent to a minimum wage payout. It would help with bonuses, but our development of the pool would have to be carefully staged with the limited resources.


At present i am operating at about a loss of $75 a day with this project which does absolutely nothing else but help bitshares.
I guess that is true, BUT I asked you how many delegates you need to make it non-money loosing for you and most profitable for the miners. You never answered that...my guess is far more than 7.


At the current market cap where it is now, we actually would be in the perfect position to move forward with all the dev needed going forward, and providing necessary bonuses while we grow.

Keep in mind back then I didn't have this index idea. The index changes the dynamics a little bit, because it makes the pool no longer rely 100% on miners pointing their hash power towards the pool. It creates a service that provides an investment vehicle for funds to come into the pool that contribute to our hashing power and allow us to grow faster and thus become less reliant on the delegate pay to provide sufficient bonuses to be the most profitable pool.

Again though, takes temporary funds to develop something like this that in all likelihood is going to provide no return for the pool, but will payback in multiples to bitshares.



 All the points you bring up as though this is a gone private project are misplaced.
No they are not!  Using delegate pay to just build the pool infrastructure and quickly replace the bitshares product (bitUSD/Silver/Gold) with some index of coins you fancy is not enough return for the BTS ecosystem. You may find it more than enough, I am just stating my opinion - it is not nearly worth 7 delegates.

This is a mischaracterization of the service.. and perhaps why your position is misplaced. Likely my fault for not providing more details to it, but I also blame the format of the forum to make it all disjointed. So lets clarify that.

The entire pool infrastructure revolves around bitshares no matter what.

To mine the pool YOU MUST have a BitShares account. No escaping that.

To get paid out, YOU MUST use the BitShares network.

This index idea provides a bridge for the rest of the cryptoverse to have an easier entry point into BitShares.

Keep in mind the index is created out of a UIA and will be actively traded against other pairs in the DEX. Not in Cryptsy, not in Bittrex.. the BitShares DEX.

What I read from what you wrote is that this index would be some external thing that is about all the other coins.. it's not. The mining operation mines these coins.. it's where all the revenues are generated and funneled into BitShares. Beyond that, turning every miner into a BitShares user regularly has orders of magnitude of value and return to BitShares. The idea of the index using the UIA system would bring even further exposure to these users about what BitShares has to offer.

The idea of the index is to give it a value that is more representative of the crypto space which we are mining. If I wanted to take the 'like everyone else' approach to it, I would not have an index at all, and just peg the UIA to BTC. Then we can continue to be happy little passive bitcoin maximalists that rise and fall with it like everyone else. This is a BitShares project for BItShare, so we need to go against the grain, and produce something innovative, and useful. If I was going to take the peg approach, you can see I opted to take the risk of hitching it to BTS. It's all moot now though, the MINING operating on an index value of the major coins we mine as well as other crytpo assets we support makes more sense, provides innovation, and is useful.. how useful I suppose will depend on the formula we eventually settle on for what factors we contribute to the index.

Please tell me what is nearly worth 7 delegates? Exactly what do you think 7 delegates worth at the current market cap? What exactly is the measure of worth you are referring to? Perhaps if we can quantify these I can better understand your concerns.


Integrating another part of BitShares into the operation provides a showcase to all our users of what they can do too with bitshares... you don't consider that marketing?
As I said earlier - there is some value in every IOU on the BTS DEX BUT -Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!


Refer to my question above regarding the quantitative value of worth so we can start comparing apples to apples.

To further clarify the 'some value to every IOU'. I will say it again, the index is a service idea, not an IOU. You buy MINING, you get hashing power service as part of the pool.

For miners who are actively mining, for their payout to go into MINING and get additional hashing power on their balance means greater profitability for them from the service vs. having their balance just sit there waiting to be paid out.

Regarding this as some kind of financial product is misplaced if this was how it was taken.


Bitshares needs usercases and if there is any to be had that is actually working and producing results this is it.
Same as above - some value in each and every IOU - Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!


Same as above too.. please share the quantitative worth of a delegate and what must be delivered in your estimation to be worthy. Others may not agree with it, but at least you have a chance to set the bar here. :)

You are welcome to make recommendations that would address your concerns and make the pool profit on its own so it doesn't need delegate pay to operate.. looking forward to hearing them.
I did not promise to make this thing work - you did! I am here to  try prevent abusing the system while you work on that.


I did not make a promise either. You just said that. However, it's abundantly clear I am working on this; hard. Of all the projects I am working on, this one is a big loser for me financially. My prospects for seeing money out of this project are slim. The push back on getting the funding we need to make it work, make it even slimmer. There is a good reason why the mining poolscape is littered with broken links to what were once mining pools. The profitability is slim and the odds of ROI extremely difficult to realize. The ability to innovate takes major development resources. Only pools that did any kind of 'innovation' if you could call it that, were veiled ponzie schemes. This is why THIS BitShares project has such an advantage.. we got this awesome system for providing necessary funding to create something that can innovate the space and make it compete in ways others cannot. All it takes is a vote.

Do you mind answering the initial question though
What are the benefits for BItshares using the index approach to justify delegate subsidy?

The right questions will get the right answers. Provided an answer to your question above.


My answers above are in Yellow.

Hope this helps clarify on some points. I can see there are some misunderstandings, which is to be expected since this is something that is completely new and innovative. For me I can see it all clear as day, but I know without going into very great detail a lot of that gets lost in sharing it in text on the forum. It's just an idea at this stage. Which is why I am still seeking feedback about the merits of the different options.

I have a programmer working on the new core platform for the pool that will enable us to support additional algos and coins while introducing newer methods of mining that will enhance our profitability. I have been operating the pool for about 6 weeks now and everything has gone extremely slow because the funds just aren't there. Despite all this, we continue to be the biggest referrer of new users to BitShares than anyone else by a factor of nearly 1000%. This fact alone in my estimation, says this is worthy of additional funds to grow.

Go to http://vote.bunkermining.com to find out how you can Vote for BitShares growth! :)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2015, 06:57:19 am by DataSecurityNode »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
How did I accuse you?

I just said that I do not intend to put a business plan for you and am not here for that [putting business decisions for you]. The only thing I do is make sure YOUR plans are NOT abusing the system.

And I ask the question 2 times...should I write a third time????????






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



« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 07:11:40 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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?


So what would you suggest that would make the pool continue without relying on delegate payouts forever?
What payout forever are you  talking about? You promised to make it the most profitable pool using delegate pay - you are months and months away from that goal (if ever). So reach the first goal before looking to change it to private self sufficient pool

At present i am operating at about a loss of $75 a day with this project which does absolutely nothing else but help bitshares.
I guess that is true, BUT I asked you how many delegates you need to make it non-money loosing for you and most profitable for the miners. You never answered that...my guess is far more than 7.

 All the points you bring up as though this is a gone private project are misplaced.
No they are not!  Using delegate pay to just build the pool infrastructure and quickly replace the bitshares product (bitUSD/Silver/Gold) with some index of coins you fancy is not enough return for the BTS ecosystem. You may find it more than enough, I am just stating my opinion - it is not nearly worth 7 delegates.

Integrating another part of bitshares into the operation provides a showcase to all our users of what they can do too with bitshares... you don't consider that marketing?
As I said earlier - there is some value in every IOU on the BTS DEX BUT -Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!

Bitshares needs usercases and if there is any to be had that is actually working and producing results this is it.
Same as above - some value in each and every IOU - Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!


You are welcome to make recommendations that would address your concerns and make the pool profit on its own so it doesn't need delegate pay to operate.. looking forward to hearing them.
I did not promise to make this thing work - you did! I am here to  try prevent abusing the system while you work on that.





Do you mind answering the initial question though
What are the benefits for BItshares using the index approach to justify delegate subsidy?

Hold on right there... you just accused me and/or this project of 'abusing the system'. Active and present tense.

Justify in detail such a serious accusation.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode


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.

The BTS isn't held it's converted to hashing power via various means of leasing hashing power. It's a service. If we were going to go the way of the bts peg.. we would operate with some reserve of bts that comes out of the mining profits. In other words we would be continually cycling the BTC payments for leased hash while taking a reserve in BTS for potential payout requests. We bear some risk by setting the peg to BTS, but as I expressed originally, this is a BItShares project, and not using BTS would not be right.

It works more efficiently and with no/less risk though if we have rig leasers and our own equipment to pay directly in BTS vs. BTC. That's a whole other thing though.

I prefer not to go the way of the peg to BTS, but the way of the index market that make it more efficient in its liquidity. This way the exposure is minimal for everyone.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2015, 04:32:53 am by DataSecurityNode »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
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?


So what would you suggest that would make the pool continue without relying on delegate payouts forever?
What payout forever are you  talking about? You promised to make it the most profitable pool using delegate pay - you are months and months away from that goal (if ever). So reach the first goal before looking to change it to private self sufficient pool

At present i am operating at about a loss of $75 a day with this project which does absolutely nothing else but help bitshares.
I guess that is true, BUT I asked you how many delegates you need to make it non-money loosing for you and most profitable for the miners. You never answered that...my guess is far more than 7.

 All the points you bring up as though this is a gone private project are misplaced.
No they are not!  Using delegate pay to just build the pool infrastructure and quickly replace the bitshares product (bitUSD/Silver/Gold) with some index of coins you fancy is not enough return for the BTS ecosystem. You may find it more than enough, I am just stating my opinion - it is not nearly worth 7 delegates.

Integrating another part of bitshares into the operation provides a showcase to all our users of what they can do too with bitshares... you don't consider that marketing?
As I said earlier - there is some value in every IOU on the BTS DEX BUT -Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!

Bitshares needs usercases and if there is any to be had that is actually working and producing results this is it.
Same as above - some value in each and every IOU - Not enough return to be worth 7 delegates!!!


You are welcome to make recommendations that would address your concerns and make the pool profit on its own so it doesn't need delegate pay to operate.. looking forward to hearing them.
I did not promise to make this thing work - you did! I am here to  try prevent abusing the system while you work on that.





Do you mind answering the initial question though
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 svk

Keep it simple until you have a stable user base and serous hashing power at the pool
+5%

UIA makes things too complicated imo, keep it simple and familiar if you want to attract new miners.

Envoyé de mon C6603 en utilisant Tapatalk

Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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?

So what would you suggest that would make the pool continue without relying on delegate payouts forever? At present i am operating at about a loss of $75 a day with this project which does absolutely nothing else but help bitshares. All the points you bring up as though this is a gone private project are misplaced. Integrating another part of bitshares into the operation provides a showcase to all our users of what they can do too with bitshares... you don't consider that marketing?

Bitshares needs usercases and if there is any to be had that is actually working and producing results this is it.

You are welcome to make recommendations that would address your concerns and make the pool profit on its own so it doesn't need delegate pay to operate.. looking forward to hearing them.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo

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.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
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 BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

iHashFury

  • Guest
Keep it simple until you have a stable user base and serous hashing power at the pool

Offline Frodo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: frodo
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 tora62

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tora62
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 BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline nethyb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nethyb
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 BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
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?
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
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 »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

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 | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+