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 - bitbadger

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
31
DAC PLAY / Re: BitShares Lotto
« on: March 25, 2014, 10:38:08 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on March 25, 2014, 10:10:47 pm
Quote from: SatoshiFantasy on March 25, 2014, 05:17:26 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on March 22, 2014, 06:05:59 pm
I think we simply make it a market for data feeds.   Have someone produce a data feed that the network uses.  Every time a transaction references that data-feed, the owner of the feed gets a cut of the transaction fees.   Now market participants can place bets according to the feed.

Isn't this centralized with a singe point of failure?  One idea is to use a PoS Consensus transaction, where the data from the feed becomes valid only after it is signed by majority stake.

No it is free market competition.  There can be many data feeds and anyone can start a business producing the feed.  The bet odds will factor in the probability that the feed is corrupt.   Market incentives are for honest feeds.

And there will of course be multiple feeds for the same event.  John_SuperBowl_Feed, Jim_SuperBowl_Feed, Sam_SuperBowl_Feed.  The bettors could set it up to require X% of feeds in agreement, or else the bet is cancelled.

Of course then you have potential conflict-of-interest where somebody with a large losing bet goes to John and Jim and offers to pay them off if they provide the wrong info in their feeds.  So the betting system needs some kind of built-in payment to the feed providers (which can be specified when setting up the bet) to keep them honest.  They would rather get a cut of 10% of the total bets made, than a big payoff from some losing bettor.

32
General Discussion / Re: A lesson to learn from Counterparty?
« on: March 25, 2014, 08:16:26 pm »
Quote from: liondani on March 25, 2014, 05:56:26 pm
"OP_RETURN was originally meant to store 80 bytes of extra data in a bitcoin transaction, but the core developers slashed it to 40 bytes. This upset CounterParty, because as a financial trading platform that allows people to create new asset classes and financial derivatives to be traded on the bitcoin block chain, it says that it needed those 80 bytes to store its data."

http://www.coindesk.com/developers-battle-bitcoin-block-chain/


are bitsharesX affected from this situation ???

No, BitShares are not affected at all, BitShares are 100% independent from the Bitcoin blockchain.  Counterparty is 100% dependent on the Bitcoin blockchain.

33
KeyID / Re: TLD discussion
« on: March 23, 2014, 07:52:23 am »
Something I just thought of... although I know that "P2P" mostly has international recognition for its meaning, it pretty much only works in English.  "Peer-to-Peer" = "P2P" because "to" sounds like "two".  I don't think that this relationship exists in any other language.

34
General Discussion / Re: You can mine BTS with TaPOS... miners of the world rejoice!
« on: March 20, 2014, 10:45:14 am »
Quote from: ffwong on March 20, 2014, 08:40:53 am
Can someone first clarify the meaning of 'mining' in the context of TaPOS?

It is not something similar to POW that performs hashing computation.

For TaPOS, I don't think it is hashing or anything computational intensive. That is not the purpose of POS. Is this  'mining' just 'leave the wallet process running'?

Even in 'standard' POS such as Peercoin, there is a "mining" process.  This is to create a random/stochastic process for the minting of PoS blocks, similar to the mining of PoW coins.  If it were deterministic in a sort of round-robin process, this would create security problems.  So there is still a "race" to "discover" the "best" block among all peers.... nobody can guess beforehand who will mint the next PoS block.

Each client works constantly on a hashing problem.  The PoS block contains only a single transaction, the miner sending his staked coins to himself.  The difficulty is very easy compared to PoW, but it is still a hashing problem.  Peercoin keeps the hashrate low by having the hashrate limited to 1 hash per second.  The hash is based only on the present timestamp, and some essentially static data (the PoS transaction inputs, and the hashes of previous blocks).  So the equivalent to a PoW nonce is the timestamp, which changes only once per second!  I suppose somebody could "cheat" by calculating ahead, but the utility of this is limited to the next couple of minutes -- by that time, the next block will be found, which will change the data to be hashed.  And the required difficulty decreases according to the number of stake-days included in the block.  The stake-days, of course, can be verified by anybody on the network.

So you can still be "lucky" or "unlucky" in PoS mining.  There is still a hashing problem, and a difficulty level to be met.

It appears that bytemaster has a different idea in mind for TaPoS mining, which would allow those with greater hashpower to mine blocks more readily.  I am not 100% sold on the idea, as it could lead to another hardware arms-race, but the PoS rewards are not likely to be high enough to really matter.

EDIT: It is *necessary* to have mining rewards on top of TaPoS, as simple TaPoS does not require one to participate in the "minting" of blocks in order to obtain one's PoS/"dividends" (unlike Peercoin).  Each transaction includes fees which are burned.  This increases every stakeholder's proportional interest in the BitShares ecosystem, whether they are connected to the network or not; whether they are mining or not.  This greatly simplifies the PoS part, but it requires the addition of mining rewards in order to incentivize mining.  If this can be achieved without creating a hardware arms-race, that would be great.

35
General Discussion / Re: How to make Bitshares mineable while creating buying pressure
« on: March 20, 2014, 04:14:00 am »
Quote from: luckybit on March 20, 2014, 03:57:58 am
Quote from: bitbadger on March 20, 2014, 03:35:16 am
It seems that this is the next trend for purely PoS coins to market themselves to miners.

Miners are primarily interested in ROI.  They will mine for whatever is most profitable in fiat terms.  If they mine for some random alt-coin, they generally want to exchange them for BTC so that they can cash out.

I think that we are already seeing this with the Blackcoin pool.  The BTC price of Blackcoin doubled, but then it dropped back down.  It's still up today despite the fall, and I suppose that over time, it might rise gradually, but the net effect is hard to predict, given miners' proclivity for cashing out.

That is because Blackcoin is technologically inferior to Bitcoin. Bitshares is technologically superior on ever level to Bitcoin. For that reason who would want to go back to BTC from Bitshares?

The only reason would be to buy something which can only be purchased with BTC. If people are using it for their savings as a store of value they won't cash out unless its into their local currency. The dollar is the only threat to Bitshares because people will cash out to pay rent and taxes.

Once Bitshares has a large enough market cap big companies will accept BitUSD. So a short term goal we could set would be to grow the Bitshares market cap to at least 1 billion dollars.

How exactly do we do that? The other question is promoting BitUSD. If you have BitUSD but no where to spend it then you have to cash out into Bitcoin just to buy stuff?

I agree with pretty much everything you said.  Yes, BTS is better than BTC or Darkcoin.  I am a "true believer," but I think you will find that most miners are not.  They are A) trying to pay off their investment in hardware, and B) trying to pay for more hardware after paying their electricity bills.  They are not "buy and hold" investors, for the most part.  (Even the ones that are, might hold 10% of their earnings and sell 90% for fiat.)

Now of course I am painting with pretty broad strokes here, and of course there are exceptions, but from my time in the scrypt and SHA256 mining world, the primary concern is ROI, ROI, ROI.  Once ROI is achieved, it's BMH, BMH, BMH (Buy More Hardware).  Mining is a source of income, they need cash flow. 

A pool that buys an asset on the open market, transfers that asset to miners, and then the asset is dumped on the open market by the miners, has no net effect on the price of the asset, although it does bump up the transaction volume, which can be helpful.

36
General Discussion / Re: How to make Bitshares mineable while creating buying pressure
« on: March 20, 2014, 03:35:16 am »
It seems that this is the next trend for purely PoS coins to market themselves to miners.

Miners are primarily interested in ROI.  They will mine for whatever is most profitable in fiat terms.  If they mine for some random alt-coin, they generally want to exchange them for BTC so that they can cash out.

I think that we are already seeing this with the Blackcoin pool.  The BTC price of Blackcoin doubled, but then it dropped back down.  It's still up today despite the fall, and I suppose that over time, it might rise gradually, but the net effect is hard to predict, given miners' proclivity for cashing out.

37
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Logos - here
« on: March 20, 2014, 03:21:37 am »
I would like to criticize the new logo a bit.  I like it on the whole, but I think a few minor tweaks could really make it shine.  It looks fine at smaller resolutions, but blown up large, a few flaws appear.

I will work my way from left to right through the letters:

*Space between "i" and "t" is a bit too tight
*Space between "t" and "s" looks a bit clumsy.  In general, I have a problem with the "s" glyph as it is asymmetrically longer on the bottom left.  On the right side of the "s", the top line and bottom curve line up perfectly.  On the left side, the bottom line protrudes further to the left than the top curve.  I do not like this asymmetry, it makes it look like it is about to fall over.  I think that it could be negated in a way that looks nice with the hook of the "t" lining up nicely with the end of the "s" curve.
*Too much space between the "s" and the "h".  Compare it with the space between the "h" and the "a", it's like twice the distance.
*On the other hand, the "h" and "a" are too close together, separate them by a little bit.
*The top tail on the "a" should be extended slightly and curved a little more to make complement the curve of the "h" next to it.
*The space between the "a" and the "r" should be closed a bit.
*The top tail of the "r" should get the same elongation treatment as the "a" to have it come closer and give a nice complement to the curve of the "e".
*The final "s" should be corrected like the first one, and moved slightly towards the "e".

I have made all of these changes using the blunt tool of Photoshop.  (My Illustrator version was too old to work with the EPS file.)  I humbly submit the revisions below (with the original on the bottom, my changes on top).  When seen as a whole, it really does not look much different.  But when you look at the individual letters, it looks much more harmonious IMO.  (Although it really needs more work, there is a little glitch in the "r".  And I did not fix the "s" completely, as doing so made it look top-heavy, but I did shorten the length of the bottom curve noticeably.)


38
KeyID / Re: Allowable names discussion
« on: March 20, 2014, 02:01:51 am »
I would suggest to add a hyphen or underscore, to allow a word-separator character that is not a period.  Plus there is the precedent of traditional DNS allowing hyphens, and traditional e-mail addresses allowing underscores.  So, one or the other would be nice.

39
KeyID / Re: DNS design decisions: 50m shares, one TLD, DNS "family parent"
« on: March 20, 2014, 01:54:17 am »
Sounds good to me.  Although I might have made different decisions, your reasoning is sound, and this is a decision that I can stand behind.  +5%

40
General Discussion / Re: You can mine BTS with TaPOS... miners of the world rejoice!
« on: March 18, 2014, 09:50:10 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on March 18, 2014, 09:19:59 pm
Quote
You are at risk of losing your valuable Coin-Days for no return.

What if the block rewards were simply distributed to all transaction-makers included in the block, in proportion to the CDD, with some minimum in order to provide a return?  (Say 10 or 30 days)  So if I save up my coins, waiting to make a transaction / block, at least I know I will get some return on the transaction even if I happen to not mine a block.  People who are trading constantly don't get to keep the transaction fees, they go to the actual miner of the block.

This is what dividends do.. they transfer fees to all holders.   Think of lost opportunity to 'mine' as part of your transaction fee.   Making transactions isn't 'free' for the network.  In fact, when you make a transaction you want to to help secure the network so you shouldn't be 'paid' for making a transaction.

Wait, I'm confused.  I thought that this whole mining thing was being promoted as the method by which the dividends were earned/paid.  But now I go back and read in the OP: "these fees must be split between miners and shareholders as dividends".  So people can earn dividends (still through burned transaction fees, right?) aside from this mining reward.  Got it.

I now have far fewer reservations about this whole thing.  I thought that this was going to be the only way to earn interest/dividends/PoS/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.  But if it's just one of a couple of ways, I have no problem with it, and I think it's a good idea to encourage mining.

I still think that the "ad-hoc pool" thing is a cool idea, though.  So the transaction fees would be split 3 ways: A) Dividends to all shareholders (burned); B) Miner; C) Returned to transaction-makers with significant CDD included in the block and who were therefore plausibly vying to mine the block.  Maybe they only get their own transaction fees back; the rest of the fees are split between (A) and (B), while the folks in (C) at least didn't lose any coins by trying to mine and destroying their Coin-Days.

41
General Discussion / Re: New website sneak peek: BITSHARES.ORG
« on: March 18, 2014, 09:14:44 pm »
Me LIKEY!  Looks VERY nice.  I haven't read any of it, I know that stuff is all subject to change, but the look and feel is excellent.

42
General Discussion / Re: You can mine BTS with TaPOS... miners of the world rejoice!
« on: March 18, 2014, 09:10:34 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on March 18, 2014, 08:32:27 pm
Quote from: phoenix on March 18, 2014, 08:16:14 pm
So would the ideal mining strategy be to have a lot of shares, and a decent amount of hash-power? Also, couldn't you include a transaction to yourself in the block you're mining, but not broadcast that transaction until you broadcast the block, thereby increasing the number of CDD in your block, but without risk of losing the CDD if you fail to mine out a block?

You seem to have it right.

Doesn't this seem like a perverse incentive?  Everybody will be hiding their transactions in hopes of mining their own block!

It seems to me that the system should be balanced, so that people are not punished for making transactions, nor punished for holding stake (stake defined as actively mining and running a node, not just holding in a cold wallet).

Stake as defined in this system is in conflict with stake as defined in other PoS coins.  Other PoS coins have stake grow until the stakeholder mines a block, at which time it is reset.  Conducting a transaction with those coins resets the Stake back to 0, and often requires a long period for Stake to start to build again.  (This also seems like a perverse incentive IMO.... PPC holders are incentivized to simply buy and hold, which I guess is good for raising the commodity value of the coin, but bad for encouraging transactions, which should be the lifeblood of any coin... one of the things that BTC got right, with the declining mining awards balanced by the hopefully increasing transaction fees.)

With TaPOS as defined (and as I understand it -- I could be wrong here), your Stake is reset to 0 when either A) you make a transaction or B) you mine a block.  But your only chances of (B) is to do (A).  But (B) is not guaranteed when you do (A), so making a transaction is risky if your goal is to mine a block.  You are at risk of losing your valuable Coin-Days for no return.

What if the block rewards were simply distributed to all transaction-makers included in the block, in proportion to the CDD, with some minimum in order to provide a return?  (Say 10 or 30 days)  So if I save up my coins, waiting to make a transaction / block, at least I know I will get some return on the transaction even if I happen to not mine a block.  People who are trading constantly don't get to keep the transaction fees, they go to the actual miner of the block.

So it looks like this:
BLOCK MINED:
TX with less than 30 CDD (A, B, C, D, E) -> TX Fees and actual TX outputs
TX with greater than 30 CDD (F, G, H) -> TX Fees and actual TX outputs
TX fees for A, B, C, D, E + F, G, H -> split among F, G, H in proportion to CDD.
This block would have been mined by F, G, or H, one of which would have had the greatest CDD, and therefore would receive the majority of the reward.

In other words, F, G, and H form an ad-hoc pool based on their Stake contributed to this block!

43
KeyID / Re: Newbie question!
« on: March 18, 2014, 05:56:34 pm »
Quote from: toast on March 18, 2014, 04:57:11 pm
How do Google and co deal with ICANN domains outside of the jurisdiction of the countries they operate in?

My point is mainly that they don't.  They have Google.com, that's good enough for them and all that they'll ever really need.  All else being equal, they'd prefer to have Google.x for every x, but if it's a hassle or not worth their time, they just won't bother.  They won't even make the effort, because doing so would legitimize it.

How do we make BitShares DNS worth the effort for someone like Google?

44
BitShares PTS / Re: 42 days estimated for Difficulty to retarget. Could this kill PTS?
« on: March 18, 2014, 05:50:50 pm »
Quote from: testz on March 18, 2014, 04:55:39 pm
Quote from: newmine on March 18, 2014, 04:39:30 pm
I just observe and report. If you guys (3I) don't want to do anything about it, then so be it. If something catastrophic happens in the near future, you can bet people will point back to this and wonder why nobody took it seriously.  I could be wrong too. If at the current rate of col/min dropping off the network compared to 15 days ago we will never see the retarget happen.

All that we can do requires hard fork, that we always can do if "catastrophic happens".
Currently network has approximately 2 blocks per hour, it's enough for normal operations and it's can be a problem only for speculators and exchange arbitrators, they should wait more.

A bounty per block (or per N blocks, randomly paid out) to increase the effective block reward would not require a hard fork.

45
KeyID / Re: Newbie question!
« on: March 18, 2014, 04:33:28 pm »
Quote from: toast on March 18, 2014, 04:10:17 pm
Quote
Why would someone pay a lot to buy a popular name like google if in the future he risk to get legally chased and probably in this world that we live will lose the legal battle?

Why indeed?
On the other hand, why wouldn't someone buy it if it was cheap, since it's the first domain anyone would try? That kicks off the auction.

Nobody has violated any license with this software. ICANN and Google are completely separate entities. This would just be a standard trademark lawsuit, just like if you used "google" in a TV ad they would come after you, not the TV station. If you're not in a country with similar laws to the US, it's possible google couldn't do anything.

Doesn't that pretty much ensure that Google and the other big boys will never play in the BitShares DNS world?  All of the existing big domains will be snatched up.  And the little ones, too.

People's willingness to buy into BTS-DNS names depends mostly on their conviction that it won't end up just being a waste of time.  I have plenty of Namecoins, but have only reserved one name for giggles.  I don't see how anyone is ever really going to adopt it.  The existing DNS system, for all of its flaws, is pretty robust, and we haven't exactly run out of names yet.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 22 queries.