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 - merivercap

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 45
106
General Discussion / Re: How do they do it?
« on: February 12, 2016, 04:57:18 am »
Quote from: bitacer on February 11, 2016, 08:50:20 pm
Quote from: mf-tzo on February 09, 2016, 08:51:23 am
How can we convince them to use bitshares in the backend? I have contacted a similar company and sent them an email to convince them to use bitshares but never got any reply. Apparently I wasn't very convincing or I may have not described correctly what they can do with bitshares

Can someone put 5 lines explaining why they should use bitshares and what are the benefits so people who never heard of bitshares before can easily understand the benefits?

Only in the U.S barter clubs generate more than 12 Billion Dollars a year. As the world's economies get worse (indications are strong) this is going to be a great business model to be based on bitshares .  Its not  feasible to try to contact each one of them because there are literally thousands of them. Bitshares can either compliment or replace many of these companies. Some marketing efforts are needed . @ccedk might want to prepare a press release on this subject. If he attracts some of their attention you will see a surge in grass root movement and increase in the number of memberships. Imo this could be a tremendous  opportunity to present bitshares as a solution.

Yeah there was a thread before about community/local currencies and most of those are set up like a barter network... I was planning to reach out to one in SF, but haven't prioritized it yet.   Barter networks are a natural market for UIAs and the Bitshares platform so it's good to have us stay on top of it. 

107
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 08:57:59 am »
Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 07:53:56 am
Quote from: merivercap on February 11, 2016, 07:34:02 am
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts.  As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.

The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model.  Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX.  To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat.  So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.

When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges.  And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values.  IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op.  I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.   I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers.  Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside.  From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS.   The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.     

108
General Discussion / Re: How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]
« on: February 11, 2016, 07:46:40 am »
This is a good idea and I support its implementation.  Although having people pay transaction fees can validate the value a network provides, it's not always necessary and most people can use cost savings as a proxy for value.  Ultimately people will recognize the value of the network effect.

Minimizing mental transaction costs, minimizing irrational politics, maintaining fee flexibility and improving the perception of the blockchain all should have very positive effects.

109
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 07:34:02 am »
Interesting thought experiment.

I like the new perspective and language you use when describing the system, but I'm not sure I see enough of a fundamental difference compared to what could be done in the current design. 

Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

When businesses that build on the platform can provide value to consumers then you'll generally have similar outcomes with either design.  In the current design if more consumers find value from the platform we'll eventually get more liquidity internally using bitAssets & BTS and over time we can set the price feed to depend more on internal pricing than external.  You can already borrow liquidity from other exchanges using arbitrage bots like clayop's Kkachi.  Right now not enough consumers find enough value to use the platform and so changing the design will have marginal effect if any.

Note: I do like that you brought up trading bitAssets 1:1 against USD and I believe that was the intention with TCNY and in the works for USD.  It's just a matter of tweaking the parameters, and changing the definition and perception of a bitUSD from 'at least $1' to 'at $1'

Anyways interesting to think about....
     

110
General Discussion / Re: KKachi is on OPEN.ETH:OPEN.BTC market!
« on: February 10, 2016, 10:27:21 pm »
 +5%

Great job @clayop!  I see a lot of potential of this being used in many markets.

111
General Discussion / Re: Should we Abandon Proof of Stake Marketing?
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:54:14 pm »
DAO is fine.  What's wrong with 'Community' @btswolf ?

112
General Discussion / Re: [Referral Program] Lower Socialist Taxes. Increase Capitalist Opportunities
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:53:24 pm »
Quote from: Pheonike on February 04, 2016, 06:31:13 pm
I can see your point but then this comes down to what is Bitshares? Is it a neutral platform or DAC.

1) Bitshares is a platform that is revenue neutral. Profits are made and disturbed by businesses build on top it. Users must invest in those business or just hold and wait for potential increase in BTS price.
2) Bitshares is a made a for profit business and makes profits from users and businesses that use the platform by receiving a fee of every transaction above neutral cost.

@Pheonike
I think this is an important point to keep in mind.  As a platform the goal is to just get as many people and businesses on as possible and charge a basic network fee.  Whether it's 1 cent or 20 cents BTS owners should just keep it simple and just try to attract as many businesses as possible.

@Xeldal  I agree with the general proposition and something like what you suggested is a good long term solution.  Also wouldn't it be easier to someone allow business accounts to charge a fee on the blockchain?  Isn't that being done for FBA assets already?   If fees can be set on an account-by-account basis in addition to assets that might work even better.  I think this is a better approach than adding a fee on the GUI because that may open up more vulnerabilities.  At least you can verify fees on the blockchain.    That way businesses can more easily earn money charging a %-based fee or 20 cents first and use whatever proceeds to fund a referral program. 

Example.  Let's assume the network fee is set at 2 cents per transaction for all assets.  If a business account XYZ wanted to use the USD Smartcoin and CNY Smartcoin it could create an XYZ.USD or XYZ.CNY and charge anything.... 0.1%, 0.3%, 1% as long as it's above the network fee.  Businesses can later use the net proceeds for the referral marketing features we already have on the system.


113
General Discussion / Re: Should we Abandon Proof of Stake Marketing?
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:52:08 pm »
What about just remove the POS and just say Delegated Consensus? 

...also Organizational Consensus?

As btswolf just mentioned DAO/DAC might be the key phrase to stress since didn't you coin the term anyways?  If it would be good to emphasize that... the first ever DAO/DAC. I think Decentralized Autonomous Community might be preferred over 'Company' for legal reasons and it will attract more people...

BTW My go-to line in explaining DPOS/POS: 'Millions of corporations and organizations use this (or operate this way) today ..'  Seems to have worked the few times I used it, even to someone who seemed like a hardline Bitcoin maximalist.



114
General Discussion / Re: Theory and Late Night Musings on Smartcoins
« on: February 04, 2016, 01:38:20 am »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 03, 2016, 11:25:55 pm
Quote from: merivercap on February 03, 2016, 09:44:16 pm
1) The USD smartcoin is defined to have an equivalent value to the dollar.  2) The price-feed determines the value of the USD smartcoin relative to BTS.  Then we can conclude USD smartcoins can be created and extinguished with either other USD smartcoins or BTS using the price-feed.

The way I understand it at the moment is that the reason for the current method is so that Smartcoins remain over-collateralized in most market conditions and thus 1 BitUSD should almost always be redeemable for $1 worth of BTS even during significant BTS price declines.

By allowing people to extinguish their debt with BTS you would be reducing the collateral backing Smartcoins unless the BTS they used went into a Smartcoin collateral pool/BTS took over the position?

Perhaps that's part of the reason to keep it at least $1, but I think it's more important to declare equivalence.  Like I mentioned earlier it's trying to value a moving target with another moving target.  It makes more sense to me to just declare a USD Smartcoin $1 and use the price-feed as the authority.  That's ok.  We can test out the latter option with a Privatized Smartcoin so we can experiment. 

Yeah the second part I just posted about and you can indirectly use BTS to extinguish the debt or reset it at a lower exchange rate so I think things should be fine with that. 

115
General Discussion / Re: Theory and Late Night Musings on Smartcoins
« on: February 04, 2016, 01:26:58 am »
Ok I think I got it.  Borrowers can use external assets to purchase BTS and then create new Smartcoins to replace the debt at a lower exchange rate and that should take care of the issue.    Hence Bob in the lost key example can purchase $4 million in BTS, create new Smartcoin USD to replace the old debt at the lower exchange rate.  It's the same effect as updating the collateral position. 

So I think that solves the issue that was puzzling me there last night...

116
General Discussion / Re: Payout Referral Commisions in Smartcoins
« on: February 03, 2016, 11:32:08 pm »
Quote from: abit on February 03, 2016, 10:51:20 am
Quote from: merivercap on February 03, 2016, 12:01:44 am
Bump!

BTW can we create an object/flag that determines what asset to pay out the referral?  The reason I ask is if we create a Privatized Smartcoin and want to give users that Smartcoin as the payout that would be the only way we can make the most use of the referral program.  We have a simple USD wallet and #1) people won't even see their BTS #2) they may get the Public Smartcoin USD which the wallet won't display.

 
Sounds like some kind of white-listing. Account can set a list of acceptable assets, so other assets wouldn't enter that account. Or say, payment will fail if the account doesn't accept that 'currency'. If I can implement it, will you fund the development, or I need to apply for another worker?

Another related issue: for example, cancelled market orders will give the user some BTS. I have an idea that BTS can be displayed as "special points" in your wallet, so your user can spend them in some way, you can make a UI to let user select "pay in smartcoin" or "pay in special points", it's all allowed in the back end. You need to have enough fee pool balance so the user can pay directly in your smart coin.

And maybe there are other ways to achieve your goal.

The main thing is to allow the registrar to select the asset a referrer receives payouts in.   Is that somehow taken from the main network reserve balance?  I guess we would have to somehow automatically trade the BTS payout for the designated asset in the market or create the asset by borrowing and issuing it to the user.   I think a worker proposal for this would suffice.  Thx.

I'll keep the cancelled market order/point system in mind if we create an exchange down the road. 

117
General Discussion / Re: [DAC] Possible financial focus for the next few months
« on: February 03, 2016, 11:08:42 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 03, 2016, 10:04:34 pm
Quote from: merivercap on February 03, 2016, 08:02:47 pm
@jakub  Setting up the referral program for specific US/Eur assets makes perfect sense. BSIP10 was designed to be optional per issuer/asset anyways.  All of us referral program users are mostly in the US and Europe and the largest advocates for low fees are in China.   It will make everybody happy.  If I want to use TCNY I'll have low fees.  If I want to use Smartcoin USD fees will be higher.  No big deal.   If someone really wants low fees for Smartcoin USD I'm sure people will donate for an LTM account as charity.

What about more universal assets like gold or BTC?
There will always be assets used by both China and US/Europe - if not, what's the point of having a common blockchain?

The committee can decide gold & BTC...I don't think many will businesses would mind those assets having the low fee option but who knows... wouldn't the committee have to decide %-based or flat fee anyways?  If it's privatized smartcoin let the business decide.  The point of the common blockchain is that you can use all the assets.  It doesn't matter that each asset has varying fees.  Diversity is good.  We can all see what works and each demographic and business case is different.   

118
General Discussion / Re: Theory and Late Night Musings on Smartcoins
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:44:16 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 03, 2016, 01:01:23 pm
I just looked at it briefly, perhaps the network can offer to take over your short position for a hefty premium.

In other words for 'Feed + 10%' in BTS, the network will assume your short position and then it can keep the short position in a separate account/space so that BitAsset is just as collateralized as it was before? (There would have to be a daily 2% limit/other that can be transferred to the network a day so it can't be exploited by a whack feed/other)

As Johnny Bitcoin says he is reluctant to create BitAssets not knowing if he will be able to buy the BitAsset back in future.

He has also bought BitBTC at up to a 30% premium hoping to exploit/expose this very flaw in the future...

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on December 31, 2015, 07:02:52 pm
Quote from: tonyk on December 31, 2015, 06:43:39 pm
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on December 31, 2015, 04:20:49 pm
The dex is struggling to get going and I think we need to create maybe $50,000 BITUSD and 100 BITBTC using reserve funds as collateral and sell it in to the market at feed price +5% with the proceeds of the sale going back into the reserve funds.

Although I would like to create bitBTC into existence myself I'm not currently confident I'll be able to buy back the bitBTC at a reasonable price in the future to close my collateral position. I've bought 5 BITBTC at a huge premium (+30%) and I'm unlikely to sell anytime soon. Meaning those who wish to exit their collateral positions will be unable to as I'm not selling and I hold 10% of total supply. 
Smartcoin creators need to be bolstered by a supply of smartcoin liquidity and this should come from the reserve pool.

does anyone know if the reserve pool has an actual account?

What is your reasoning for buying bitBTC with 30% premium?

If I buy up all the bitbtc I can and refuse to sell it back for any less than +50% premium then there's profit for me.
And some people may really want to close their collateral positions so they can sell their BTS they have tied up in collateral.
If this strategy is sucessful and their are many desperate people unable to close their collateral positions I will have proved their is a need to create some base money using the reserve pool funds.
I maybe wrong however if people are will to keep borrowing bitbtc in to existence and sell it to me.

Interesting thread post and Johnnybitcoin's trading strategy does highlight the theoretical issues that I was musing about.  In this case a trader can hold smartcoin assets and limit the trading supply.  It's the same effect as if a large amount of smartcoins were circulating or if someone just loses keys to a large amount.   It's hard if not impossible to buy it back to extinguish the debt.   The system will margin call any undercollateralized positions at the market if people can't buy back enough and I believe that currently they are somewhat protected since the  price feed has to be below the margin call price for the actual forced settlement to occur.   I believe then the MSSR kicks in to protect the actual settlement to not be too much below the price feed, otherwise there would be massive losses with illiquidity.    Overall the mechanism  seems kludgy.   I don't believe a reserve fund would solve the problem and it may just magnify them.  Larger traders can accumulate positions against the reserve fund just the same way they could do to an individual trader.   I think finding the release valve requires going one step back to the original premise that we are creating monetary assets from the debt.    If we start from there we just need to make two rules.  1) The USD smartcoin is defined to have an equivalent value to the dollar.  2) The price-feed determines the value of the USD smartcoin relative to BTS.  Then we can conclude USD smartcoins can be created and extinguished with either other USD smartcoins or BTS using the price-feed.

119
General Discussion / Re: Theory and Late Night Musings on Smartcoins
« on: February 03, 2016, 09:10:02 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on February 03, 2016, 12:21:41 pm
what if Bob is a big bank? Does the big bank(s) have any incentive to buy up at least half of the bts, own the system and use the dex for trading smartcoins?
I see in the news that banks invest something like $50-$60 mil to build their own blockchain solutions. Is the assumption that someone with $20 mil buying bts slowly could easily acquire at least half of bts now and own the system correct?
Why they don't just do that instead of reinventing the wheel? They can obtain the control of an amazing system at very low price currently, most of the work has been already done, they can issue their smartcoins on bitshares blockchain, provide liquidity and increase the confidence of their clients that they actually have their customers funds verifiable on the blockchain. What am I missing ?

Not really much incentive.  The ecosystem is too anti-establishment for banks.  I think it's a good thing that we have an alternative ecosystem.  Maybe Identabit or some other system can be used with traditional banks. 

120
General Discussion / Re: API Servers for Wallet
« on: February 03, 2016, 08:47:58 pm »
Quote from: abit on February 03, 2016, 06:02:49 pm
Quote from: bytemaster on February 03, 2016, 03:21:09 pm
We are looking for more redundancy in the API servers that can be integrated into the default wallet.  Currently we have bitshares.openledger.info and bitshares.dacplay.org.  To prevent/minimize downtime in the event of a server failure we would like to see additional API servers available.

Also we would like to see additional faucets set up and running.  The faucets have control over the referral program.   We will integrate the faucet / API servers into the default light wallet client.  This way the user can quickly and easily switch.

All that is required is a domain name and vetting by this community.
In addition: need a SSL/TLS certificate so it can serve secure connections:
need to use wss://youdomain.com/ws but not ws://youdomain.com/ws.

We've ever had 3 more API servers, but all of them don't support secure connections, so at the end we can't use them.

BTW what do you guys think of Let's Encrypt for SSL?: https://letsencrypt.org/

We should have a faucet available to use soon.. we currently have the Graphene wallet running until we get our wallet ready.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 45

Page created in 0.187 seconds with 22 queries.