301
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 26, 2015, 05:48:51 pm »
Bytemaster, can you please explain why this was implemented like this?
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.
302
General Discussion / Re: Blog Post Suggestions for BM & Co
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:52:52 am »
Bytemaster, you did not illuminate your position at all with that post.
What do you agree on? Which statement was a figure of speech?
What do you agree on? Which statement was a figure of speech?
303
General Discussion / Re: Blog Post Suggestions for BM & Co
« on: January 25, 2015, 07:51:11 pm »
I was just reading this infographic about global warming, and it talks about how global warming is the result of market failure. I was going to ask what kind of coordination problem needs to be solved here, and what blockchain technology could help to solve this, but I then remembered a vague memory that bytemaster thinks global warming is a scam:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14948#msg14948
It is also possible I'm misinterpreting his statement here.
What is also interesting is that Stan references mining rigs as 'global warming hardware'. Is this a topic you disagree on with your father? If so, I'd like to hear you both talk about what your differences are in in interpreting the facts.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1397.msg14948#msg14948
It is also possible I'm misinterpreting his statement here.
What is also interesting is that Stan references mining rigs as 'global warming hardware'. Is this a topic you disagree on with your father? If so, I'd like to hear you both talk about what your differences are in in interpreting the facts.
304
General Discussion / Re: Litecoin up 30% today, Coinbase adding Litecoin tomorrow?
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:49:03 pm »Stellar?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
This is what I think too.
305
General Discussion / Re: Litecoin up 30% today, Coinbase adding Litecoin tomorrow?
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:48:24 pm »
BitShares would be up way more than 30% if that were the case... unfortunately, I doubt this is what's happening.
306
General Discussion / Re: Bter Scam
« on: January 25, 2015, 04:39:22 pm »
It looks like someone got a hold of your login information. Since they did not have your withdraw password, they sold it to themselves in normal exchanges of low volume, low value coins.
I'm sorry to hear that this happened to you.
I'm sorry to hear that this happened to you.
307
General Discussion / Re: what is useful of Bitshares-js?
« on: January 25, 2015, 04:34:41 pm »
Does this run as a full node in the browser?
308
General Discussion / Re: Basic market maker bot for bter BTC/bitUSD available
« on: January 25, 2015, 04:33:40 pm »Sure, except that toast is VASTLY overestimating how much money there is to be made net of exposure to BTC volatility.
Market makers should just go short on BitBTC to hedge against BTC volatility. Of course they are still exposed to BTS volatility but my guess is that the market makers would have likely been holding BTS anyway if they weren't putting their funds to use for market making.
For those who want to be protected against BTS volatility as well but still do market making (so they only want exposure to BitUSD or other BitFiat), they would have to wait until it is possible to short BitAssets using other BitAssets as collateral, e.g. short BitBTC using BitUSD as collateral.
I really dislike the idea of subsidizing market makers through BTS dilution to make it appear like we have better liquidity than we really do. I think this will all come in time naturally as the client gets better and becomes more usable and user adoption grows.
Please, let's not open this pandora's box
309
General Discussion / Re: [Video] Help testing new features in DevShares
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:45:33 pm »Sweet .. but IIRC devshares are supposed to have VALUE too .. so its not really a "testnet" with worthless tokens!!
Things are only really worthless if it fails anywhere in this series of checks:
(1) The value of it's utility is >0
(2) The value of the energy needed to sell it is less than the value of it's utility
(3) The value of the energy needed to obtain or produce this thing is less than the value of it's utility plus the value of the energy needed to sell it
In the case of (1), this has the clear utility of testing BitShares features.
In the case of (2), since this energy is constant no matter how much you want to sell, it may be possible that there is a minimum amount of DVS you would need to have in order for it to be worth something. This amount is probably substantially lower than the total amount of DVS, so this passes.
In the case of (3), it is currently very easy to become a delegate and voted in; this passes too.
DVS has value, no matter how little it may be. This is important because it will allow us to test price-feed and market functionality.
310
General Discussion / Re: Use Gold and Silver with BitShares to bypass Fiat Regulations [BLOGPOST]
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:15:29 pm »Why not bitGold at spot, and then have other assets like bitGoldMaple and bitGoldKruger, etc? They all have different values. It costs a lot more to mint 10 1 ounce mapleleafs than it costs to make a generic 10 oz bar.
I think this is a great idea. They could be 'SubAssets' which are based on the price feed, but trade at a percentage offset. The offset would need to be set by Delegates in order for this to work correctly.
Delegates could cooperate and include SubAssets in their price feeds, and as long as 51 delegates have SubAssets of the same name, they qualify to be included in the marketplace.
This could account for the different mints, but also may be a path to decoupling paper/physical while still serving both markets.
311
General Discussion / Re: Up to 27 100% delegates. Really?
« on: January 25, 2015, 03:33:23 am »Incredibly we are STILL below the hard fork supply, almost 3 months later.
Nice try. I think the only reason you are under is because of all the burned bts when the share cap was 2 billion. Add the pre merger burns and we are probably over.
No need to guess, if you've been paying attention:
http://bitsharesblocks.com/charts/supply
Quote
Change in supply since the hardfork: -211,517.62 BTS
312
General Discussion / Re: Let's make sure faddat has good intentions
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:47:14 pm »He will be. Good post and great point. You wont have to worry about it soon enough. There is little doubt in my mind this team is the real deal...but at present they are small so resources are limited.
My only concern is him trying to bite off more than he can chew, to prove himself.
Can you share what makes you feel they are the real deal? Your post right below Graffenwalder's is interesting juxtaposition.
313
General Discussion / Let's make sure faddat has good intentions
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:37:10 pm »
I'm making this post because my internal red flags are going off concerning the actions of faddat. I don't want to assume faddat is guilty of anything, nor do I want to cause any irrational hostility, but I just want to bring up some things that concern me. Faddat, please know that these are the same precautions that we should have with all and every contributor in your position. I'll try to be concise.
Faddat has two things he is planning to do: create a hardware wallet, and redo our forum.
In other words, he wants us to trust him with our private keys and our community.
Considering how new faddat is, I would like us all to do our due diligence with everything faddat produces, and I would like faddat to be transparent with all his code / hardware specifications / operations.
Faddat has two things he is planning to do: create a hardware wallet, and redo our forum.
In other words, he wants us to trust him with our private keys and our community.
Considering how new faddat is, I would like us all to do our due diligence with everything faddat produces, and I would like faddat to be transparent with all his code / hardware specifications / operations.
314
General Discussion / Re: Up to 27 100% delegates. Really?
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:26:56 pm »As I have stated before, Bitcoin is in the spot BitShares wants to be in. BTC did not need what all of you propose is necessary to grow BitShares. It happened because BTC holders wanted to grow their holdings or make a buck of the potential.
Bitcoin was able to bootstrap itself, because it had years of no competition. We don't have that luxury.
315
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Python script to put portions of delegate pay into markers at or below the feed
« on: January 24, 2015, 06:27:47 pm »
After reading again, I now see that I misunderstood the concept. Carry on
