Main > General Discussion
Contingency Planning?
Bitshiz:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: Bitshiz on March 27, 2014, 05:51:21 pm ---I thought everything is based around BTS. BTS would be used as collateral, therefore dictating how much you could buy or short. If colateral is 2x requirement and BTS is $100, you could buy 100 bitUSD or short 50 bitUSD. If BTS goes up, long bitUSD lose and if BTS goes down short bitUSD wins.so everything is pegged to the dollar price of BTS not individual assets. This way it makes BTS more valuable. What am i missing here?
--- End quote ---
That the [Bitcoin / USD] price might change, but the [BitBTC / BitUSD] price might not change (because, for example, BitUSD decoupled from USD), which would render the BitSharesX exchange useless, and produce a mass selloff where all BitAssets become the same near-zero value.
--- End quote ---
I am still not seeing it. BTS is the anchor. The "standard". Right? Everything has to breakdown to BTS' intrinsic value which unfortunately will always expressed in terms of dollars (at least for the near future). I guess I'm not understanding what you mean by decoupling.
clout:
Welp, there is clearly no reason to argue this anymore. The only thing that can assuage any of our concerns is that we actually test the network.
MolonLabe:
--- Quote from: clout on March 27, 2014, 03:52:24 pm ---Long response made short. Think of the big picture. There is no incentive to manipulating any of the markets for bitassets because the capital used for trades is wholly comprised of your stake in the network. If one were to manipulate a market it would easily be spotted and the cost of this attack would be a sell off of bts on real exchanges. Any gains that could be made are lost from the declining price of bts.
--- End quote ---
The attack I proposed in the manipulation thread (days ago) actually REQUIRES a sell off of BTS on real exchanges. Normal users who wish to evade losses have a direct incentive to sell their own BTS, perpetuating the attack and guaranteeing profits to the attacker.
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 27, 2014, 04:54:14 pm ---An attacker may manipulate the price in the short term, but in the long term they will lose money.
--- End quote ---
I don't see how. Recall that we are considering an attack case where BitUSD decouples, so the attacker has plenty of time to cash out.
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 27, 2014, 04:54:14 pm ---once the attack was known a new variation will come out to address it.
--- End quote ---
If the problem is with the chain-protocol, it is entirely possible that no variation can possibly address the problem. What if I started 'LifeChain', which supposedly grants biological immortality, then I claimed someone was 'attacking' it and preventing it from working. There's no magical way of fixing it if it never worked to begin with.
--- Quote from: bytemaster on March 27, 2014, 04:54:14 pm ---There is always the contingency of a trusted price feed, but that would be a last-resort.
--- End quote ---
How would this work, exactly? One single broadcast of centrally compiled price indices?
--- Quote from: clout on March 27, 2014, 05:33:34 pm ---Bitshares supposed "competitors" stand more to gain from investing in bitshares than attempting to take it down.
--- End quote ---
That is only where each individual is an equal owner in BitShares ("Communism"). Anyone with a higher proportional ownership in a rival system (including the NYSE) has an incentive to eliminate competitors and capture the network effects.
--- Quote from: Bitshiz on March 27, 2014, 05:51:21 pm ---I thought everything is based around BTS. BTS would be used as collateral, therefore dictating how much you could buy or short. If colateral is 2x requirement and BTS is $100, you could buy 100 bitUSD or short 50 bitUSD. If BTS goes up, long bitUSD lose and if BTS goes down short bitUSD wins.so everything is pegged to the dollar price of BTS not individual assets. This way it makes BTS more valuable. What am i missing here?
--- End quote ---
That the [Bitcoin / USD] price might change, but the [BitBTC / BitUSD] price might not change (because, for example, BitUSD decoupled from USD), which would render the BitSharesX exchange useless, and produce a mass selloff where all BitAssets become the same near-zero value.
Bitshiz:
I thought everything is based around BTS. BTS would be used as collateral, therefore dictating how much you could buy or short. If colateral is 2x requirement and BTS is $100, you could buy 100 bitUSD or short 50 bitUSD. If BTS goes up, long bitUSD lose and if BTS goes down short bitUSD wins.so everything is pegged to the dollar price of BTS not individual assets. This way it makes BTS more valuable. What am i missing here?
clout:
--- Quote from: biophil on March 27, 2014, 04:18:49 pm ---
--- Quote from: clout on March 27, 2014, 03:52:24 pm ---Contrary to common belief when we all work together everyone wins, and when we work against each other (even though some may disproportionately profit) we all lose.
--- End quote ---
Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons? There are many many situations in which individuals rationally choose actions that harm everybody, because they'd be worse off choosing actions that help everybody. I've lately become convinced that there's a significant tragedy of the commons within BitShares X in which rational XTS owners who believe in the USD/BitUSD peg will execute trades that actually bet against the peg. In about two weeks I should have time to write this up formally.
And furthermore, who is "we all?" Everybody that invested in BitShares? If that's all you're talking about, then you're leaving out a very significant portion of the population: BitShares' well-funded competitors (if there are any?). I agree that malicious attacks from within BitShares are unlikely because they would be too costly. But if such attacks could be possible, and if someone on the outside wants to take BitShares down, they'll be able to do it. If you're a competitor who stands to make billions and BitShares is in your way, would an attack that cost $5m really seem like all that much?
--- End quote ---
Are you familiar with the comedy of the commons?
I don't believe that bitshares has competitors. Everyone in the next gen space is doing completely different things and no one is sure of what will work best. Each project only stands to make billions on the success of their own project not due to the failing of another. I think the open source movement is transitioning our economy from being competition based to collaboration based. Bitshares supposed "competitors" stand more to gain from investing in bitshares than attempting to take it down.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version