2941
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:27:42 am »
localhost dumped another 5M to Polo.
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.
2942
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Percentage-based transfer fees
« on: February 12, 2016, 03:17:23 am »
More progresses have been made recently.
With a new patch, now the Committee can set percentage market(trading) fees and/or percentage transfer fee for BTS. Details described in this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.0.html.
Thanks for your support.
With a new patch, now the Committee can set percentage market(trading) fees and/or percentage transfer fee for BTS. Details described in this post https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21080.0.html.
Thanks for your support.
2943
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:43:55 am »This thread has exploded in just one day!Correct. When [quantity of gold] * [price of gold] is not enough to support M1, the governments abandoned Gold Standard, but not let the price of gold to the moon. How about BTS?
Haven't had the time to read it all to catch up, but I recall one comment to the effect: "How do we set the price of BTS if it isn't sold anywhere else than our DEX?
Perhaps an experiment could be setup to use the current ratio of BTS to bitUSD as a starting point, and set the size of the total bitUSD as a fixed quantity, but that wouldn't allow the "M1" to expand to fit the volume of currency exchange to support a dynamic economy.
This does sound like a v e r y novel & innovative idea, very unique. It will indeed be extremely interesting to see how it evolves.
2944
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:32:23 am »
Update:
2016-02-12 Implemented a new operation, so the committee can change some options of the core asset (BTS), including:
* percentage market fee / market fee cap
* transfer fee mode
OP updated accordingly.
If you want this feature, please vote for the worker "1.14.29 [BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER". Thanks.
2016-02-12 Implemented a new operation, so the committee can change some options of the core asset (BTS), including:
* percentage market fee / market fee cap
* transfer fee mode
OP updated accordingly.
If you want this feature, please vote for the worker "1.14.29 [BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER". Thanks.
2945
General Discussion / Re: Why I like Ethereum [BLOG POST]
« on: February 12, 2016, 01:21:41 am »Hopefully..Just now read the article and wanted to make a comment. Particularly in regards to what you'd do differently. Doing all of this in memory kind of defeats the purpose of having stored data. It adds speed, that is true, but there are problems in regards to having truly decentralized applications and to have them be verifiable. On the other hand, the way Bitshares operates it would likely not be an issue mainly due to the way that the consensus algo operates. As for the merkle tri-graph, I would like to hear why it is redundant. It is very much expensive, that is true, but if you want a truly decentralized and trustless application, it is somewhat necessary. But again, I can see why you'd do it this way due to the Bitshares algo as the goal in the algo is not to be trustless, just to be decentralized. There are tradeoffs to everything. In any case. Hope all is well.
btw, everyone please congratulate vor as he was hired by gavin to continue his work on solidity.
Is this a Possibility for BITSHARES?!I am holding onto BTS because I believe that along with Ethereum, it is going to be the only other cryptocurrency 2.0 project to make a difference...and I actually see the model of DPOS melding quite well into the new Ethereum Serenity model if I understand it correctly.
2946
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] What rate should the committee sell the collected bitassets over feed?
« on: February 12, 2016, 01:05:34 am »No that the committee-trade account has the funds, and I finished up some extension of the exchange.py to allow proposing of trades ... I would like to resurrect this thread.I propose that we set different start point for different assets, lower by 1% everyday, to a bottom.
I'll propose the corresponding sell orders at +10% for everything we have in the committee-trade account later today, but would like to give everyone a last chance to voice their opinion
* set the bottom as 5%
* if current premium of an asset in the market is less than 5%, place ask order at 5%
* if current premium of an asset is greater than 15%, place the order at 15% for the first time, then lower by 1% everyday
* if current premium of an asset is between 15% and 5%, place the order at ([current premium] -1%), then lower by 1% everyday
The "current premium" described above should not simply be the lowest ask price, it should be with a total volume (market depth) which is not less than 1/2 of amount of the committee-trade account wants to sell.
2947
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:48:42 pm »@xeroc I seems that I was voted out, and right now `noisy` is no longer a witness, `necklace` is. Could I ask for the votes of the committee-members? I think it will be better to have better distribution of nodes.done .. I removed some more init delegates so that we can start decentralizing the testnet
Confirmed. Maintenance interval is so long.
2948
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:44:08 pm »I see.Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.
I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.
they are already offered different service in the proposed fee schedule, for transfer fee:
for LTM: $0.018, 80% cash back.
for basic user :$0.018 no cash back.
right?
what I said is no need to implement this in different time for LTM and basic user.
I think the text you quoted from the proposal refers to only some special features and/or new features.
2949
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:11:08 pm »If nobody create it, how to just buy it? Chicken and egg.Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
To create it I guess, but you can just buy it, which should be way easier assuming this model does provide the expected liquidity.
2950
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:07:10 pm »I've thought of this as well. We need to think about the worse scenario SERIOUSLY.
This may be a worst case scenario, but I think it is likely to happen at some point. We have already seen the price of bts decline by 50% in a day or two. the current incarnation survived to lick its wounds. I am not sure that this new version would. In short I would say that my argument is that attempting to make entry and exit entirely through market pegged assets will hinder the peg, and increase the fragility of the entire system.
I hope this wall of text wasn't too hard to read. If you disagree with any of my conclusions please let me know.
With the new design, BTS price will be backed by (expected) PROFIT of the platform, or say, fees - costs. It's more or less the bottom line.
2951
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 01:13:45 pm »Distribute payments at a monthly basis.There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
?
We need bootstrap.
All babies cannot feed themselves. If this idea indeed materialised into a forked Baby net by the bitshares community, I believe there would be a good number of donors and volunteers to be its low-pay witnesses, and to see it grow.
Like @alt said, if system earns no revenue, then pay 0 to workers, pay 0 to witnesses.
If system earns some revenue, split it to witnesses/workers/stake holders.
No dilution is needed at all.
2952
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:33:02 am »There is one more possible alternative:As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.
3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net. Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts. Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
?
We need bootstrap.
2953
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: clayop - Voting power for reasonable fee system and healthy network
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:57:00 pm »
@clayop Please vote for the refund or burn workers.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
2954
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: jakub - better execution / implementation / communication of BM's ideas
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:56:36 pm »
@jakub Please vote for the refund or burn workers.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
2955
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:56:08 pm »
@fav Please vote for the refund or burn workers.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.
By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.
