According to http://peertracks.com/faq.html artistcoins can be bought using BitUSD.
BitUSD is on a different blockchain than Bitshares Music, so can someone explain the link between them? Do I open my BTSX wallet and send BitUSD to peertracks, and then it credits me with snoop dog coins?
Also, is peertracks.com basically an easy to use frontend to Bitshares Music, so that users dont need to download the wallet or know anything about crypto?
People funding their accounts would do so in BitUSD collateralized by Notes (the Units of the Music DAC) So they really are shopping for music using Notes.. 1USD worth of Notes all packaged into what we know as a BitUSD.
Can you elaborate a little on this? Does this mean that Bitshares Music will have its own bitUSD? So after Music launches we'll have two independent markets that are creating bitUSD?
Yes and this will enable cross chain trading.
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:
1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com
2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.
3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains.
4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.
5. If every Bitshares DAC has its own "BitUSD" will increase the complexity of its system, which brings unnecessary risk and mislead the development direction from the realy core fucntion.
I believe it's much better if we make all BitUSD fungible from BTSX only.
I think it should be still viable for atomic cross chain trading, maybe it will "lose" some operation efficiency compare to the two or more "BitUSD" scenario, but it do make sense from big picture.
Even if it's not viable or low efficiency base on typic atomic cross chain trading tech, but could we think about something like the concept of Bitcoin "sidechain"?
We need to evaluate the pros/cons of all options in details.
I don't really worry about someone just forks BTSX w/ additional functions(or just completely same) if we do not cooperate w/ them. They have no chance to beat BTSX since the real market peg needs time and resouce to grow up the system and BTSX is much mature than any latecomers. We could offer them options, use BTSX's "BitUSD" by atomic cross chain trading or sidechain, or no cooperation/support from BTSX.
In short, I do think the BTS community should take it very seriously before any real implementation.