The dividends are not only from transaction fees, but also from the loan interest for short position during trade, and many other fees, like accrount inactive fee. That could account for a big part of dividends. Maybe you can follow this post to learn more:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1306.15
Very interesting. Limiting the blockchain and the number of transations into one creates a supply and demand market. However, arguably then there will always be a need for bitcoin for commerce transactions because of its lower costs.
I guess Bitshares are in it to complement bitcoin, rather than supplant it? No bitcoin killer here...
Trying to get a deeper understanding of this:
Does this mean sending 100 BITUSD to a friend or ecommerce store will be fairly cheap, because it is in a parallel blockchain? But to sell/ buy/ short it on the Bitshares Exchange would require a higher fee-- due to a fixed space in the block chain?
This is rather confusing, someone please elaborate.Trying to get a deeper understanding of this:
Does this mean sending 100 BITUSD to a friend or ecommerce store will be fairly cheap, because it is in a parallel blockchain? But to sell/ buy/ short it on the Bitshares Exchange would require a higher fee-- due to a fixed space in the block chain?
BitUSD is not a separate block-chain. But there many be multiple chains with BitUSD and buy/sell/short kind of like having multiple banks. When fees become too high on the first chain, an alt-chain will startup to give competition. It will have a smaller network, but lower fees.
I do not expect fees to be very high compared to the current banking system. Lots of opportunity for the market to adapt to bring fees down.
Think of it this way: If bitcoin were to limit block sizes to 1 MB every 10 minutes then transaction fees would start to rise once demand for transactions hit that limit. Eventually they would rise to the point that many people will only use Bitcoin for savings or large purchases where they need massive liquidity and they will adopt an Altcoin that has not yet hit the block limit for performing checking transactions.Ok that makes sense now.
Every BitShares chain that launches can support up to 16 assets (perhaps more) and if there are 2 BitShares chains then there will be two versions of BitUSD... each will track BitUSD independently and you could trade them via cross-chain-trading or via a centralized exchange.
But wouldnt it be easier to limit the number of assets per chain to say 3 and increase the block size so that the number of different 'versions' of each asset are limited to just one.
But wouldnt it be easier to limit the number of assets per chain to say 3 and increase the block size so that the number of different 'versions' of each asset are limited to just one.
"3 is too many, we would eventually need separate chains due to traffic. Wouldn't it be easier to limit the number of assets per chain to say 2 and increase the block size so that the number of different 'versions' of each asset are limited to just one?"
;)
I was making a joke
Think of it this way: If bitcoin were to limit block sizes to 1 MB every 10 minutes then transaction fees would start to rise once demand for transactions hit that limit. Eventually they would rise to the point that many people will only use Bitcoin for savings or large purchases where they need massive liquidity and they will adopt an Altcoin that has not yet hit the block limit for performing checking transactions.
Every BitShares chain that launches can support up to 16 assets (perhaps more) and if there are 2 BitShares chains then there will be two versions of BitUSD... each will track BitUSD independently and you could trade them via cross-chain-trading or via a centralized exchange.
Just to clarify for everyone, does the contract change if another chain is launched? That is still part of the original 4MM BTS.
Would the effect enhance or dilute BTS shares.
for all intensive purposes"for all intents and purposes"
Just to clarify for everyone, does the contract change if another chain is launched? That is still part of the original 4MM BTS.
For all Invictus sponsored DACs:Allocate at least 10% of its equity to ProtoShares holders at genesis.
Allocate at least 10% of its equity to AngelShares holders at genesis.
Allocate the last 80% at the discretion of each DAC developer.We have chosen 50-50 for our first DAC to equally honor mining-lottery and patron-donor schools of thought.For our first BitShares DAC:Allocate 50% of its shares to ProtoShares holders at genesis.
Allocate 50% of its shares to AngelShares holders at genesis.
We will scale the total share count to 4 million shares, equally divided between the two schools.This makes all of our early supporters “official BitShares distributors” for those who arrive later!
We can't think of a more fair and decentralized way to make shares available to them.
We hope you agree.
Specifications for the last 80% of other future DACs will vary with developer according to their business model and marketing strategies and shall be specified prior to their genesis. Until they are defined formally on this page, all forum discussion is for the purpose of reaching consensus, and any sharing of our current thinking does not constitute a commitment to any specific course of action.
what´s the point of dividends ? are they in any way like basic income ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income - I... don´t really get them. It seems to me that if the dividend algorithm were to distribute dividends equally, they would function as basic income, but when it´s distributed proportionally as it is now (from what I´ve understood), well I don´t really get the point of that. what´s the point of dividends ?
wouldn´t it be smarter to distribute them equally, in simple terms "redistribute from the rich to the poor - a basic income system" ? I´ve been thinking about integrating something like that with Ripple or Bitcoin for a while, and got excited when I heard of Bitshares, but it seems to me that the dividend algorithm is meant to achieve something else with it´s proportional redistribution, so I just wonder what the main point of them are, and if anyone sees the value in distributing them equally instead.
In the Bitshares White Paper, Bret Allsop commented :
How about something like: "an equal share of the total mining and transaction fees given to all Bitshares in existence."
on paragraph
Dividend - a share of the mining reward and transaction fees proportional to the number of BitShares owned relative to the total number of BitShares in existence.
thence it seems like there might be more dudes who have thought about this
Also, look at this : http://darkai.org/?p=1 - TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED BASIC INCOME AS A SOLUTION TO TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT
sorry if this is a stupid question, maybe I´m just tired, but there´s something I don´t understand.
if this receives any feedback then we should open a thread in this forum about it. I think Bytemaster might see what I´m talking about, we seem to think alike, I saw your post about "Display all balances in the GUI as a percentage of the money supply" and that´s something I´ve thought about for a year.
im surprised you are laying to claim that dividends are principally enables the prediction market functions. if a bitasset were to deviate signficantly from the real asset price lets say drop for this example then the dividend would reach 2x 5x 10x or eve 100 times the ratioed price. thats according to your preious posts. to me this follows the dividend discount model, where the price of an asset is determined by your future cash flow. so if there is a bitasset that offers 100 times more dividend per price then the priceing of that bitssset would have to be higher according to the dividend discount model. wasnt that the purpose of dividends or has this line of thinking changed since we now have a hardcoded five percent interest?
Nothing has changed with the prediction market design of dividends right. Will dividends still be forgone by shorters and given to bit assets. Holders?