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 - Samupaha

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32
376
General Discussion / Re: biteur
« on: November 17, 2015, 11:31:37 am »
Here is a simple explanation:

Quote from: Xeldal on October 30, 2015, 07:14:11 pm
by borrowing say 100 USD you are neutral and simply owe the network 100 USD, which you now have and can return at anytime.
You have 100 USD
You owe 100 USD
you are net neutral.  long USD short USD

if you then sell the 100 USD in exchange for BTS :
you have BTS  (100 USD worth)
you owe 100 USD
So you are long BTS short USD

if instead you sell the 100 USD in exchange for BTC:
you have BTC (100 USD worth)
you owe 100 USD
so you are long BTC short USD

in any case you can be margin called if the value of the BTS backing the 100 USD borrowed falls below the margin requirements.  So you will be looking to ensure that whatever you are long maintains a USD value to either pay off what you borrowed or purchase enough BTS to further secure the borrowed USD.

For example if you used the 100 USD to buy BTC at $300 and BTC then went to $1000 while at the same time BTS went from $.004 to .0015 .  Depending on your collateralization you may be at risk of being margin called on the USD you borrowed.   So you could either sell $100 worth of BTC to pay off the borrow or sell some BTC for BTS to top up your collateral.

377
General Discussion / Re: Payment business: comparison between Bitshares and it's competitors
« on: November 17, 2015, 09:46:06 am »
Quote from: jakub on November 17, 2015, 08:44:11 am
Quote from: mike623317 on November 17, 2015, 03:00:25 am
I love that side by side comparison. That one table says so much.  +5% +5%
I think the challenge is :

1. To communicate these points effectively  - in the wallet and on the website.
2. Make the UI as easy to use as something like paypal.

I guess we could improve this comparison in two ways:
- add debit/credit cards
- remove the micro-transactions criterion (as currently no-one can offer a viable solution for that)
- for some criteria add a bit of explanation in the form of footnotes because sometimes it's not so black-and-white

And we could also make a similar comparison for the online exchange part of our business.

Having those two comparisons - it's quite clear that potentially we are leaders in both the online exchange business and the online payment business.
So we should advertise this straight on bitshares.org.
We have clear advantages so why are we so shy about it?

Right now bitshares.org emphasizes the power of the underlying technology (i.e. Graphene).
But our future customers (i.e. traders, online merchants & online consumers) don't really care about technology - they care about features & usefulness this technology can offer to them.

Yeah, this kind of thinking I'm hoping to see more.

I started this thread more for our shareholders to understand this rather than for customers. We all have to get this first so we can explain it clearly to our customers.

This is why I would like to hear from all of you who have been defending lowering the fees. Don't you believe we can give better service than Paypal or Bitcoin? If our service is superior, people will use it because Paypal or Bitcoin are no longer our competitors – service that they offer is so bad that people don't want to use it anymore.

Of course, right now there is still a lot of room for improvement. But shouldn't we focus on making the product better rather than lowering the prices?

378
General Discussion / Re: Would you Support "Worker" Proposals Paying to add Peercoin & Primecoin? (poll)
« on: November 17, 2015, 07:36:59 am »
We have to remember that if a cryptocurrency has a small market cap, an MPA might "steal" a lot of its volume and make the market cap even smaller. MPA is not the real thing so in a way it is like a competitor. If a big whale decides to change his cryptocoins to MPA-coins, he has to sell the real coins on the market, which will cause price to decline. If everybody does this, the underlying currency will become worthless, and so becomes the MPA too, because it tracks the value of original asset.

On the other hand, UIA does not cause prices to collapse. If you have UIA-coin on the Bitshares blockchain, you have also equal amount of the original currency in the gateway's wallet.

379
General Discussion / Payment business: comparison between Bitshares and it's competitors
« on: November 16, 2015, 07:37:24 am »
In the threads discussing fee structure there have been frequent demands that we should lower our fees to match our competitors like Bitcoin and Paypal.

I think this is wrong point of view because we have now or we will have in the near future a better service than our closest competitors.

Making a superior product should be our main focus on competition. People are ready to pay bigger fees if they get a product worth of their money.

Lowering fees might get us some users more faster, but it won't necessarily make us more profitable.

So let's do a comparison. Feel free to add any kind of pluses or minuses you can think of. Try to think more of the payments and not the exchange business (we can to that later). Add more comparisons to other cryptocurrencies and payment processors.

Bitcoin
+ Price stable smartcoins
+ Faster
+ Better transaction capability
+ Stealth transfers
+ Recurring and scheduled payments

- Way more users (network effect)

+/- Transfer fees are cheap for the Bitcoin user right now, but Bitcoin's business model is fucked up. Payments are subsidized by inflation that will end in the long run (next block reward halving is coming next year). Transfer fees have to go up some day. Lately the real cost per transaction has been 8-10 dollars. If Bitshares wants to lower transaction fee to the same that Bitcoin has, we need to think how we can make money after that. Is the transaction business going to be subsidized from reserve pool? What if the reserve pool goes empty? Think of the bigger picture here, not just the point of view of a price sensitive customer.

Paypal
+ No cancelled/refunded payments
+ No need to tie account to credit card or bank account
+ Anybody can open an account anywhere in the world
+ No freezed funds
+ Stealth transfers

- Way more users and merchants (network effect)

+/- Paypal's customer service sucks and people hate it. Bitshares doesn't have any official customer service.

380
General Discussion / Re: Would you Support "Worker" Proposals Paying to add Peercoin & Primecoin? (poll)
« on: November 16, 2015, 07:23:41 am »
I think the first step should be a UIA from a gateway/exchange. If we have that and it is used with high volume, we can start to consider creating the MPA.

MPA itself might be too big step to take first. We have to know if the users of that currency are interested in having it in the Bitshares or not.

381
Technical Support / Re: An old NXTer, Newbie here!
« on: November 15, 2015, 04:55:18 pm »
Read these pages from Bitshares.org to get a clearer picture what can be done:
Price-Stable Cryptocurrencies
User-Issued Assets

A little warning: documentation is still far from satisfactory so it might be hard to fully understand all asset possibilities, requirements and risks. If you are considering privatized smartcoin, you should know that nobody has done that yet so it is difficult to know what would be the best parameters for the asset. First one to do it will have to go by trial and error which might be expensive (unless you really know what you are doing).

Maybe you could start by offering assets that already exists, like bitUSD? With it you could familiarize yourself with Bitshares and understand better how it works. When you have the exchange working and preferably a few customers, you have better possibilities to launch succesfully the bitIRR.

382
General Discussion / Re: Reasons for Lowering Fees
« on: November 15, 2015, 03:31:09 pm »
Quote from: clayop on November 15, 2015, 12:02:12 pm
In payment business: As many kinds of user as  possible, because the most important key of payment service is ecosystem. I haven't heard about the premium payment service of Chase or Paypal.

Something for everybody is very risky way of doing business. We can do that in the long run, but it has to be done with one market segment at a time.

I agree with jakub, you have to define the customers first and then look what kind of fee structures they find accetable.

And I think we should focus on developing Bitshares so good that people will pay gladly 0.20 cents per transfer. It is already better than Paypal, because it is fast global network, where payments can't be cancelled, and where anybody can make an account (no KYC) and start to use it instantly. Also stealth transfers!

You have to also take into account the business models when comparing to other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is very expensive when you look the real cost per transaction, lately it has been around 8-10 dollars. It is clearly very bad business, so why we should compete with it? Let's just wait and have it lose it's market share because people do not want to pay so much for service that isn't nearly as good as many altcoins (like Bitshares).

383
General Discussion / Re: Benefits of Blockchain Technology
« on: November 15, 2015, 11:10:17 am »
Bitcoin 101 - A Million Killer Apps - Part 2 - Blockchains, The WWL & A Global Shared History

"History has always been written by the victors. But beginning in 2009, this limitation has been disrupted. Designed to be electronic cash, Bitcoin has proved to be so much more. In this video we focus on re-thinking the blockchain, and understanding why this technology can prove to be revolutionary for how humanity records, remembers and keeps track of itself. Indeed by providing an immutable and transparent database, open to anyone, blockchain technology is destined to disrupt deeds, journalism, scientific publications, patents, artistic rights, and history itself. This is much more than a public ledger or proof of publication, this is a global shared history."

384
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 11, 2015, 05:18:09 pm »
Quote from: kuro112 on November 10, 2015, 03:54:44 pm
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?

can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?

seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...

the same goes for market fees ?


16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?

is anyone buying these numbers?

not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.


please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?

Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.

Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.

385
General Discussion / Re: Ultra : Redesigning the forum for the blockchain era.
« on: November 08, 2015, 09:15:34 am »
Quote from: kuro112 on November 06, 2015, 07:49:56 am
Freebie has the internal technical skills required to pull this off, it seems like the forums are more and more unstable, and people are hoping for something new...

perhaps we should do a worker for this or something?

I like the idea for Ultra but I don't think it should get funded by a worker right now. We have to prioritize! First things are core technology and GUI, and also things that are really important for the usability of Bitshares (what mindphlux is doing with pool funding worker).

After the basic things are in order, we can start to think if we should fund projects like Ultra.

BTW, Ultra is a horrible name. Please choose something unique. Commonly used words are foolish as names because it's difficult to get search engine visibility.

386
General Discussion / Re: Help keep transfer fees to save the referral system and help Bitshares grow!
« on: November 07, 2015, 11:06:48 am »
I think Bytemaster was very clear that there is no intention to reduce profitability of DAC. The point is to think how much and when we can collect fees so that users are still paying enough but don't have a negative experience.

387
General Discussion / Re: Gateway Iiquidity
« on: November 07, 2015, 10:36:04 am »
I think most important thing right now is just to get any kind of trading to the DEX. UIA's are good way to get things going because they don't have much risk. Of course there is the counterparty risk but Openledger and Tradeblocks seem to be quite trustworthy.

And we have to remember that bitBTC doesn't have much use cases outside the DEX. Why would anybody use it when they can use real bitcoins?

Instead of bitBTC we should be providing liquidity to bitUSD/EUR/CNY markets. Every one of those is usable on their own – they are just like normal fiat currency (what comes to value), but they work in a super fast global network without any restrictions from governments or banks!

388
Technical Support / Re: Asset to Asset exchange? Is it possible?
« on: November 06, 2015, 09:28:20 am »
Quote from: sepehr on November 06, 2015, 05:43:32 am
I'm a newbie in bitshare atmosphere, My question is that is it possible to have Asset to Asset exchange in Bitshare?

I mean for example I issue some assets for example named ASSET1 and ASSET2, then can I exchange ASSET1 to ASSET2 or ASSET1 to BitUSD or ASSET1 to BitCNY etc..?

Yes, this is exactly what Bitshares is designed to do. You can have any trade pairs you want (as long as the asset issuer hasn't disabled any markets). Market pegged assets like BitUSD and BitCNY don't have any restrictions.

389
OpenLedger / Re: Constructive criticism creating synergies!
« on: November 06, 2015, 08:46:26 am »
Quote from: jakub on November 06, 2015, 07:04:27 am
If you could take the best part of CCEDK (i.e. the gateway features) and integrate them into OL - that will be the final touch that's needed to make it the best exchange on the market.

Yes! I really would like to get my euros (that are deposited to CCEDK) to Openledger (as UIA's). Unfortunately the market for bitEUR / EUR is not very liquid a the moment at CCEDK, but in the long run it will be very important. People need a way to change their bitEUR to normal euros that they can transfer to their bank accounts. And vice versa, people who do not care to own BTS or other volatile assets need a way to buy bitEUR with their euros.

Do you have any timeframe how soon we could have OPENEUR?

390
General Discussion / Re: Who are (or who could be) the powerusers of Bitshares?
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:34:55 am »
One possible market segment: people who appreciate financial privacy.

We already have the basic tool, stealth transfers. But usability is still far from good and that's why nobody is using it.

My suggestion is that stealth transfers should be implemented in the GUI in a way that even total newbies understand how it works. Now that we already have this on the command line level this shouldn't be super difficult to achieve, right?

After the user experience is polished, this would require some marketing efforts to make clear what our system can offer. But how-to articles and videos shouldn't be that difficult to make so in my view this is quite easy way to reach out for potential customers.

This might be a good opportunity for somebody to make a wallet designed especially for stealth trasfers and earn some referral income.

Requirements:
- enough liquidity for smartcoins so people don't have to use BTS because it's so volatile
- anything else?

Remember: the goal is to monopolize a small market by offering so good service that potential users don't even consider the competitors.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 32

Page created in 0.183 seconds with 22 queries.