406
General Discussion / Re: IOTA + Bitshares
« on: October 27, 2015, 09:27:50 pm »
welcome
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.
407
General Discussion / Re: Outstanding items after the 2.0 transition
« on: October 26, 2015, 10:35:40 pm »(2) Why is the Metaexchange delegate (dev-metaexchange.monsterer) still producing blocks on the old BTS blockchain?
@monsterer
I just didn't get a chance to shut it down yet - I'll get on it
no comments
409
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: cob, are you ready for tomorrow's go live?????:'( :'(
« on: October 26, 2015, 05:16:56 pm »
http://peertracks.com/
should you not update the site to make it obvious there that the muse chain already begun(?)
I feel we are all in the Dark...
very unprofessional launch !!!
I am not sure if it has happened!!!!
PS I bet that even the interested potential witnesses are not informed !
hope the first impression will change...
should you not update the site to make it obvious there that the muse chain already begun(?)
I feel we are all in the Dark...
very unprofessional launch !!!
I am not sure if it has happened!!!!
PS I bet that even the interested potential witnesses are not informed !
hope the first impression will change...
410
Nanocard / Re: Market maker on CCEDK with FREE debitcard?
« on: October 26, 2015, 05:08:58 pm »With the little exchanges out there, I am surprised about the littel interest in supporting CCEDK and this way in fact Openledger by offering themselves as marketmaker!!
If everybody decided to move their funds from POLO to CCEDK instead, perhaps we would see a healthy increase of bts and an increased amount of trading on OPenLedger as well.
You need to put your orderbook on the blockchain first, as well as make the nanocard functional through ccedk
411
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Community assistance: Contacting Exchanges to list MUSE
« on: October 26, 2015, 04:31:06 am »
just in case, create some UI-bitAssets on bts2.0
413
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: October 24, 2015, 04:07:53 pm »Wedge up or wedge down. What's ur guess?
Historically based... down....
414
General Discussion / Re: Standardized workflow for issues/improvements in the GUI
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:04:00 pm »When the market depth chart is clicked, the price input field is populated with a wrong price (probably x10).
Also, clicking on the depth chart no longer produces a red dashed vertical line being drawn on the chart - is it a bug or was it intentionally removed?
github: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/393
seems they have taken care...
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/369
415
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for a worker to get a subdomain on bitshares.org?
« on: October 24, 2015, 09:31:06 am »
416
General Discussion / Re: The Bitshares Bond Market could be the ultimate feature to bring liquidity.
« on: October 24, 2015, 02:09:11 am »Lifetime membership is $100 give or take? We should be able to give lifetime membership as a gift or perhaps loan lifetime membership to others. Is this possible?
Maybe better the annual membership?
417
General Discussion / Re: BITTREX locked my account with my BTS (They were not informed of the Upgrade)
« on: October 23, 2015, 01:53:20 pm »I am in contact with Riggie and they are working as quickly as possible to integrate withdrawal and deposits for bts2 ..
Have you any news?
It is very important they continue operation's vs bts2.0 so users have confidence again...
418
Technical Support / Re: I think we need to fix the fee structure for trading
« on: October 23, 2015, 12:26:46 pm »or maybe there can be a "market maker" membership for high trade
PS Maybe monthly "market maker" membership's ....
419
General Discussion / Re: We cannot let a baby to earn money
« on: October 23, 2015, 11:55:23 am »Are all transactions equal or do some transactions contribute more to revenue than others?
If all transactions are not equal then insignificant transactions could boost the TPS artificially and ruin the metric.
That is why in my version of a similar idea I propose the metric be based around profitability statistics. TPS is based around resource utilization which does matter but it's not the only thing that matters and it can be possibly gamed by bots. It also could create an incentive for people to not want TPS to ever reach a high number?
Instead if it's based around profitability, and fees go down as BTS 2.0 becomes more profitable, there is incentive to make BTS 2.0 as profitable as we can as quickly as we can.
420
Technical Support / Re: Loading stalls for OpenLedger web wallet
« on: October 23, 2015, 12:34:01 am »
refresh?
