0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 24, 2014, 01:33:13 amA one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"You people realize that you're choosing an arbitrary currency over all others?
A one way peg would only strengthen the ecosystem of all DACs built on the BitShares code base. Instead of using the monicker "Powered by BitShares" it could instead be "Built on BitShares" and "Powered by BitUSD"
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on October 23, 2014, 10:20:39 pmQuote from: mf-tzo on October 23, 2014, 10:13:58 pmok now I am not sure if we agree or not...Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.Thanks for this perspective.BitUSD as the brand name of the USD pegged asset collateralized by Bitshares is a great definition. If it's a USD pegged asset collateralized by ANY OTHER fork of Bitshares, it is not BitUSD.The idea of having USD pegged assets on Bitshares forks still makes sense to some degree. ForkUSD would essentially be a bank account for the DAC and a low volatility unit of account for users of that DAC. ForkUSD could also be supported by a one way peg allowing a 1:1 trade of BitUSD for ForkUSD but not the other way around. A one way peg in this direction would also insure liquidity for BitUSD as well as increase liquidity with every new successful independent fork of Bitshares. The one-way peg would just be another part of the social contract when using the Bitshares Toolkit.
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 23, 2014, 10:13:58 pmok now I am not sure if we agree or not...Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.No they can't both call it BitUSD imo. MusicUSD will be backed by their shares.BitUSD will be backed by BTS shares.Everyone that buys MusicUSD makes Music shareholders money and increases their CAP.Everyone that buys BitUSD makes BTS shareholders more money & increases our CAP.So they will have different yield, collateral, liquidity etc.If Music merges into BTS and our shares are backing the BitAssets then it's fine they're BitUSD.
ok now I am not sure if we agree or not...Since everyone can call their coin bitcoin but the merchants will only accept the real bitcoin for obvious reasons then why this is different for bitusd? Everyone should be able to see and understand what they receive. Merchants should know if they accept bitsharesusd or musicusd or bobusd or bitstampusd or bankofAmericausd. So that's why I think both music and BTS should be called bitusd.
anyway...I am not going to argue anymore about this since I am pretty sure that in the near future a centralized corporation will issue some card and will take care of all that so the price of musicusd, bitharesusd, bobusd will be reflected in the fees they charge for the conversion to usd so the name doesn't affect the end result...For simplicity and not new users get more confused this is the reason I would think bitusd for all is better. On the other side I can see your points that bobusd if called bitusd might hurt us so...
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 23, 2014, 09:05:04 pmI disagree. IF Music decides to run independently they should both call bitusd. They both are bitusd pegged to the usd. One by puting Notes as collateral the other putting BTS as collateral. Calling them bitsharesusd and musicusd will further confuse usual people who will think that the whole bitassets are a joke or a game..They are not!They are bitusds backed by different collateral! I agree. Keep it simple and before you know it, we'll be able to move between one DAC and the other.
I disagree. IF Music decides to run independently they should both call bitusd. They both are bitusd pegged to the usd. One by puting Notes as collateral the other putting BTS as collateral. Calling them bitsharesusd and musicusd will further confuse usual people who will think that the whole bitassets are a joke or a game..They are not!They are bitusds backed by different collateral!
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 23, 2014, 07:38:50 pmQuoteGenerally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it. With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).Until one day you realize that you cannot place or withdraw money from Gox. And another day you realize that if you had a bank account in Cyprus you wouldn't either. And another day maybe you realize that you can't withdraw money from bitstamp either. And another day guess what...You may not be able to withdraw usd from your precious banks in America... But you will always be able to exchange your bitshares bitusd to your music bitusd even if it is not 1:1 always...And you know why? because No One can shut down DACS and your bitusds will always be backed by collateral.Not like the current banking system. People, especially in the US, take for granted that their Government IOU usd will always be honored. I hope you don't get caught by nasty surprises in the future which imho will be inevitable unless we change our perspective of seeing things. Personally I don't trust my Government to always honor their EUR IOU and that is the reason I am here, just to protect my self from the inevitable. I feel like this discussion keeps drifting away from the point I've been trying to make.If we want this ecosystem to expand and encompass the casual user, the marketing effort needs to be clear and focused. By marketing all USD asset pegs generically as BitUSD (regardless of the chain on which they exist), it appears as though it is an attempt to mask the fact that these are in fact different assets with free floating exchange rates to the dollar (albeit with the same peg).This will confuse people and foster distrust. They must be called what they are: BitsharesMusicUSD and BitsharesUSD.
QuoteGenerally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it. With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).Until one day you realize that you cannot place or withdraw money from Gox. And another day you realize that if you had a bank account in Cyprus you wouldn't either. And another day maybe you realize that you can't withdraw money from bitstamp either. And another day guess what...You may not be able to withdraw usd from your precious banks in America... But you will always be able to exchange your bitshares bitusd to your music bitusd even if it is not 1:1 always...And you know why? because No One can shut down DACS and your bitusds will always be backed by collateral.Not like the current banking system. People, especially in the US, take for granted that their Government IOU usd will always be honored. I hope you don't get caught by nasty surprises in the future which imho will be inevitable unless we change our perspective of seeing things. Personally I don't trust my Government to always honor their EUR IOU and that is the reason I am here, just to protect my self from the inevitable.
Generally, I use my bank account as a place to store money prior to spending it. With this analogy, I would fully expect to be able to transfer BitUSD from BitsharesX to Peertracks at a 1:1 ratio, much like if I were to deposit money into an exchange (like Bitstamp or Mt. Gox).
Quote from: xeroc on October 23, 2014, 06:56:42 pmbitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!See what I did?Not sure how to fix this .. not even sure if a fix is required Apples to oranges.
bitstampUSD != mtgoxUSD ?!See what I did?Not sure how to fix this .. not even sure if a fix is required
PeerTracks is going to be accepting cash through credit card purchases they will have an onramp straight from fiat. Their bitusd will be backed by notes on one side and fiat on the otherside. Since they are not providing yield/interest on their bitusd, the transaction fees that don't go to delegates can go to a reserve. If we are the big superDAC, then they are now lean focus DAC. It will be interesting to see how each performs.If we grow as fast or faster than them then maybe we can merge or just buy them out before someone else does.
I guess I don't see the problem. They'll at least be plugged into one another for cross-chain trading. The values may correct any small discrepancies at that point. Until then, what's the harm in using the same currency? It is, after all, pegged to the dollar.
My point was that inclusion of the Music DAC is being considered. Bytemaster and Cob have both said this in the last couple of days. I felt it was important to correct your statement that "Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC". Technically, this is true, since PeerTracks is the external retail site, but anyone reading this forum needs to know that the decision on the Music DAC (back end) has not been made, as far as I am aware. So it would be inaccurate to say that it is not being included.
As of now the Music DAC is taking a wait and see approach. We have to develop the front end as well to bring value and use to the underlying asset. We have plenty of time to make a decision as to what we plug in to. BitShares Music or BitShares mega flagship.We still have another 40 days of pre-sale at least + bytemaster's announcement to look forward to.Then we have to consult the forums (:A month is a long time in the BitShares world!
Eddie and I's responsibility is to the Music Project and the Note holders.Whatever we end up doing has to be either neutral or beneficial to whoever spent funds on aquiring Notes.So we are not changing course.If anything happens down the line the BTS merger appears super beneficial, then of course we will do what's best for your guys and ourselves.Point is. Right now, Plan A stays. BitShares Music is it's own DAC.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 23, 2014, 04:13:04 pmQuote from: wasthatawolf on October 23, 2014, 01:41:08 pmThe biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD). Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD. You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.This is inaccurate. I know there's been a lot going on this week, but search some other threads; this has been mentioned several times. The Music DAC is considering merging its DAC side into the BitShares SuperDAC. That decision has not yet been made. Cross-chain trading will be enabled at some point. So this is not an issue.Well now I'm confused. From what I've read and the responses I've seen on this thread, the inclusion of the Music DAC is a "down the road, maybe we'll do this" kind of thing. If you're going to be making a big marketing push for the Bitshares SuperDAC in the near future, then this needs to be decided first. The last thing we need is to confuse a market that is already confused by DACs in general.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 23, 2014, 01:41:08 pmThe biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD). Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD. You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.This is inaccurate. I know there's been a lot going on this week, but search some other threads; this has been mentioned several times. The Music DAC is considering merging its DAC side into the BitShares SuperDAC. That decision has not yet been made. Cross-chain trading will be enabled at some point. So this is not an issue.
The biggest problem we're currently facing is that Peertracks is not going to be part of the SuperDAC yet it is being leveraged as a platform to on board many new users to the idea of DACs and pegged assets (primarily BitUSD). Everyone needs to stop referring to all USD pegged assets as BitUSD. You're confusing your users before they even start using the platform.
From the Peertracks FAQ...QuoteWhat is a BitUSD?This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.No mention at all that this is not compatible with BitUSD on BitsharesX.
What is a BitUSD?This is what you will be spending/earning on PeerTracks. User’s will convert their funds (USD, Euro, CAD, Peso, etc) into a form that is readable by the Bitshares Music Blockchain: BitUSD. Blockchains have very low transaction fees compared to banking institutions, credit card companies or even paypal. This allows for micro transactions which in turn allows the free flow of funds from fan to artist without anyone in the middle taking a huge cut.
And now you understand why I3 wants to grow in ONE big DAC first .. network effect works best with a super dac once the individual apps/dacs in the superDAC mature and can stand on their own (liquid markets, etc. bla bla) .. then the community might reconsider to "spin-off" an application/dac ..
you cannot move bitUSD from one DAC INTO another DAC ... you can trade 1:1 between DACs ..the amount of bitUSD in BTSX will always be completely backed by BTSX .. same holds for any other chain ..you can think of a second market maker .. that trades bitUSD back an forth between chains .. while achieving a few percent profit ... inter DAC bitUSD trades might not be 1:1 .. because they require additional complexity/work ..have you ever transfered money internationally?! same thing!
QuoteThere should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSDYou do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?bitstamp usdkrakenusdbterusdbankofamericausdbankofenglandusd.....the list is endless...Your analogy does not work. The items listed above all have the same backing (the u.s. Gov/central bnk) and thus the same robustness. The different bitUSD's (BTS/Peershares) have different backing (BTS or notes) so this is a totally different thing and should not be promoted under the same name.
QuoteThere should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSDYou do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?bitstamp usdkrakenusdbterusdbankofamericausdbankofenglandusd.....the list is endless...
There should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSD
Quote from: mf-tzo on October 22, 2014, 10:16:58 pmQuoteThere should never be two different bitUSD's with the same name. That will never be clear. It will confuse people and hurt all DACs involved with bitUSDYou do realise that you already trade everyday thousands different usd right?bitstamp usdkrakenusdbterusdbankofamericausdbankofenglandusd.....the list is endless...The only way the different USD listed above are equivalent to BitUSD is if you can move BitUSD between chains.
Quote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 09:30:12 pmQuote from: xeroc on October 22, 2014, 09:08:40 pmQuote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 08:56:58 pmAlso, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...they may differ in volume ..Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it. Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.Does no one else agree with me?I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.I think this is more of a marketing/messaging problem. If the sole purpose of BitUSD is to eliminate the volatility associated with using the native token of a DAC, then I don't see a big issue with each DAC having it's own internal exchange to allow for BitUSD. But it should be ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that BitUSD on Peernotes is not the same as BitUSD on BitsharesX (or the new Bitshares) which is not that same as the BitUSD in any future DAC.
Quote from: xeroc on October 22, 2014, 09:08:40 pmQuote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 08:56:58 pmAlso, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...they may differ in volume ..Thanks for the answer. That is what I was scared of. They must find another way to do it. Either somehow value NOTES against bitUSD on bitshares-x and cross-chain trade, or maybe the peershares blockchain can query the BTS blockchain somehow. I don't know technically what it needs to be, but I do know having peertracks have its own exchange is not a good plan. Like I said: It is inneficient. It is unintuitive. It actually hurts everyone by increasing confusion and making for lower liquidity on both sides. Exchanges should be exchanges and music stores should be music stores. You should not have two entities doing the same task of establishing the peg and providing liquidity to bitUSD.Does no one else agree with me?I guess a good question is should NOTES (and other tokens) even be allowed to be used as collateral to create bitUSD. Maybe, but it should only be on the bitshares-exchange because that is the only place it makes sense to do it on. If it can't be done that way then the system needs to be changed.
Quote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 08:56:58 pmAlso, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.There is no other way to value 'NOTES' against USD .. on the exchange directly .. if you thing about it ..What you will see is basically TWO exchanges .. that both trade the same altcoin bitasset ...they may differ in volume ..
Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.
Quote from: matt608 on October 22, 2014, 09:23:15 pmOne of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins. I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept. If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.We can't buy all the altDAC out there.
One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins. I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept. If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.
Not at the moment. Since they are in the middle of their pre-sale it doesn't make sense for them to make any decisions now. Ultimately it would make sense to bring bitshares music into bts that way they can completely focus on making the PeerTracks front end site the best it can be.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 09:11:05 pmWithout cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same. They only share the same peg.We had plenty of discussions like these ... the only difference IMHO .. is liquidity and thus spread .. ... and maybe yield ..besides that .. 1bitUSD = 1USD .. no matter the collateral
Without cross chain trading, the bitassets are not the same. They only share the same peg.
The think is the SuperDAC only solves the problem temporarily. Sooner or later we will face this problem again. We can't buy all the altDAC out there. Unless some Bytemaster magic happens you'll have different bitUSD anyway. But this is not important what is important it is network effect that super DAC will get . This is what this merger is all about one team, push it to the sky and once you reach escape velocity it does not matter the altDAC. Music could very well coexist with Bitshare. In fact I don't believe the theory that Vote will have been competed with BithshareX for bitUSD either, two completely different business model . But for sure it will have taken dev resources away witch is far more dangerous at the moment.
Quote from: teenagecheese on October 22, 2014, 08:56:58 pmQuote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 08:41:43 pmQuote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:47:28 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pmhttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public? Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins. I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept. If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 08:41:43 pmQuote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:47:28 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pmhttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public? Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.
Quote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:47:28 pmQuote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pmhttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public? Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.
Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pmhttps://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another. But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.
Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 06:44:35 pmI was listening to the Bitcoins and Gravy interview with the guys from Peertracks and they mentioned that BitUSD will be utilized as the main form of payment on Peertracks. I want to make sure I understand this correctly...BitUSD exists on the BitsharesX block chain collateralized by BTSX.BitUSD exists on the Peertracks block chain collateralized by NOTES?If the above is accurate, can BitUSD move between the BTSX and the NOTES chains?That's the idea, but keep in mind that this is all subject to change. They just merged several other DACs to fix this particular issue, so don't be surprised if we see a BTS/MUSIC merger down the road at some point.
I was listening to the Bitcoins and Gravy interview with the guys from Peertracks and they mentioned that BitUSD will be utilized as the main form of payment on Peertracks. I want to make sure I understand this correctly...BitUSD exists on the BitsharesX block chain collateralized by BTSX.BitUSD exists on the Peertracks block chain collateralized by NOTES?If the above is accurate, can BitUSD move between the BTSX and the NOTES chains?