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: Burning is Still Alive and Well  (Read 1514 times)

Offline bytemaster

Burning is Still Alive and Well
« on: June 09, 2015, 02:44:32 PM »

Under BitShares 2.0 the "reserve fund" is just another way of looking at "burned funds".    The maximum spending rate has not changed.   Therefore the "available supply" is technically unchanged.   Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap ;)

Assuming no workers are hired and witnesses are paid $100 per month and there are 101 witnesses then the network is "burning" shares assuming we can sign up 101 life time members per month (3 per day). 

So under the new model revenue and growth should both be dramatically increased.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11905
    • View Profile
    • BitShares.Europe
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2015, 02:49:16 PM »
Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap ;)
only if shareholders approve though :D

let's pull a ripple :D

edit: you meant it differently I guess ... only the workers can claim funds from the reserve fund .. and only under shareholder approval ..
but the "available supply" (what ever that means) .. could be set to 3.7B ... i like that idea ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu

Offline infovortice2013

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
    • View Profile
    • BitShares en español
  • BTS: traderx
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2015, 02:57:45 PM »
No bro burning is not alive, available bts no trend to cero more time. or i dont understand it.

 its new model that  should revenue and growth both be dramatically increased, ok.
New Keyoteeid: 5rUhuLCDWUA2FStkKVRTWYEqY1mZhwpfVdRmYEvMRFRD1bqYAL
new08/21 id 5Sjf3LMuYPSeNnjLYXmAoHj5Z6TPCmwmfXD6XwDmg27dwfQ

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11905
    • View Profile
    • BitShares.Europe
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2015, 03:01:15 PM »
No bro burning is not alive, available bts no trend to cero more time. or i dont understand it.
If the reserve fund runs empty no one will get paid any longer ..
however, there are streams that refill the reserve fund again .. like transaction fees etc ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2015, 03:28:36 PM »
what is the benefit of being a BTS holder again ? I fail to see that yet in this model .

Growth...right ..... but even if you bring 10 million people in the system , there is still a question : which form of dividend  is given to every shareholder ?

If you are betting on tons of people buy fixed amount of share resulted in the rise of price .... then XRP could claim the same thing .

« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 03:30:14 PM by btswildpig »
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11905
    • View Profile
    • BitShares.Europe
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2015, 03:31:06 PM »
what is the benefit of being a BTS holder again ? I fail to see that yet in this model .

Growth...right ..... but even if you bring 10 million people in the system , there is still a question : which form of dividend  is given to every shareholder ?
IMHO you don't need to pay a dividend to shareholders ..
also recall that every bitasset shorted will require BTS as collateral .. or any other bitasset  as collateral that is collateralized with BTS in the end ..

//edit: also, it may happen that MORE funds that go INTO the reserve fund than OUT of it!
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu

Offline Permie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 386
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BTS: krimduss
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2015, 03:56:14 PM »
I think the difference is that previously burned fees are now added to the funding pool. It's only once it has passed through this pool that the shareholders decide whether or not to burn it by paying a worker proposal to burn the income.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11905
    • View Profile
    • BitShares.Europe
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2015, 04:01:38 PM »
I think the difference is that previously burned fees are now added to the funding pool. It's only once it has passed through this pool that the shareholders decide whether or not to burn it by paying a worker proposal to burn the income.
So, are you proposing to reduce the initial reserve fund to the max reachable NOW! instead of max supply every been possible since the merger?
Sounds like a reasonable idea
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu

Offline Riverhead

Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2015, 04:30:48 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

BTC/MUSE Bridge! Buy REAL MUSE!  https://metaexchange.info/markets/MUSE/BTC

Offline svk

Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2015, 04:35:07 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

There might be something I'm not getting here but it doesn't seem to be the same thing at all to me, semantics or not. In BTS 1.0 or any other coin, burning means removing shares/coins from the total supply, never to be seen again. In BTS 2.0 it seems to me "burnt" funds will be recycled back to workers who are then free to release them back into circulation by selling them. What I am missing?
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3307
    • View Profile
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2015, 04:46:43 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.

Your post lead me to a different thought though.
BTS share are made of primarily carbon.
When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. :)
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
    • View Profile
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2015, 04:52:20 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

There might be something I'm not getting here but it doesn't seem to be the same thing at all to me, semantics or not. In BTS 1.0 or any other coin, burning means removing shares/coins from the total supply, never to be seen again. In BTS 2.0 it seems to me "burnt" funds will be recycled back to workers who are then free to release them back into circulation by selling them. What I am missing?

you are not missing anything .
the rough design assumes "it's totally logical for workers having the option to tap the fees instead of burning it  because the worker would work harder to get more people to use the system thus generate more fees for other workers to tap in order to get more new users providing fees for the next batch of worker to attract the next ,......"  sorry , my English is to bad to display such confusing image .... 
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline svk

Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2015, 04:53:41 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.

Your post lead me to a different thought though.
BTS share are made of primarily carbon.
When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. :)

OK so I re-read the post on project funding and I see what I was missing:

https://bitshares.github.io/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/

While it still doesn't qualify as what I consider burning, as long as the amount "burnt" or going into the reserve fund exceeds the amount being paid to witnesses and workers, the amount of freely available BTS will decrease. This will have the same effect as burning, as the shares will not be in circulation but held by the blockchain, however the funds may need to be released later on if the amount being "burnt" starts to decrease and falls below the sum of witness and worker pay.

In the end I think it's quite clever, it lets the blockchain build up a rainy-day fund of sorts that can be used to maintain witness and project funding in the case transaction volume falters for example.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3390
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 2.0 SmartCoin
  • BTS: fav
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2015, 04:54:45 PM »

Burn means different things to different people I suppose. In the case of BTS Graphene a burnt share is one that is held by the blockchain for possible release later. In BTS 1.0, and I believe most other instances, it means transferring of value to an address for which the private key is not known.

It's just semantics.

In the case of BTS Graphene the pool is drawn on to cover the costs of running the network. In BTS 1.0 where a burn is the traditional understanding the share holders would have to decide to hard fork to increase supply if the number of BTS got too low. Both scenarios result in the same thing - enough BTS to allow the protocol to exist. The difference is BTS Graphine doesn't require the hard fork.

Since the pool cannot be spent by anyone but only metered out to workers I feel it is basically burnt. It cannot be used in commerce.

I am with svk and many others. Recycling for reuse is not burning. And it is not just semantics.

Your post lead me to a different thought though.
BTS share are made of primarily carbon.
When they are recycled they are turned to.....Graphene of course. :)

this. however, we could just setup a worker dedicated to burning BTS.

Offline Ander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
    • View Profile
  • BTS: Ander
Re: Burning is Still Alive and Well
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2015, 04:57:54 PM »
Under BitShares 2.0 the "reserve fund" is just another way of looking at "burned funds".    The maximum spending rate has not changed.   Therefore the "available supply" is technically unchanged.   Except perhaps we could claim 3.7 Billion shares and pump coin market cap ;)

No don't do that, everyone would think BTS had diluted again and would dump.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+