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 - abit

Pages: 1 ... 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 [201] 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 ... 309
3001
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 07, 2016, 08:17:34 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 04:16:10 pm
Quote from: Bhuz on February 06, 2016, 03:13:12 pm
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 02:58:46 pm
So my current standing is that LTM/AM (and/or shorter membership schemes, e.g. monthly, if they get introduced) are the only subject of this proposal.
As for other fees - it could be done but I don't see a reason why we would need it.

Why don't we make it fully consistence at this point?

Let's have the committe decide the basic_fee for every operation.

Then let's allow the registrar to enter a % value that will be added on top of all basic fee.

E.g.
network basic fee:
   -transfer 10 bts
   -account_upgrade 10k bts

Registrar jakub choose 75% for his "costumers" jakub-cost

jakub-cost will pay:
   -transfer 17.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 17.5k bts

Jakub will take the %cut he charged:
   -transfer 7.5 bts
   -account_upgrade 7.5k bts

And where would this registrar's pricing policy be stored?
Any account can be a registrar. So you would need to allow every account to define the pricing policy in case this account becomes a registrar.
It becomes very complex IMO.
Technically, the "policy" can be stored in the faucet which is running by the registrar; then the parameters can be saved to every account registered, just what we're doing right now.

It makes no change to the result. Either competitors competing on a same base price and different on-the-top margins, or on a same end-user price and different discounts.

3002
General Discussion / Re: [poll] bug found Should the committee use the committee-trade account to trade
« on: February 07, 2016, 08:01:31 am »
Quote from: xeroc on February 07, 2016, 07:57:37 am
It may not be a bug after all but a desired feature. The owner key may ve considered as a coldkey tgis way. It seems I made some errors in the docs talking about authorities.
IMO it's a bug. Don't change the docs.

3003
General Discussion / Re: [poll] bug found Should the committee use the committee-trade account to trade
« on: February 07, 2016, 07:59:42 am »
Quote from: puppies on February 07, 2016, 06:32:36 am
This bug does not increase the risk of having these funds stolen while they are being traded.  This would require that of bhuz, bitcube, abit, xeroc, and myself three of us colluded together to steal these funds.  It does however increase the chance that the account can be stolen.  It effectively removes the ability of the committee to add or remove active authorizations to the account.  This instead needs to be done by the existing active authorities until this bug is fixed.
I'd like to point out that the committee still have full control over the "committee-trade" account, so it's possible for the committee to revoke any granted active authorities at any time.
It's just a matter of trust.
I voted for "use this account to trade right now" for better efficiency.

3004
General Discussion / Re: [poll] why did you upgrade to life time membership
« on: February 07, 2016, 07:50:39 am »
I have upgraded 3 accounts to LTMs in BTS 2.0, for different reasons.

* The first one, "in.abit" is for witness. Although I have another LTM "delegate.abit" already, since "in.abit" is the one I used in test network before the release of 2.0, I upgraded it in the 2.0 network.

* The second one, "abit" is mainly for saving some money when creating assets, and maybe future usages for example trading bots and/or creating accounts.

* The third one, "bsip10-worker" is for worker. In order to make it possible for committee to act as an escrow of BSIP10 worker proposal, I created the new account, and set it to multi-sig.

3005
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 06, 2016, 09:50:10 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 02:58:46 pm
Quote from: Bhuz on February 06, 2016, 01:44:28 pm
Could we have an estimation about time/cost for these changes?
IMO, they are not so "radical" at the end of the day, and would not cost very much, but I would like to hear abit's opinion that would be much more correct than mine. @abit
We need to hear it from abit.
I feel it would be a lot of work. Sorry right now I'm unable to make a detailed estimation.

It gives the registrar/referrer some conveniences and lower barriers, but the result is no change if let committee but not registrars set the lower limits (and I am against the idea that will give out zero cost AM to new users).

3006
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 06, 2016, 09:20:42 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 08:59:12 am
Quote from: abit on February 06, 2016, 08:13:15 am
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.
I'd be happy to make a BSIP out of it but the current situation with the committee does not encourage me to do so.

If the committee manages to push through flat transfer fees at around $0.02, I cannot see much need for this concept.
My goal was to offer a sensible alternative which allows us to save the baby (i.e. keep flat transfer fees at the current level).
When the baby is killed, there is little need to have the alternative.
I'd rather wait for the committee to publish their proposal first, which is said to be done in next week.
An good pricing strategy is important for the platform.

3007
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 06, 2016, 08:42:49 am »
Most proxies are invited to the Telegram channel. So there is enough transparency imo.

IM is a good tool for discussing.

Committee hasn't made any decision on changing something, just proposals for changing something.

3008
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 06, 2016, 08:13:15 am »
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

//Update:
After more thinking, now I tend to leave the design of vesting period on large amount of cash-backs unchanged.
So I will still support the 1st and 2nd proposals above, but against the 3rd.

3009
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Documentation/Technical Support/Python Development
« on: February 06, 2016, 07:38:20 am »
@xeroc we need a tutorial of how to create a committee member in this doc: http://docs.bitshares.eu/bitshares/user/committee.html

3010
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 06, 2016, 04:55:27 am »
Quote from: dannotestein on February 05, 2016, 05:34:51 pm
I've sent the official proposal to the blockchain. It can be found in the wallet under "Voting" in the Workers tab as "Blockchain maintenance developer". As a side note, as I just found this out: you need to press either Approve or Reject, and THEN you must press Publish Changes button at top of screen. I've suggested a change to this interface since it deeply confused me.
This https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/718? I've added some comments there.

Basically you're asking for $200 per day with weekends/holidays included. What's your hourly rate? Will you make daily/weekly work reports? The biggest obstacle here is how to validate/value your work.

Imo you're a bit too optimistic about the worker.. Take it seriously. Politics matters. If bytemaster voted for your worker with no reason, will make a big trouble with Chinese community. If bytermaster doesn't vote, your worker is hard to be approved. Better do something first and apply for the worker later. Just my 2 cents.

3011
General Discussion / Re: Let's add a small game into BitShares and have some fun!
« on: February 05, 2016, 10:21:24 am »
Quote from: ebit on February 05, 2016, 10:07:50 am
good idea +5%
#sharebits  abit 1 ROSE
Thank you @ebit . If you have some spare time, can you please translate for me?

Quote from: Shentist on February 05, 2016, 05:33:37 am
i like the idea

could solve the discussion about the transferees, maybe with this idea we could let the fees stay the level they are right now, but every user has the chance to get free transfers every x hours.
You got me.
Quote
what do you mean by "mining"? does the user just need to be logged in?

i would prefer some small game like " 9 blocks and you have to click on each block in the right way. we could set this up like a kind of captcha, so no one can
missuse it.

and i would also like to provide small games in the client. will attract people to use the wallet.
How to make the game looks better, is not my strength..
My original idea is about one more mouse click after logged in. Or maybe two clicks.

Quote from: fav on February 05, 2016, 06:58:02 am
is this something like the red gift thingy PLAY added? sounds like a great idea
Sorry I don't know what PLAY did.. I'm not a fan of PLAY.

3012
General Discussion / Re: Let's add a small game into BitShares and have some fun!
« on: February 05, 2016, 12:58:18 am »
Quote from: donkeypong on February 05, 2016, 12:45:18 am
I like it. The game is a gimmick, but it's fun. And if it keeps people using BitShares more frequently and for longer periods, then why not have something like this? And why not have ten different games people can play? You could even combine this with other games, such as have a faucet or bingo that hands out a random prize (more bags?) at regular intervals if someone is logged in and active.
Yup, already thought about that.

By the way, here comes some concerns:
Quote
What if an attacker make 10k accounts?
Attacker can make 1mil
He can spam the network for free
Every 24hours
shouldn't happen
Network security is always serious
There's no free service
Thanks to @clayop
My answer is: let them pay 0.1 BTS for each transfer.

3013
General Discussion / Re: Should we Abandon Proof of Stake Marketing?
« on: February 04, 2016, 11:57:07 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on February 04, 2016, 10:01:42 pm
You need to have a white paper discussing the byzantine tolerance, the possible attack vectors, the mitigation, the game theory etc etc - then you will at least have something to direct people towards.
Honestly, I agree with this.

//Update:
I think this post will cause some dumps on BTS, or say decreasing of market cap.

3014
General Discussion / Let's add a small game into BitShares and have some fun!
« on: February 04, 2016, 11:50:10 pm »

Start.
Give every normal user a full "mineral bag".
By paying a bag of minerals, the user can do a flat fee transfer once for free. The bag then become empty.
The minerals in the bag will evaporate after 24 hours if not used. The bag then become empty.
When the bag is empty, the user can start "mining".
4 hours after started mining, the bag will be full.
The user have to rest for 20 hours to be able to mine again.
Repeat.

Advanced users (annual subscriber):
Advanced users have 2 bags.
Advanced users can mine a bag of minerals in 2 hours.
Advanced users can mine again after rested for 10 hours.
Advanced users equipped special bags so minerals will evaporate only after 48 hours.

Elite users (lifetime member):
Elite users have 3 bags.
Elite users can mine a bag of minerals in 1 hour.
Elite users can mine again after rested for 5 hours.
Elite users equipped high-tech bags so minerals will evaporate after 72 hours.

Happy mining :)

3015
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: February 04, 2016, 08:16:53 pm »
I thought your witness is "issuer"..
Vote for yourself and you'll be listed.

Pages: 1 ... 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 [201] 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 ... 309

Page created in 0.194 seconds with 21 queries.