826
General Discussion / Re: [IMPORTANT] Simple ways to improve voting participation
« on: January 11, 2016, 11:40:36 pm »
I like the detail of adding a voting tab at the top. It's something very simple but gets attention easier.
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.
827
General Discussion / Re: How to create Shared Order Books, Increase Market Depth and Prevent FractReserve
« on: January 11, 2016, 10:40:16 pm »@Akado
Yes, if this was possible to have the Bitshares block chain maintaining an actual BTC deposit/withdraw address or wallet this could be a true game changer.
Having this capability would eliminate the need for gateways, other than true fiat gateways. Because if all of us smart folks could figure out a way to integrate an actual BTC wallet (while staying 100% decentralized and being maintained under autonomous control) then we could potentially integrate "any/all" crypto wallets to the Bitshares block chain, having 100% matched/collateral backed assets.
Once done... then unequivocally we could meet the definitions of a Decentralized Exchange.
What it will take? How feasible is this? I unfortunately don't have answers for.
I can say with certainty though, this would be bad ass if this could get pulled off!
I didn't meant having a btc wallet integrated on BitShares but that could be an option too!
Committee has no power nor technical support to do this. You can't force exchanges to store their coins in one wallet to be scanned, for security reason they may spread the coins in many wallets/addresses, technically after every transfer the address would change. You can't force exchanges not lend out coins for interests. Let IOU's be IOU's, let the issuers manage them.TL;DR unable to merge, or say hard to SORT the orders. Every IOU has different inside value based on different trading fee, withdrew fee etc.
Once they're approved by the committee they get standardized, all with the same stats?
They don't atm but could if it's feasible. Andw ho said anything about forcing exchanges? I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Assuming this is even possible, I'm just suggesting something. One service would only join if they wanted and saw advantages in this, because it has. It's just a different method. No one is forced to do anything, it's just an option. Different business models have different flavours
just trying to be versatile here.
828
General Discussion / Re: How to create Shared Order Books, Increase Market Depth and Prevent FractReserve
« on: January 11, 2016, 10:29:24 pm »TL;DR unable to merge, or say hard to SORT the orders. Every IOU has different inside value based on different trading fee, withdrew fee etc.
Once they're approved by the committee they get standardized, all with the same stats?
edit: yes, different markets allow for arbitrage opportunities. But why not both?
829
General Discussion / Re: Oil Seen Heading to $20 - A good opportunity for bitOIL
« on: January 11, 2016, 09:15:28 pm »Sadly no feed for crude. I think we could get a good enough feed going.
I heard we might have to pay. If we did, it would make sense to have a worker proposal for this. However only if it's cheap enough otherwise since we're at this early stage I don't see anyone wanting to pay for nothing.
830
Openledger / Re: OpenLedger Suggestions
« on: January 11, 2016, 08:47:15 pm »
@ccedk got one more potential user for you lol and by his profile he even seems someone who is in the DOGE community for quite a while and may be well known. One user that can potentially bring more! btw check his feedback. He's right we're lacking screenshots of the exchange on the site. It's a must!
https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptsy/comments/40d7iy/inviting_all_cryptsy_users_to_join_openledger_a/
When it was release people loved the interface here. That user was just another example so what we need is to show it off!! Show it on articles, show it on the site. People need something to be impressed about. All the nice talk and features, they're good but this is food for their eyes. whether they want it or not, they're making contact with the exchange as soon as they see the pics with a simple scroll. And from the moment they do they love it.
Screenshots must be added asap @cass (dunno if you have access)
https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptsy/comments/40d7iy/inviting_all_cryptsy_users_to_join_openledger_a/
When it was release people loved the interface here. That user was just another example so what we need is to show it off!! Show it on articles, show it on the site. People need something to be impressed about. All the nice talk and features, they're good but this is food for their eyes. whether they want it or not, they're making contact with the exchange as soon as they see the pics with a simple scroll. And from the moment they do they love it.
Screenshots must be added asap @cass (dunno if you have access)
831
General Discussion / How to create Shared Order Books, Increase Market Depth and Prevent FractReserve
« on: January 11, 2016, 08:42:18 pm »
We have bitBTC, OPENBTC, METAEX.BTC, TRADE.BTC and many other potential future BTC assets. or bitCNY and bitcrab'sCNY, etc What if we could merge them in the same orderbook?
The problem here is one can just print his asset and create fake BTC right? Well, to do this we could have certain criteria like providing a separate wallet address for the BTC on our exchange. Once we have this public address couldn't we just scan it and if the balance has a balance for example 2% to 5% lower than the assets issued on our chain, the committee account would automatically have power over that asset to prevent abuse.
Something like also needing the committee account permission to authorize the issue of more of that same asset. This way we could have a guarantee that the assets are backed in the blockchain and exist.
The only thing that could happen would be having the owner take away all the real assets and let the UIAs on our chain be useless but that can already happen. We assume it won't because we trust these entities.
So whoever would want to apply their asset to have this propriety and join the merged orderbook would need to have the committee to approve it via vote.
This way we would have the shared order books with more market depth and liquidity.
Only thing I don't know is how would our chain monitor the assets exist on their real chain (ie confirm X amount of BTC is on the given address on the bitcoin blockchain). Unless witnesses and/or the committee account would do that too.
So, in practice:
- Every BTC.UIA would appear simply as BTC to the users. Seeing it is a UIA can put some people off.
- UIAs would be merged on the same orderbook
- For this is needed approval from the committee to get someone of trust
- On the description of the UIA there would be the address for a single wallet holding the exact same funds as the amount issued
- This address would constantly be scanned, either each block or via committee/witness members
- The fact the address is on the UIA description would allow anyone to audit it
- If there's a small percentage gap between original address of real assets and the amount issued, committee account would be required to give permission for any operation and other possible consequences (orders being cancelled, etc)
- The fact the amounts are the same proves each asset is backed by the real deal.
- This would allow anyone to audit any exchange or service
- This would prevent any service running on a Fractional Reserve
- This would create shared order books
- This could increase market depth
- This could increase liquidity
- This could create healthier markets
- This could create better conditions for traders and services and consequently attract more.
Imagine this doesn't have any loopholes which probaby has. In the future with the proper interface someone would create an asset and choose to peg it to btc, ltc, etc. They would only need to copy/paste the original address to the board, it would be checked the amount and only that amount would allow to be issued. This of course if it was previously approved by the committee so that we only have trustworthy people with a good reputation. After approval we could even demand a fee to be paid and make money out of it since services would benefit from this feature.
Note:
This was just some brainstorm during a shower. Bare with me. I just felt the urge to post this before i forgot about it and didn't really think this through.
The problem here is one can just print his asset and create fake BTC right? Well, to do this we could have certain criteria like providing a separate wallet address for the BTC on our exchange. Once we have this public address couldn't we just scan it and if the balance has a balance for example 2% to 5% lower than the assets issued on our chain, the committee account would automatically have power over that asset to prevent abuse.
Something like also needing the committee account permission to authorize the issue of more of that same asset. This way we could have a guarantee that the assets are backed in the blockchain and exist.
The only thing that could happen would be having the owner take away all the real assets and let the UIAs on our chain be useless but that can already happen. We assume it won't because we trust these entities.
So whoever would want to apply their asset to have this propriety and join the merged orderbook would need to have the committee to approve it via vote.
This way we would have the shared order books with more market depth and liquidity.
Only thing I don't know is how would our chain monitor the assets exist on their real chain (ie confirm X amount of BTC is on the given address on the bitcoin blockchain). Unless witnesses and/or the committee account would do that too.
So, in practice:
- Every BTC.UIA would appear simply as BTC to the users. Seeing it is a UIA can put some people off.
- UIAs would be merged on the same orderbook
- For this is needed approval from the committee to get someone of trust
- On the description of the UIA there would be the address for a single wallet holding the exact same funds as the amount issued
- This address would constantly be scanned, either each block or via committee/witness members
- The fact the address is on the UIA description would allow anyone to audit it
- If there's a small percentage gap between original address of real assets and the amount issued, committee account would be required to give permission for any operation and other possible consequences (orders being cancelled, etc)
- The fact the amounts are the same proves each asset is backed by the real deal.
- This would allow anyone to audit any exchange or service
- This would prevent any service running on a Fractional Reserve
- This would create shared order books
- This could increase market depth
- This could increase liquidity
- This could create healthier markets
- This could create better conditions for traders and services and consequently attract more.
Imagine this doesn't have any loopholes which probaby has. In the future with the proper interface someone would create an asset and choose to peg it to btc, ltc, etc. They would only need to copy/paste the original address to the board, it would be checked the amount and only that amount would allow to be issued. This of course if it was previously approved by the committee so that we only have trustworthy people with a good reputation. After approval we could even demand a fee to be paid and make money out of it since services would benefit from this feature.
Note:
This was just some brainstorm during a shower. Bare with me. I just felt the urge to post this before i forgot about it and didn't really think this through.
832
General Discussion / Re: My failed attempt at trying to explain BitShares and OL to C-CEX. Help needed.
« on: January 11, 2016, 07:21:48 pm »
@abit and that was pretty much what I said, obviously not being enough
833
General Discussion / Re: Oil Seen Heading to $20 - A good opportunity for bitOIL
« on: January 11, 2016, 06:58:51 pm »
Someone mentioned it on reddit and I completely forgot about it. Do we even have a feed price for oil?
834
Random Discussion / Re: Will Bitshares hit $12,000,000 in market cap in first half of 2016?
« on: January 11, 2016, 06:01:17 pm »
We could use this example to try out our first prediction market on the DEX 
835
General Discussion / Re: Grandma's Mock Focus Group: Why did you choose NOT to use BitShares?
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:40:04 pm »
Inconsistency. Lack of utility.
836
General Discussion / Oil Seen Heading to $20 - A good opportunity for bitOIL
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:29:39 pm »
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/morgan-stanley-sees-20-a-barrel-oil-on-u-s-dollar-appreciation
I believe we're the only or one of the few places when you can actually trade oil. A good opportunity to advertise bts.
I believe we're the only or one of the few places when you can actually trade oil. A good opportunity to advertise bts.
837
General Discussion / Re: Help spread the word: List of external threads needing up-votes/comments
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:19:48 pm »
Could someone help with this question on the link above please?
"API link for full market dump in JSON?" @xeroc
"API link for full market dump in JSON?" @xeroc
838
General Discussion / Re: [EBM] Poloniex
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:14:54 pm »Polo now has bitUSD market
https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bitusd
And also bitCNY
https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#btc_bitcny
They're just not liquid. It would be nice if someone could move operations there.
If we were to create assets and close the internal peg we would see the external spreads reduced quite a bit
We can do it with the proposal to claim the fees right? That should help. Also with an API similar to Polo and a few more bots sprouting we should be able to pull it off. It will just take a while.
839
General Discussion / Re: My failed attempt at trying to explain BitShares and OL to C-CEX. Help needed.
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:12:00 pm »-snip-
He could integrate a bitshares wallet to the website and on top of that earn up to 80% of the fees they generate via ref program
The question is, does that really change things and brings more benefits from an exchange pov? I mean, we need to assume they're on their comfort zone and to bring them out we can't just offer what they already have. We need to offer something better that makes it worth it all the hassle
840
General Discussion / Re: Who would support a limited offer of drastically reduced fees?
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:08:21 pm »
I don't think fees play that much of an important role atm but I think this is a good idea to test the market. We can see it how it reacts. If we see more transactions and filled orders then it's worth it and we could continue with it, if not, we can go back to how we are atm. It's a good idea to see how the market reacts.
