181
General Discussion / Re: Nxt is up 12% News?
« on: January 02, 2015, 10:02:19 pm »
I can't see anything worthy enough for such a big move. Intriguing.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
182
General Discussion / Re: Vitalik on stable currencies and POS
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:26:57 am »
I'm not great with economics but to me while this looks like an interesting academic exercise, there’s low/no market value in StableCoin short to medium term.
Ethereum will already have risk attached and this new StableCoin system even more so. The downside of being a StableCoin early adopter is you could lose a lot and the upside is that if it works you just get to maintain your relative purchasing power. So you will probably be required to pay a lot of interest to attract any demand. Especially when limited crypto-currencies and currently suppressed gold/silver, exposure to which is available via BitAssets give people currency options that are likely to explode in relative purchasing power if there’s significant problems with the global financial system and major fiat currencies.
Purchasing power stability is also relative to specific countries based on their economic situation and government policies. So even if you achieve a greater degree of average global stability you will be locally unstable over long periods so any marginal benefit you may ideally achieve over current options will be in practical terms largely negated.
In terms of pricing goods, people are looking at their expenses which are currently priced in national currencies. So if you’re working on tight margins & budgets that’s the kind of stability and predictability you’re after which is available via BitCurrencies. Any deviations the StableCoin makes to a currency people are working in, (provided it's not very inflationary - then anything else is better) will be a negative to this market.
So from my POV StableCoin is unstable at a local level & unstable for businesses even if it works while being high risk for very limited reward. Unlike BitAssets, the system will require years to prove it’s efficacy to the market. I also think it's quite likely that after years of work, StableCoin will just be seen as an alternative to a CPI or commodity basket ETF.
Gold historically functions very well both in terms of volatility and stability when adopted on a large scale in a currency role & referencing the volatility of gold now that it has been demonitised is quite misleading imo. When this fiat system implodes, gold will take on a significant monetary role again and clearly many countries are preparing for that outcome. Few will place their trust in anything other than limited money after that event imo and certainly not a new oracle/prediction market. A low/no dilution crypto-currency may grow very rapidly in this period and one day perform a similar role to a monetised gold if it gets large & widely used enough. Due to crypto-currency transparency and accountability, it's even possible it may ultimately be viewed as superior to gold and be very beneficial to mankind. So that's where I think the future is. (BitGold, BitSilver and low/no dilution cryto-currency. BitUSD and other BitCurrencies will be very popular in the interim.)
Ethereum will already have risk attached and this new StableCoin system even more so. The downside of being a StableCoin early adopter is you could lose a lot and the upside is that if it works you just get to maintain your relative purchasing power. So you will probably be required to pay a lot of interest to attract any demand. Especially when limited crypto-currencies and currently suppressed gold/silver, exposure to which is available via BitAssets give people currency options that are likely to explode in relative purchasing power if there’s significant problems with the global financial system and major fiat currencies.
Purchasing power stability is also relative to specific countries based on their economic situation and government policies. So even if you achieve a greater degree of average global stability you will be locally unstable over long periods so any marginal benefit you may ideally achieve over current options will be in practical terms largely negated.
In terms of pricing goods, people are looking at their expenses which are currently priced in national currencies. So if you’re working on tight margins & budgets that’s the kind of stability and predictability you’re after which is available via BitCurrencies. Any deviations the StableCoin makes to a currency people are working in, (provided it's not very inflationary - then anything else is better) will be a negative to this market.
So from my POV StableCoin is unstable at a local level & unstable for businesses even if it works while being high risk for very limited reward. Unlike BitAssets, the system will require years to prove it’s efficacy to the market. I also think it's quite likely that after years of work, StableCoin will just be seen as an alternative to a CPI or commodity basket ETF.
Gold historically functions very well both in terms of volatility and stability when adopted on a large scale in a currency role & referencing the volatility of gold now that it has been demonitised is quite misleading imo. When this fiat system implodes, gold will take on a significant monetary role again and clearly many countries are preparing for that outcome. Few will place their trust in anything other than limited money after that event imo and certainly not a new oracle/prediction market. A low/no dilution crypto-currency may grow very rapidly in this period and one day perform a similar role to a monetised gold if it gets large & widely used enough. Due to crypto-currency transparency and accountability, it's even possible it may ultimately be viewed as superior to gold and be very beneficial to mankind. So that's where I think the future is. (BitGold, BitSilver and low/no dilution cryto-currency. BitUSD and other BitCurrencies will be very popular in the interim.)
183
General Discussion / Re: Article on btcgeek.com: Bitshares is Trying What MemoryCoin Did a Year Ago (to D
« on: January 01, 2015, 08:44:21 pm »
Yeah I did say in this thread that it came to my attention MMC technically did it first, so we left ourselves open to a PR attack with that angle.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12789.0
Centralisation of voting stake is something I've been keen to address too, specifically measures to keep less on the major exchanges and transparency wherever possible on general voting stakes as this is the obvious angle that will be played as BTS gains attention. A decentralised system responsible for voting for dilution to the tunes of millions of dollars will have to address these very issues more and more.
For the opposite and counter PR argument we only have to look at POW. Taken at the value when the coins were mined, LTC has paid miners over $80 million in 2014, for security that could be achieved for less than a few hundred thousand dollars and their blockchain hasn't been improved at all.
Other possible improvements..
1. Keep a comprehensive, publicised, updated list of all delegates on more than 3% with a short paragraph explaining the value they add to BTS.
2. Consider measuring delegate approval by % of claimed stake not total stake if that's not already the case?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12789.0
Centralisation of voting stake is something I've been keen to address too, specifically measures to keep less on the major exchanges and transparency wherever possible on general voting stakes as this is the obvious angle that will be played as BTS gains attention. A decentralised system responsible for voting for dilution to the tunes of millions of dollars will have to address these very issues more and more.
For the opposite and counter PR argument we only have to look at POW. Taken at the value when the coins were mined, LTC has paid miners over $80 million in 2014, for security that could be achieved for less than a few hundred thousand dollars and their blockchain hasn't been improved at all.
Other possible improvements..
1. Keep a comprehensive, publicised, updated list of all delegates on more than 3% with a short paragraph explaining the value they add to BTS.
2. Consider measuring delegate approval by % of claimed stake not total stake if that's not already the case?
184
General Discussion / Re: Happy New Year BitShares! Resolutions?
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:28:59 am »Bitshares will surpass bitcoin in 2015.
If we're technically sound, get marketing right and POW continues to be weak for the next 6 months (Good news is fine but no major Cyprus style catalyst) then I think it's very possible that BitShares will pass Bitcoin this year.
It will be a rapid psychological transition regarding the fall of POW, aided by the rapid fall of LTC which is unsustainable with 30% inflation in a bear market.
There's no reason it should take more than 24 months to be no.1 though regardless of events thanks to the structure of BitAssets. That's why I think a business plan is good as the CAP may rise really fast and we need to respond rapidly with delegate selection to make the most of it and not be perceived as wasteful either. If hpenvy was a bit incentivised we could pre-emptively make contact with every useful major player in the space, find out what CAP/other is required for them to add BitShares and keep up good communications in the interim so that the ascent is as rapid and smooth as possible.
185
General Discussion / Re: Year End Developer Bonuses
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:18:35 am »Thx for the efforts and transparancy ... the devs deserve every single larimer ... for sure ...
Happy New Year!
186
General Discussion / Re: How to create a Stable Decentralized Crypto Currency
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:15:55 am » I like it.Quote
Based upon this analysis the goal of BitShares is for BTS to become a global currency in its own right and for the dilution that we experience today to fund development to taper off until we have a fixed supply
The ambition of moving to a fixed supply currency as income makes dilution unnecessary over time is something I support.
187
General Discussion / Delegate.YES & Delegate.NO
« on: December 31, 2014, 11:51:47 am »
If we got two 3% delegates into the top 101, a YES and a NO delegate, then we could ask a lot of questions on the blockchain.
Example
1. Question - Should we do X?
2. Timeline - 48 hrs to Vote.
3. Starting point - YES is starting at 10% approval, NO at 11.3% approval
Then you just Vote YES or NO and the difference in movement from their starting point at the end of the voting period will give a better idea of stakeholder opinion than just a few limited English forum voices. This may have the added advantage of getting us voting more frequently in general.
Example
1. Question - Should we do X?
2. Timeline - 48 hrs to Vote.
3. Starting point - YES is starting at 10% approval, NO at 11.3% approval
Then you just Vote YES or NO and the difference in movement from their starting point at the end of the voting period will give a better idea of stakeholder opinion than just a few limited English forum voices. This may have the added advantage of getting us voting more frequently in general.
188
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares tv video on reddit
« on: December 31, 2014, 11:03:48 am »
I got the response on Bitcointalk that MemoryCoin 2.0 was the first blockchain to directly hire people, I can't remember or find enough to know if that's correct.
Edit: OK, well I would say MMC2 did it first, but they only beat us by like a year. So close. Life's a game of inches...
Edit: OK, well I would say MMC2 did it first, but they only beat us by like a year. So close. Life's a game of inches...
189
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares tv video on reddit
« on: December 31, 2014, 01:34:46 am » Great episode, my favourite so far
190
General Discussion / Re: Is there a new working faucet?
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:52:40 am »This is awesome.
This is great! Setting up a first account was a hurdle, very happy about this 
191
General Discussion / Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« on: December 31, 2014, 12:48:29 am »Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?
It's worth a try.
Our best approach is to try get more BitAssets on the front page of CMC & publicly own our brand in our market imo.
192
General Discussion / Re: Shapeshift.io now includes NuBits, still no BitAssets...
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:37:04 pm »We have an email thread going right now where I am helping them with integration.
193
General Discussion / Re: Should we encourage poeple become share holders or customers?
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:33:04 pm »We need to leverage ALL bitshares chains to help one another. Each chain, as it stands, will help adoption of the others.
We do this by incenvitizing users of one ecosystem to use join other ecosystems. For instance, what if logging into Peertracks every day gave you a chance at receiving a little bit of bitGold? what if doing a daily quest in an on-chain bitshares PLAY game gave you a chance to get some bitshares Notes (so you could listen to some of your favorite tunes while you play)?
My main concern is that our community will
A) be too hateful of any chain that ISN'T BTS and thus will lock out this possible strategy (and many others)
B) be too interested in nitpicking everything Dev Delegates do to build new services for us...and will drive them away.
C) May not happen because large chains will get more benefit from issuing their own BitGold type assets because of the increased demand the collateral requirements create for PLAY shares and thus benefits their shareholders vs. ours.
In the early phases it would not be in the best interest of any chain to do this. This would only (in my mind) become feasible when there is enough of a userbase to sustain it. With that said, PLAY will never want to do this because it opens them up to regulatory hindrances they currently have no need to deal with.
If/when it gets to that point, it would be a winner for all of us because then there will be assets that come out tracking baskets of these versions (bitGold, NoteGold(?), PLAYGold(?)...etc all combined into a version of ___Gold that is even MORE stable than any single chain's).
I am really confused though where this "their" shareholders and "ours" comes from though. Unless, of course, people are choosing to divest from all the sharedropped tokens and only hold BTS, which in my opinion is not the best of strategies if we want DPOS to become the standard protocol that keeps on giving. I could be wrong, but obviously I don't think I am or I would have shut up by now
The best way to beat the competition, is to be the competition
We are all shareholders across a range DPOS related businesses and we can support more than one.
However each individual business is it's own competitive entity.
You hit the nail on the head with 'The best way to beat the competition is to be the competition'
Because of the open source nature of crypto, the optimal strategy is to cannibalise their offerings and 'be the competition' wherever it is more profitable to an individual DAC to do so imo.
At the same time some businesses are better suited to having their own bespoke blockchain so it's possible there are places where it's better to do what you suggest too.
194
General Discussion / Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:13:56 pm »http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector
Yeah they raised £6 million for like 10% on crowdcube.
https://www.crowdcube.com/investment/bitreserve-16565
So that values them at $100 million and they really haven't had to do anything for that.
I love in the article they say
Quote
Bitreserve's President of Global Strategy and Markets, responded that although the Bitreserve team “[doesn’t] need the crowd to raise money,” they wanted to “respect small investors.” Parsa drew a comparison between crowdfunding's disruption to normal venture capital, and Bitreserve's aimed disruption of international monetary transfer. He stated that they aim to support “innovation with social benefit wherever we can..
But of the £6 million they raised on crowdcube, £5.8 million was given by one investor it seems.
So it's more like just a PR stunt to say they're including many small investors.
195
General Discussion / Re: BitReserve looking to steal the rest of our BitAssets
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:00:37 pm »
Obviously if we failed to trademark BitAssets when they were in fact trademarkable that would be a sizeable mistake on our part.
Banks though are increasingly looking at integrating blockchain technology so if there is a market for blockchain sendable assets with centralised risk, BitReserve are going to have a world of competition soon so they might not even end up being that big.
Imo, the big market though is for a decentralised way to store value with centralised gateways for exiting to real gold, silver USD etc. when required. We are the market leader atm and Daniel is unmatched in this area. I think focus has been distracted these last few months from the core BitAsset business but it's still ours to lose regardless of any naming issues that have to be dealt with.
Banks though are increasingly looking at integrating blockchain technology so if there is a market for blockchain sendable assets with centralised risk, BitReserve are going to have a world of competition soon so they might not even end up being that big.
Imo, the big market though is for a decentralised way to store value with centralised gateways for exiting to real gold, silver USD etc. when required. We are the market leader atm and Daniel is unmatched in this area. I think focus has been distracted these last few months from the core BitAsset business but it's still ours to lose regardless of any naming issues that have to be dealt with.
