Quote from: abit on December 19, 2015, 12:38:33 pm

Quote from: monsterer on December 19, 2015, 12:02:53 pm

Percentage based transfer fees are completely untenable. Every single other coin in the world has a low, fixed fee for any amount sent, bitshares would lose out to the competition and it would be a PR nightmare. Percentage based trade fees on the other hand, are acceptable.

If the fee is charged by IOU/Smart coin issuers then would be OK (in addition to basic network fee). Best if the issuers are able to define several thresholds and % of the fee. Under this condition the committee can control fee of transferring BTS to be low or higher (as demand). Maybe the ones who benefit by the reference program won't agree though.

to me a good idea is like this:
1. for BTS and BitAsset(or at least BTS) transfer charge a minimum fixed fee.(5-10BTS?)
2. for UIA and privated smartcoin issuers can define the transfer fee(percentage, fixed or percentage with a cap).
3. income referrers' income should be mainly from referrals' trading fees, not transfer fees.

high transfer fees is a big psychological hurdle for new comers to join and need to remove asap.

Quote from: abit on December 21, 2015, 12:58:20 pm

The referral program plays a bad role in this scene.. transfer to myself & earn money from the issuers!

That's a good point.
To fix this vulnerability we would need to tie the referrer's income to the issuer's transfer fee income, not the blockchain's income as we have it now.

It would have to work like this:
- for each transfer made on the BitShares network the issuer pays 6 BTS (20% of 30 BTS) to the DAC and this is her/his fixed cost
- if the fee received for this transfer is less than 6 BTS, the issuer has to cover this loss and the referrer gets nothing
(EDIT: we could set the minimum transfer fee to 6 BTS so for payments below 2 bitUSD, which is the break-even point, the network can cover its costs but neither the issuer nor the referrer gets any income or loss - which I think is fine)
- if the fee received for this transfer is more than 6 BTS, the issuer gives 80% of the profit (i.e. the excess above 6 BTS) to the referrer and keeps the remaining 20%.

So if an issuer sets the CER wrongly and makes a loss in the long run, the referrer will get some compensation but it will probably be less than s/he has now.
But on the other hand, if the issuer makes a profit, 80% of it will be shared with the referrer.

EDIT: This will incentivize the referrer to attract users that usually make bigger transfers.

delegate.taolje 已经开始为TCNY喂价每三分钟。

I have another idea, possibly better than the tier-based system.
This idea assumes that each asset (be it SmartCoin, private bit-asset, UIA, FBA) is a financially independent business entity run by the asset's issuer and operating within the BitShares DAC.

An asset issuer has her/his costs and incomes:

The costs
The BitShares DAC charges the issuer 30 BTS per transfer. So the issuer has a fixed cost of 30 BTS s/he needs to pay to the DAC for each transfer made by a user.

The income
The transfer fee policy is entirely up to the issuer. S/he can charge the users whatever s/he finds suitable. And this is what we have now - an asset's issuer sets the actual transfer fee by adjusting the CER parameter (Core Exchange Rate).


But what if we went one step further and allowed the transfer fee to have a minimum and maximum value but generally be percentage-based?
This way the only concern of an issuer would be to set the CER in such a way that the average transfer fee is at least 30 BTS (so that the issuer can cover her/his costs in the long run).

E.g. for bitUSD the issuer (i.e. the committee account) could do the following:
- set the minimum transfer fee to $0.01 (~ 3 BTS)
- set the maximum transfer fee to $1 (~ 300 BTS)
- set a percentage-based transfer fee expressed in bitUSD and defined as 1% of the amount being transferred (the BTS value of the transfer is irrelevant, all that counts is the bitUSD amount)

This way the issuer is happy as long as the average transfer fee paid by the users is equal or above $0.1 (~ 30 BTS) because this is the actual cost s/he has to pay to the DAC.
The blockchain itself is happy because it receives a fixed income.
The user is happy because the transfer fee is related to the perceived value of the service received.

Quote from: pmm9999 on December 21, 2015, 08:37:15 am

Quote from: xeroc on December 21, 2015, 08:20:54 am

Quote from: pmm9999 on December 21, 2015, 01:17:00 am

Quote from: xeroc on December 20, 2015, 07:54:20 am

What are the other files' names?

node_config.jason

So all you've got is a
config.json and a
node_config.json?

Those do NOT contain your wallet and never did. Have you made a backup from the main menu? Or do you happen to have a "brainkey"?

I think I have, when i import the wallet to backup, the message is :the password is wrong, not say the the key or something is not right!
I have a backup folder which include many files.i donot know which one is you need.could you tell me more?

I assume the names of those files include some numbers that indicate the DATE and TIME of its creation ..
Take the most recent json file and try to import with your passphrase .. if its not working take the second most recent one and try again .. and so forth

Quote from: jakub on December 20, 2015, 01:11:45 pm

Quote from: clayop on December 19, 2015, 02:30:14 pm

I was wondering why shareholders have to pay $300 instead of $3 when the fund comes from external source (in this case onceuponatime)

What do you mean? Please elaborate.

My previous thought is this proposal should be near zero cost. But I figured out that $300 for stealth is going to go xeroc to maintain the BSIP. That makes sense.