Author Topic: BitUSD used to buy artistcoins?  (Read 15277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
@tonky .. the
Code: [Select]
[/sarcasm] tag is supposed to be at the very end of you post :-)

Anyway, what I heard from BM talking in the last hangout, the crosschain trading will be pretty much:

I give you 1bitUSD on the btsx chain for 1bitUSD on the music chain. Any trade other than that would just be better for one side than the other .. so there will be a peg in between two chains (in theory :-) ).
Further, (the devs know that already) - a unified wallet would make those trades automatically so that both chains grow together and fancy words like atomic cross chain trading do not really appear to the end-user!

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I think the music DAC will attract a lot of bitMusicUSD short participants, other than the one and only cob, himself that is.

After all, all music people are nothing less then the most dedicated traders of all times.


"All musicians are natural traders"
and
"Who cares if only cob is creating  all the dollars on this market"

Are both slogans, that we will have to embrace in the near future...

PS
Where and how do I put the [sarcasm] tag, for those in doubt of what I mean?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
There will still be fees to be paid if someone is eager to move their money from one chain to another. My guess is that we will have market makers on each chain who are ready to provide liquidity at a small price. Therefore, it will not be as cheap to move BitAssets inter-blockchain as it is intra-blockchain, but I think it is the best solution we have today given that we want to avoid the unscalable one-chain-to-rule-them-all strategy.

The market makers in each chain they still need a certain depth before they can even provide liquidity. So there will be DAC's that will not have enough market depth to be able to mint bitUSD so what I think Darwinian Natural Selection will apply. If a DAC could not reach the market depth required it means that DAC business model is not good and there is not enough interests in it, or there need more marketing etc. Like for the brick and mortar company, only the one that are successful will survive (unlike the altcoins out there ) 
 Being able to mint bitUSD it will be the equivalent of having a IPO of sorts.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

I think bitusd will been accepted by seller like taobao.com and amazon in the future .if each DAC have its bitusd, there are music-bitusd and btsx-bitusd in market. what bitusd the seller should accept, if the seller accept all bitusd, they must mark the price of goods by different bitusd. it is very inconvenience.


If the peg is working well then for a merchant point of view it does not matter where the bitUSD is coming from as long as the value is 1 USD.

But what is most likely to happen is this :

Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
Cross-chain trading allows for communicating this information in both directions without requiring each blockchain validator to be aware of one another's existence. Atomic cross-chain trading means that users can carry out the trade without trusting a third-party with their money to facilitate the trade. Atomic cross-chain trading of BitAssets means that the two parties involved in the trade are not exposed to large volatility risks and that, if the market peg works very well, they can trade 1-to-1 without being concerned about matching bid-ask price (just the amount being traded). There will still be fees to be paid if someone is eager to move their money from one chain to another. My guess is that we will have market makers on each chain who are ready to provide liquidity at a small price. Therefore, it will not be as cheap to move BitAssets inter-blockchain as it is intra-blockchain, but I think it is the best solution we have today given that we want to avoid the unscalable one-chain-to-rule-them-all strategy.
I think bitusd will been accepted by seller like taobao.com and amazon in the future .if each DAC have its bitusd, there are music-bitusd and btsx-bitusd in market. what bitusd the seller should accept, if the seller accept all bitusd, they must mark the price of goods by different bitusd. it is very inconvenience.
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Very interesting thanks for taking the time to wright it down.  I think this could work, but like you show there are security issues and other problems with this idea. With this  you have one single point of failure the meta-DAC.
I think your solution shows why having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading it is the best one. 

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I agree that keep everything on a single blockain is a BAD idea too. So what I'm recommonding is a kind of middle way. Every different core function is on different blockchain(Music, DNS, Play, etc.). But the volatility free currency is from BTSX as source but could be traded between different blockchains. For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.

As oco101 already alluded to above, what you are proposing is effectively equivalent to the single blockchain approach. You are burdening the delegates of the BTSX DAC to pay attention to the blockchains of all the other DACs that want to use its BitAssets. And not just the delegates, but every node trying to validate the blockchain rules. In order to verify the rules of the BTSX blockchain, clients would need to also be verifying the rules of the Music blockchain to make sure that the same public key did in fact burn the same amount of their BitUSD in the Music blockchain before minting it into existence on the BTSX blockchain. This does not scale well. Communicating this information from the master blockchain (BTSX) to the children blockchain (for example burning assets on BTSX blockchain and minting them on the Music blockchain) is somewhat fine, but doing the reverse process is what kills scalability.

Cross-chain trading allows for communicating this information in both directions without requiring each blockchain validator to be aware of one another's existence. Atomic cross-chain trading means that users can carry out the trade without trusting a third-party with their money to facilitate the trade. Atomic cross-chain trading of BitAssets means that the two parties involved in the trade are not exposed to large volatility risks and that, if the market peg works very well, they can trade 1-to-1 without being concerned about matching bid-ask price (just the amount being traded). There will still be fees to be paid if someone is eager to move their money from one chain to another. My guess is that we will have market makers on each chain who are ready to provide liquidity at a small price. Therefore, it will not be as cheap to move BitAssets inter-blockchain as it is intra-blockchain, but I think it is the best solution we have today given that we want to avoid the unscalable one-chain-to-rule-them-all strategy.

Now, if you really want to find a mechanism to move the BitAssets back and forth between chains without cross-chain trading, I briefly described my idea earlier in this thread on how to do it without it being a total scalability nightmare. Let me expand on it a little.

The BTSX DAC would become a sort of meta-DAC. What this means is that other DACs register themselves on the BTSX blockchain. Shares of the DAC would be issued (sort of like user-issued assets) and people also register as delegates for the DAC while shareholders vote for the delegates using the shares, all happening on the BTSX blockchain. Already this is adding a lot of extra burden on the BTSX blockchain, so there would have to be a limit to how many DACs we would want the meta-DAC to support. It would still be necessary in my opinion to have clones of the meta-DAC to take the burden of every DAC idea under the sun off one single global chain.

Each DAC on the meta-DAC would have a reserve for BitAssets. Users could send their BitUSD held in the BTSX blockchain into the reserve at any time. That DAC's validators could then monitor the BTSX blockchain to credit the user with a BitUSD derivative (let's just call it BitUSD as well) that is pegged 1-to-1 and backed by the real BitUSD held in the DAC's reserve. The DAC's blockchain could then handle the intra-trading of the BitUSD derivative (or whatever other fancy rules it has) without burdening the meta-DAC. But if someone wants to pull their BitUSD out of the DAC (say to spend it in some other DAC), another special procedure would be required.

Because the meta-DAC would not be able to monitor the blockchains of its member DACs, it would need to rely on the DAC's registered active delegates to tell it what BitAsset withdrawals from its reserve are acceptable. You can think of the reserve as a 101-of-101 multisig where the 101 keys are dynamically changing to be the set of 101 active delegates for the DAC. If 101 delegates signed a transaction withdrawing BitAssets from the reserve and going to some address, that transaction would take the money out of the reserve but first stay pending for 24 hours. The reason for the time delay is to give shareholders a chance to "push the panic button" by voting with their shares on the meta-DAC blockchain if the delegates are making a withdrawal transaction that does not comply with the rules of their blockchain. If some percentage (say 20%) of the shares push the panic button, all pending transactions are halted and the delegates are not able to make any new withdrawal transactions until the panic mode has been lifted. If a legitimate crisis did not occur, the majority of share could vote acknowledging that and the holds on the pending withdrawal transactions would be lifted and operation would resume as normal (also perhaps the 20% of shareholders who cried wolf would lose a fraction of their stake). If a legitimate crisis did occur, shareholders would then first change their votes to select new delegates and then the majority of shares would vote to end the panic mode (which would reverse all pending withdrawal transactions, moving the funds back to the reserve) and normal operation could resume with the new set of delegates. The DAC could even have a surety bond paid for by delegate registration fees that goes out as a reward (in proportion) to the first 20% of shares who pushed the panic button (assuming that it was in fact a legitimate crisis). This reward would incentivize shareholders to monitor withdrawal transactions to ensure they comply with the DAC rules.

Notice that deposits of funds into a DAC can be instantaneous but withdrawal would have a 24 hour delay. This is the cost DAC users would have to pay to avoid cross-chain trading. If someone urgently wants to take their money out of a DAC, they could always still use cross-chain trading of their BitUSD derivative on the DAC blockchain with some BitUSD on the meta-DAC blockchain. However, they would have to pay a premium for that convenience.

Also notice that the economic incentives of a 51% stake attack change for children DACs in this model. If someone gets 51% of the stake of a child DAC (meaning they can vote in all 101 of their delegates) they can steal all of the money in the reserve. While up to 49% of the stake (at least 20% needed) may push the panic button, the evil 51% can simply dismiss the panic and steal a fraction of their shares until eventually their stake becomes too small (<20%) to push the panic button anymore. At which point, the evil shareholders would take all the money in the reserve for themselves. A fork by the minority shareholders in the DAC wouldn't work very well in this case because the BitAssets exist in the meta-DAC not in their DAC, so they cannot take that value with them in the fork. This is the other price users have to pay with this model, all for the sake of avoiding cross-chain trading. To be fair, migrating BitAssets to a fork which burns evil stake in case of a 51% stake attack would be a pain for any DAC, so I am not sure how much added risk this model has.


Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile


For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.


Cross chains trading does't require common delegates. What you propose is a Etherum stile solution, you'll need common delegates for every DAC out there.

 If we can issue bitUSD only in BTSX that wold be great. I think there is a big technical challenge to do it properly.


If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.



Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile

Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.

@arhag, thanks for response and a lot of thoughts. I agree that keep everything on a single blockain is a BAD idea too. So what I'm recommonding is a kind of middle way. Every different core function is on different blockchain(Music, DNS, Play, etc.). But the volatility free currency is from BTSX as source but could be traded between different blockchains. For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.

Quote
There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Again, we need to establish strong network effect for BTSX BitUSD first. There is no "real world" acceptance for BitUSD now and would not be easy to see it in near future. We should all focus on making it happen instead of making something to hinder it..
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
If every DAC can have their own bitUSD,  how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?

Network effect. In theory we could have a BitShares X clone for every city. This splits the market cap over many different DACs rather than unifying it into one (BTSX). While that does make things more scalable, it is also very annoying. Someone might keep most of their wealth in their home city DAC, get paid a salary in their workplace city DAC, and if they are visiting a neighboring city they need to move their money from the other DACs into yet another DAC to pay the merchant in the neighboring city. Moving money from one DAC to another using cross-chain trading is inconvenient and could even add up in costs. For convenience, people will tend to centralize to one particular DAC if it can handle the transaction volume. BitShares X (by virtue of being the first DAC designed for that purpose) can be that one DAC we all congregate around. Once the network effect is built around it (merchants set up the BTSX client software to receive payments, employers set up the BTSX client software to pay workers, people install the BTSX client software and amass their savings on the BTSX DAC) it will be too difficult for just another clone DAC to take away that spot from BTSX.

Right, network effect. That's the real question and my concern. As we all know, it's still a very long way to run for BTSX's BitUSD to get strong network effect, the system is just start. Before massive merchants accept it and million people start to use it to shopping, saving, we could not say there is solid network effect for BTSX's BitUSD. And we need to achieve that goal step by step, and one of the effective step will be using BTSX's BitUSD in Bitshares DACs. And it's very important since at this stage, it's very difficult to get normal merchants and people to support BitUSD.. And in the other hand, before the concept of BitUSD getting real solid and useful based on acceptance by public, there will no real solid value able to added to Bitshares DACs by having DACs' BitUSD.

All the actions/decisions should be based on where we are now(realisticly) and what will happen on the way(not too optimistic) and how to achieve success step by step(in details and in big picture). We should remeber that as an ecosystem, Bitshares DACs are still very small and as the flagship we need to make BTSX strong enough frist to leading the way. We should balance the interests between single DAC and  the whole ecosystem, between shortterm and longterm, otherwise we could not win for any of them.
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
GoxUSD only use in Mt.Gox,  BitstampUSD only use in Bitstamp,  also we cannot use BTC38_USD to buy btc in  Bitstamp.

I suggest you let him sleep over it.
His first responses are not always the best, but his final decisions are usually rivaled by NOONE.

my 2*10^-5 BTSX.

Hope so, because like @BTSdac said, GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD is used in every centerlized exchange only, you will never use it outside so no relation to confuse customers or not...   It's defenitely not a good sample unless we think(or make, hardcoded?) the BitUSD(like Music's BitUSD) in each DAC will be used in that DAC only..... I could really  imagine how that works..
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
GoxUSD only use in Mt.Gox,  BitstampUSD only use in Bitstamp,  also we cannot use BTC38_USD to buy btc in  Bitstamp.

I suggest you let him sleep over it.
His first responses are not always the best, but his final decisions are usually rivaled by NOONE.

my 2*10^-5 BTSX.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
GoxUSD only use in Mt.Gox,  BitstampUSD only use in Bitstamp,  also we cannot use BTC38_USD to buy btc in  Bitstamp.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 08:11:27 am by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
If they aren't pegged pefectly then someone will take a loss or they won't trade 1:1.

I think it is good to have tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You should for sure explain why do you think so, cause this idea is totally illogical for me as of now.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline tonyk

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

artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.
They are user issued assets.

bitUSD is a bitAsset what's your point ? Besides we still don't know how artiscoin will work

I truly hope they will drop the bitmusicUSD idea...
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.
They are user issued assets.

bitUSD is a bitAsset what's your point ? Besides we still don't know how artiscoin will work

Offline tonyk

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

artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.
They are user issued assets.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).

The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.


Makes a lot of  sense :) !!  The marketing department will need to switch  in high gear to defend the fundamentals of bitAsset,   first we will need to have strong, solid and steady  bitAssets market going already with different DAC. That's why DNS and Music are very important in the ecosystem this will confirm that the whole idea of bitAssets and DAC is working as is supposed too. If all this happens then you can talk about financial revolution. Yes we are almost  there  we can smell it but let's be careful please, let's not screw this thing with trivialities. 
« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 03:47:44 am by oco101 »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).

The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.

If every DAC can have their own bitUSD,  how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?

Network effect. In theory we could have a BitShares X clone for every city. This splits the market cap over many different DACs rather than unifying it into one (BTSX). While that does make things more scalable, it is also very annoying. Someone might keep most of their wealth in their home city DAC, get paid a salary in their workplace city DAC, and if they are visiting a neighboring city they need to move their money from the other DACs into yet another DAC to pay the merchant in the neighboring city. Moving money from one DAC to another using cross-chain trading is inconvenient and could even add up in costs. For convenience, people will tend to centralize to one particular DAC if it can handle the transaction volume. BitShares X (by virtue of being the first DAC designed for that purpose) can be that one DAC we all congregate around. Once the network effect is built around it (merchants set up the BTSX client software to receive payments, employers set up the BTSX client software to pay workers, people install the BTSX client software and amass their savings on the BTSX DAC) it will be too difficult for just another clone DAC to take away that spot from BTSX.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 09:15:31 pm by arhag »

Offline 麥可貓

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.

If every DAC can have their own bitUSD,  how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?
PTS: PmRVDPymZqSAZEXauHZSewrUrE66af7epT
BTSX: michaelcat
Delegate Team: x1.sun  x2.sun

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Ok the conclusion is we need bitUSD issued on Bitshare Music AND DNs that is the most elegant solution, then we can cross chain trade all we want :)

 

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Offline cob

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cobb
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:

Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.

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

I would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value.

So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service. 

You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

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.

I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.

There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.

Quality post right here!

This is especially well put.

Quote
My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
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: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I am eagerly awaiting ALOT more information about cross chain trading .. especially considering the fact that peerTracks can control 51% of the delegates in bitshares MUSIC they could short bitUSD to them selfs against notes for almost free setting a proper price feed through their delegates ... or am I wrong?

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:

Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.

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

I would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value.

So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service. 

You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

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.

I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.

There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.

Offline bytemaster

I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
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: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Cross chain trading does not help . In cross chain trading  you change bitUSD for notes.  So say if I want to transfer 1 bitUSD to Bitshare Music you'll end up with notes that are worth 1$. If you want bitUsd from Bitsharex then you need bitUSDmusic on the bithsare music blockhain.
My understanding was that I can simply send bitUSD from BitSharesX into my bitUSD account on BitShares Music.. without going over Notes or BTSX!

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

Regarding tech feasibility for taking BTSX's BitUSD and allowing shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain, to my knowledge of crypto blockchains, I do believe it's viable and the real question is how efficient compare to have Music's BitUSD and what does them mean to the big picture

Yeah but how ??


Cross chain trading does not help . In cross chain trading  you change bitUSD for notes.  So say if I want to transfer 1 bitUSD to Bitshare Music you'll end up with notes that are worth 1$. If you want cross chain trade bitUsd from Bitsharex to music then you need bitUSDmusic on the bithsare music blockhain.

When  a user is putting 20$ in his account 2 months later  he needs to find the same value in his account. How he will do that without bitUSD collateralize in notes ?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 06:14:00 pm by oco101 »

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
If they aren't pegged pefectly then someone will take a loss or they won't trade 1:1.

I think it is good to have tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I do not really understand how to "tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx". Is there any hardcoded constraints? Otherwise I do not think it could be controlled as low-cap.
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

I believe everyone on this thread know about the needs for volatility free currency for Bitshares Music and its customers. All the discussion is based on trying to have a solution for Bitshares Music with BitUSD to meet this demand. Just want to let community know(or, at least, discuss) that we need to keep BitUSD collateralized by BTSX only. I'm glad that it's clear you focus on the core value of Music blockchain and customers demand, don't really care about where BitUSD is from. I'm with you since the Music market is real big and the value of Bitshares Music should be based on it instead of collateralizing notes to issue BitUSD.

Regarding tech feasibility for taking BTSX's BitUSD and allowing shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain, to my knowledge of crypto blockchains, I do believe it's viable and the real question is how efficient compare to have Music's BitUSD and what does them mean to the big picture - Bitshares DACs ecosphere(it's important not for BTSX only, but also for every DACs including Music). That's why I said we need to think/list pros/cons for different proposals. Frankly, I'm not a programmer so I do not know the details of crypto tech, but we have a very strong community to come up with insights and good ideas to work it out.

PS: No offense. All I want to do is to support community/ecosphere building up and development, again not just for BTSX but also for Bitshares Music. In the other hand, I think you need to watch your words("brains problem"?!), otherwise I would worry about public relationship of peertrack.com
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
I have some rough ideas
A translation/exchange is record to different chain. One chain is main chain ,other chains are aux chains
Take bitshares music as example.
1. All the user in bitshares music must have a BTSX address or name or link to a BTSX address or name ,if they want to have bitusd . bitshares music read address or name from BTSX chain.
2. All the translation of bitusd in bitshares music have to broadcast to BTSX chain and meanwhile all validation of bitusd base on BTSX chain.  chain of bitshares music don`t record any tx of bitusd.
3.To valid bitusd ,bitshares music have to own BTSX`s chain , to reduce the size of chain and the cost of validation  ,BTSX supply snapshoot

I am a little investor of AGS and PTS, I have an idea about how to reduce volume of block chain using snapshot,  English is not my native language , I hope I can been understood.
1.   The purpose of snapshot in my express is different from normal , this snapshot is to replace blocks before them to reduce this size of block chain.
2.   Perform a snapshot per N block; and the next block is a special block , its header include the hash both previous block and this snapshot.  We also can set the confirm time of this block is longer than others, maybe need  all delegates honored.
3.   Each block after this snapshot include the status if honor this snapshot.
4.   Each translation include the status if honor this snapshot
5.   if the snapshot was honored by N block, and was honored by translation witch hold 90% stockholder , this snapshot is a formal snapshot.  The blocks before this snapshot can been ignore . ignore the blocks before this snapshot have risk ,so there have N block time to check if there is no attack/ scam in the snapshot ,  if  select N equal 100,000, it mean , every delegate check this snapshot 1000 times if there are 100 delegates, and every client also check this snapshot when a translation is done, and the meantime ,any node can select to keep all block for checking.
6.    If all process was finished smoothly, block chain only include a snapshot +N blocks no matter how many years this chain have been running , the volume of a snapshot maybe is constant,   if N equal  100,000, consider 30 sec per block , it is about 34 days , so all the size of block chain is equal a constant volume  +  volume of 34 days translation. It doesn’t increase as time passing  .

4. Other translations /information exclude bitusd are recorded in chain of Bitshares music.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more
if A exchange music coin to bitusd with B
1.TX1 : A locked this quantity exchanged music coin (like sell)
2.TX2 : B send bitusd to A and broadcast to bitshares BTSX`s chain
3.TX3: after TX2 is confirmed A send music coin to B and broadcast to bitshares music chain
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 03:21:40 am by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091

Offline cob

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cobb
Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.
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 speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
I agree with yidaidaxia that having BitUSD created on multiple Bitshares chains would cause confusion and doubt.

Also, what if a blowout occured on the Music chain leaving uncolleteralized Music:BitUSD? This seems to be more likely to happen there because of lower volumes and because on BTSX Bytemaster has been using his large stake responsibly to maintain & suspend BitUSD where needed. If it did happen then it would make the whole peg concept appear broken and cast doubt on BTSX:BitUSD.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
if you get it cheap your are lucky .. but what reason is there for the peg to work in btsx and NOT on bitshares music (besides maybe volume and higher spread?1)

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
If they aren't pegged pefectly then someone will take a loss or they won't trade 1:1.

I think it is good to have tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
who sells you a bitUSD for 88% the price he would get at btsx?

it was just an example to understand how it will work.
put any numbers you want. I want only to know what happens with the difference.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
who sells you a bitUSD for 88% the price he would get at btsx?

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
if I send 1 bitusd collaterized in notes that has 88% the value of real USD (because of a thin market on bitshares music)
using the cross-chain function to bitsharesX exchange, how much worth in real USD will have that bitUSD that came from there if the market peg on bitsharesx is @ 98% of real USDs ?
I mean where will go the 10% difference in value?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
i don't get it.

how will cross chain trading done?
Not sure yet ... AFAIK you can send bitUSD from bitsharesX to BitSharesMusic .. effectively destroying them in btsx and creating them in bts music ...
but don't ask me for details :(

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I may be mistaken but:
 - there will be cross chain trading (i read somewhere from BM)
 - it does not matter what collateral you have for a bitUSD as long as the market decides one pile of shit is worth 1 dollar .. hehe
 - there are NO two different bitUSD .. they are the same
 - the "market cap" of the bitUSD is already incorporated into the market cap of btsx IMHO ..

Ok but why you need a market inside peertraks ? or i get that part completely wrong ?
it's a sideeffect of the bitsharesX code beeing used as basis .. AND you actually want to be able to trade for artistcoins... guitarGuyCoins and BeatlesCoins .. Biebercoins and so on .. then why not also let there be trades for bitUSD .. then you can also make cross tradings from biebercoin to bitUSD ... I can imaging a exchange where you can trade 10 beatles coins agains 1million bieber coins .. (me as a beatles fan :-) )

Offline Shentist

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1601
    • View Profile
    • metaexchange
  • BitShares: shentist
i don't get it.

how will cross chain trading done?

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
I may be mistaken but:
 - there will be cross chain trading (i read somewhere from BM)
 - it does not matter what collateral you have for a bitUSD as long as the market decides one pile of shit is worth 1 dollar .. hehe
 - there are NO two different bitUSD .. they are the same
 - the "market cap" of the bitUSD is already incorporated into the market cap of btsx IMHO ..

Ok but why you need a market inside peertraks ? or i get that part completely wrong ?

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I may be mistaken but:
 - there will be cross chain trading (i read somewhere from BM)
 - it does not matter what collateral you have for a bitUSD as long as the market decides one pile of shit is worth 1 dollar .. hehe
 - there are NO two different bitUSD .. they are the same
 - the "market cap" of the bitUSD is already incorporated into the market cap of btsx IMHO ..

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani


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.

Thanks.

I agree on all points the only place that bitUSD are issued should be BitshareX, there should't be another place. If not bitUSD will be exposed to all kinds of dangers. Not sure if you have atomic cross chain  trading why you still need a market inside peertraks. ? I'm waiting on full details tough it is not clear right now

 +5% +5% +5%

It's silly to attempt to make a new bitUSD except you thing you can compete  BTSX bitUSD and you want to overtake it in the  future...
I mean imagine 2 bitUSD (or more) depending on diferrent collaterals:

example:
bitUSD BTSX 98% of USD
bitUSD notes 90% of USD

we must push only one bitUSD so the potential market depth will not split among several bitUSDs and the PEGs holds tighter to the real USD price if only one bitUSD present...
It would confuse the crypto market and at the end only one will "survive" after all if you ask me...

You can use/buy as much bitUSDs you want from the free market or  direct from BTSX decentralized exchange!


PS I wonder what bytemaster thinks about their strategy (?)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 07:45:22 pm by liondani »

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile


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.

Thanks.

I agree on all points the only place that bitUSD are issued should be BitshareX, there should't be another place. If not bitUSD will be exposed to all kinds of dangers. Not sure if you have atomic cross chain  trading why you still need a market inside peertraks. ? I'm waiting on full details tough it is not clear right now

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile

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.

Thanks.
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline bitrose

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • ROSE
    • View Profile
    • rose
In my opinion:

music_bitusd is a private bitusd , like rose in the Btsx ,like bitusd in bter.com , like The HongKang dollar for USD.

btsx_bitusd is a system bitusd.

(1)in music:peertracks issue 100 music_bitusd
(2)in btsx: peertracks create account or assets bitusd.peertracks
(3)in btsx: I send 10 bitusd to bitusd.peertracks(or its account)
(4)in music: I import my btsx's privatekey ,then(may be this need delegates's feed price) , peertracks send 10 music_btsusd to me.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2014, 05:05:45 am by bitrose »
Please Vote : x.ebit , rose.ebit
http://www.roseebit.com

Offline metalallen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile

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.

If this will enable cross chain trading, then why we need various kinds of BitUSD? I'm lost.
浮壹白的微博:http://weibo.com/u/2279693077
BTSX Account:metalallen

Offline bytemaster


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. 
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 biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
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?
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline cob

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cobb
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?

PeerTracks will not be holding any customer funds. This trustless world shall remain trustless ^^

PeerTracks is running on top of the BitShares Music Blockchain, so you are correct, it runs off a different blockchain entirely from BTSX. It won't be possible (at least not yet) to send BTSX Bitassets to another chain (BitShares Music).
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.


And Yes. That's exactly what PeerTracks aims to be at first. and easy to use front end for the non-crypto crowd.

People's balances will appear in USD (BitUSD!) that should be (crossed fingers) volatility free. They would just shop around for music like they would any other music store, only in this instance they can buy artistcoins and make a profit if they purchased a coin from an artist that sells a lot of content.

This is the Minimum Viable Product.

Then Peertracks is going to tackle various other features, like streaming, for profit p2p quality playlist creation, a music centric social media aspect, etc.
All bringing traffic and volume to the network that is the Bitshares Music blockchain.
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 speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: speedy
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?