Quote from: merivercap on January 31, 2016, 01:28:18 am

  It's better to look at the referral program as an important, but add-on marketing feature.  If the issuer wants to use the referral program and thinks a membership model is worth having despite higher basic fees they will want to use Mode B or C.  I would like to use B or C for Bitcash with a privatized Smartcoin.    If I was a business going after a different market maybe Mode A would work better.  If I had outside capital or better marketing strategies Mode A might work better.  The committee can decide what is appropriate for USD/Eur Smartcoins.  Either way the network should charge the lowest fee to be sustainable and appeal to as many countries and businesses as possible and not really care which mode anyone chooses.  We can evaluate the active user growth for assets that use Mode A, B, C over time... (there will be many other factors that determine growth, but at least we'll have some data to refer to.)   Heck we should even have a friendly competition.   .  Either way the biggest concern for the network is active user growth and a flexible structure like this can satisfy all parties with limited compromise.

I do not quite get the logic here. users are users no matter who brought them to the system, they become user for each and every aspect of the system (like it or not) What is the fee structure of the assets of the entity that brought them here, is of little consequence as they can use other services.
I know theDEX and now you apparently are  planing to limit this freedom @JoeyD , but I do hope and believe you fail in that aspect of your plans.

Quote from: mint chocolate chip on January 29, 2016, 11:30:37 am

That was dumping worthless BTS1 after the upgrade to BTS2 on the exchange that did not upgrade, he admittedly took advantage of that situation it looks like.

I was not aware of that.
In that case, I understand and share your concerns.
He shouldn't have done it and saying "If I don't do it, somebody else will" is a very bad excuse.

Unless he compensated those who bought worthless BTS1 from him.
@mindphlux , did you profit from selling worthless BTS1 and if so, did you return the money?

If you didn't, I'm going to withdraw my support for your witness and ask other proxies to do the same.

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 30, 2016, 03:21:14 am

There is no reason why all of them cannot move to this one market.. or for any individual to decide they want their balance to be in bitBTC. As I said though, some may choose to maintain their own markets for various reasons. They continue as IOUs with counterparty risk. These would be zero counterparty risk trading against fully 100% collateralized BTC balances without any spreads/conversions on exit.

I think what it will do is make the other BTC IOU markets illiquid because all of the action would be in the bitBTC markets. Mainly because I think that is where everyone coming to the DEX to trade is going to want that only. Do you want a piece of paper saying you own 10oz of gold.. or do you want a stick of 10oz of gold in your hand? Of course you want the gold!

I keep saying bitBTC but I think it would need a new market.. otherwise there is going to be real confusion about what is a UIA, a Smartcoin, and a Sidechain Asset. So maybe call this scBTC.. or more descript.. realBTC.

This is all an experiment.

Yes, it would definitely need its own market. Otherwise, I can see the benefits if you are separating it from the SmartCoin bitBTC.

However, I think you must admit it makes the whole realBTC market more risk prone. I am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I assumed it was bad in my posts above because the risks the UIA would be greater of the value no longer closely resemble the value of BTC at some point (eventually... an exchange will go defunct). Alternatively, you could look at the same time as a good thing because the risks of total value loss (the realBTC equaling 0) is lower since the risk is mitigated across exchanges. After more thought, this causes issues because those that don't act quickly could have their overpriced sell/buy orders filled. That would make for an unhappy community and PR event.

So, are the combined risks of exchange default across a UIA SmartCoin markets a good thing or a bad thing? I am sure I am not mentioning a complete list of pros and cons of both sides (I have mentioned at least one other up-thread)...

morpheus is our new Ander

The fee pool balance is 1 satoshi (0.00001 BTS).. might that have some significance?

Code: [Select]

get_object 2.3.781
get_object 2.3.781
[{
    "id": "2.3.781",
    "current_supply": 2000000000,
    "confidential_supply": 0,
    "accumulated_fees": 2500000,
    "fee_pool": 1
  }
]

Quote from: bitcrab on January 28, 2016, 04:31:48 pm

Quote from: yvv on January 28, 2016, 04:29:00 pm

If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.

what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?

suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS