Quote from: wasthatawolf on October 22, 2014, 08:41:43 pm

Quote from: Stan on October 22, 2014, 07:47:28 pm

Quote from: donkeypong on October 22, 2014, 07:32:22 pm

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9874

Pretty sure devs are working on it. I can't find the post where BM said this, but I seem to recall that he did. Link above to another discussion.

Eventually we will develop better and better ways to "wire" bitAssets from one DAC or SuperDAC Business District (Mall) to another.  But it will probably always be most efficient to do "high frequency trading" within a DAC or Business District.

So we start by engineering the first SuperDAC Business District - BitShares. 

As the industry grows, we'll worry about, um, SWIFT-ish interconnections.

I'm a little surprised that a protocol for atomic cross chain transfer of BitUSD isn't a higher priority. 

If all BitUSD isn't created equal, how do you expect to sell the idea of BitUSD to the general public?  Especially since Peertracks will exist as a separate entity even if the proposed merger goes through.

These are really good points. I am also very concerned about the BitUSD coordinating among various daqs; it needs to be seamless, but also I think DACs shouldn't have to be the the BTS blockchain to achieve this. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it is an important feature to allow growth of the ecosystem.

Also, is peertracks really going to have to have their own BitUSD exchange and trading system to achieve market peg just like Bitshares X? Maybe I'm wrong about that? If I'm not that is a ridiculous and inefficient way of doing things. A music company should not have to also worry about stabilizing their currency which they use to sell their product.

I would really appreciate some clarification on this from anyone who has a good understanding because it seems to be an obviously bad choice from my current understanding.

One of the big reasons for of the merger was to keep bitUSD together, to prevent vote-bitUSD from competing with btsx-bitUSD, so that is a big improvement imo.

I agree it's weird for Peertracks to have its own bitUSD on top of its own shares and artist coins.  I haven't invested in it for that reason even though I came up with the idea of artist coins myself about a year ago (along with tons of other people) and really like that concept.  If BTS wanted to buy out peertracks I wouldn't object.

As far as I know peertracks is remaining independent so the bitUSD will be different bitUSD than BTS bitUSD, but they will be exchangeable via atomic cross chain trading.  It's possible BTS will buy out peertracks eventually and end up on the same chain with the same bitUSD, but for now they are independent.

So yes your two bullet points are correct.

Quote from: matt608 on October 22, 2014, 11:00:53 am

Quote from: Mysto on October 22, 2014, 10:46:34 am

Quote from: matt608 on October 22, 2014, 09:48:23 am

I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

It has been explained many times before that the crash would have to happen pretty fast. Bitcoin has not experienced a crash that large and that fast yet. Not even when bitcoin was "banned" in china. Not even after the Mt Gox fiasco. So while it is a possibility it is not a large one.

Also remember the high yield one gets for holding a bitassets more than compensates for that risk.

Are you sure?  On individual exchanges there have been flashcrashes such as on btc-e.  In feb it there was a flash crash from over $700 to below $100.  Just one big dump from one person (probably).  The price immediately recovers in bitcoin, but I'm not sure what happens if the same thing happened on BTS.  Wouldn't that trigger margin calls?  I am unclear about the sequence of events that would follow such a dump.  Can someone explain?

I'm not so worried about news causing a crash, more so to do with someone dumping irrationally.  And in what timeframe does it need to occur for there to be daner?  All within 1 day, 1 hour?

Margin calls are tied to price feed... flash cashes would have to be across all exchanges.  The feed averages the price over time so it is very unlikely for a flash crash to happen that triggers margin calls.

Ok, that helps.  It would help then to get BTSX traded on bigger exchanges (obviously for promotional reasons) but also to create a stronger BTSX price feed, so getting BTSX on bigger exchanges is higher priority than I had thought.

Ok, well as long there is a plan for such an event.  If it can be solved by an emergency hard fork then great.  Even so I've not heard much about such a plan being put in place yet.

  Great thinking here.  I'm not sure about burning the AGS funds, even though I agree in principle that the of burning the other funds and then re-allocating them via dilution would be true to the DAC model, but with 1000 things going on it may be better on this occasion to just allow i3 to keep them, I'm undecided on the matter.  There's a lot of work to be done in the region of delegate showcase + transparency, I don't know that the system is ready to deal with that yet.

As for the private forum, sounds like it could work but there are problems such as - a stakeholder would have to have access to their BTS to access the forum, what if they were on a different computer?  I don't have access to mine all the time and who decides how big the percentage should be to be allowed in, do we need a vote on that?   

The biggest risk I see for the whole BTS project is flash crashes.  From this criticism:
prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/

I was going to propose creating kind of a 'reserve fund' to buy up BTS in the event of say a 50% flashcrash to protect us.  Say BTS price drops 50% in x hours, delegates receive alerts to prompt them to release the fund to place buy orders, stopping the crash and saving everyone.  Maybe the fund could be held in bitcoin with multisig wallet with a few delegates in control.  I mean a single large stake holder could accidentally crash the whole thing!  What if they got drunk and recklessly sold?  I don't want to be depending on no one dumping suddenly.  Having some kind of reserve fund to back up the BTS or at least a method that allows a fund to begin to form.  This region is a part of BTS I'm still haven't fully wrapped my head around but it seems having collateral in some other form would strengthen the system, maybe a basket other cryptos could be used.  Just an idea...

   Full steam ahead!

Edit:  Hope someone is doing a Chinese translation!  We need Chinese translations done and ready to post at the same time for big announcements like this.

Quote from: matt608 on October 21, 2014, 03:31:24 pm

A press release is all well and good but lets get this all done first.  Make a successful transition to BTS, and then author it a glorious creation myth.  The release could be timed to come out around the day that coinmarketcap updates to show the new shares so when people ask wtf is going on with bitshares?  We can post the link to the press release.

Also I don't like much about how this release is written.  *Bitshares* should absolutely be included (eyeballs on bitshares brand!) in the headline and as this should be done after the change is complete the talk of it being a proposal should be taken out and only the actual final deal be talked about (whatever it ends up being). 

There's no need to give more than a cursory mention to the original proposal, perhaps mentioning it helps with SEO as it could be an opportunity to post a link to bitsharestalk.org. 

And make the headline much more exciting.  More like:

Bitshares unites to form Super DAC
Bitshares completes first ever crypto-merger deal
Bitshares unites the first ever crypto-merger deal
Bitshares expands via first of its kind crypto-merger

BitShares Merger Rocks Crypto World

lol, I like it.