166
Freebie / Re: funding my sharebot account.
« on: February 03, 2016, 02:32:59 am »
yup. Account is funded successfully. Thanks.
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.
167
Freebie / Re: funding my sharebot account.
« on: February 02, 2016, 09:14:19 pm »its down at this time, were working on resolving the issue, i wrote a watchdog to check for updates however the hardfork was a situation i forgot to anticipate, adjusting my scripts and updating the rpc as we speak.
Cool. Thanks.
168
General Discussion / Re: Committee: Fee Pool Usage Policy? (community discussion)
« on: February 02, 2016, 07:11:35 pm »
I am 100% with Xeroc and abit. We need to convert these bitassets back into bts and fund the fee pools with them. If there is something else we need funds for we should create a worker proposal. Using these bitassets for any other purpose than funding the fee pool would be skirting the blockchain voting that is designed to control spending. If it is a good idea we should be able to get a worker proposal passed for it. If we can't get a worker proposal passed for it then we should not do it.
169
Freebie / Re: funding my sharebot account.
« on: February 02, 2016, 07:05:09 pm »
Still nothing. Is funding your accounts working for anyone else?
170
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 02, 2016, 08:10:37 am »I think the answer could be paying users to risk their own bts rather than risking the networks bts directly."compensate from worker proposal" should not cover all the losses and should not be high, otherwise the system may be seen as "printing unlimited money" and let someone game the system.
Lets say a third party set up a program to promote liquidity. You could register an account with them, and then your trades would be watched. An algorithm would decide how much each of your trades/positions helped liquidity. You would then get a monthly payout to the top n liquidity supporters paid for from a worker proposal.
The dilution is low and known. The risk is held by the traders, and they are compensated for that through the worker proposal.
IMO the answer is MAKER, maybe.
I agree. We should not subsidize the losses of bad traders. The idea is to get more people trading closer to the peg. A bad trader will lose more than they get from this system and give up.
171
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 02, 2016, 05:27:00 am »@CoinHoarder what do you see that your proposal can do that providing a worker proposal to the committee-account or committee-trade which allowed that account to short bitassets and sell at a certain rate above the peg?
Nothing to be honest (other than automation and security of the funds used.) It may be much cheaper to simply do it that way.
My only point is that if there is consensus that this is what we should do, we can do it right now. There is.no reason to wait six months or so for it to be developed.
On a side note have you thought about what would happen if rather than locking up 6x or whatever high amount you locked up a low amount say 2x. That way any increase in settling would be taken up by the same assets created. It would also act as an exit strategy for the network. I haven't done nearly enough thinking about all the possible downsides. Just thought I would bring it up.
172
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 02, 2016, 04:58:09 am »
@CoinHoarder what do you see that your proposal can do that providing a worker proposal to the committee-account or committee-trade which allowed that account to short bitassets and sell at a certain rate above the peg?
173
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 02, 2016, 03:51:02 am »
I think the answer could be paying users to risk their own bts rather than risking the networks bts directly.
Lets say a third party set up a program to promote liquidity. You could register an account with them, and then your trades would be watched. An algorithm would decide how much each of your trades/positions helped liquidity. You would then get a monthly payout to the top n liquidity supporters paid for from a worker proposal.
The dilution is low and known. The risk is held by the traders, and they are compensated for that through the worker proposal.
Lets say a third party set up a program to promote liquidity. You could register an account with them, and then your trades would be watched. An algorithm would decide how much each of your trades/positions helped liquidity. You would then get a monthly payout to the top n liquidity supporters paid for from a worker proposal.
The dilution is low and known. The risk is held by the traders, and they are compensated for that through the worker proposal.
174
General Discussion / Re: Crude Oil and S&P 500 Prediction Market (Binary Option) assets trading
« on: February 02, 2016, 03:27:48 am »
Some help keeping the btctalk thread on the first page would be greatly appreciated. I have bumped it about as much as I can without getting annoying. We need to keep bts in people's minds at btctalk.
175
General Discussion / Re: Prediction Markets now available in GUI
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:55:53 pm »BTW.. the title of this topic is a lie.
we - bitshares community - should name things properly. We should stop overpromise things. Right now this is at most a Proof of Concept.
How so?
176
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 01, 2016, 08:53:57 pm »Settlement is turned on. I don't have much USD. but it would allow me to settle it.@CoinHoarder the way that you create the bitasset can be forced Settlement?
Yes, other than the issue abit is bringing up, I think force settlement is the only other issue. The issue with that is the demand for forced settlement will increase, based on a statistical assumption. This will force other shorts, that will certainly have less collateral, to be force settled.
I have not come up with a solution to this, other than possibly not allowing Smartcoins to be force settled (which is another can of worms.) I was poking around last night and I noticed that committee-issued SmartCoins currently cannot be force settled. Is that truly the case, or is it a glitch in the GUI? Someone told me the other week that forced settlements were enabled...
177
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:44:57 pm »A business should NEVER EVER be profitable out of the referral program alone. Especially if you are a gateway and only interested in one particular feature of the DAC, namely 'transfer_operation's
What do you mean by that? Shouldn't 90%+ of businesses depend on the referral program? All the blog/affiliate/marketing businesses should be the largest in number and should be the main focus for user growth.
Also we're a wallet/gateway business. We can produce a great product, but we can't charge a fee on top of the network fee. We can charge a monthly software-as-a-service (SaaS) fee, but that limits options. (The easiest way is probably just to allow any business to add a fee on top of a basic network fee for any asset on the network.) The referral revenue is actually a proxy for income. We can take our product and sell it to people and merchants who are willing to pay 1% per tx. However that entire 1% would normally go to the network the way it's set up and if we didn't have a referral program, but that doesn't make sense for any business. Normally a network platform might charge 0.2% and the business would profit 0.8%. Businesses should be able to charge as low as .21% and as high as 3%. The whole Mode A/B/C options is a roundabout way of achieving this flexibility. One way is probably just to allow businesses to add an extra fee layer on top of all assets (privatized/public Smartcoins, FBAs, UIAs)... might be complicated to link accounts to assets to add a fee layer, so right now the referral income is a sufficient proxy.
Since you are operating a wallet you can require whatever fee you want. This can be over and above the fee required by the network.
Lets say a user is making a transfer. The user is non LTM and you are the referrer. When your wallet builds the transaction it can add 30BTS rather than the 3bts required by the network. In that case the network would take 6bts, and 24 bts would go to the referrer of the user.
Hope that makes sense.
178
General Discussion / Re: PLAY & MUSE Hangout/Q&A (Petition--Sign if interested)
« on: February 01, 2016, 08:20:34 am »@dacplay @btswildpig @logxing
I would love an update about what play is planning. I don't think they should have to do a mumble though. Especially if none of them feel comfortable speaking english.
If btswildpig is any indication of the play devs opinion of bts, it isn't good. he seems convinced that BM is a thief.
Regarding the "thief" question , I'm sure you must speak a different set of English than I used to . Everybody knows BM acted in the way that he thought was necessary , and I question his tactics based on how I was educated/experienced, especially in the crypto field, that his tactics are simply not possible to last for a long time . It's nothing new though , I said it a year ago that dilution is not real money , that's my constant belief and educated guess . I'm simple reminding this community that there are basic and fundamental principles regarding market . Start-ups don't have "secondary market" as their only income source, no matter how many attempt to get so-called "real-users" , the up and downs is and always will be decided by the secondary market and the capital in it . Because , again , unlike real company , we don't have fixed cost/fixed income department , imaging -----when BM brought 10000 users in by his magical dilution development work ,they created 100000 USD buy pressure(highly unlikely ) , and then BM or other whale see the huge buy order coming up and sold 300000 USD worth of BTS because they want to pay tax/buy boat/whatever , is this "company" profiting or losing money ? You can't tell , could you ? That's why I said I've always said real users could not drive marketcap , because it doesn't work that way with market cap .
Sometimes I'm just too tired to repeat some basic and simple princicple regarding second market that everybody should've known a long time ago . Call me fudster for telling the common sense for all I care.
And second of all , I'm just a community member regarding DACPLAY now . I have no role that could branded me their "indication" .
Thanks for clarifying btswildpig. I really was not trying to talk trash. I have gotten the impression that you believe that BM has set up bitshares as his personal piggy bank to be raided whenever he feels like it. To me that would be a thief.
If instead you believe that BM has made mistakes that have hurt bitshares, but that he was not trying to rip us off then I was mistaken.
I apologize for that.
As far as not knowing if you were still, or ever involved in dacplay, the whole point of my comment was that none of us know anything about dacplay. I am still a delegate on the dacplay chain. Only missed 12 blocks too. I have no idea what is going on with it though. Should I still be spending that $20 a month to keep the server up? I have no problem paying $20 a month to help support dacplay til the end of time, as long as it is needed and its going somewhere.
Anyways thanks for responding, and I am sorry if I mis-characterized your opinion of BM.
179
General Discussion / Re: BTS killer apps. [Available today] - The decentralised binary option market
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:13:15 am »
Don't we need a way to undo the global_settle?
Also I get the feeling that if we forcefully remove the asset from our customers that don't settle and settle for them there would not be a huge demand for my service. We are going for decentralized aren't we.
Even if the asset issuer can exercise this control over the asset I don't think they should, and I don’t think we should advertise it.
Also I get the feeling that if we forcefully remove the asset from our customers that don't settle and settle for them there would not be a huge demand for my service. We are going for decentralized aren't we.
Even if the asset issuer can exercise this control over the asset I don't think they should, and I don’t think we should advertise it.
180
General Discussion / Re: PLAY & MUSE Hangout/Q&A (Petition--Sign if interested)
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:09:51 am »@dacplay @btswildpig @logxing
I would love an update about what play is planning. I don't think they should have to do a mumble though. Especially if none of them feel comfortable speaking english.
If btswildpig is any indication of the play devs opinion of bts, it isn't good. he seems convinced that BM is a thief.
I assure you that the DACPLAY team is very competent in English.
Cool. A mumble would be great, but at this point I would settle for a forum post or a tweet, or really anything.
