0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Back to the original topic:Do you mean data price feeds from the exchanges that list BTSX? And then using a median or average of the price? If so, doesn't this put a lot of control in the exchanges hands? Like what if they were to collude and manipulate price together?
There are different qualities that make up a good delegate in my opinion and they are not all required. For example I, like many in this field, am tech savvy but have limited knowledge of advance finance. Therefore as a delegate I am comfortable being a good player and making sure my server is secure, reliable, and cost effective. As far as picking feeds I could probably make an educated guess.However what would work for me, and those like me, would be a reasonably extensive list of feed sources that the users could vote on much like they vote for delegates. Or perhaps the delegates could vote on (weighted by approval?). This would take the task of me, and my limited economic acumen, from having to source out a feed from whole cloth.
Quote from: skyscraperfarms on July 28, 2014, 03:53:40 pmWhat other sources? I was assuming that bitUSD would be pegged to BTSX since the path to liquidity is through BTSX in one form or another. In this system the only way in and out is through BTSX. Are the bitAssets going to be able to be sold on external exchanges?I believe what BM is referring to, is the fact that there will be some arbitrage between the exchanges, as always. And prices on BTSX are likely to follow, not lead, however if BTSX becomes too big, then following is no longer relevant.
What other sources? I was assuming that bitUSD would be pegged to BTSX since the path to liquidity is through BTSX in one form or another. In this system the only way in and out is through BTSX. Are the bitAssets going to be able to be sold on external exchanges?
Quote from: skyscraperfarms on July 28, 2014, 03:17:19 pmBack to the original topic:Do you mean data price feeds from the exchanges that list BTSX? And then using a median or average of the price? If so, doesn't this put a lot of control in the exchanges hands? Like what if they were to collude and manipulate price together?Then it would be up to the delegates to post feeds from other sources or to simply ignore the exchanges and rely entirely on maximum price changes in the BitAsset. If the exchanges are able to manipulate the prices by 50% then regular market participants will be deceived. Until BitAssets are big enough to DRIVE the price they are always subject to the price feeds traders use on a day-to-day basis to decide when to buy or sell.
Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on July 28, 2014, 03:13:55 ammerockstar has it right.To be more specific...Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2014, 12:32:53 amI do not know of any laws that a delegate could be accused of violating....that is crazy. What about AML / SAPs (terrorist financing/tax-evasion)/ KYC, before we even touch the entire world of SEC / Treasury / FED regulations?Put simply: If US senators start complaining, what then? Of course the NSA will know the physical location of the delegates' computers.Dpos certainly has a powerful regenerative force, in that delegates 101 through 200 can just just step up and keep the system moving, but (I argue) the entire value-proposition of Bitcoin was that there would be nothing for an attacker (government / moral or otherwise) to shut off. It was LibertyReserve without a target. 100 people is smaller than most organizations...if a few executives from a-Canadian-bank-that-allowed-individuals-to-withdraw-money-from-InTrade can be arrested while vacationing in the USA and face 5 years in prison, so can essentially anyone.Ok.. you can be accused of anything. But so far we have seen it ruled that Bitcoin is not a security so neither is BTSX. Bitcoin is not a legal entity and neither is BTSX. Delegates are merely timestamp servers. They have no executive authority. 101 people may be small, but these are 101 people spread all over the world with different jurisdictions. All of that said, if it becomes a legal issue then we can adapt. Let people do it from countries where it is OK. Run it from behind TOR. Increase delegate compensation to cover risk.
merockstar has it right.To be more specific...Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2014, 12:32:53 amI do not know of any laws that a delegate could be accused of violating....that is crazy. What about AML / SAPs (terrorist financing/tax-evasion)/ KYC, before we even touch the entire world of SEC / Treasury / FED regulations?Put simply: If US senators start complaining, what then? Of course the NSA will know the physical location of the delegates' computers.Dpos certainly has a powerful regenerative force, in that delegates 101 through 200 can just just step up and keep the system moving, but (I argue) the entire value-proposition of Bitcoin was that there would be nothing for an attacker (government / moral or otherwise) to shut off. It was LibertyReserve without a target. 100 people is smaller than most organizations...if a few executives from a-Canadian-bank-that-allowed-individuals-to-withdraw-money-from-InTrade can be arrested while vacationing in the USA and face 5 years in prison, so can essentially anyone.
I do not know of any laws that a delegate could be accused of violating.
What about AML / SAPs (terrorist financing/tax-evasion)/ KYC, before we even touch the entire world of SEC / Treasury / FED regulations?
Then it would be up to the delegates to post feeds from other sources or to simply ignore the exchanges and rely entirely on maximum price changes in the BitAsset. If the exchanges are able to manipulate the prices by 50% then regular market participants will be deceived. Until BitAssets are big enough to DRIVE the price they are always subject to the price feeds traders use on a day-to-day basis to decide when to buy or sell.
keep max 101 ACTIVE delegates (not more) but rotate them with the top X stand-by delegates (x variable,depended on market cap,x higher when market cap is higher).
Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2014, 12:21:52 pmQuote from: AsymmetricInformation on July 28, 2014, 03:13:55 ammerockstar has it right.To be more specific...Quote from: bytemaster on July 28, 2014, 12:32:53 amI do not know of any laws that a delegate could be accused of violating....that is crazy. What about AML / SAPs (terrorist financing/tax-evasion)/ KYC, before we even touch the entire world of SEC / Treasury / FED regulations?Put simply: If US senators start complaining, what then? Of course the NSA will know the physical location of the delegates' computers.Dpos certainly has a powerful regenerative force, in that delegates 101 through 200 can just just step up and keep the system moving, but (I argue) the entire value-proposition of Bitcoin was that there would be nothing for an attacker (government / moral or otherwise) to shut off. It was LibertyReserve without a target. 100 people is smaller than most organizations...if a few executives from a-Canadian-bank-that-allowed-individuals-to-withdraw-money-from-InTrade can be arrested while vacationing in the USA and face 5 years in prison, so can essentially anyone.Ok.. you can be accused of anything. But so far we have seen it ruled that Bitcoin is not a security so neither is BTSX. Bitcoin is not a legal entity and neither is BTSX. Delegates are merely timestamp servers. They have no executive authority. 101 people may be small, but these are 101 people spread all over the world with different jurisdictions. All of that said, if it becomes a legal issue then we can adapt. Let people do it from countries where it is OK. Run it from behind TOR. Increase delegate compensation to cover risk.So we have already admit that is better that we have more individuals (separated in different country's) that take the delegate role to reduce risk ... As it is right now it is max 101 individuals, and if we want to be honest it will be only a percentage of the 101 active delegates because some individuals will manage to control more than 1 delegate at a time... So I bring back again the idea to: keep max 101 ACTIVE delegates (not more) but rotate them with the top X stand-by delegates (x variable,depended on market cap,x higher when market cap is higher). You can even use less delegates when transactions volume get higher than y% of average volume (for the last hours) to ensure that very high volume transactions get signed from high end servers that are more trustworthy...
After reading about Liberty Reserve, I don't see much similarity here. Bitshares isn't acting as a depository or a "real" currency exchange. People are going to have to buy BTSX from elsewhere and then use it to trade. Bank-Coinbase-BTer-BitsharesXSimilarly,Bank-paypal-Ebay. If someone is laundering money through paypal and then buying things on Ebay, the ebay sellers aren't charged with AML crimes. Neither does Ebay. I am no lawyer though. It be nice to know for sure.
can we set a total of bitusd,then increase or reduce the total of bitusd according to the market demand regularly.
Quote from: AsymmetricInformation on July 27, 2014, 09:59:36 pmSounds like being a delegate is a lot of (crucial) work, and you might be arrested (LibertyReserve had way more than 100 employees). Maybe all of the delegates can be from Switzerland, or something.This is going to be pretty complicated to analyse now...I suspect that with 12 delegates comes instant victory. Getting 12 might even be easy, if 88 are going to be left in the dust, you wouldn't want to be one of those 88. 1 for free if you are a delegate yourself... I don't know when I'll have time to try and figure this out.Wait a second. What do you mean we could be arrested? I've put my name on this delegate and was about to start pushing out advertisements as soon as this becomes profitable. At ~6 cents per hour right now, this may not be worth it. I need to know what liabilities are involved before we get too deep. Can you describe what you mean and how we "could" be arrested?
Sounds like being a delegate is a lot of (crucial) work, and you might be arrested (LibertyReserve had way more than 100 employees). Maybe all of the delegates can be from Switzerland, or something.This is going to be pretty complicated to analyse now...I suspect that with 12 delegates comes instant victory. Getting 12 might even be easy, if 88 are going to be left in the dust, you wouldn't want to be one of those 88. 1 for free if you are a delegate yourself... I don't know when I'll have time to try and figure this out.
...4) At least 25% of the delegates must be producing a feed...
The feeds are not even critical... if an attacker can get 51% of the feeds and and have enough stake to manipulate the market then they can destroy one BitAsset... the chain would fork and people would continue.
Quote from: Shentist on July 27, 2014, 08:51:05 pmwhy not include marketdephs as a parameter?for examplewe could bind the max contract size to the marketdephs at that moment starting with a minimum contract size.like only 1000 BitUSD are sold and bought in the past, the max order size per account could only be X BitUSD. So for one account here is not a problem anymore. I am aware that this idea could not prefent fraud from more than 1 account but this kind of problem you will have all the time.Any attacker with significant capital could harm the network with anything other than price feeds or a large player acting as market maker. Price feeds give us "low-cost" protection against attacks that likely prevents the attacks from happening in the first place and leaving us with a market-pegged asset.
why not include marketdephs as a parameter?for examplewe could bind the max contract size to the marketdephs at that moment starting with a minimum contract size.like only 1000 BitUSD are sold and bought in the past, the max order size per account could only be X BitUSD. So for one account here is not a problem anymore. I am aware that this idea could not prefent fraud from more than 1 account but this kind of problem you will have all the time.
BitAssets are a challenge to bootstrap because it only takes a single bogus trade for someone to print up a billion BitUSD backed by no collateral. To execute this trade all that is necessary is for someone to gain control of both sides of the order book long enough to execute a trade against themselves at a price they pick. This attack depends upon two factors:1) The attacker having financial interest in destroying the network2) The attacker having a large pot of cash that they can burn to bring it down.3) The attacker being able to execute his attack in a timely manner.Most of these problems go away once the network is as big as Bitcoin, but when we are young it is much harder to "secure" the market peg. I have just finished implementing everything I think is necessary to launch BitAssets and having the system be secure:1) There is a minimum market depth required before any shorts or covers are executed (1% XTS)2) There is a maximum short price that is 50% higher than the current median price feed.. maximum_bid = median_price * 3 / 23) Only active delegates may publish a price feed and they must update it every 24 hours.4) At least 25% of the delegates must be producing a feedWhat these limits mean is that once trading begins the only time there can be a margin call is when delegates raise the median price feed. It also means the delegates are circuit breakers in the system. They can limit the price movements during rapid change giving players time to adjust their positions. Someone speculating in this market now knows that the value of BTSX in terms of BitUSD cannot fall by more than 33% without the delegates updating the price feed.So what does this give us? 1) A system where the there are up to 101 price feeds for USD / BTSX price, with at least 252) By using the median feeds that are way out of line are ignored.3) Delegates don't set the price and thus the feed does not need to be very accurate and can get by with just one update per day.4) The price feed is just used as a guardrail that makes attacks "impossible" while not actually being used to execute orders 5) Users only need to trust that delegates can produce a feed that is "close enough" and don't have to trust any individual delegate. 6) Even if the delegates posted BOGUS feeds all they could do is stop new shorts from being executed. a) delegates have this power anyway by controlling what transactions get included. b) if the attacker controls over 50% of the price feeds they must control at least 12% of the delegates and that is already bad. c) everyone knows who the attacker is based upon their price feeds. In the long-run, we can remove the need for the price feeds once the depth of the market is measured in billions of dollars... or perhaps loosen the price range a bit. With this in place I believe we can launch a test network for BitUSD tomorrow. All trading will occur just like it does with user issued assets with the addition that shorts can add bids (selling USD for BTSX) and margin positions can result in asks.