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 - Akado

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 184
736
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 09:52:21 am »
On another thread

Quote from: xeroc on January 18, 2016, 08:50:45 am
So .. another idea came up to reduce the create/cancel order to the spare minimum to prevent spam and instead raise the market fee (at least for bitassets) from 0% to something higher than 0% (capped by some number) .. Committee is currently evaluating the options and tries to come up with reasonable numbers ..

737
Technical Support / Re: Worker Proposal: Collateralized Bond Market?
« on: January 18, 2016, 09:51:40 am »
Quote from: ncinic on January 18, 2016, 07:04:09 am
Depends on how much funding it needs? However, being as this feature is part of the core features stated on the Bitshares website shouldn't it be already implemented?

Exactly the reason some people find it unfair and aren't particularly happy. They thought they would get those features as advertised, yet they still need to pay for it and wait for development. Lack of communication at that time I believe.. like how it happened multiple times.

738
General Discussion / Re: Bitcoins Chaos is an Opportunity?
« on: January 18, 2016, 09:43:55 am »
Can the tipbot be used on reddit? That's the best way.  To use it like changetip

739
General Discussion / Re: BTC-EUR Market Based on Blockchain
« on: January 18, 2016, 09:41:16 am »
Quote from: karnal on January 18, 2016, 08:23:54 am
What I don't get is how having the various XXXXX.YYY improves over centralized exchanges. If your company disappears, we're all left with useless tokens.

Wouldn't it make more sense to accept deposits in EUR and hand out BitEUR?

How can exchanges keep up with the collateral? I deposit 100euros, exchange can only credit me 50bitEUR or something due to collateral being ~200%.

bitEUR is needed, however, there is no way for exchanges to do that unless they place a huge amount of money locked in collateral, which by itself means nothing because if there is a sudden surge on deposits, they might still not be able to keep up with them and be forced to say "sorry we dont accept deposits atm" which, if they do, they won't be used ever again.

I think exchanges should be an account type and allowed to have lower collateral maybe. Or have them share a multi signature account among themselves. That way they monitor each other. I've already suggested this. I believe it would be tough for them to agree with this but atm I have no other ideas.

740
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 12:54:03 am »
Quote from: abit on January 18, 2016, 12:38:13 am
Quote from: clayop on January 17, 2016, 11:32:33 pm
Quote from: Akado on January 17, 2016, 11:09:50 pm
Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer
This is my thought
They want to move out from the "transfer" mode to an "exchange" mode, so no transfers anymore, so unable to charge that fee.

Then peg their assets to asset_price - fee? Of course this will be useless for orders sitting on the order book. Assuming metaexchange becomes the frontend to BitShares, what's the problem here then? For a user, he usually has to pay fees. So whatever he pays for it would be the usual process. Of course Metaexchange would then have to adjust their fee rate for themselves. Either decrease it or maintain it but then the fee increases more.

Edit: I think I still didn't get it. So they're moving from "bridge" to "exchange" and want to operate on BitShares then?

741
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: January 17, 2016, 11:40:17 pm »
I think it's not about selling pressure, it's just people don't have an interest in BitShares atm. I can't be used to do much. Others can be mined or already have funding or companies interest, etc. What we're lacking atm is utility, something that feels a need. Until we have Bond Markets, Prediction Markets or companies using BitShares as a platform (ie exchanges), we won't see any price rise. Maybe we're lucky if there's another btc run but that's it, the same way we might go up, we'll go down, there's really nothing to keep us with a better price.

We might have the best chain and technology but it's pretty much half baked. It's not accessible or user friendly so it just isn't used. It will require more time for that.

742
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 11:09:50 pm »
Isn't there a way to pass those fees onto users instead of metaexchange? Why dont you just charge the fee on top of whatever amount they transfer

743
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:20:28 pm »
Metaexchange is mostly used as a bridge right? If so then get users to pay those fees. An extra 30bts or whatever the fee is in a transaction from time to time isn't much.

744
General Discussion / Re: Status on MineBitShares
« on: January 17, 2016, 04:00:25 pm »
I did read that post at that time, then it escalated into arguments and I didn't follow it any more.

I figured I would ask since the delay seems to be since September and the thread was made late November when we're approaching February.

Thanks

745
General Discussion / Status on MineBitShares
« on: January 17, 2016, 02:38:42 pm »
I'd like to know how many miners participate, how many new ones are there per month, if more are joining or not, etc, basically if it's growing and how. It was pretty strongly advertised how it would improve liquidity and although I obviously don't expect it to be one of the top pools in a few months, I'd like to know how are things going if possible? Or is this not a thing anymore for BTS since delegate pay doesn't exist? Meaning, is this a side business now and shareholders have nothing to do with?

http://pool.minebitshares.com/roundstats is down

746
General Discussion / Re: Mt Gox > Cryptsy - Time for BTS?
« on: January 17, 2016, 02:22:48 pm »
Quote from: karnal on January 17, 2016, 10:32:39 am
Quote from: monsterer on January 17, 2016, 10:16:41 am
Quote from: Thom on January 16, 2016, 06:52:17 pm
Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

+5% make bitDOGE bitDASH bitETH bitLTC bitNNN available tomorrow!

Exchanges won't be creating any bitassets because of the amount of collateral required, specially when they can just create an UIA. It would be the best option but they won't do it.

747
General Discussion / Re: Mt Gox > Cryptsy - Time for BTS?
« on: January 17, 2016, 12:34:40 am »
Quote from: Thom on January 16, 2016, 06:52:17 pm
Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

If this basic functionality is broken how the hell can BM say with a straight face the DEX is "done"?

And is it possible to expose when entities like ccedk, metaX etc are not using best practices in their account management? Seems like as a community we should put pressure on them to convince us they are indeed following best practices to insure user's funds are always safe.

Presumably we're only talking about the UIAs and IOUs administered by these organizations, b/c users' assets should be held on the BitShares blockchain, and they private keys under their own control.

What am I missing here?

It's ready in the sense that you own the assets on your wallet. When I say it's not it's because we're dealing with UIAs. Exchange can go rogue at any time with the real funds and user's are left with a useless asset from that exchange that no one will want because it can't be redeemed for whatever it is it's real asset.

That's why I insist on shared order books, on top of liquidity, it keeps users safe. There's still the problem of good exchanges carrying the burden of a rogue one so that's why I suggested multi sig accounts shared between all participant exchanges.

Atm I really don't see any other solution. Other would be sidechains I guess... Moonstone might be able to help with this? The wallet is supposed to have exchanges integrated if im not mistaken though Im not really sure how that would work or if it makes any difference at all in relation to this specific issue.

748
General Discussion / Re: www.thewolfofbitshares.com
« on: January 16, 2016, 11:49:40 pm »
Not Found

The requested URL / was not found on this server.

749
General Discussion / Re: How did Emercoin get to Microsoft Azure and how to get BitShares there
« on: January 16, 2016, 08:25:55 pm »
@xeroc is this kind of detailed documentation included on your worker proposal too?

750
Random Discussion / Re: Farewell to Mike Hearn and Some Thoughts on Scalability
« on: January 16, 2016, 05:34:27 pm »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 16, 2016, 05:25:30 pm
Quote from: Stan on January 16, 2016, 02:38:05 pm
Quote from: IOHKCharles on January 16, 2016, 06:08:15 am
You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!

I agree with Charles.  Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders.  Then buy up whatever gets dumped by irreconcilable maximalists.

Maybe even give bitcoiners a number of months to claim and then route unclaimed tokens into a Reserve Backed Asset (RBA) that gets a trickle of those unclaimed coins as its revenue stream.  Sharedrop the RBA to holders of ETH and BTS as compensation for their donated technology.  That would make the RBA liquid immediately while only gradually putting the unclaimed Bitcoin2 coins on the market. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.  Somebody equally respected by Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BitShares communities...

Any takers?

We are not respected by all communities.. but it might be a worthy undertaking for us to help organize and back.

I am kinda stunned by the prospect.

If the problem is us, just get other people to join in, it doesn't need someone completely from the outside. CNX and Vitalik for example.

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 184

Page created in 0.182 seconds with 20 queries.