[BitShares 2.0 Technologies] User-Issued Assets (Discussion)

Methodise · August 30, 2015, 08:10:56 PM

Still looking forward to trading your ZAR.

Akado · August 21, 2015, 06:06:35 PM

http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/21/uber-plans-to-go-public-in-12-18-months-according-to-leaked-presentation/

:D

MrJeans · August 16, 2015, 04:02:44 PM

Quote from: MrJeans on July 04, 2015, 11:37:57 AM
Quote from: bytemaster on July 04, 2015, 04:00:43 AM
I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.
Cant we do both.

I think there is no good reason to allow me to register bitstamp.ZAR and the only reason I would do this is to scam people.
Why not remove that possibility.

I am looking to issue some UIAs and am therefore discovering what I would really like as a user.

Also if UIAs can float to establish any market pair, wouldnt they be distributed within the network making it difficult for users to find and know what are TRUE UIAs.

EDIT: also, each time a new cryptocurrency comes out that Bitstamp may wish to integrate with they would need to rush over to Bitshares and squat bitstamp.new_cryptocurrency before the scammer gets to it.

@bytemaster / stan
it would be super cool to get another answer from the devs on this.
~~I may even trade brownie points for an answer~~ I just cant do it, too painful!

Thom · July 04, 2015, 02:25:21 PM

Some interesting aspects of UIA issuance are being discussed in other threads too, like this one that raises the question of how BM's 3 tier privacy proposal would work with UIAs: potential conflicts in implementing privacy measures with regulated UIAs

This indicates to me the difficulty for such things to "peaceably coexist" in the same ecosystem; one or the other must be dominant, privacy or the power to hold / use / revoke assets.

MrJeans · July 04, 2015, 11:37:57 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on July 04, 2015, 04:00:43 AM
I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.

Cant we do both.

I think there is no good reason to allow me to register bitstamp.ZAR and the only reason I would do this is to scam people.
Why not remove that possibility.

I am looking to issue some UIAs and am therefore discovering what I would really like as a user.

Also if UIAs can float to establish any market pair, wouldnt they be distributed within the network making it difficult for users to find and know what are TRUE UIAs.

EDIT: also, each time a new cryptocurrency comes out that Bitstamp may wish to integrate with they would need to rush over to Bitshares and squat bitstamp.new_cryptocurrency before the scammer gets to it.

bytemaster · July 04, 2015, 04:00:43 AM

I think our preferred approach is to make the issuer account name prominent in the user interface.

MrJeans · July 03, 2015, 10:29:14 AM

Another question.

Are users allowed to register and reserve a prefix or suffix.
This would be important to allow them to create branding and direct people to their particular array of assets.

E.g DACx has the BDR. prefix. If someone else is allowed to create a scam BDR.something users may think its a DACx product and purchase it where they may be no 'underlying asset'.

If the registering of a prefix is not enabled I think this would be a huge plus for implementation in 2.0.
Users can pay a much higher fee to register a prefix and then a much smaller fee to register new names with that prefix. We dont want someone creating a scan bitstamp.USD and bitstamp.EUR and then running off with the sales.

MrJeans · July 02, 2015, 05:08:03 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on July 02, 2015, 04:49:08 PM
Quote from: MrJeans on July 02, 2015, 04:30:13 PM
Ive got some easy questions :)

What is the fee for issuing a UIA?

My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?

Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?

Because that is where all the volume went. BTS is more liquid than USD and NOTEs and BTS are highly corelated and thus have less volatility than USD vs NOTEs.

Makes sense.

What will the fee be on Bitshares 2.0 for issuing a UIA? I assume this may be adjusted by delegates.
If an exact figure cant be given, maybe an estimate of the fee?

bytemaster · July 02, 2015, 04:49:08 PM

Quote from: MrJeans on July 02, 2015, 04:30:13 PM
Ive got some easy questions :)

What is the fee for issuing a UIA?

My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?

Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?

Because that is where all the volume went. BTS is more liquid than USD and NOTEs and BTS are highly corelated and thus have less volatility than USD vs NOTEs.

MrJeans · July 02, 2015, 04:30:13 PM

Ive got some easy questions :)

What is the fee for issuing a UIA?

My understanding is that a UIA can be traded against any other asset on the network. So can trade against bitUSD and does not need to trade against BTS, correct?

Why then is the NOTES market NOTES:BTS when NOTES:bitUSD would make more sense?

monsterer · June 20, 2015, 09:37:15 PM

Quote from: Shentist on June 20, 2015, 08:09:16 PM
Maybe we can copy NXT. You can create the same name multiple times, but the Asset ID is unic!

They have a huge problem with scam assets with the same name as genuine assets. Much worse than squatters, IMO.

Shentist · June 20, 2015, 08:09:16 PM

would it be possible to introduce a different naming for UIAs and MPAs?

12 chars are not much, if you consider that most will create a minimum of 6 chars to prefend the high fee of 500.000 BTS.

Maybe we can copy NXT. You can create the same name multiple times, but the Asset ID is unic!

monsterer · June 20, 2015, 11:11:46 AM

Quote from: starspirit on June 20, 2015, 10:32:59 AM
So I think you're saying the issuer is expected to pay the feed producers directly from the revenue they receive. Since the issuer has the power to appoint and fire feed producers, and also to pay them as they please, could the issuer then be perceived as having some form of control over financial outcomes for users, and is that likely to pose any legal issue?

Privatised bitAssets only have 1 feed producer, who is presumably the issuer - that's what I understand anyway.

starspirit · June 20, 2015, 10:32:59 AM

Quote from: xeroc on June 20, 2015, 10:05:05 AM
Quote from: starspirit on June 20, 2015, 12:34:37 AM
What is the mechanism to pay feed producers for privatised Smartcoins?
I thought the issuer can take the trading fees

So I think you're saying the issuer is expected to pay the feed producers directly from the revenue they receive. Since the issuer has the power to appoint and fire feed producers, and also to pay them as they please, could the issuer then be perceived as having some form of control over financial outcomes for users, and is that likely to pose any legal issue?

xeroc · June 20, 2015, 10:05:05 AM

Quote from: starspirit on June 20, 2015, 12:34:37 AM
What is the mechanism to pay feed producers for privatised Smartcoins?

I thought the issuer can take the trading fees