Author Topic: BitUSD used to buy artistcoins?  (Read 15285 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.