16
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 关于网关的建议
« on: April 26, 2015, 07:53:06 am »
一直在给bta 持有者输血
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
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.
17
中文 (Chinese) / 我的BTA 4.0 方案
« on: April 26, 2015, 06:45:59 am »
之前已经发过帖子说明为什么当前系统不能正常工作了了
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html
以及蛋哥的3.0 为什么也不能工作
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15940.0.html
基于之前那两个帖子我来，提出一个新的方案。
我的方案修改起来很简单，只与当前系统两点不同。
1. BTA持有者付给short的人持有费，持有费在转账时候付。当做空者做空生成BTA时，需要设置他们愿意收取的年华持有费（上限2%）。 最低持有费的单子先被执行，BTA卖单先执行。做空的价格不得低于喂价。
Edit:
汇率可以为负可以为正，完全由市场决定。为负时bta持有者负利息给short 的人
2. 做空者可以无限期做空。如果做空后亏了钱，他们只需每个月增加亏损部分的保证金继续做空，如果没有亏损则不需要每个月操作。
这个改动很小，写代码的人会很乐意的。
为什么BTA持有者需要付费?
1. 做空者的BTS在做空时是上锁的，他们平仓有买不到BTA的风险。因此需要一定的补偿
2. BTS不是一个银行，BTA也是存在银行里的钱。BTA是为了让钱可以在互联网上随意流通，没有任何国界，快速到账，与真实货币锚定价值。BTA有各种好处，但绝对不是说存在BTS系统里面可以得利息。BTA得到了这些好处，理所因当需要付出些什么，那就是持有费。
3. 只有收取持有费，BTS系统才会得益于BTA的应用。否则BTA是从BTS系统中吸血
第二个改动很直白，大家都能看得到他的好处
原文地址：
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15955.0.html
原文 lastagile
翻译 lastagile
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html
以及蛋哥的3.0 为什么也不能工作
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15940.0.html
基于之前那两个帖子我来，提出一个新的方案。
我的方案修改起来很简单，只与当前系统两点不同。
1. BTA持有者付给short的人持有费，持有费在转账时候付。当做空者做空生成BTA时，需要设置他们愿意收取的年华持有费（上限2%）。 最低持有费的单子先被执行，BTA卖单先执行。做空的价格不得低于喂价。
Edit:
汇率可以为负可以为正，完全由市场决定。为负时bta持有者负利息给short 的人
2. 做空者可以无限期做空。如果做空后亏了钱，他们只需每个月增加亏损部分的保证金继续做空，如果没有亏损则不需要每个月操作。
这个改动很小，写代码的人会很乐意的。
为什么BTA持有者需要付费?
1. 做空者的BTS在做空时是上锁的，他们平仓有买不到BTA的风险。因此需要一定的补偿
2. BTS不是一个银行，BTA也是存在银行里的钱。BTA是为了让钱可以在互联网上随意流通，没有任何国界，快速到账，与真实货币锚定价值。BTA有各种好处，但绝对不是说存在BTS系统里面可以得利息。BTA得到了这些好处，理所因当需要付出些什么，那就是持有费。
3. 只有收取持有费，BTS系统才会得益于BTA的应用。否则BTA是从BTS系统中吸血
第二个改动很直白，大家都能看得到他的好处
原文地址：
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15955.0.html
原文 lastagile
翻译 lastagile
18
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 比特股是要吧BTA当成银行的钱用（给持有者利息），还是当成PAYPAL来用（给创造者利息）？
« on: April 26, 2015, 06:30:20 am »19
General Discussion / Re: Precise numbers on dilution?
« on: April 26, 2015, 02:29:00 am »Real problem is BM's BITASSET 3.0. that shows him know nothing about economic.Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
Well one thing is for certain: we need to focus on the REAL problems instead of just calling stuff out that may or may not be an issue. Otherwise this is just an exercise in futility and a waste of time.
Of cause u also know nothing about it. Now u want to blame the BTS price to dilution.
20
General Discussion / Precise numbers on dilution?
« on: April 26, 2015, 01:42:16 am »
Dilution is not the root reason of failing price. Bit asset short rule is.
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
21
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: April 26, 2015, 12:46:38 am »
Bm can come up with such a proposal. I doubt your intelligence on economy
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
22
中文 (Chinese) / 比特资产改善讨论方案：BTA3.0
« on: April 25, 2015, 03:40:38 pm »
我觉得我的bitasset 4.0才是最好的。如果真的要用这个版本，我将彻底退出BTS。
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
23
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 翻译了一下lastagile的帖子和蛋哥的回复，大家看下讨论下吧
« on: April 25, 2015, 03:39:08 pm »
大家可以看看我发布的bitasset 4.0方案
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
24
General Discussion / Re: My proposal of BITAsset 4.0
« on: April 25, 2015, 10:40:36 am »Yea this my second changeThis can not happen, as many BITUSD are not placed on market.
I mean the shorter can just spare some of the "collateral" to cover his order.
Of course they need to buy BTA at market price.
So if there is no enough BTA sell order at the order book, the shorter can just wait or buy BTA at a higher price.
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
25
General Discussion / My proposal of BITAsset 4.0
« on: April 25, 2015, 09:59:54 am »New proposal by xiahui135I agree with you about what u said about why current system and ASSET 3.0 not work.
Firstly, we need equal shorts' and longs' market position. So they can match each other, react to each other's action.
1、cancel short orders' time limit;
2、let shorts can cover at any amount.
Secondly, we should guarantee the system‘s safety.
3、force bad collateralized shorts to cover at a market price (like other futures)
4、the trading fee is interest, and can be paid to BTS holder (as stake holder)
But I'm not agree your proposal.
1、cancel short orders' time limit;No time limit will aggregate the chance of black swan. short have to cover their short if they lose money, or add collateral
2、let shorts can cover at any amount.This can not happen, as many BITUSD are not placed on market.
26
General Discussion / My proposal of BITAsset 4.0 (EDIT about the fee)
« on: April 25, 2015, 09:03:07 am »
I have a post about why the current rule is not working.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html
Another post about why bitAsset 3.0 will not work.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15940.0.html
Based on the two post, I come up with an new proposal about short rule.
My proposal is quite simply. Only two change compared to current rule.
1. BitAsset holder pay interest to shorter. 1.BitAsset interesting can be negative or positive (negative means shorter pay to BTA holder, positive means BTA holder pay to shorter). When shorter create bitUSD they need to set an interesting rate(can have a limit for example -5% ~ 5%). Bit-asset seller executing first, then the lowest interesting rate will get executed first, Shorter can not short bitAsset below feed price.
2. Make it easer for shorter to re-short when the monthly expire. If they have lost some money, they only need to add the collateral to continue to short. If they do not lost money they do not need to do anything.
This is very simple make it very easy to implement. Coder will love it.
Why bit-asset holder should pay the fee?
1. Shooters are the people who lock BTS, they are take the risk that they can not buy back bit-Aseet to cover. They need get paid.
2. BTS is not a bank, Bit-asset is for people freely trade on Internet, not for people to hold. People who have bit-Aseet can benefit from all they other advantage of bit-asset they need to pay for the benefit.
3. BTS system can benefit from the adoption of bit-asset. Now bit-asset is sucking bleed from BTS system.
Change two is quite straight forward, no explanation needed.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html
Another post about why bitAsset 3.0 will not work.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15940.0.html
Based on the two post, I come up with an new proposal about short rule.
My proposal is quite simply. Only two change compared to current rule.
2. Make it easer for shorter to re-short when the monthly expire. If they have lost some money, they only need to add the collateral to continue to short. If they do not lost money they do not need to do anything.
This is very simple make it very easy to implement. Coder will love it.
Why bit-asset holder should pay the fee?
1. Shooters are the people who lock BTS, they are take the risk that they can not buy back bit-Aseet to cover. They need get paid.
2. BTS is not a bank, Bit-asset is for people freely trade on Internet, not for people to hold. People who have bit-Aseet can benefit from all they other advantage of bit-asset they need to pay for the benefit.
3. BTS system can benefit from the adoption of bit-asset. Now bit-asset is sucking bleed from BTS system.
Change two is quite straight forward, no explanation needed.
27
General Discussion / I think BITASSETs 3.0 will not work (original post are too long)
« on: April 25, 2015, 07:58:40 am »I think I have to add some.Xiahui u got my mind. This project is failing.
In effect a short position is a "loan" that is callable based upon price or X day notice.
BTA short position is different from loan.
If you loan from someone, he loan the right to use his resource. You benefit from the loan, and need to pay interest.
But BTA long side sell bts is a market behavior. They get money from this, and can withdraw to their bank account, can buy something. So the long do not have the right to call back.
The market have the right to call back from short. Only when the collateral is not enough.
I posted another topic about it
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
28
General Discussion / BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: April 25, 2015, 01:44:00 am »
If we finally put the bitasset 3.0 to real I will go away from BTS.
I have a better proposal, I will sent out latter.
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
I have a better proposal, I will sent out latter.
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
29
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: April 25, 2015, 01:40:37 am »It seems people have to sell bts for bitasset, but they need not to buy bts when they need bts. So the market will face sell presure, but no buy presure. This will drive the bts price all way down. Correct me, if i misunderstand something.This is exactly what I think
从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk
30
General Discussion / Re: I think BITASSETs 3.0 will not work (original post are too long)
« on: April 24, 2015, 05:23:12 pm »For every whale who buys bitUSD and then wants to dump BTS so they can convert the bitUSD back into more BTS, there is an equal and opposite whale who just shorted bitUSD, and wants to buy up BTS to drive the price up so they can profit.
Its a long vs short margin battle, just like any leveraged market, and whichever side breaks the other and forces them to cover at a loss wins. Sometimes the shorts will win and sometimes the longs.
The point here is the people who hold BITUSD do not need to drive the BTS price up when they convert BITUSD to BTS. They only need to do the settlement with only 1% price gap.
Shorter's have no chose, ever if they do not want this settlement.
Without the freak settlement rule, if people want convert BITUSD to BTS, they need to buy BTS use BITUSD, and it will move the BTS price up. That is what a free market behave. Settlement will not have market impact, this is the key, why it will fail.
Settlement thing is not free market, which can be manipulated.
