0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
[/sarcasm]
There will still be fees to be paid if someone is eager to move their money from one chain to another. My guess is that we will have market makers on each chain who are ready to provide liquidity at a small price. Therefore, it will not be as cheap to move BitAssets inter-blockchain as it is intra-blockchain, but I think it is the best solution we have today given that we want to avoid the unscalable one-chain-to-rule-them-all strategy.
I think bitusd will been accepted by seller like taobao.com and amazon in the future .if each DAC have its bitusd, there are music-bitusd and btsx-bitusd in market. what bitusd the seller should accept, if the seller accept all bitusd, they must mark the price of goods by different bitusd. it is very inconvenience.
Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
Cross-chain trading allows for communicating this information in both directions without requiring each blockchain validator to be aware of one another's existence. Atomic cross-chain trading means that users can carry out the trade without trusting a third-party with their money to facilitate the trade. Atomic cross-chain trading of BitAssets means that the two parties involved in the trade are not exposed to large volatility risks and that, if the market peg works very well, they can trade 1-to-1 without being concerned about matching bid-ask price (just the amount being traded). There will still be fees to be paid if someone is eager to move their money from one chain to another. My guess is that we will have market makers on each chain who are ready to provide liquidity at a small price. Therefore, it will not be as cheap to move BitAssets inter-blockchain as it is intra-blockchain, but I think it is the best solution we have today given that we want to avoid the unscalable one-chain-to-rule-them-all strategy.
I agree that keep everything on a single blockain is a BAD idea too. So what I'm recommonding is a kind of middle way. Every different core function is on different blockchain(Music, DNS, Play, etc.). But the volatility free currency is from BTSX as source but could be traded between different blockchains. For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.
For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.
If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.
Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.
There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
Quote from: 麥可貓 on September 10, 2014, 06:17:46 pmIf every DAC can have their own bitUSD, how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?Network effect. In theory we could have a BitShares X clone for every city. This splits the market cap over many different DACs rather than unifying it into one (BTSX). While that does make things more scalable, it is also very annoying. Someone might keep most of their wealth in their home city DAC, get paid a salary in their workplace city DAC, and if they are visiting a neighboring city they need to move their money from the other DACs into yet another DAC to pay the merchant in the neighboring city. Moving money from one DAC to another using cross-chain trading is inconvenient and could even add up in costs. For convenience, people will tend to centralize to one particular DAC if it can handle the transaction volume. BitShares X (by virtue of being the first DAC designed for that purpose) can be that one DAC we all congregate around. Once the network effect is built around it (merchants set up the BTSX client software to receive payments, employers set up the BTSX client software to pay workers, people install the BTSX client software and amass their savings on the BTSX DAC) it will be too difficult for just another clone DAC to take away that spot from BTSX.
If every DAC can have their own bitUSD, how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?
Quote from: BTSdac on September 11, 2014, 08:09:04 amQuote from: bytemaster on September 10, 2014, 03:44:51 pmI strongly support having CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS. It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread. You just trade it a par value.It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD. It is a core feature that all DACs should have.GoxUSD only use in Mt.Gox, BitstampUSD only use in Bitstamp, also we cannot use BTC38_USD to buy btc in Bitstamp.I suggest you let him sleep over it. His first responses are not always the best, but his final decisions are usually rivaled by NOONE.my 2*10^-5 BTSX.
Quote from: bytemaster on September 10, 2014, 03:44:51 pmI strongly support having CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS. It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread. You just trade it a par value.It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD. It is a core feature that all DACs should have.GoxUSD only use in Mt.Gox, BitstampUSD only use in Bitstamp, also we cannot use BTC38_USD to buy btc in Bitstamp.
I strongly support having CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS. It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread. You just trade it a par value.It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD. It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
If they aren't pegged pefectly then someone will take a loss or they won't trade 1:1.I think it is good to have tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx.Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Quote from: tonyk on September 11, 2014, 03:47:45 amartistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.They are user issued assets.bitUSD is a bitAsset what's your point ? Besides we still don't know how artiscoin will work
artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.They are user issued assets.
Quote from: oco101 on September 10, 2014, 06:11:15 pmQuote from: arhag on September 10, 2014, 05:14:03 pmI think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ? People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.
Quote from: arhag on September 10, 2014, 05:14:03 pmI think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ? People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.
I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.
Quote from: yidaidaxia on September 09, 2014, 01:22:41 pmTo issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs. Quote from: yidaidaxia on September 09, 2014, 01:22:41 pm1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.comI would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value. So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service. You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.Quote from: yidaidaxia on September 09, 2014, 01:22:41 pm2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains. 4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion). Quote from: cob on September 09, 2014, 11:13:43 pmGet your brains problem solving guys!We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:
1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com
2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains. 4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.
Get your brains problem solving guys!We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.
My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
Cross chain trading does not help . In cross chain trading you change bitUSD for notes. So say if I want to transfer 1 bitUSD to Bitshare Music you'll end up with notes that are worth 1$. If you want bitUsd from Bitsharex then you need bitUSDmusic on the bithsare music blockhain.
Regarding tech feasibility for taking BTSX's BitUSD and allowing shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain, to my knowledge of crypto blockchains, I do believe it's viable and the real question is how efficient compare to have Music's BitUSD and what does them mean to the big picture
I am a little investor of AGS and PTS, I have an idea about how to reduce volume of block chain using snapshot, English is not my native language , I hope I can been understood. 1. The purpose of snapshot in my express is different from normal , this snapshot is to replace blocks before them to reduce this size of block chain.2. Perform a snapshot per N block; and the next block is a special block , its header include the hash both previous block and this snapshot. We also can set the confirm time of this block is longer than others, maybe need all delegates honored.3. Each block after this snapshot include the status if honor this snapshot.4. Each translation include the status if honor this snapshot 5. if the snapshot was honored by N block, and was honored by translation witch hold 90% stockholder , this snapshot is a formal snapshot. The blocks before this snapshot can been ignore . ignore the blocks before this snapshot have risk ,so there have N block time to check if there is no attack/ scam in the snapshot , if select N equal 100,000, it mean , every delegate check this snapshot 1000 times if there are 100 delegates, and every client also check this snapshot when a translation is done, and the meantime ,any node can select to keep all block for checking.6. If all process was finished smoothly, block chain only include a snapshot +N blocks no matter how many years this chain have been running , the volume of a snapshot maybe is constant, if N equal 100,000, consider 30 sec per block , it is about 34 days , so all the size of block chain is equal a constant volume + volume of 34 days translation. It doesn’t increase as time passing .
who sells you a bitUSD for 88% the price he would get at btsx?
i don't get it. how will cross chain trading done?
Quote from: xeroc on September 09, 2014, 07:49:32 pmI may be mistaken but: - there will be cross chain trading (i read somewhere from BM) - it does not matter what collateral you have for a bitUSD as long as the market decides one pile of shit is worth 1 dollar .. hehe - there are NO two different bitUSD .. they are the same - the "market cap" of the bitUSD is already incorporated into the market cap of btsx IMHO ..Ok but why you need a market inside peertraks ? or i get that part completely wrong ?
I may be mistaken but: - there will be cross chain trading (i read somewhere from BM) - it does not matter what collateral you have for a bitUSD as long as the market decides one pile of shit is worth 1 dollar .. hehe - there are NO two different bitUSD .. they are the same - the "market cap" of the bitUSD is already incorporated into the market cap of btsx IMHO ..
Quote from: yidaidaxia on September 09, 2014, 01:22:41 pmTo issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains. 4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.5. If every Bitshares DAC has its own "BitUSD" will increase the complexity of its system, which brings unnecessary risk and mislead the development direction from the realy core fucntion.I believe it's much better if we make all BitUSD fungible from BTSX only. I think it should be still viable for atomic cross chain trading, maybe it will "lose" some operation efficiency compare to the two or more "BitUSD" scenario, but it do make sense from big picture. Even if it's not viable or low efficiency base on typic atomic cross chain trading tech, but could we think about something like the concept of Bitcoin "sidechain"? We need to evaluate the pros/cons of all options in details. I don't really worry about someone just forks BTSX w/ additional functions(or just completely same) if we do not cooperate w/ them. They have no chance to beat BTSX since the real market peg needs time and resouce to grow up the system and BTSX is much mature than any latecomers. We could offer them options, use BTSX's "BitUSD" by atomic cross chain trading or sidechain, or no cooperation/support from BTSX.In short, I do think the BTS community should take it very seriously before any real implementation. Thanks.I agree on all points the only place that bitUSD are issued should be BitshareX, there should't be another place. If not bitUSD will be exposed to all kinds of dangers. Not sure if you have atomic cross chain trading why you still need a market inside peertraks. ? I'm waiting on full details tough it is not clear right now
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains. 4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.5. If every Bitshares DAC has its own "BitUSD" will increase the complexity of its system, which brings unnecessary risk and mislead the development direction from the realy core fucntion.I believe it's much better if we make all BitUSD fungible from BTSX only. I think it should be still viable for atomic cross chain trading, maybe it will "lose" some operation efficiency compare to the two or more "BitUSD" scenario, but it do make sense from big picture. Even if it's not viable or low efficiency base on typic atomic cross chain trading tech, but could we think about something like the concept of Bitcoin "sidechain"? We need to evaluate the pros/cons of all options in details. I don't really worry about someone just forks BTSX w/ additional functions(or just completely same) if we do not cooperate w/ them. They have no chance to beat BTSX since the real market peg needs time and resouce to grow up the system and BTSX is much mature than any latecomers. We could offer them options, use BTSX's "BitUSD" by atomic cross chain trading or sidechain, or no cooperation/support from BTSX.In short, I do think the BTS community should take it very seriously before any real implementation. Thanks.
Quote from: biophil on September 08, 2014, 12:54:56 pmQuote from: cob on September 08, 2014, 04:33:38 amQuote from: trader on September 07, 2014, 09:56:38 pmAccording to http://peertracks.com/faq.html artistcoins can be bought using BitUSD.BitUSD is on a different blockchain than Bitshares Music, so can someone explain the link between them? Do I open my BTSX wallet and send BitUSD to peertracks, and then it credits me with snoop dog coins?Also, is peertracks.com basically an easy to use frontend to Bitshares Music, so that users dont need to download the wallet or know anything about crypto?People funding their accounts would do so in BitUSD collateralized by Notes (the Units of the Music DAC) So they really are shopping for music using Notes.. 1USD worth of Notes all packaged into what we know as a BitUSD.Can you elaborate a little on this? Does this mean that Bitshares Music will have its own bitUSD? So after Music launches we'll have two independent markets that are creating bitUSD?Yes and this will enable cross chain trading.
Quote from: cob on September 08, 2014, 04:33:38 amQuote from: trader on September 07, 2014, 09:56:38 pmAccording to http://peertracks.com/faq.html artistcoins can be bought using BitUSD.BitUSD is on a different blockchain than Bitshares Music, so can someone explain the link between them? Do I open my BTSX wallet and send BitUSD to peertracks, and then it credits me with snoop dog coins?Also, is peertracks.com basically an easy to use frontend to Bitshares Music, so that users dont need to download the wallet or know anything about crypto?People funding their accounts would do so in BitUSD collateralized by Notes (the Units of the Music DAC) So they really are shopping for music using Notes.. 1USD worth of Notes all packaged into what we know as a BitUSD.Can you elaborate a little on this? Does this mean that Bitshares Music will have its own bitUSD? So after Music launches we'll have two independent markets that are creating bitUSD?
Quote from: trader on September 07, 2014, 09:56:38 pmAccording to http://peertracks.com/faq.html artistcoins can be bought using BitUSD.BitUSD is on a different blockchain than Bitshares Music, so can someone explain the link between them? Do I open my BTSX wallet and send BitUSD to peertracks, and then it credits me with snoop dog coins?Also, is peertracks.com basically an easy to use frontend to Bitshares Music, so that users dont need to download the wallet or know anything about crypto?People funding their accounts would do so in BitUSD collateralized by Notes (the Units of the Music DAC) So they really are shopping for music using Notes.. 1USD worth of Notes all packaged into what we know as a BitUSD.
According to http://peertracks.com/faq.html artistcoins can be bought using BitUSD.BitUSD is on a different blockchain than Bitshares Music, so can someone explain the link between them? Do I open my BTSX wallet and send BitUSD to peertracks, and then it credits me with snoop dog coins?Also, is peertracks.com basically an easy to use frontend to Bitshares Music, so that users dont need to download the wallet or know anything about crypto?