Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on February 14, 2015, 12:23:13 pm

Isn't that EXACTLY what bitsharesmining.com is doing? .. multipool mining of most profitable coins and selling that shit on the exchange?

the problem is: all the currently supported ALTcoins are not as profitable as bitcoin (actually, according to http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency, there are now only very few ALTcoins that are more profitable than bitcoin), so miners would rather stick with minging bitcoin. It's all about the highest profitability using same hardware.

Exactly. That's why it doesn't really make sense to compare profitability of coins with (vastly) different mining algos. It's not like a scrypt or X11 miner could (efficiently) mine bitcoin.

But generally I do agree that added SHA256 mining would be very nice.

If it turnes out to effectively eliminate yield I would be very upset that major changes like this aren't properly proposed and discussed beforehand. I understand that at certain points decisions have to be made in favour of long term success but we have to try our best not to turn this into a complete nightmare for investors.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I think this is a bad and dangerous idea. Don't mess with our core product that we know works. The risk of breaking the market peg (and all the bad PR that will come with that even if we revert back) is not worth code simplicity.

 

Quote from: Frodo on February 05, 2015, 01:27:22 pm

Quote from: emski on February 05, 2015, 01:09:29 pm

Quote from: Frodo on February 05, 2015, 12:36:52 pm

That's why price feeds should include internal market price of the asset weighted by volume. With growing relative volume of the internal market the external price becomes less relevant.

I'm not sure if current price feed scripts do this though.

In my example internal volume is irrelevant.
By definition the peg "links" the price of a bitAsset (bitA) to the price of an external asset (A). If we account the internal volume (of bitA) in the feeds then the bitA will not be pegged to A.

I disagree. Think of the original concept without feeds. The bitA will be pegged to A simply because market makers make profit by maintaining the peg. As long as the majority has enough faith in the peg it will stabilize itself.

Accounting the internal price would help to gradually switch (with growing volume) to a system without feeds.

Even if we could account for all trades worldwide (BTS <-> A) and devise "perfect" feed the question in OP will still be valid. Shorting bitA is not the same as selling A for BTS.

Lets look into the case where we account the internal volume into the feeds. Imagine the following:
We account for worldwide trade volume of A  - $1mil.
We have internal market volume of bitA of $10 mil
In the real world the price of A is X BTS.
In the internal exchange the price of A is X+Y BTS.
With current implementation feed price should be X. In your proposal to account for the internal volume feed should it be ~ X+Y  [ derived from (11X + 10Y)/11 ].
Which one looks better for you ?

In all honesty I do think that (11X + 10Y)/11 would be closer to the "true" value than X.
The internal market is a valid tool for price discovery imo.

A more extreme example:
If everyone stopped using USD and instead used bitUSD what would be the real value for 1 bitUSD? Externally there would be no defined price USD:BTS, but there would be a defined price for bitUSD:BTS. So should the value of one bitUSD be closer to "not defined" or to whatever internal price currently exists?
I think it would be totally okay in such a situation to decouple the pegged asset from the real asset, as the real asset has less (in this example no) relevance than the digital counterpart.

Quote from: Frodo on February 05, 2015, 12:36:52 pm

That's why price feeds should include internal market price of the asset weighted by volume. With growing relative volume of the internal market the external price becomes less relevant.

I'm not sure if current price feed scripts do this though.

That's how I see it too ...
at least my script does NOT include the internal market ..

Also this has to be discussed thoroughly as it might be exploitable due to the arising feedback loop ..

Yes, that's a valid concern.

I'm still around and waiting for BTS 1.0 like everyone else.   

Thanks for this reassurance.

already can be mined from windows systems?

I don't think that win binaries are released yet.
Maybe you can run it in a Linux VM. Not quite sure how efficient that would be though.

"Not only will this make you treat each moment more preciously, but you will be more patient with yourself and with others, recognizing that there are millions of moments on the path to any worthwhile achievement." - Menachem Mendel Schneerson

 

It's pretty annoying when you try to close other windows.