Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ... 168
541
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:44:47 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 04, 2016, 05:36:35 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 04, 2016, 05:14:50 pm
They are given full control and therefore full ownership and therefore full liability.
Full ownership of what?
I don't think you've understood my proposal.

The registrars already decide how much of their profits they share with the referrers.
All I propose is to give them one more option: decide how much LTM costs.

They do not get any ownership of anything.


Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 04, 2016, 05:14:50 pm
The current situation gives registrars no control over the network..
I don't give them any control over the network.
I just let them choose a pricing strategy that suits their customers.

They own price control. Control = ownership.

Their profit margin is set by how much they make on the services they are 'selling' at a margin.

'Their customers' not Bitshares users.


542
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 05:14:50 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 04, 2016, 05:01:59 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 04, 2016, 04:44:42 pm
I think this structure change would put a HUGE amount of liability all on the registrar.

@BunkerChain Labs
Would you elaborate on this?
How can freeing up the LTM price "put HUGE amount of liability on the registrar"?

They are given full control and therefore full ownership and therefore full liability.

The current situation gives registrars no control over the network.. they are not the ones making any decisions other than what cut of the refer they are giving for providing a service to those that use their wallet. Otherwise they have zero involvement with the account holders and what is paid for because it is being handed by a decentralized body called a committee.

In your scenario.. they are front and center and are setting the price on everything, and therefore are sell all services. Therefore they are in the money transmitter and/or exchange business. It effectively gives every regulator a bullseye to take aim at. Our current structure does not.

543
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 04:44:42 pm »
I think this structure change would put a HUGE amount of liability all on the registrar.

They have gone from being just a hosted wallet to a decentralized network to being the owner/gateway of a network with a decentralized backend.

Because you have placed full control in the hands of the registrar they will effectively be viewed as money transmitters and will be subject to all applicable laws and regulations to this effect within the jurisdiction they are operating.

For this reason alone, I think the structure would be a detriment to the Bitshares network and would reduce availability of hosted wallet providers.


544
General Discussion / Re: [DAC] Possible financial focus for the next few months
« on: February 04, 2016, 01:53:13 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 03, 2016, 10:11:10 pm
I think these are our only options:

(1) Leave the 80/20 split unchanged, as this is the network's main source of revenue. Going to 90/10 will not change the referrers situation significantly but will reduce network's income by 50%.

(2) Set the flat transfer fee at a level that is considered acceptable by China but still allows some space for %-based fees. IMO, this level is something around 10 BTS or $0.03. If we don't leave this space for %-based fees, no issuer (except the committee) will have any incentive to switch to the %-based scheme. Another advantage of maintaining this slightly higher level, is that this way there is still some incentive left to buy LTM for users who don't need any advanced features but just do a lot of transfers.

(3) In China open a non-profit faucet that offers LTM upgrade at an 80% discount. BTS funds needed to run such a faucet could be offered by the committee (those funds are only needed due to the 90-day LTM vesting so they are absolutely safe).

This all seems fine.. though your worry over the % based fee has no real reasoning. I understand that it was initially sought out as a means of lower fees, however, if it doesn't get used it really won't have any negative consequence to Bitshares. I do believe as we go forward the fees will increase, and for operators the % could be an option they want/need. Still, not having lower fees just because there is the % proposal under way doesn't really give justification. Having the choice is still good.

545
Follow My Vote / Re: Canadian Minister: "We also need to consider online voting"
« on: February 02, 2016, 02:28:50 am »
Fat chance our gov will go with blockchain though!

No.. they will spend $1 billion on some craze scheme that uses all kinds of old school methods that in the end still puts the levers in someones trusted hands.

Remember Ontarios ehealth $1 billion boondoggle? :)

546
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 02, 2016, 02:17:54 am »
Quote from: jakub on February 02, 2016, 01:43:34 am
Quote from: abit on February 02, 2016, 12:53:27 am
I do think network should profit (maybe not now but sooner or later we need it).
Currently the network need to pay out 43k BTS to witnesses and 80k BTS to workers every day, but average daily income is only 8k BTS or so, among it about 900 come from transfers, 6k come from account upgrades. If we decrease transfer fee for LTM from 6 BTS to 1 BTS, it means we need at least 6x volume to keep same revenue. If we decrease account upgrade fee to 0, it means we need 54x transfer volume to keep same revenue.

I see. In this case I agree. We cannot make a drastic change in this situation.
LTM 20% upgrade tax is our milk cow. It has no logical justification but it just happens to be our main source of revenue.

All we could do is lower the LTM upgrade tax to something like 10% and remove the 90-day vesting.
This would make the referral program easier to opt out, but still not fully optional.

I still think your outlook on this is a little jaded.

Name one product sold on the internet via an affiliate network where  the company offering product gets nothing and the affiliate seller gets 100% of the sale. Not one. :) It doesn't make any sense for any business to do that.

Or don't even consider it a product.. think about an affiliate network that hosts products for companies and provides the infrastructure for affiliates to get paid. The affiliate network gets a cut of all the transactions of every product that every affiliate sells. Never does the affiliate who does all the work get 100%.. Never.. Paypal gets their cut.. credit card companies get their cut.. whom ever is part of the transaction gets their cut.. as Bitshare the network/stakeholders should/can/will too.

Sure you can argue about ongoing fees etc, but we have already established those numbers are fractional in comparison. Sprinkles on the cake.

The rewards given to the promoter are not necessarily based out of the % of the sale they are getting but the amount of the compensation. Can they expect $50 per sale or $100 per sale? These are the numbers that promoters care about in order to fashion their campaigns and effectively optimize the conversion of traffic. What % of the sale they get means nothing to them otherwise. I know affiliate marketers who get paid $500 per product they sell that costs in the neighbourhood of $2500. They don't care about it costing $2500, they care only about the $500 they will get. The margins we are offering as far as % are already on the high scale of offers as well.

This does lead to an important question regarding how much LTMs should be sold for.

I am currently recommending they should be in the neighbourhood of $97. At the current 80% rate that would mean they can expect $77 per sale. Still running numbers to see if that is the most ideal sweet spot for now with all things considered.

I am also currently considering the potential of what you mentioned regarding going from 20% to 10% network. It could be a great way to increase the refer profitability in exchange of other fees possibly being reduced.

I agree with some of the other commentary as well in terms of adding more value to LTMs beyond just fee differences.

You all realize we are WAY off topic of this thread now? :)

I don't think we are going to see 1bts transfers for basic fees... however I do think we will see some kind of reduction.. just not to that level. The committee is still doing a thorough analysis of all the fees to determine the positive negative impact to everyone. It's not going to happen overnight, but at least it's becoming a more cohesive discussion.

547
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:35:00 pm »
Quote from: onceuponatime on February 01, 2016, 05:31:49 pm
The referral program was debated, very extensively , and decided upon, quite a long time ago. As were the fees necessary to make it profitable.

If bttcrab subsequently made a business that cannot operate profitably under the agreed upon conditions, it is up to him to tweak his business model to make it profitable. Otherwuse he forces ronny at ccedk, and Ken and Data with their business models that had expected to profit from referrals, to change theirs. And I, who had invested a large amount to get STEALTH developed with the understanding that fees would be sufficient to recover my investment within my lifetime, will be royally screwed by low fixed transfer fees.

I agree that nothing is new. We have had this same transfer fee schedule for months now.

Right now a regular transfer is 30bts and a LTM is 6BTS
Under stealth we would be looking at 3X  which I understand to be 90BTS and a LTM is 18BTS

At present transaction levels of roughly 200 transfers a day. Lets assume that Stealth brings in others that doubles that. I think overall at the current BTS market cap you would be looking at a return of about $200 a month give or take. If the fees were to come down by say a factor of 10, would we see greater adoption by a factor of 10? Could we see 2000 users of stealth instead of 200? It's not unreasonable to think so since lower fees can be more attractive. Of course we need to get to 40,000 users of stealth to make it more viable in this situation instead of just 4000 at the current rates.

Suppose with stealth now the refer people have a NEW feature to SELL... what if we manage to get setup next as a bitcoin sidechain where people can store their BTC in bitshares network and trade on the DEX AND get to use stealth features to give them increased privacy over what they can get in bitcoin? Another feature or refers to SELL. Are 40k users more likely in this scenario?

I think part of the challenge we face here is that we really don't know what is coming in 30 60 or 90 days from now for Bitshares aside from a handful of unfinished projects that none of us really know will produce any sort of results to the likes of the increased users or transactions as I just suggested. I think if we could get some sense for growth to be seen/had from reduced fees or keeping them the same it would be helpful. At this point though we are all just taking best guesses.

I also think @Empirical1.2 made a good point that you can increase the fee as you see fit if a decreased fee is going to have a strong impact. Which I think is another exciting aspect of FBAs.. though I don't know if it is something that is easily adjustable.

548
General Discussion / Re: Have we lost another friend community
« on: February 01, 2016, 04:50:15 am »
Quote from: 70231f697a2b3c2b on February 01, 2016, 04:16:51 am
I looked for another comparison thread in that subreddit, and came across one for Nxt.  It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges, since this thread was created before Frontier was released, but there does appear to be a slightly more positive tone towards Nxt.

I also found a few threads that were basically also comparison threads, but they were worded to be Ethereum-centric, and they seemed to get a more positive response:


It's a small sample size, granted, and I didn't check which posters were /r/ethereum regulars vs. guests from other communities.  But, the main takeaway that I got from these threads is, /r/ethereum (sensibly) wants to talk about how great Ethereum is, so a thread about Ethereum+BitShares will likely receive a better reception than a thread about Ethereum vs. BitShares.


549
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?
« on: February 01, 2016, 02:02:43 am »
If what he claimed about an already existing sidechain is true, then yes it is possible.

There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of creating a new type of asset that could support this for trading. It would take a fair amount of time work to implement and it is unclear what kind of benefits returns all that work might bring.

It's unclear to me if its open. Liquid does something similar but for some reason they went another route of using hosted wallets with exchanges. This leads me to question just how available this possibility really is.

550
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:00:47 pm »
Quote from: clayop on January 31, 2016, 04:57:49 pm
Quote from: alt on January 31, 2016, 12:45:38 pm
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 12:31:57 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 31, 2016, 11:26:39 am
Quote from: alt on January 31, 2016, 11:25:25 am
maybe you missunderstand my point
I'm not against referral, or fees for upgrade account
I'm against high transfer fees

I have no interesting for the faucets
normal account should have low transfer fees also
even the same transfer fees with VIP account
I agree with you!
Please go through the fee schedule proposal I have sent out (internally for now) to the committee members via telegram
I'm not a committee member, so I don't have access to this "fee schedule proposal".

If transfer fees are removed from the  LTM "deal", we lose an important aspect of it: an incentive for online merchants to act as referrers and actively promote switching over to BitShares as a payment system.
Don't we want to have online merchants on our side?

I don't think I can support this new fee schedule proposal, if transfer fees are the same there, no matter if you are LTM or not.
we should add more aditional feature for LTM,
such as can add a field for json info, lined to  photo,  webpage,  social account,
can add a wall for LTM, others can wirte public message for LTM,
can use chat room on chain....
Trollbox for LTM!

Wouldn't be a trollbox anymore.. it would be VIPbox. ;)

I think new FBA type features introduced would be up to the makers if they wish to make them LTM or not. There maybe some business models that would really like that.

551
General Discussion / Re: Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:59:32 pm »
Quote from: Akado on January 31, 2016, 02:08:55 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 31, 2016, 01:58:54 pm
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 10:07:01 am
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 28, 2016, 04:46:29 pm
Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
It seems to me that bitcrab has enough power to fork BitShares and start over thus effectively push BitShares out of China.
At least I would do that if I were him.

There will be a significant market cap drop if he does that.
We need to be prepared for this.

He has already stated that he would just go to ethereum... so the fork is unlikely if you want to take what he said at face value. If you don't want to take it at face value, this whole thing could just be a staging ground to begin that fork process. First driving a wedge with the chinese community between bitshares and in the process driving the market cap into the ground and thus ensuring a move to Chinashares being complete with little/low risk.

Bitcrab said he is a fighter.. he has boasted this a few times.. that means this isn't a discussion/debate.. its a battle in his view.. and he simply sees him winning or losing it by either getting what he wants or not.

Bitshares community has to decide how to handle irreconcilable players.

If that is really true that only proves he doesn't care about BitShares at all from my pov. It also means BitShares will be hostage of his whims at any point in time.

I would like if we could reach a consensus where everyone gives in a little but the overall outcome is the best for both parties. However I don't like the "This is either going to be like I want or screw you approach". Assuming this is resolved, nothing guarantees us that in the future something similar won't happen and everyone will be at the mercy of his whims.

But in the end, it's the votes that count. If he wins it's because the majority thinks he is right so can't argue about that. Either both parties try to reach an agreement or in the end someone will have to leave or adapt.

The only thing we can take for sure is voting decides everything. Even though my personal opinion is against bitcrab's atm, in the end, if he wins it's because the majority thinks he is right and the majority will move on. Only the minority will be "damaged", but the majority of stakeholders will move on. That's what I like about BitShares. This can be very polemic but a vote is a vote. In the end it's what decides.

Everyone claims he is destroying BitShares but if he wins, does that really mean that? Or does it mean that a minority has a different view from the majority of the stakeholders? Majority holds the decision power. Whatever the outcome is, it will be the grand part of players choosing that option so that only means the other party was wrong. The fact we don't agree doesn't necessarily mean he is going to destroy BitShares. He is going to "damage" the minor part of BitShares while the majority will simply move on like things are supposed to be.

In an ultimate analysis, the one who looses is the weakest link. The other is the strongest and will move on, rightfully.

I think the only real damning things he has said are in regards to his dismissive attitude towards the refer program. That is what has freaked a lot of people out because so many are building businesses around that. Him being in the exchange business could care less.. it's just something in the way of getting lower fees.

There is something else to consider in this as I thought about all the players involved. Transfer is one function.. other FBAs that come online and introduce new and useful features are going to have their own fees which the refer program will be able to take advantage of also.

We are kinda like a shop right now with a few products on our shelf and without any other inventory we are really over focused on just our few products pricing/promotion/adoption etc.

What if these few products really don't matter? What if its a new one that comes along?

I'm just trying to think 5 steps ahead and take all elements into consideration while this whole thing rages on.

552
General Discussion / Re: Proposal - Permit non-LTMs to be referrers
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:46:38 pm »
Quote from: fav on January 31, 2016, 02:33:38 pm
yes, and then everyone refers their own accounts and marketers get nothing. but go for it, if you guys add 0 fees you might as well give this project the final blow

How did you get everyone refers their own accounts from that?

553
General Discussion / Re: Proposal - Permit non-LTMs to be referrers
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:16:43 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 01:17:57 pm
Quote from: abit on January 31, 2016, 01:05:04 pm
Currently only LTMs can refer new users and earn referral income, which set a high barrier for attracting new users, and lead to bad PR. Imo we need to break this barrier, let non-LTMs be able to refer new users, which will be better PR. In the mean while, if needed, we can set other limitations, for example only LTMs can claim referral income.

But this idea weakens the purpose of buying LTM in the first place.
The smaller the difference between non-LTM and LTM, the harder it is to sell to anybody.

I was the one that brought this up :) .. as I recall the idea was to make it so that new users before they became LTM would still be able to refer new users and be able to benefit during that period instead of missing out. It was thus 'give a taste' for them to be more motivated to want to go further.

This was mentioned along with other ideas about possibly making a type of 'demo' or 'free' account for a period of time. I call it the drug dealer special.. banks use the same type of technique. You give them a free taste.. get them hooked.. get them paying.


554
General Discussion / Re: Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.
« on: January 31, 2016, 01:58:54 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 31, 2016, 10:07:01 am
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 28, 2016, 04:46:29 pm
Please vote out Bitcrab if you care about bitshares.

I think we need to be careful what we wish for.
It seems to me that bitcrab has enough power to fork BitShares and start over thus effectively push BitShares out of China.
At least I would do that if I were him.

There will be a significant market cap drop if he does that.
We need to be prepared for this.

He has already stated that he would just go to ethereum... so the fork is unlikely if you want to take what he said at face value. If you don't want to take it at face value, this whole thing could just be a staging ground to begin that fork process. First driving a wedge with the chinese community between bitshares and in the process driving the market cap into the ground and thus ensuring a move to Chinashares being complete with little/low risk.

Bitcrab said he is a fighter.. he has boasted this a few times.. that means this isn't a discussion/debate.. its a battle in his view.. and he simply sees him winning or losing it by either getting what he wants or not.

Bitshares community has to decide how to handle irreconcilable players.



555
General Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 2.0 Fantasy or Inevitability
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:30:46 am »
Nice! We got a decent mention... the critique was rather small too... he spends much more time laying into Ethereum.

We also got more of our own terms used :) .. great!  +5%

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ... 168

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 20 queries.