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.
?
@abit @JonnyBitcoin @svkYes that's it.
Actually here is how is this done... smoothly. Courtesy of sports-owner. Pay attention to the fee.
1.
http://cryptofresh.com/tx/82ed3de6a98c6cf8a5cdf69afd956bdfa0eb2331 -> Show raw transaction
2.
then cancel.
Is there a proper withdrawal function being planned/in the pipeline?
@abit Thank you for fully explaining one of the arguments I was trying to make upthread... I was too lazy to do so.Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!You are right, it does take some work to set this up. This was why I thought someone could monopolize the market by being the first mover in developing something such as this. Considering market activity centralized around the most liquid exchange, it would likely not be worth it for someone to design and develop a competing system.
Regarding conceptualizing it to the users... I don't think they need to. It is really not much different from poloBTS as it exists now. Either way you are subject to inherent risks of a centralized exchange.
So... no one is going to consider BM'S very valid concern that essentially this proposal creates a "walled garden" in between Bitshares and the rest of the crypto currency community?
It would completely kill Bitshares imo. We need bitshares to take advantage of the gateways to the outside world provided by other crypto, not shut them off.
Tonyk's idea was actually a trick to try to get us to destroy bitshares, maybe so he can buy back in at 10% of the price and then try to get the change reverted or something.
Yes, really nice analysis indeed. I'm almost at the point where I would support this wholeheartedly. Although I'd really like to hear the opinions of some of the other reasonable, rational people around here. Also, I did have a couple more questions on the other thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21597.msg281941.html#msg281941
By the way, tony claimed this proposal would cost 40% of total worker funds. But it's actually more like 33%. We can also cut the yield in half, so in that case we're looking at less than 17%. I think that's a small price to pay to help bootstrap the DEX. C'mon people, we need to take action here, otherwise we'll just fade away!
Bitshares is awesome, just needs a little work here and there and more people willing to put money into the system to trade. i'd be happy to help you with some trading basics if you're still interested in playing around with the system. i think it's worth it long run and my money is where my mouth is, which should count for something.
Placing orders is the fundamental thing, I can't imagine how they could not fix it, if it was well known for some time. I guess I'll give it a try again, now when I know that it should be possible somehow in the end.
Where I can find information about OPEN.BTC, BTC, bitBTC currencies?
Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.
So, working or not this is untestable,imo.
This can also be done for less. But you just took the one number at face value and ran with it. Also, I love how you argue against this proposal because if it works, we won't stop it. That's brilliant, tony.
paging @jcalfee1 @valzav and @svkI cannot make a backup cause this is the first wallet for this browser (and OS for that matter), all I can do is go under win and make another backup, but I have tried several backup files made under win already.
To me this seems to be an issue with your local database.
It could probably be fixed by making a backup and creating a new wallet from the backup.
