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.


Messages - lil_jay890

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 80
346
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 01:53:27 am »
Quote from: clayop on February 09, 2016, 01:22:21 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 09, 2016, 01:12:26 am
Quote from: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 10:04:04 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee.
How can you judge a certain fee level makes referral program "useless"? Do you think $10 fee per transfer is more useful for referral program?

Can you provide a number how reduced fee kills referral program?

You really wan't me to explain how lowering the transfer fee's to 1 bts kills the referall program??

Ok... say mt4 integration cost $100k.  Profit from this is based on referrals from people who create a wallet that is used in the mt4 terminal.  Right now there are approximately 100k retail trading account in the US.  Lets just say on average a trader makes 3 round trip trades a day.  Say bts captures 1% of this market.  1,000 traders making 6 trades a day = 6,000 trades.  6,000 * 1bts = $21/day... The time to pay off the 100k dollar debt to implement mt4 would take 4,761 days or 13 years.  This makes mt4 integration a non-starter as maintenance costs would probably add another 6 years onto the time it takes to get profitable.

Now lets say that the trader generates 30bts... take 80% of that (24bts) as the return for a trade.  6,000 * 24bts = $504/day.  Time to pay off the debt is 198 days.  Investors are back in the black in less than 10% of the time all while squishing spreads, adding liquidity and generating real profit for the blockchain.  The transfer fee is $0.10, substantially less than what traders currently pay.  Why have a race to 0 fee's when there is no reason to do it???

347
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 01:12:26 am »
Quote from: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 10:04:04 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

If I'm not mistaken, transfer fee's could be lowered enough to make the referral program useless.  Those fee's are controlled by the committee.  Committee members have directly expressed the desire to lower the transfer fee's to knock out the referral program because it is not popular or accepted in China.  Even BM has expressed, in mumble, an interest in lowering transfer fee's enough to make the referral program useless.

I'm not doing this just to spread fud...  Building a plugin for mt4 will be expensive.  Just the license will cost 50k-100k.  Plus probably another 50k in development time.  The referral program being left in it's current state would be absolutely critical for this to work and be profitable.  That's a lot of resources and a lot of risk to be left hanging at the whim of what seems like a fairly polarized committee. 

348
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 08, 2016, 09:52:05 pm »
Just going based off this... see item 3.  I suppose I should have said some committee members instead of a lot.  My mistake.

Quote from: bitcrab on January 28, 2016, 06:08:57 am


1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way -  go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.

3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.



Bottom line: There is still a fairly substantial risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

349
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 08, 2016, 09:33:37 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 08:52:51 pm


Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 06:59:53 pm
Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.
that is simply not true and you should know it better

Thanks Dad.

I didn't say all the committe members want to, but bitcrab and many of the chinese members have advocated eliminating the referral programs.

350
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 08, 2016, 06:59:53 pm »
Quote from: morpheus on February 08, 2016, 06:48:15 pm
Quote from: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 09:09:50 am
Quote from: Thom on February 08, 2016, 01:46:58 am
Quote from: onceuponatime on February 08, 2016, 01:19:19 am
Quote from: noisy on February 08, 2016, 01:08:01 am
Quote from: jakub on February 07, 2016, 08:52:18 pm
EDIT: And do it as FBA.

What is FBA?

FBA = fee backed asset

Actually isn't it "Feature" Backed Asset? Fees don't have to originate from a feature, but the entire concept arose from the idea of selling the revenue stream from a feature, that feature being confidential transactions. It's a minor nit, since the revenue stream comes from using the feature, i.e. there is a fee for it's use and that is the source of the revenue. Fee Backed Asset doesn't convey the heart & soul of the concept IMO.
The idea of integrating BTS into MT4 is great, but I don't see how this could be fund by FBA. You could however take a percentage of trades from those that use MT4 simply buy putting another operation into transactions that transfer funds .. or some subscription model ..

Could MT4 not generate income through referral fees by users who sign up through MT4?  Isn't that the whole point of the referral program.

That is the only way I figure an MT4 integration would be able to make money... FBA doesn't seem possible.

Too bad a lot of committee members want to destroy the referral program.

351
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Weekly Hot Topics, Updates and News 01/02/2016 - 07/02/2016
« on: February 08, 2016, 04:11:55 pm »
Nice job Akado!

352
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 04:10:13 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on February 08, 2016, 04:01:44 pm
Can we consider not to have any fees whatsoever (just antispam fees) so we can enable micro transactions and do not pay witnesses or committee or anyone from the fees generated?

The way I see it is that if I am a big shareholder I have an incentive to pay people witness and committee to do what they do. So the shareholders should vote for committee and witness as usual, negotiate their salary and pay them accordingly proportionally to their shares. Eventually shareholders will find the balance of hiring the correct people to do the job done properly. Not all of them will have the same salary and their salary will be based on reputation and proper handling.

If I am a big company with lots of funds and I can take over bitshares, I would vote for the people I want and pay them a salary from my holdings and make sure they do the job properly otherwise my shares would fall in value.

So why do we need fees in the first place? Personally I think that current fees are very low but a lot of people have different opinion especially Chinese people who are used not to pay any fees. So it is more important to bring liquidity and these people to trade in a free fee platform than to generate some insignificant amounts from fees..

Maybe I am thinking something wrong here since I don't know the exact mechanics but anyway..

So you want the committee members to pay the witness's to produce blocks?  Why even separate the 2 then?  There would be no separation of power and the witness would be at the mercy of the committee member that is paying them.

All these no fee ideas are non-starters... No one has been able to identify a viable way to pay witness's once the reserve pool runs out.

353
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 03:47:05 pm »
Quote from: pc on February 08, 2016, 03:44:20 pm
Quote from: oldmine on February 08, 2016, 03:14:11 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 03:06:24 pm
I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.

Do witnesses actually need to pay a fee to sign a block? A fee is an anti-spam measure, and witnesses can be expected to sign at regular intervals and no more.



Uh... no. Witnesses don't pay fees to sign blocks, they *are* paid for signing blocks.
Witnesses do pay fees to publish price feeds, but I suppose that fee would be eliminated as well.

So if we get rid of fees and remove the ability for the blockchain to make money... How are we going to pay the witness's to sign blocks once we run out of bts in the reserve pool??

354
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 03:06:24 pm »
Quote from: noisy on February 08, 2016, 02:19:40 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 02:06:57 pm
I still don't get how witnesses are going to continue producing blocks if we remove all fees and the reserve pool runs out...  Am I missing something?

Yes... 40 minutes Q&A ;) Listen here - https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/e132  (from minute ~22). It is worth listening! ;)

I was there and all he said was that it would continue to be funded through dilution... eventually those funds will run out and there will be no means to pay witnesses.

355
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 02:06:57 pm »
I still don't get how witnesses are going to continue producing blocks if we remove all fees and the reserve pool runs out...  Am I missing something?

356
General Discussion / Re: Appearance of Deflation vs No Dilution
« on: February 07, 2016, 12:42:04 pm »
You will kill bts if you adjust the supply to 3.7 billion.  That number is only true if it is used up in worker proposals or witness pay.  The price is bts will be cut by a 3rd and traders are going to get margin called and stopped out. Think of what happened to the swiss Frank after they said they were abandoning the euro peg. The frank rose 20% causing exchanges to blow up while many traders were carried out in body bags.

This would be the most detrimental thing ever to happen to bitshares... It will be much worse than the merger.

357
General Discussion / Re: Metatrader 4 and Bitshares
« on: February 07, 2016, 12:21:35 pm »
Quote from: jsidhu on February 07, 2016, 08:49:29 am
Quote from: abit on February 07, 2016, 08:23:26 am
Quote from: Pheonike on February 06, 2016, 08:23:22 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 06, 2016, 06:25:21 pm
Quote from: TravelsAsia on February 06, 2016, 06:13:50 pm
Any updates on the progress?

I don't think much has been done since the last post... I've been trying to drum up some interest again though.

The BTS community is stuck on this thought that fee's are the problem with adoption and market cap growth.  The fee's aren't the problem, the interface is.  I'm hoping that the blocktrades worker proposal can be redirected to creating an metatrader plugin.  They seem like the most able candidate to integrate bts and mt4.  I would even advocate doubling their pay to get this done if that's what it takes.
The Chinese bts community is stuck on fees.
They also complain about UI. However most of them have never used MT4 (even BM hasn't).
Its used worldwide, bm isnt a trader so he doesnt know

This is why cnx hasn't put this high on their priority list.  They are not traders and they don't see the low hanging fruit right in front of their faces.

Mt4 is the most popular trading platform in the world. Saying china doesn't use mt4 is another sweeping generalization that Chinese forum members seem to use all to often. There may be a cheaper option, but none will instantly open the door to millions of traders like an mt4 plugin and license would.

358
General Discussion / Re: Metatrader 4 and Bitshares
« on: February 06, 2016, 06:25:21 pm »
Quote from: TravelsAsia on February 06, 2016, 06:13:50 pm
Any updates on the progress?

I don't think much has been done since the last post... I've been trying to drum up some interest again though.

The BTS community is stuck on this thought that fee's are the problem with adoption and market cap growth.  The fee's aren't the problem, the interface is.  I'm hoping that the blocktrades worker proposal can be redirected to creating an metatrader plugin.  They seem like the most able candidate to integrate bts and mt4.  I would even advocate doubling their pay to get this done if that's what it takes.

359
General Discussion / Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 06, 2016, 04:42:47 pm »
For a while now people have been trying to figure out why there is so little trading volume on the DEX.  I've traded forex and stocks for over 10 years and have written dozens of trading bots (Expert Advisors) in the mql language.  I've turned $2,500 into $50,000 in 6 months.  I've also turned $50,000 into $20,000 in 6 months as well. I think I have a pretty good idea of what traders need and expect from a platform.

1. Shorting in the DEX is cumbersome and confusing
I recently tried to short using the DEX.  I borrowed CNY and then sold that CNY for BTS.  I ended up getting margin called as BTS fell in price.  I'm ok with being wrong about a position, but I'm very confused with the mechanics of how this happened.  I also had no idea what my position was worth throughout the trade, and I'm not even entirely sure how much I lost.  Shorting needs to be streamlined and simplified.  The borrow/sell thing is too many steps and not knowing the positions value during the trade is borderline scary.

2.Is there a way to put a stop loss or take profit order?
Because right now I can't figure out how to do it.  This means there is no money management ability.  Without the ability to manage a trade, the DEX is unusable for serious traders.  There needs to be at a minim stop loss orders.  There really should be a way to put trailing stops in as well.

3.Indicators are shaky at best
Right now there are 4 indicators and 2 of them are moving averages.  The RSI doesn't appear to be working as the only reading I see on the more liquid markets are 100, 50, or 0.  It looks like an EKG witch tells me something isn't working correctly.  Not all traders use indicators, but many do.

These are just basic GUI things that are preventing traders from using the DEX.  It doesn't even include the inability to use leverage.  Just fixing the 3 things above will bring much more utility and liquidity to the dex.  I will guarantee it.  The people that originally designed the DEX were not traders.  They thought poloniex was a good interface to base their platform on.  Unfortunately, poloniex is not a good platform.  A professional trader would never use Poloniex.  Poloniex's platform is modeled off some cheap retail trading platform.

How do we fix this??
Right now we are consumed by petty fee debates and if we should keep calling ourselves DPOS.  These things are not that important right now.  It's not what will drive mainstream traders to the BTS platform.  What is needed is A PLUGIN FOR METATRADER 4.  While it isn't the most sophisticated trading platform, it's the most widely used and known.  It's also light years ahead of the current DEX.  What I propose is that instead of @dannotestein and blocktrades using a worker proposal to fix basic blockchain bugs, rather is work on creating a plugin for MT4.  They are already an exchange and have a good understanding of BTS.  I know it's not as easy as fixing "bad coding techniques", but getting this plugin for BTS would do more to improve the market cap and utility than anything else.

360
General Discussion / Re: Should we Abandon Proof of Stake Marketing?
« on: February 06, 2016, 04:09:13 pm »
Quote from: giant middle finger on February 06, 2016, 02:06:21 pm
Quote from: Stan on February 05, 2016, 05:45:17 pm
Quote from: -banano- on February 05, 2016, 07:26:51 am
what's wrong with calling us "proof of work"?

what do you call your miners?

"workers"

ok then

Bitcoin calls their workers: "miners" so they should change their name to Proof of Mine

What are our workers doing that bitcoin's "miners"(workers) aren't?

Bitshares is more POW than bitcoin if anybody asks me, but since we are on the coinmarketcap 100, nobody asks or cares what consensus model you use anymore because none have been hacked and none are 100% decentralized.

+1

No, shet, who cares about about proof of work/burn/stake/importance/activity, none are perfect, and all are secure.

All money cares about now is features.  Ever hear of Ethereum, Factom, Emercoin, Alexandria, Zcash, Synereo, Maidsafe, etc.

It's 2016 already, the proof of "who cares what" is irrelevant to the "what can I use it for?" question.

Proof of consensus was Bitcoin1.0

Proof that your application works is what everyone wants to know about since "proof of anything" has been proven secure from hack/theft.

Tell me this :

When was the last time you had a discussion about "doublespending?"

See, that conversation was abandoned back when we abandoned the POW vs POS arguments ultimately realizing that it is an argument of opinion like what would you do if I started a "what's your favorite flavor of ice cream or nationality of woman?" thread etc...

what we are really just doing here is proof of masturbation... When is the DARK DEX going to be ready?

Totally agree with this^^

No one cares about proof of whatever... as long as it's secure, which most cryptos have already proved to be.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... 80

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 20 queries.