331
Marketplace / Re: Job. My site. 500 BTS per hour.
« on: February 11, 2016, 05:41:41 pm »
It might help if you posted a link to the actual site you want worked on...
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.
332
General Discussion / Re: Amanda from The Daily Decrypt here -- I have a couple questions.
« on: February 11, 2016, 02:57:39 am »Hi, all!
My manservant and I were just chatting about cryptos, and Bitshares came up, and we wanted to know more about internal funding. If you wouldn't mind taking the time to answer, we'd love to know:
1 - From my chat with Dan Larimer, I understand that new coins can be/are created to fund development. Is that correct? If so, how precisely is it decided how much will be created, and when? And how is consensus achieved?
2 - Does it require a sort of "worker" proposal to get coins created to fund development?
3 - Is there a limit to how many new Bitshares can be created to pay workers?
4 - How does the Bitshares blockchain get commanded to create the new coins upon consensus to do so? Like is there a cryptographic way from within all the voters' wallets that they can vote to create new coins?
Alright, that about does it for me. I understand this is a lot -- if there is already-published documentation somewhere that I can simply go and read for myself, I'd be happy to receive it!
And let me add that we're thrilled to have BitShares as the sponsor for our last two episodes, and 18 more to go! Here's today's episode, in case you missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHlIKf7bHFg
- Amanda
@TheDailyDecrypt
http://TheDailyDecrypt.com
1. There are no "new" coins ever created for development. Bitshares has just over 1 billion BTS stored in a reserve fund. To use these funds a worker proposal is created and then voted on by shareholders. If shareholders approve, the funds are released for the worker proposal.
2. Yes a worker proposal needs to be created in order for it to be voted on by shareholders.
3. The maximum amount of bitshares that will ever be in circulation is around 3.7 billion. The reserve fund has around 1 billion shares. The reserve fund can get replenished through various fee's (transfers, trading, account upgrades). Currently we are spending around 15k bts per hour on worker proposals and block signing. http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
4. No coins are ever created... the blockchain releases bts from the reserve fund once the shareholders have voted in favor of the worker proposal.
This is just a down and dirty explanation of how BTS generally works.
333
General Discussion / Re: KKachi is on OPEN.ETH:OPEN.BTC market!
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:33:16 pm »
Nice job clayop
334
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:35:13 am »Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented. There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell. Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system. The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit. This effectively screws the trader twice though.Registrar for MT4 could earn a lot from LTM-fee...much more than what he could earn on trading fee. IMO.
So there would actually be a way to get the development money back etc.QuoteI don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges. Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms. The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission. This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.Probably because we can see a lot of exchange working with % trading fee, and we se a lot of volume in those exchange. Right now:
Poloniex, only on eth/btc, has 28k btc volume.
Btc38 only on cny/btc has 500 btc volume.
They seem to work quite well, and poloniex has 0.2% trading fee per side iirc.QuoteAttracting traders should be the priority of bitshares. It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain. Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away. You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders. Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.We thought that charging only 0.01% would still make the dex cheaper than the majority of other exchanges.
Would you suggest to have no % trading fee at all until we have more volume?If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved. My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.Having a ceiling is a good idea imo, but it would need development tho.
Thanks for your suggestion.
The problem is you have to pay for a LTM membership. I can sign up with dozens of forex and stock brokers right now, get better tools and better trade reporting, without having to pay a dime.
As far as your comment about how poloniex and btc38 have good volume... You could take all the volume of every crypto traded today and it is less than 0.002% of the daily forex market. There are bank traders that individually do multiples of what the entire crypto market does daily. Those guys are not using percentage based fee's and neither are the guys trading much lower amounts. If you charge 0.1% on the forex market, the daily fee's would be $6 billion dollars. That number would never be attained because the fee's would eliminate the volume. The lowered volume would then eliminate much of the liquidity that is seen today.
There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes. In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts. The work required is the same. Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away. Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented. I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand. The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.
To Cubes question: I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision. I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission. I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.
Long story short: Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need. A fee cap is absolutely essential.
335
General Discussion / Re: Rate Limited Fees. Transcript from the Hangout
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:07:14 am »
KISS - an acronym that bitshares needs to learn to apply
Instead we are more MICAHI...
Instead we are more MICAHI...
336
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum price discussion
« on: February 10, 2016, 02:42:56 am »
It would be an awesome development for bitshares and all crypto 2.0 if Ethereum passes bitcoin. It will break the idea that bitcoin is the only legitimate crypto currency and everything else is a "shitcoin". Investors and developers will then start looking at other crypto projects as viable investments instead of thinking the only investment/platform has something with a direct connection to bitcoin.
337
General Discussion / Re: The Currency Distribution Problem [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 12:13:35 am »
We are not robots that need to agree on everything. Debating and arguing has played a pivotal role in the development of society.
This "we all need to agree" on something is never going to happen. People are different. Embrace difference and embrace the right that you have to express your opinion that may me different from someone else's.
Really what do you expect when the only form of communication this community has is writing text on a forum that is read by someone else hours later? Of course context will be lost, but I still believe this is one of the most active and valuable communities in crypto. There's no need to try to stymie it's creativity.
This "we all need to agree" on something is never going to happen. People are different. Embrace difference and embrace the right that you have to express your opinion that may me different from someone else's.
Really what do you expect when the only form of communication this community has is writing text on a forum that is read by someone else hours later? Of course context will be lost, but I still believe this is one of the most active and valuable communities in crypto. There's no need to try to stymie it's creativity.
338
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 09, 2016, 08:31:59 pm »
I will say it is very well laid out and very well detailed. The transparency is very good.
339
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 09, 2016, 07:18:42 pm »
I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.
They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1. What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100. Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.
If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved. My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.
They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1. What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100. Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.
If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved. My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.
340
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 09, 2016, 07:05:10 pm »
The trading fee's portion of this proposal is terrible.
Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading. Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order. So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted. Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.
Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented. There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell. Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system. The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit. This effectively screws the trader twice though.
I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges. Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms. The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission. This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.
Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares. It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain. Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away. You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders. Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.
Percentage based fees or commissions are non existent in current trading. Doing large orders is already a disadvantage, because much of the order book has to be chewed through to fill the order. So the effective spread that the trader is experiencing is larger than what may be quoted. Add on top of that a tax for doing a large order and I guarantee you we will attract 0 traders.
Also, by not having the trading fee's part of the referral program or making them so low that they add 0 value, any third party platform like mt4 will never be implemented. There is no way to get the development money back from everything I can tell. Much less have any money left over to do maintenance on the system. The only way it may work would be by manipulating the spread in the client terminal wide enough that mt4 can turn a profit. This effectively screws the trader twice though.
I don't understand why people here think we need to emulate current crypto exchanges. Crypto exchanges are tiny and professional (bank, hedgefund) traders would never trade on those platforms. The most popular platforms use a flat fee or commission. This proposal is going to set bitshares back massively in terms of adoption by traders.
Attracting traders should be the priority of bitshares. It will shrink spreads, increase volume, and make money for the blockchain. Doing a percentage based fee will only drive them away. You are effectively driving away liquidity by charging more money to trade larger orders. Plus it doesn't cost anymore resource wise to process large trades vs small trades.
341
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares has sponsored the Daily Decrypt for 4 weeks starting 9th Feb
« on: February 09, 2016, 06:29:35 pm »
Maybe just leave proof of stake out of the entire thing. Say, delegated block signing protocol, or something along those lines.
342
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum price discussion
« on: February 09, 2016, 02:28:45 pm »
Wow...
Question is, how long until it overtakes bitcoin?
Question is, how long until it overtakes bitcoin?
343
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 01:48:21 pm »I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers. A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone. It's a nonfactor at those price points. The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.
Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L
Could you explain me why you expect heavy and specialized traders to do *transfers* on a platform heavy focused on *trading* like MT4?
Could you explain me why are you using the "transfer fee* to calculate revenue generated from *trading*?
Could you explain why the registrars of MT4 would care about and look for revenue from *transfers* if they are promoting an advanced platform for *trading*?
Do you know that currently the revenue from transfers fee is only a tiny portion of the whole network revenue? And openledger is not as much focused as MT4 on trading, so I would expect even less revenue from people registering through MT4. (transfer wise)
Could you explain me how the hell guys managing thousands of dollars per trade would end up doing only 6 trades a day?
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)
IMO you should realize that MT4 registrar should focus on temp their users to upgrade to LTM and not expect traders to do transfers around just because.
MT4 should offers advanced trading features to LTM only to tempt traders to upgrade, as our Dex should.
IMO all your logic on mixing up transfers and trades make no sense at all.
You are correct. I meant trading fee's, not transfer fee's. If trading fee's are left alone or increased, using the referral program to support MT4 implementation is still viable. I'm not sure if the committee members who wanted to lower the transfer fee's also wanted to lower the trading fee's. I may have incorrectly assumed they wanted to reduce both sets of fee's.
As far as your question of why someone who trades with thousands of dollars would only trade 3 times a day. That's an average i'm taking based on my experience and the time I have spent with other traders in various trading groups. There are people who trade millions of dollars and maybe only make 1 or 2 trades a week. The amount of capital a trader has doesn't dictate the amount of trades a trader makes.
The whole point of this thread was to talk about why there is a lack of liquidity on the DEX and how it could be addressed in a low risk way. MT4 would drive much more liquidity to the bts platform, but the only way I can see it being implemented and profitable would be if the referral program could be used to generate income.
344
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 04:41:26 am »I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers. A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone. It's a nonfactor at those price points. The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.
Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L
345
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 04:13:39 am »6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.
I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.
You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear. It's not. Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10. Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00. This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.
The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
