An issue of shared order book strategy just came to my head. In short, if we try to get small exchanges adopt BitShares first, we will probably harder to get the big ones.

Say if we have already 3 small exchanges happily operating on top of BitShares. One day, come in another big exchange, which is bigger than the combination of the 3 small ones, guess what will happen? I guess, either the small ones be unhappy that some customers may go to trade with the big one, or the big one will be unhappy that it have to accept tokens issued by the small ones and/or have to ask the small ones for approval when need to issue shared tokens / withdraw from shared collateral. Will this cooperation schema succeed?

Anyway, at least the small ones should be able to survive at very first. When we're getting bigger and bigger, I don't know if the small ones can still survive.

Thoughts?

Akado, I think you are a little bit too fixated to the shared orderbook and common asset thing. I agree that it would be great to see that but given that it's very difficult to achieve I don't think that we should focus on that right now.

First, let's try to get at least one exchange to use Bitshares blockchain as their trading engine (besides OL).

This is how I would market it:

You can use Bitshares blockchain as a trading engine: You can either use it just for your own tokens or let users trade all assets that are available. No need for development and maintenance of your own trading engine.

You need to do only the GUI, hot and cold wallets and a gateway to handle the deposits and withdraws.

Users will use IOU-tokens in the blockchain, issued by your gateway.

Whitelisting is optional. This means that you can restrict how your IOUs are traded. For example, you could have BTC-IOU that can be traded freely in the blockchain, and you could have USD-IOU that can be traded only by those accounts that are identified, and only with IOUs that are issued by you.

You will get a share of the transaction fees when users make transactions with the assets that you have issued.

You can make extra money by referring users to the Bitshares blockchain. You will get referral income automatically, handled by the blockchain, everytime when users make transactions. For exchanges this might bring significant amount of extra revenue.

Steps:
1. Create GUI for your exchange and a gateway with hot and cold wallets.
2. Issue UIA for all assets that you are going to use.
3. Start marketing and advertising.

Technically it's possible, but not easy. Think about these questions: what they need to invest by doing so? What they will get in return? At what risk?

The main challenge I see here is "users" or say "customers". They said "I don't want to send users elsewhere". However, unless an exchange let their customer register on BitShares platform, it's difficult to use BitShares's Market Engine. Even CCEDK has both a self maintained engine + self maintained user database, and BitShares Engine + BitShares user registration entry, which are independent to each other so far.

So another challenge is resource. In this way the exchanges have to split efforts between 2 platforms. It's hard if they haven't enough resources.

See my lists above, we need strong reasons to convince the exchanges to join us.

Still no updates and the milestones have stood still...

Is it possible to vote out a worker?

Sure. Just vote against it.

Quote from: abit on January 14, 2016, 11:09:37 pm

Quote from: Akado on January 14, 2016, 06:39:04 pm

Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.

Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.

This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account

This is interesting.

That's very interesting.
It can be easily implemented (I hope) and can be easily explained to the user.

It's perhaps not practicable.
From my personal experience, an average Joe doesn't want to pay a fee in advance if don't know how much will spend on fees in the future. People intend to spend less money now and care less about costs in the future, that's why installment loans have market.
A common user of a bank will be always charged a fee if she withdraw from other bank's ATM, but a premium user won't be charged since she has already paid a higher annual fee or similar. So rich people are more likely to pay for a premium, but actually they care less about fees in micro payments. On opposite, the ones who have more needs on micro payments are less likely to pay for a premium in advance.

yes wallet unlocked but I keep getting this

Failed to broadcast the transaction:
Transaction was not signed. Do you have a private key? [no_signers

There is an account name left to the lock icon,  make sure it's your account, if it's not, click it and select your account. It will change if you ever clicked on someone else (from your account history or explore->accounts) before enter the trade page.

Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.

Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.

This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account

This is interesting.

Quote from: xeroc on January 14, 2016, 08:06:11 pm

BitShares is about freedom .. no wait to force anyone to do anything ..

It is also a risky thing to have their assets locked away as collateral

Quote from: Pheonike on January 14, 2016, 07:45:27 pm

Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.

No one is forcing them to do anything, I believe that was just a suggestion, even if we agreed with that, it would ultimately be up to the exchanges to decide..

Still, I think it's way easier for them to have their btc for example, in a multi sig account managed by the exchanges participating. This would mean it's in everyone's interest not to mess things up and they could be easily monitored among themselves and by users too. And it's simple.

Thing is while we don't sort these kind of details first, it will be harder to get liquidity. Instead even if we manage them to join we'll most likely have a bunch of illiquid markets, plus we still have the risk factor of them going rogue.

If all exchanges put their (real) BTC in a multi-sig account, they're less likely to go rogue. They will monitor each other. And also the IOU issuer's account would be a multi-sig one which is anti-rogue.

However, although it's not hard to multi-sig a BTC account, imo it's much harder to multi-sig fiat accounts. In addition, is it possible to multi-sig accounts of LTC, DOGE and so? In the end maybe we can have a shared BTS/BTC market, but no other pairs.

Seems we're discussing a global (IOU of)BTC central bank schema.

@svk @valzav are we going to be able to view markets in the webwallet without having an account? Then we can finally share links to BitShares markets and get altcoin traders interested.

As you know clicking on a market here https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/explorer/markets without an account takes you to the register page, which is dumb. It means that viral growth for BitShares is impossible.

True it's possible. The real question is when will we have it.