i like the idea and i think if this works like expected it would be great.

and it would not really hurt the referral program. If the transactions are picking up, more people are in need to transfer and pay. the pay is still in place. But if we have capacity it will be zero. great

Quote from: dannotestein on February 07, 2016, 04:37:42 pm

The openledger gateway is back up. It was down from approx 11:59pm till 10:00am EST due to an error caused by new ether support. Unfortunately, it looks like this happened around the same time as some attractive order was available on the dex, and several people couldn't take advantage of the order as they weren't able to obtain additional OPENBTC during that time.

@dannotestein I think you mean CCEDK gateway? I don't find an "openledger gateway" in my light wallet. Was metaexchange or blocktrades down in the same period?

@abit metaexchange operates independently and if we have problems blocktrades and ccedk have no problems. if they have problems, it effects not metaexchange.

i am not sure if we want to do this, but i also don't like the discussions and threads about dilution.

but i think it would be wrong to add it on coinmarketcap. with the same agrument bitcoin could say we have to change the numbers also.

makes no sense to report the shares als "availabel" if you can not sell them. the same problem exists with the vesting shares.

hi guys,

i tried openledger to compare it with metaexchange. i bought openbtc ( https://blockchain.info/tx/21a94994655305188d783ba7ed198496553fb46813b5846e0e3a600e46b42ee7 ) after 6 confirmations
no openbtcs are in my account. how long does it take to get the openbtc?

what i learnt is:

1. you should add support on your website
2. metaexchange should also show how many confirmations are needed (it is 1 confirmation)

pls, look into my transaction i lost a good trading opportunity, because of not working gateway service. We should all try to improve our bridge and gateway services, so that we can slowly get the
trust of new users.

It is possible to do the following:

1. Have all of the witnesses monitor the BTC network for transfers to a designated multi-sig address which is defined by the BTS consensus to be the top 15 witness signatures (max MSIG allowed by BTC).   All of these UNSPENT OUTPUTS get included as part of BTS consensus state.

2. Every time a BTC transaction gets 6 confirmations, the blockchain transfers SIDE-BTC asset to a balance controlled by the first input address (assuming the address is a simple 1 sig input).

3. Allow this SIDE-BTC asset to be converted back to BTC with an operation that makes a request.  For witnesses to produce a block they must also sign off on the MSIG transfer authorizing BTC to be sent to the proper address.

This is something that could probably be implemented in about a month of dev time on the back end.

In theory the witnesses could collude to steal all deposited BTC funds.

without multisig, this is already working on metaexchange.

we recieving BTC -->creating METAEX.BTC
if you send METAEX.BTC back we send you BTC and burn METAEX.BTC

you can see the operations in realtime here http://cryptofresh.com/u/dev-metaexchange.monsterer

what is the value of doing it? would it not be better if we can setup some mulitsig for (blocktrades, opernledger and metaexchange) so we can use the same UIA?

gives this really more value?

Quote from: gamey on February 02, 2016, 04:53:32 pm

Curiously can anyone give references to these sort of things working in the past?  I understand BitShares is a new product in many many ways so it is hard to find an example that fits very well, but I would think there should be something out there.

I wonder if the better solution could be more within education. I don't think education is a great idea, but I question whether paying liquidity providers will be enough to jumpstart the system ... and if it isn't (which seems likely) you have now spent your war chest.

Nubits despite being far more risky than BitUSD, and will probably fail, is much more popular through the use of liquidity providers.
They probably average >$1 million a month in volume and have much bigger market share.

https://uphold.com/ Uphold started after BTSX and offer centralized BitAssets which are much less appealing to Bitcoin users, however they offer a tight peg by being the liquidity providers themselves. As a result they are "supposedly" the fastest growing money platform in the world.

Part of the problem is that in these market conditions & with the added burden of forced settlement, shorts don't want to come close to the peg resulting in a very high premium, so long term this has to be addressed too, possibly by incentivizing shorts in BTS neutral/bear markets imo.

you are saying "Nubits have a much bigger market share" on which data is this assumtion based? To me it looks, the tradevolume is only the market maker who recieved a lot of funds in the beginning for free. thats all i see.

i just did the next buyback http://cryptofresh.com/b/3169440

we bought 13.33 METAFEES for 0.32 BTC and will burn them the next days. The total supply for METAFEES will be going down from 6220 to 6206.67 METAFEES.

how we are doing?

in january the existing pairs BTS/BTC, ETH/BTC and NXT/BTC saw much less transfers then before. It was compensated from new pairs like MUSE/BTC and METAEX:BTC/BTS.
we are thinking about ways to give more value to our customers and so to do more transfers in the future.

in the past i posted here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21058.0.html how you can look into METAFEES and try to assume their value. Right now, the allocation is nearly the same : 50% BTC, 25% ETH, 20 % BTS and 5% NXT

The value of ETH increased a lot and BTS got also better, so the METAFEES pool coins are doing good and increased the value from the pool calculated in BTC. Please remember in the beginning of the fundraiser the price of 1 METAFEE was 1500 BTS, but of reasons of the dropping value, our portfolio lost already in the downtrend in the last month (always looking from BTC point of view!).

cheers
Frank