本帖意在为在BTS平台交易时遇到困难的小伙伴们提供一个一贴式的教程，仅仅是不知该如何交易的小伙伴请直接移步第三部分，还没有注册BTS钱包的小伙伴请移步第二部分；还需要升级1.0钱包的小伙伴请从头开始读。

一、 BTS1.0升级至BTS2.0
这里需要首先将Bitshares客户端升级至0.9.3C版本，然后导出一个json格式的秘钥文件，再之后导入到BTS2.0.

下载0.9.3c安装文件：http://www.bts.hk/downloads.html
卸载以前版本的BitShares客户端，然后安装新版本。

以下两步可能是可选的：
1.尝试与blockchain同步（如果你认为你上一次同步之后，你的帐户还有新的交易）
2.把所有的资金发送给自己（这一步也是可选的，如果你跳过此步骤，导入至2.0也没有问题）

使用控制台导出钱包文件
帐号列表 - >高级设置 - >控制台
输入：wallet_export_keys D:/keys.json，亦可选择其它路径和文件名。
然后按回车执行。


注意：导出的钱包文件将用你的密码进行加密！请务必再次尝试使用该文件时要记住它！
注意：如果你使用的是Windows，你的文件路径尝试直接访问C驱动器（例如C：keys.json），你可能需要管理员权限运行BitShares客户端。所以最简单的做法就是模仿上面的例子。

然后移步网页钱包 https://bitshares.dacplay.org/ 点击右上齿轮，进入钱包管理控制台界面：


选择上面导出的秘钥文件，确定导入。搞定。
http://i4.tietuku.com/6a76640531be10f9.png

二、注册BTS2.0钱包

点击巨蟹DACPLAY网页钱包的专属推荐链接：https://bitshares.dacplay.org/?r=bitcrab

输入密码后点“创建新钱包”


然后创建新账户，就好了。

三、交易

BTS2.0里面现在可以交易的资产大致有这么几种：一是BTS和智能货币，其中智能货币又包括系统发行的和私人发行的。二是交易所/承兑商在平台发行的用户定义资产。用户定义资产是需要发行人来背书的。

目前已有多家交易所/承兑商在BTS平台发行用户定义资产。用户可以直接通过钱包里的链接完成这些资产的充值和提现。

下图是钱包中metaexchange的充值提现界面。


在BTS去中心化交易所DEX中，任何两种资产都可以组成交易对。下面就以ANTSHARE/TCNY交易对为例，描述一下如何交易。

小蚁股是transwiser在BTS平台发行的UIA，对应小蚁项目中的小蚁股，目前的发行根据种子期投资人与巨蟹签订的服务合同进行。在小蚁股上线后将可以正常提现。决定交易前请仔细阅读https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20650.0.html

TCNY是transwiser在BTS平台发行的智能货币，多人管理，与BITCNY主要的不同是强制清算补偿为2%。可以很好地与人民币锚定。详见https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20626.0.html

目前TCNY的充值是通过淘宝店进行的，如果你有意购买BTS平台中的ANTSHARE，你可以通过下图中的链接（https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a1z10.1-c.w4004-9480054247.2.qZQL8X&id=525288636460）到淘宝店购买TCNY充到你的BTS钱包，注意要在用户留言中填写你的BTS账户号并及时确认收货哦。



充好TCNY后在交易->更多交易对总搜索ANTSHARE:TCNY交易对：



然后就可以交易了：

Quote from: bitcrab on December 22, 2015, 01:25:13 pm

Quote from: jakub on December 22, 2015, 11:57:09 am

Quote from: bitcrab on December 22, 2015, 11:47:51 am

because private/public defined assets are different. 3 is to provide flexibility to private asset issuer to develop their business. 2 is for public assets, mainly consider how system and referrer can make profits. for example, for TCNY, maybe I can set that only fixed fee is charged, no issuer defined fee, but for BitCNY maybe this is not possible.

But this will deprive referrers of an income from private bit-assets, which will hurt for the Referral Program.

can I say that the referral program is now hurting the whole community?
because of the referral program, everyone need to bear the high fee, and we always feel difficult to invite a new players to join.
if you really think it hurt, it's ok that let the committee define the x%, issuer only define the fee, then issuer have to give part of the revenue to referrer but he can define whether he charge the fee from the user.

I understand your point. That's why what I proposed here is an attempt to reconcile the needs of referral businesses with the needs of micro-payments users.

The referral businesses do not aim to earn rewards on small transfers, as their customers usually don't do micro-payments. As a referral business I don't want an 80% cut in transfer fees when a small amount is involved and the fee is ridiculously high. Instead I want an 80% cut in bigger transfers where the transfer fee is a good deal both for me and the user.

So for small amounts the transfer fee can be really small, just enough to cover the network's cost. For bigger amounts users are willing to pay more and that's the area where referral businesses should make their profits.

If we just manage to differentiate between small payments and bigger ones, I think we can make everybody happy. The current problem is that we treat every transfer in one way and that's absolutely crazy from the business perspective. We've been doing this not because it makes sense but because of a technical difficulty: up till now BM has been saying that there is no easy way around it.

I still prefer my suggestion, your method can be applied to BitAssets.
this is not only a problem of small or big transfer.

if there's one way to help me to pay to a US bank account from China, then maybe 0.5% fee is OK.

but now transfers of BTS are not so useful yet, not so useful as BTC yet. transfer of BTS are mainly deposit/withdraw to/from exchange, user always compare the fee with other cryptocoins, is 30 BTS not expensive for a 50000 BTS transfer? I think everyone feel it is expensive, not because 30 BTS is too much, but because it is much higher than other coins. 

BitAssets is a little different, perhaps it can be used as payment tool for merchants, so higher fee can be accepted. and can give chance to referrers.

for UIA and privated smartcoin, I think the issuer need to decide how to develop the business, if they feel referrers can help, they can share fees with them, otherwise they can define low transfer fee to attract users. issuers need to have this kind of freedom. issuers always need to pay a lot to bootstrap the market but the high fee always plays a role to drive the users away, this is absurd.

referrers can also be issuers to make profits.



 

Quote from: bitcrab on December 22, 2015, 06:47:15 am

1. for BTS transfer a minimum fixed fee(1-5 BTS?) is charged.
2. for BitAssets transfer a tier fee structure is defined(10/30 BTS?)
3. for UIA and privated smartcoin transfer, there will be a fixed fee(1-10 BTS?) + issuer defined fee structure. and x% of the issuer defined fee will go to the referrer, x will be defined by the issuer. the fixed fee will go to the network.

What's the reason concept (3) cannot be applied to regular bit-assets?

because private/public defined assets are different. 3 is to provide flexibility to private asset issuer to develop their business. 2 is for public assets, mainly consider how system and referrer can make profits. for example, for TCNY, maybe I can set that only fixed fee is charged, no issuer defined fee, but for BitCNY maybe this is not possible.

Quote from: jakub on December 21, 2015, 02:52:14 pm

The main point is to turn an asset into a joint enterprise between the issuer and the referrer (they take the risk and share the profits) and to remove the blockchain itself from the equation (the network just cares about covering its fixed costs).

I wonder what @bytemaster thinks of this.

  The crux of this idea is golden IMHO and I would love to hear BM's perspective, both on the concept and how much effort it would take to implement it. No doubt it will not be easy and it has definite GUI requirements. It doesn't strike me as a quick fix for the short term, but it does sound like a very promising idea to incentivize business and put more control into the hands of individuals, while at the same time normalizing the income stream for the network.

the point is good, IMHO BTS itself should just play as a platform, not to define business model, currently all the things are around referral program, not flexible enough.

if an asset-dependent fee can be realized, then I now would like to suggest as below, only for transfer fee:

1. for BTS transfer a minimum fixed fee(1-5 BTS?) is charged.
2. for BitAssets transfer a tier fee structure is defined(10/30 BTS?)
3, for UIA and privated smartcoin transfer, there will be a fixed fee(1-10 BTS?) + issuer defined fee structure. and x% of the issuer defined fee will go to the referrer, x will be defined by the issuer. the fixed fee will go to the network.

the base idea of this suggestion is to avoid conflict of different business models:

BTS is the system token, rudecing its transfer fee to minimum will attract investors/traders.

some partners like to issue UIA/privated smartcoin, so they need to be flexible to define the fee, they may define 0 fee to attract user, or define some high fee to make profit when there product are attractive enough, they can also cooperate with referrers by set the x%.

BitAssets are used mainly for payment, so a tier fee structure is defined, referrers can focus on this area.

 

 

seems the first step is finished at 1216 version.

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/436

so according to my understanding, now the SQP parameter will make no use,  in other words, margin call will occur only  when feed price touch "Your Call Price", then need not to care the "Margin Call Price" .

and this change is for all the public and privated  smartcoins.

is this understanding correct?

Quote from: monsterer on December 19, 2015, 12:02:53 pm

Percentage based transfer fees are completely untenable. Every single other coin in the world has a low, fixed fee for any amount sent, bitshares would lose out to the competition and it would be a PR nightmare. Percentage based trade fees on the other hand, are acceptable.

If the fee is charged by IOU/Smart coin issuers then would be OK (in addition to basic network fee). Best if the issuers are able to define several thresholds and % of the fee. Under this condition the committee can control fee of transferring BTS to be low or higher (as demand). Maybe the ones who benefit by the reference program won't agree though.

to me a good idea is like this:
1. for BTS and BitAsset(or at least BTS) transfer charge a minimum fixed fee.(5-10BTS?)
2. for UIA and privated smartcoin issuers can define the transfer fee(percentage, fixed or percentage with a cap).
3. income referrers' income should be mainly from referrals' trading fees, not transfer fees.

high transfer fees is a big psychological hurdle for new comers to join and need to remove asap.

Quote from: taoljj on December 21, 2015, 12:56:59 pm

delegate.taolje 已经开始为TCNY喂价每三分钟。

@taoljj 你设的 SQP=1100 大概不太合巨蟹胃口。。
建议改用alt的喂价脚本。准确高效省钱。

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20529.0.html

是的，不光是我，相信社区绝大多数用户都更喜欢SQP=100.1，希望能改一下。

I am doing a test, first I have set the permission of transwiser-mpaadmin like this:

threshold:29
bitcrab: 30
baozi:15
harvey-xts:10

having done this I tried to add gulu with weight 10, but always failed  with the screenshot as shown above.

what's weird is that at the same condition I can add transwiser-wallet with weight 10 as well. but failed to add jerryliu.

seems there is a bug?