0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: joele on January 21, 2015, 03:20:22 amWhat if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1 bitcoin <-> bitBTCor even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTCWhy should the DAC subsidize such a service? It is offered by 3rd parties and used by 3rd parties. Let them handle the fees among themselves.
What if there is a delegate.gateway for this that will shoulder any fees in this kind of service, so it will be zero fee, 1:1 bitcoin <-> bitBTCor even give bonus when transferring bitcoin to bitBTC
so the escrow feature could make crypto gateways trustless? what is the escrow mechanism?
Escrow is tested and ready for next DVS hard fork.
I mean when the gateway is running the user who transfers BTC, who do they have to trust if anyone? Could the gateway operator steal btc or fail to function?
Can someone provide a trust profile of this gateway?
I played a bit with this service, today.I realize I did not follow the instructions [partly because my Armory does not provide compresses private keys only the one that start with 5. So does the BTS client btw when you use wallet_dump_private_key, even though you say it does use compressed ones, maybe internally], anyway with that in mind I used amounts that I really do not care about.- I dumped the private key, using wallet_dump_private_key, of the active public key of an unregistered BTS account.- Imported those in the BTC wallet. -Transferred BTC to the gateway address from there and got the bitBTC.- Using the GUI sent those bitBTC to metaexchangebtc and got nothing back... No worries, as I said it was a very small amount, just letting you know how it went.
Request them to remove this. It would bring more volume and benefit them also.
Quote from: biophil on January 19, 2015, 11:50:16 pmQuote from: clout on January 19, 2015, 11:42:53 pmQuote from: Shentist on January 19, 2015, 10:42:43 pmwith 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2This is also why bitUSD is a better alternative to bitBTC. If the reserves for bitUSD run low you can purchase them on bter and circumvent the 1% fee. I personally don't believe we should use bitBTC at all but we'll see how the market develops.
Quote from: clout on January 19, 2015, 11:42:53 pmQuote from: Shentist on January 19, 2015, 10:42:43 pmwith 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Shentist on January 19, 2015, 10:42:43 pmwith 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.
with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.
Quote from: Shentist on January 19, 2015, 06:09:37 pmQuote from: pc on January 19, 2015, 05:45:06 pmQuote from: monsterer on January 19, 2015, 05:07:12 pmQuoteWhat jurisdiction are you based in?UK / GermanyIn Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway, for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.If you guys can handle transactions from third party services is it necessary to establish a fiat gateway? It would be cool if I could buy $500 worth of btc instantly from circle.com. Send those btc to the gateway and receive 500 bitusd. I know that you have said you want to monetize the services of this gateway but I think it would be far more beneficial to not charge users for converting btc to bitassets. We want want to make the on and off ramp process as frictionless as possible. Actually, it might be useful to use another delegate spot to subsidize the spread costs. I'd certainly vote for the use of funds in this way.
Quote from: pc on January 19, 2015, 05:45:06 pmQuote from: monsterer on January 19, 2015, 05:07:12 pmQuoteWhat jurisdiction are you based in?UK / GermanyIn Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway, for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.
Quote from: monsterer on January 19, 2015, 05:07:12 pmQuoteWhat jurisdiction are you based in?UK / GermanyIn Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.
QuoteWhat jurisdiction are you based in?UK / Germany
What jurisdiction are you based in?
Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.Thoughts?
Quote from: Shentist on January 19, 2015, 07:06:48 pmQuote from: fluxer555 on January 19, 2015, 06:27:30 pmThinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.Thoughts?no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online. would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.Perhaps you could do what alt did and create a UIA to fund liquidity of operations. You could give shareholders of this UIA dividends of your profits.
Quote from: fluxer555 on January 19, 2015, 06:27:30 pmThinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.Thoughts?no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online. would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.
Quote from: fundomatic on January 19, 2015, 06:43:26 pmShows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_namedoes not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.I didn't try it in the GUI clients.Yes, I believe this is a bug in the client related to receiving a transaction sent to a BTS address instead of a BTS account.
Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_namedoes not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.I didn't try it in the GUI clients.
Thanks for setting up a gateway!I want to exchange BTC for BitBTC. Let's assume I trust your centralized gateway not to just keep my BTC after I send first.How many BitBTC are available?Which exchange will you be passing larger orders through on when you run out?What is the expected time after you receive BTC (0-confirmations) before you send BitBTC?What security measures have you implemented? Is this an auto-exchange with your private keys held online? Do you have a small hot wallet and keep most funds in cold storage?What is your business model to assure us you will remain profitable and keep the service running?What jurisdiction are you based in?If this business grows, will you plan to seek licensing?Are you aware of the problems that will arise when trying to implement a service that "sends funds to the address they came from?" To name one: if you send from any third-party service, such as an exchange, you will typically not control the address the bitcoins appear to come from, so any payment back to that address (on another blockchain in this case) will be sent to the third-party service, who will not likely be easily able to link them to your account (especially since they almost certainly do not have their BTC private keys imported into a BTS wallet). It is highly recommended to implement the service properly, by requiring the user to specify the receiving address for BitBTC (TITAN name, preferably). Also a refund address in case you need to cancel their order for any reason. I recognize the simplicity of using the same privkey for 2 networks, but for usability it's probably a non-starter. You should also generate a new BTC address on your side for each transaction.
How many BitBTC are available?
Which exchange will you be passing larger orders through on when you run out?
What is the expected time after you receive BTC (0-confirmations) before you send BitBTC?
What security measures have you implemented? Is this an auto-exchange with your private keys held online? Do you have a small hot wallet and keep most funds in cold storage?
What is your business model to assure us you will remain profitable and keep the service running?
If this business grows, will you plan to seek licensing?
Are you aware of the problems that will arise when trying to implement a service that "sends funds to the address they came from?"
Quote from: joele on January 19, 2015, 02:12:51 pmWhat is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address? Please clarify?Importing private keys is necessary in this very early version so that we know where to send bitcoins after we receive bitAssets from you - the public key is accessible via the transaction, and since this public key is the same as you have in your bitcoin wallet, we can send bitcoins to the address which corresponds to it.Future versions, coming soon will use a website and this will not be necessary.
What is the reason why it need to import the bitcoin private key?If you import your bitcoin private key to bitshares wallet can it display your bitcoin balance and can it send to bitcoin address? Please clarify?
Quote from: svk on January 19, 2015, 12:22:26 pmAwesome, I'll see if I can find the time to do a test later today!Am I understanding this right, you do not use an IOU for this?As opposed to x-chain.info this gateway is direct BTC to BitBTC. So they have to charge a spread to monetize this, but it will be much more convenient for an average person to use this since they can pay bitshares transaction fees in BitBTC. Now all we need is to get BitBTC liquid and it will be really easy for anyone to use BitShares to trade BitBTC/BitUSD
Awesome, I'll see if I can find the time to do a test later today!Am I understanding this right, you do not use an IOU for this?