Quote from: trader on February 23, 2014, 11:45:04 am

If someone is tempted to sell their shares at the beginning, they should at least buy BitUSD instead of selling the shares. This (theoretically) will let you lock in your profits commission free, without totally exiting the Bitshares ecosystem. The only question is how much BitUSD will actually track the inverse price of BTS on the centralized exchanges. Its going to be fascinating to watch.

That is a good point and I agree that they should at least keep it in the system by buying BitUSD. I would speculate that at minimum 1 Bitshare would be worth about 15 BitUSD as BitUSD should closely match the dollar and 1 Bitshares-PTS is roughly $15.
I think that a single Bitshare being worth $1,000 would be a bargain considering that Bitshares is a product/service that is more efficient and set to disrupt a multi-trillion dollar industry perhaps even larger.
The reason I posted the OP was so that those of us who have a vested interest in the success of Bitshares realize that we will get a pretty good ROI as soon as Bitshares is launched and that just because you made a good ROI doesn't mean that you should dump because they will be worth a heck of a lot more later on.

Theoretically if you could make BitUSD be accepted by the Bitcoin ATMs in such a way that we could actually cash out our BitUSD then no one would have to ever sell a Bitshare for anything other than BitUSD.

But since Bitshares would still be sold, it would still influence the price. If you can earn BitUSD somehow in the Bitshares system in a way where the dividend or the value is enough that you could cash out BitUSD and not sell Bitshares let me know. I'm not sure how you could avoid selling Bitshares if you need cash.

The same argument is made with people selling Bitcoin. Why did that guy buy a pizza for 10,000 Bitcoins? Because he was hungry.

i also think it would be a good idea to contract low-cost ATM manufacturers to create bitshares ATMs (china or india)

I think someone from the community should do it. Whether from China or where ever it is a lot better if they know what Bitshares is and how it works.

Quote from: bytemaster on February 11, 2014, 12:44:22 am

Quote from: delulo on February 11, 2014, 12:31:44 am

I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.
Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

The problem with work facilities is that the current justice system willingly frames people or creates conditions for people to find themselves paying restitution for life. There are many debt traps, poverty traps, or traps which will put decent people in for profit private prisons.

We have a lot to fix with the justice system and the prison system. I think in general what we should focus on is reducing the scarcity and cost of living. People will not have to resort to crime or government support if the market were deflationary enough that everyone could just have their basic needs met. It's only when people become desperate that they begin to take chances they would not ordinarily have taken to earn $.

The rest of what you're saying I agree with. I do think that having more opportunities to make a living in an information based economy benefits everyone. No one has a monopoly on information at this time. But I think we should not limit what we are doing to just information alone because information can be made physical with 3d printers.

That means poverty as we know it can be dramatically reduced without government involvement. I would expect that as poverty is eliminated and the needs of people are met then we will have less street thugs selling drugs to pay for themselves and child support.

Quote from: Troglodactyl on February 20, 2014, 02:23:52 am

Quote from: progmac on February 19, 2014, 06:06:40 pm

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence.  The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.

I think about it a lot. Largely because I live in a neighborhood where i witness drug deals with some regularity and crime in general (petty theft mostly) is higher than average. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if nobody bought their drugs on the street and put the street-level dealer out of business. But then I figure that the people into dealing drugs are mostly poor kids who would be getting their money more violently if they couldn't sell dope. Young, uneducated, generally uncivilized -- how will they participate in the economy? What role would these type of people have in a new economy?

It's all a matter of tools. In the society of today the vast majority of people don't have the tools to survive and are in a state of desperation. Living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, or worse they are risking their lives and freedom to get beyond "street level".

We should be asking why are people so desperate? We should also be asking why government encourages people to have dependency on it's services but sets monetary and legal policies which may in fact contribute to the desperation people are under?

Finally we have to ask what can we do about this?  Crime exists where ever human beings are desperate and the laws interfere with the free market. In a free market where selling drugs is not illegal then the drug dealing industry wouldn't necessarily be violent anymore. But let's be honest about it and also admit that if there were better opportunities the vast majority of people who sell drugs for a living would be convinced to do something else.

So until we provide better opportunities for people by building tools which cannot easily be confiscated, banned, outlawed, or have the access restricted, then nothing can be expected to change. The other invention we can provide is deflationary currencies/DACs.

Anyone can benefit from using their own currency so that they can avoid certain poverty traps. People who don't have good credit cannot go to a bank to get a business loan, but they can go into debt for college. Who decided that college is more important than starting a business?

The other important distinction is the distinction between currencies which inflate which means every year the holders will become more desperate and competitive to maintain their position, and currencies which are deflationary which don't require desperation but instead patience. When you have the currency itself programming people into thinking like a criminal because if they don't get all they can and spend it all as fast as they can't it wont be worth anything, then how are you supposed to get people to think long term or set long term goals, save or plan ahead?

Those who are promoting the inflationary model are promoting the thug mentality without realizing it in my opinion and we should look very carefully at the effects of deflationary currencies on different demographics to see if it results in a behavioral change.

From what I've seen in the Bitcoin community I've noticed it's remarkably well behaved with not very much violence. I also know most people in the Bitcoin community are not rich at all. So there might be an opportunity for a case study on the effects of deflationary currencies on different populations, could it be that deflationary currencies deter crime because people think if they just have patience and save they can get everything they'll need without having to hurt or compete with other people?

I heard of Invictus a while back and thought they were trying to do too much to be successful at any one thing. Recently I watched some discussions with Daniel Larimer about BitShares and I am becoming more and more convinced that he is on the right track.
The problem I see is that there is a serious branding and messaging problem with Invictus products. For example:

* protoShares (AKA bitShares PTS)
* bitShares AGS
* bitShares and bitShares X (one is an exchange/bank, the other stores equities for all Invictus DACs? Still confused about this)
* Keyhotee

Please do not take this the wrong way, but what the hell? Even worse than being non-descriptive and difficult, these names are way too similar for the separate and distinct functions they are supposed to convey. At the very least, IMO, the names need to be changed immediately if this project is expected to gain any mainstream traction. I would go even further and say that I don't think most of the early adopters understand what these products actually are. Here is just one list of suggested names, off the top of my head, though I am sure the community can do much better if we tried:

* ProtoShares -> BitFund (funds the whole operation)
* BitShares -> BitCorps (stores equity in multiple corporations/DACs)
* BitShares AGS -> BitCorps Angel Investor Fund (why call this a "share" if it is not tradable/liquid? For consistency I would just call this a fund).
* BitShares X -> BitBank or BitExchange
* Keyhotee -> BitIdentity or BitID

I'd love to hear your thoughts, as well as clarification on the issues I am not understanding correctly. Thanks.

I have to agree these names make a lot more sense and are easier to market. Why not just use the Bit (without the Shares) as the brand?

Microsoft "Windows" <-- Logical brand
Microsoft "Word" 2000 <-- Logical brand 200 edition
Microsoft "Windows" 95/2000 <-- Logical version of Logical brand
Microsoft "Windows Word X" (what?!)
Microsoft "Windows IE 10"? (huh?!)

But I'm not the one who made the decision to switch it around and whoever did make the decision probably has the metrics to determine if it's catching on fast or not.

My advice or suggestion is ditch the X and weird lettering and just give each chain a code name and a date. If Bitshares X is the code name then replace the X with the date the blockchain is mapped and born.

Bitshares (codename) 03-2014

Just as Android has a code name with every release and Ubuntu has a code name with every release. Go with code names and dates but keep a primary brand of "Bit" or "Bitshares".

One of the reasons that I am particularly bullish on cryptocurrencies in 2014 is the advent of bitcoin ATM's in US. I think a compelling argument can be made for why post offices will enter into this market as well. I've seen some posts on this forum suggest that bitAssets can be bought directly as opposed to buying bts first and trading for bitAssets afterwards. I am curious how bitshares x can be integrated in these new atms, in this way competing almost on the same level as its centralized counterparts. Can an individual interact with the machines with the same security and simplicity as when using his/her current bank's atms?

Just trying to get peoples thoughts on this as it is probably one of the more essential developments that will lead to greater adoption.

I agree with you completely. After the launch of Bitshares X Dan and Stan should put a priority on getting some Bitshares ATMs installed. The more of these cryptocurrency ATMs there are the more people will ask what it is and get involved.

Its not like typical betting. Its more informed betting, as the markets are fluid and you can change your bet/position at anytime. Look at the analogy provided here:

Quote from: bitbadger on February 20, 2014, 12:47:15 am

It is like betting on a horse race, which I think most people understand, but just in case, I will first explain briefly how a standard peri-mutuel betting system operates at most horse tracks. 

In a normal horse race scenario, you bet on which horse you think will win.  The winnings that you receive are based on the "odds" which are calculated constantly, determined by how much money has been bet on each horse, from all of the bettors placing bets on that race.  So, for example, say there is a 3-horse race, and all the winnings will be paid out to bettors (in real life, there would be more horses, and the event organizer would take a cut).  $100 have been bet on Horse A to win, $20 have been bet on Horse B to win, $10 have been bet on Horse C to win.  So $130 has been wagered in total.  Most people think that Horse A will win, so there must be some reason for this, and it is probably likely that Horse A will win.  So the payout if Horse A wins, is $130/100 = $1.3 per $1 wagered.  So if you bet $1 on Horse A, and Horse A wins, you will receive $1.30 in winnings.  If you bet on Horse B, and Horse B wins, you will receive $130/20 = $6.50 if you wagered $1.  So you win much more money, but Horse B winning was much less likely.  So the reward is always proportional to the risk, and the risk is determined by the knowledge of the market as a whole -- all of the people betting on that race.

Now, let's change things a bit.  In a real horse race, all betting is closed when the race starts.  So you can't watch half of the race, and go up and bet on the horse who's in the lead at that time.  However, in this race, you can make bets during the race, and you can even change your bets during the race.  So you're watching the race, and you see Horse B now has the lead, so you can change your bet from Horse A to Horse B.  However, EVERYBODY will do this!  The entire market will gradually change their bets to Horse B as the race progresses, and as Horse B is seen to be in the lead.  By the time the race is over, everybody will have changed their bets to Horse B.  Therefore everybody's payout will be the same, $130/130 = $1.00 exactly. 

Now, you may say: What is the point of this?  The whole fun of betting is to win something!  Just getting your money back is boring!  But if you were at a horse race, and you were given the option to change your bet in the middle of the race, wouldn't you take advantage of it?  Wouldn't you at least NOT LOSE your money, even if it means it's not possible to win?

Ok, now what does this mean for BitUSD?  It is a perpetual horse race, where you can change your bets at any given moment.  The market converges on everybody "betting" that 1 BitUSD = 1 USD.

Now say that someone had a lot of BitUSD that they want to get rid of quickly.  So maybe they put in an order for 1 BitUSD = 0.99 USD.  There will be long a line of people waiting to buy the BitUSD's for the price of only 0.99 USD, because that will mean instant profit!  And it also works the other way around.  If someone has a lot of USD that they want to use to buy BitUSD, and they're in a hurry to do it, they'll come up and say "All right, gimme a bunch of BitUSD, and I'll pay 1.01 USD for each of them!"  And again, there will be a long line of people happy to sell them BitUSD at 1.01 each, because hey, profit of 1 cent each! 

As long as the market "agrees" that the price of 1 BitUSD = 1 USD, all of this will happen automatically.  It is just like the market "agreeing" that Horse B is going to win the race, right before Horse B crosses the finish line.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=2368.0

Every bet is tantamount to an investment in this case.

Also I don't know why you think that a betting market or whatever type of market you want to call it would need an issuer. If i want to place a bet in a market that doesn't exist I will create that market, regardless of whether I charge a fee.

I may not fully understand what type of platform you want this betting operation to occur under. If its not a prediction market I don't see how it fits into bitshares at all.

Why would you take a bet if not to try and win a profit? Why would you create a market if not to earn a profit?

You're saying what you would do, but you're not telling me what incentive the average profit seeking person would have to do what you'd do. Why would Joe Sixpack care about any of this stuff? They barely know what Bitcoin is but you expect them to care about the intricacies of the market?

For economics professors or people studying prediction markets it will be great, but then when I go to the sports forums I see a completely different breed. These people actually care about who wins or loses, they don't seek to change their bet in the middle of the event because it defeats the purpose of the game.

And that is the core difference. To 99% of people who make bets it's a profit making game. To the 1% who are professional investors, who know what a prediction market is, these are the Wall Street investor class and they are not the same people as the people who bet on horse races, sporting events, or who go to the casino.

It's questionable as to whether or not Bitshares will be able to attract the serious investor right away. I don't think Wall Street or day traders will be taking Bitshares seriously. I do think there are hundreds of millions of sports fans who would make small bets. It would generate a lot more volume a lot sooner so that is why I bring it up.

It's debatable whether or not you want that volume if you're thinking about it from an academic or serious perspective but if you're thinking about it from a perspective of generating the maximum volume, fees, and profit for Bitshares holders then it should be obvious what I'm saying.

The purpose of BitUSD is specific. I completely agree that for something like BitUSD it's not a sporting event and the goal is price discovery and a bunch of other factors. So I was not talking about fees for something like that, but fees for the not so important fun stuff which people like to bet on but which does not matter much to investors.

1) is the fact that individuals that first enter into the prediction market have to purchase the stock from this issuer not incentive enough? not to mention the issuer has the same incentive as any early investor - a more substantial return on his/her investment

2) fees theoretically reduce participation in the market as players have to calculate the fee into their cost-benefit analysis of entering the market.

People will issue prediction markets regardless of fees, as they still stand to gain a lot even without them. If there should be a fee at all it should be a fee on the issuer, so as to discourage the propagation of irrelevant markets for which there will be low participation.

So which is it? People will issue prediction markets regardless of fees? Why would you have quality without a profit incentive which rewards quality? How do you increase volume and attract people in if you don't reward the people who bring you the most volume?

For example if I issue a bet on the price of BTS after the first month being above or below a certain limit, and there is a fee for all who participates, then I'm rewarded as more people participate in my prediction market. This would probably be the rational sort of people so what if I create prediction markets which don't have anything to do with rational people and ask the question of what will happen in a TV series? Suppose more people are attracted for irrational reasons than rational, doesn't it still increase volume?

By rewarding me for increasing the volume it would give me incentive to both market Bitshares the protocol and the specific bet that I'm trying to make money from. People who think they could win big won't mind paying a percentage fee to make the bet if it's designed right. You want Bitshares to reach critical mass overnight and have good marketing? Reward the people who generate the prediction markets in the first place and you'll have high quality markets.

I think there should be no rules on fees and that the issuers should be able to set their own fees which should be whatever people are willing to pay to subscribe to their broadcast.

Maybe that issuer has a website with a subscribe button and is actively marketing. Why shouldn't that issuer be rewarded more for success in bringing people into Bitshares?

2) fees theoretically reduce participation in the market as players have to calculate the fee into their cost-benefit analysis of entering the market.

Robots think like this, humans do not. Gamblers don't think about the cost-benefit analysis else they wouldn't be gambling, playing the lottery, or doing most of the stuff which defies logic. So you're not dealing with the same breed as you deal with if you're talking about a stock investor. If it's not the same breed why tread it as if these two categories of users think the same?

People who gamble such as those who bet on sports do not do so for rational reasons. It would be a soccer game and they could be doing it for nationalist reasons. It could be the Olypmics and they could be doing it out of some sort of national pride. But if you want Bitshares to reach critical mass these are the sorts of users who will make up the majority in my opinion.

So if you give the issuer an incentive and the ability to profit as much as possible then you'll have the sort of magnetic hubs that attract new users. You could have betting sites which use Bitshares for example and gambling sites as well, none of which would be using cost/benefit analysis in these cases.

Now if you're talking about actual prediction markets for serious users and professional day traders then these people might want to do things differently. Institutional investors are a different category of user than what I was talking about which is why I said "betting" rather than investing.

Vigorish percentage can be defined in a way independent of the outcome of the event and of bettors' behaviors by defining it as the percentage raked in a risk-free wager. This definition is the rake of the bookie as a percentage of total bets received if the bookie has balanced the wagers so that he makes equal profit regardless of the outcome of the event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigorish