Quote from: Akado on January 13, 2016, 12:54:30 pm

We would either need them to use BitAssets or a common UIA like OPENBTC for example. Other than that it doesn't really change anything.

Quote from: Stan on January 14, 2016, 02:39:01 am

Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency?  Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there.  And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.

In the current model the customer has to trust the centralized exchange but the exchange doesn't have to trust anybody.
They only credit a customer with an IOU once they've confirmed the actual alt-coins have been received in their wallet.

While I'm sure I've misunderstood something, does your paragraph above mean an exchange would have to redeem IOUs from other member exchanges?

If so that would create a situation where a Cryptsy default would fall on other member exchanges or worse a rogue member exchange could issue IOUs out of thin air and redeem them on other member exchanges?

They shouldn't be able to issue assets out of thin air, because if they have a shared order book with the same asset, all services using that asset would need to have a weight on it to prevent that. I think that would be good in the sense that they would monitor each other too to avoid abuse, plus the would need everyone's permission.

As for the first point... you make a good case. Unlike you I only saw it from a user's pov, which means that for me if an exchange went rogue,I could still redeem my IOUs with another exchange meaning I would never loose my BTC, ever.

However, like you pointed, from an exchange's pov, it's a completely different view that I haven't thought about! I didn't give it too much thought but my first reaction upon reading that is it could be exploitable....

If we have 5 exchanges. All with 100 btc on their addresses and the equivalent on our chain, meaning 500 OPENBTC for example.
If one exchange goes rogue, there will be 100 extra BTC on the market that cannot be redeemed. I mean, they can but then we will see stuff like Gox and Cryptsy all over again which is what we're trying to avoid. I think we really should thought this through first since it's has the potential to jeopardize the entire DEX...

The only solution atm is having exchanges locking BTC in collateral... So when a client deposits BTC on their account, the exchange should use that btc to by the respective amount of BTS at lock it, maybe in a multi signature or account with permissions... Then we get to the same problem as bitAssets, what if the price of BTS goes way up or way down? That can mess up the collateral, that's why we need 200% to create bitAssets.... and now we're back to the same initial step, where exchanges might not be able to keep up with the collateral.

Even if they would place only 100% collateral, I doubt they would do all of that, it's too complex. Plus, how would they buy bts? They would need to use an external exchange for that LOL.

They could share a multisignature BTC, LTC, DOGE, etc accounts with other exchanges to prevent that... But again, I just don't see exchanges willing to do that. The only ones who might be willing to do this is either an exchange that sees the potential in this or is just a  very small one.  Then we would work our way to the top till we have many small exchanges...

There might be another way, but atm the only way I see it is having them sharing all wallets with multi-signature. However only small exchanges would accept that. No one will want other exchanges to give them permission to use their funds... but then again, it's not THEIR funds, it's not the exchange's funds. It's USER'S funds, so they should do this in good faith..

This is the only option I see atm. Otherwise we can't prevent an exchange from going away with user's funds. We need to turn the game around. Make the exchanges WANT to join us and not the other way around. Because we are the best option. That will make them "give us" something in exchange, which they really aren't because funds are not theirs, are from their users. Imo this argument makes sense, but exchanges can be just stubborn and refuse it. We just have to go with people who trust us, see potential in this project and are willing to provide the best services for their users.

This scheme would make it even easier to audit! For example if there are 1569 OPENBTC issued on the DEX then with a simple click they can check the multi account address and  check there are 1569 BTCs there. For the sake of transparency.



Edit: We also need that bug that rounds up the order values not letting you match other orders. This is essential. No exchange can operate or join us if we dont fix that.

Quote from: Akado on January 13, 2016, 04:47:38 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 13, 2016, 04:42:49 pm

Now NXT is on fire... I wonder how long until we fall out of the top 20?

Why? That doesn't make much sense imo. It's all pumps. Guess where the volume comes from? That's right, China again.

I think the question is more like "I wonder how long ultil we get pumped?" Given the news on how the chinese markets are I wish this is a sign of more coming in. They're just pumps but hopefully they can revive the alt coin scene.

If these pumps continue until March, if we don't get one in the meanwhile, we'll get one then due to STEALTH. It's just another reason for them to pump bts.

Still, in the long run this doesn't really mean anything unless it's a sign more chinese money is coming in.

No one care about STEALTH enough to risk their money to pump it .

These are pumps, they don't care about the coins or anything else other than making money. they could just time it with stealth to get more hype and make more money out of it that's what I meant

Although Bitshares 2.0 already has prediction market backend, its frontend should be more developed.

We can have "Prediction Market" tab in the current wallet. But I think it would be much better to additionally have separated, simple, and light application only for prediction market. Some unrelated functions (voting, permission, explorer, trading, etc.) can be removed and the app only has transfer and prediction market functions.

What do you think?

Isn't that something to service providers who want to make a business out of Prediction Markets?

Like abit said, it depends on the funds.

We have two options:
1) Worker proposal, affecting BitShares' supply
2) External funding, like FBAs

You need to take into account that to have this implemented, on top of being something that isn't that easy as it was already mentioned, you would need to pay a premium. Why? Because CNX is busy with work and this of course would need to compensate lost opportunities. They could refuse future work from other company in order to work on this so it will be expensive.

The community doesn't like to pay for expensive things because it affects the supply of BitShares (not to say the ugly word) unless is something they deem worthy and it's really needed. This could fall under this category, however we don't even have an estimation on the price so it's not really worth speculating on it atm. Only after an estimation can we decide if it's worthy or not. And the opinions on this forum do not represent the majority of stakeholders. Could still give you an idea though.

@bytemaster when you have time could you present us with an estimation cost on this? I also would like to know so I can see if it's worth it or not implementing it after STEALTH and/or MAKER and start some discussion around it.

Quote from: Akado on January 13, 2016, 04:40:30 pm

I think OPENASSETS have a chance. Obviously every exchange decides what it's best for their business model. But from a user pov shared orderbooks could be very interesting. If we at some point get bigger I'm sure we could get smaller exchanges to use them.

So why not blocktrades and metaexchange join OPENASSETS? They are competing for the first bite. I think it's best if we start with this, try to let them combined as soon as possible.

Well they could use OPENASSETS but I guess that's up to them and their business model. I really think since they're bridges they should adopt it as it gives people a more easier opportunity to come in and out of the system, it makes liquidity easier imo.

Right now you need to go to metaex and get metabtc on the DEX then if you want to trade against more stuff you might need to trade to bts and then to openassets or something like that. If all used the same assets, it would be easier and be better for the order books. But they have their own reasons..

@Shentist could you fill us in? I'm sure you have your own strategy, but on the other side, dont you agree it would be easier to get in and out of the system like this?

In the end it's up to each business, I'm sure we'll have some who prefer to issue their UIA, other might prefer to use OPENASSET. Everyone will have their reasons, we just try to convince new ones joining to share the same asset if that's something we thing benefits us.

I think the secret is getting the smaller fish. We get some more volume first and then we get them. They're the ones who have the reasons to join us. Like Stan said. If we see this from a small exchange pov, they're joining a network and instantaneously get a bigger amount of volume and they can stay competitive with other bigger exchanges. So instead of having 10 small exchanges working separately with $2k volume each, you can have those same "small" exchanges have $20k volume instead.

@ccedk would you be willing to share permission with other exchanges if they used OPENASSETS? Assuming it's feasible of course. I guess they would  want that as some kind of insurance so they don't get played.

The idea with the bond markets would create a very interesting dynamic, the only problem is they can't be sure there are enough people providing enough collateral at all times, which they need otherwise they risk not being able to keep up with deposits. If one user decides to deposit 100 BTC image an exchange saying, "sorry we can't accept it, that's too much for us." That would be terrible 

Now NXT is on fire... I wonder how long until we fall out of the top 20?

Why? That doesn't make much sense imo. It's all pumps. Guess where the volume comes from? That's right, China again.

I think the question is more like "I wonder how long ultil we get pumped?" Given the news on how the chinese markets are I wish this is a sign of more coming in. They're just pumps but hopefully they can revive the alt coin scene.

If these pumps continue until March, if we don't get one in the meanwhile, we'll get one then due to STEALTH. It's just another reason for them to pump bts.

Still, in the long run this doesn't really mean anything unless it's a sign more chinese money is coming in.

We're on the contacts section so it's black and underlined. Finder and Exchange are other sections that we're currently not seeing so they're grey. Why is "balances" black too? I think it should be grey as well?

I'm by no means any expert but since I studied it I always try to do a quick evaluation with the 10 Heuristics of Nielson
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/