136
General Discussion / Re: A direct and important discussion on the status of crypto
« on: October 22, 2015, 05:17:17 pm »
give the man some brownie pts!
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.
137
Nanocard / Re: Activation of NanoCard on CCEDK, soon but not yet, sorry
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:50:21 pm »
Is this dead?
138
General Discussion / Re: Back to the Future Day
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:19:31 pm »
I was waiting for a post of this from one of you guys.
139
Technical Support / Re: What happened to BitNASDAQ, BitNYSE, etc?
« on: October 21, 2015, 01:51:03 pm »well I had been thinking about those too (still need to fix my script first) but now that we can have markets with any pair of assets, probably now is the time to consider whether we want to keep those with BTS as core asset (as in BTS1), or if we want to move those market to NYSE/USD, SHANGHAI/CNY, etc.
I would say the latter, but I'm not expert in that field, so... thoughts?
Best to use USD. It strengthens use of Bitusd. Why would anyone want the volatility of BTS?
140
Technical Support / Re: What happened to BitNASDAQ, BitNYSE, etc?
« on: October 21, 2015, 01:22:02 pm »
You can make them if you want. Right?
141
General Discussion / Re: Charles Hoskinson on Virgin Media talking about Cryptocurrencies
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:43:48 pm »It requires vetting because first the model is unique and interesting and could benefit from brilliant minds iterating and refining. You get this for free after the bootstrap. Second, the system is experimental and thus cannot be safely used by legacy systems and actors sensitive to risk.
The more peer review the model gets, the more adoption and respect your system gets. Notice how the bitcoin core developers grudgingly accept ethereum's contributions? The entire valley is rushing to have a smart contract solution? But they do not acknowledge that bitshares has a value stable currency? They never discuss DPoS. This isn't a conspiracy it's a lack of respect for the project because the rules keep changing and the technology never is properly explained or vetted. You can ignore this or say I'm wrong but it doesn't change the reality of the matter.QuoteIt.. does ?
Yes notice the only PhD on the project left? Dr. Charles Evans
This is the difference between ethereum and bitshares. To many ethereum appears like a academic experiment, as you had attested to before: there were many who wanted to go with the non-profit model for ethereum clashing with your opinion of a for-profit. There are pros and cons of each.
ALAS should we have waited for a peer review of POW before moving to DPOS? No, we would have been laggers rather than innovators. I think the trend indicates (as Etherum moves to POS) that academic review did not have to uncover weaknesses here. Does academic review promote innovative tinkering?
142
General Discussion / Re: Charles Hoskinson on Virgin Media talking about Cryptocurrencies
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:13:33 pm »I really don't think that's a fair characterization. BitShares has a history of making extraordinary claims without the requisite formal analysis. Many of the projects I mentioned have been upfront with stating they are experiments not meant for mission-critical use.
Bitshares has claimed the opposite positioning itself for enterprise use. Naturally this requires a lot more due diligence. To this date I still maintain that the core value proposition of your community that is the notion of a value stable currency needs to be academically vetted.
There are more than a dozen formal papers on ethereum since it came out. A lot of people are studying it and trying to improve the model. Nothing on BitUSD. Nothing on DPoS. This is a shame because they are topics that need study and evolution outside of the mind of one person who is often wrong.
Always enjoy your responses. My question is: why would it need to be academically vetted if the free market can do that? If its not viable, it will just fail. A good paper will not make it any better than it already is.
143
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:48:09 pm »
What is the fee burnt for transaction and for name purchasing?
144
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:42:59 pm »How can we speed this up?
Get more trading happening on the bitshares exchange.
Every trade burns some BTS.
[/quotes]
What is the fee burnt for transaction and for name purchasing?
145
General Discussion / Re: 328,028 BTS Reduction in Supply since 2.0
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:04:42 pm »
How can we speed this up?
146
General Discussion / Re: Shanghai Blockchain Summit - After Action Report
« on: October 18, 2015, 09:53:44 pm »Stan: Let me give you a little use case of something that shows you how profoundly things can be disrupted, keeping incumbents on their toes and creating opportunities for new startups, and so on. We have something called the OpenLedger network built on top of BitShares. It’s a network of exchanges. There’s probably going to be a new exchange joining that every month for the foreseeable future.
That's total BULLS***. What about the weekly announcements all summer long? Sure. They are contingent on your partners being ready. After all you've claimed and not having come to fruition, there is still the audacity to make these wild prediction. No wonder sometimes it feels some vocal dev core is out of touch with the community. You might as well tell us the truth now, rather than later--- its going to be based on the exchanges needs, requirements, and preparation. In other words, we should only expect one exchange to join a year. Let's not overstate things. Or stop making stuff up unless your going to make a verifiable transparent bet (with money on the line) that they will be an exchange on bitshares every month.
147
Technical Support / Re: Margin Call Price
« on: October 18, 2015, 12:49:37 am »
Why don't we use global forced settlement?
148
General Discussion / Re: Core dev respond to GUI criticism
« on: October 17, 2015, 05:17:47 pm »
And all these despite the fact that core developers were struggling for months to feed their families due to BTS price decline and dev fund melt down; and the idea to give up and return back to real-world salaries looked very attractive, btw community support was very helpful during that time, so I want to thank all you guys for staying here, even those with negative feedback, if you are still on the forum and you are testing software - this means that you still believe in BitShares and this really gives us the hope.
Would you say that most work now is Front-end rather than back-end capabilites? How much is back-end finished to say were out of beta?
149
General Discussion / Re: The Main Problems with Bitshares
« on: October 17, 2015, 04:15:42 pm »Remember you are trading an ultra high risk and volatile asset... I don't understand why you are so angry when the risk of total loss has been there and stated since the very begining. Yes high reward can come, but the risk doesn't disappear.
These things mentioned above have also been thought about by the dev's for the last year... making knee jerk decisions is not how business's are run, including the centralized exchanges you mention above. Tweeks are viable, but changing the fee structure now after it has been up for debate for months would be stupid.
We are trying to change the current paradigm of money exchange. Copying what the incumbent exchanges are doing won't result in anything but our project's death. Real change and improvement happens when we step out of our comfort zone and challenge the status quo.
I'm sorry you lost money, but you are talking in absolutes and out of emotion. Wildly accusing Dan of killing the project is totally out of line. He has worked tirelessly on the project and is one of the brightest minds in crypto. You are incredibly lucky to have him working on this project.
Clout is frustrated and venting his anger. We should commiserate with him. What happened was bad, and the assumption that was taken without informing others is detrimental. Voicing our problems is the only way we can make bitshares better.
If the new BTS 2.0 was truly developed and is implemented, what happened to the BITUSD shoudl nto be an issue. The feed does not have much influence in the new BTS 2.0 implement with 24h settlements. I just don't know why nobody has created an asset for it and is trading on it.
150
General Discussion / Re: Positive Feedback about 2.0 launch
« on: October 17, 2015, 02:57:13 pm »I love how a "Positive feedback" thread instantly becomes a "lets bash on the GUI" thread...
While I certainly would have made the market interface look different had I had any real say over the design, it really isn't as bad as everyone's saying imo.
Compared to 1.0 it has all the same features (minus market history but that's a backend issue, and shorting which has changed into borrowing). While I realize there's a lot of confusion over how markets work, I get the impression no one's really even tried to use it, place an order, see it fill, etc...
It is also 10,000x faster and more responsive, and has much more reliable live updates.
I agree poloniex is fairly clean and nice, but isn't perfect either. Try resizing it for example. Maybe we should've just made something like that but tbh I bet the feedback would've been just as negative..
If only you would give us some constructive feedback instead of just "it sucks, Poloniex is way better", then we could actually iterate towards something better.
My 0.02 bitUSD..
I agree. Its working fairly well in terms of the back-end. And my trades and market transactions are oging through. Its solid. We can build on this and move forward.
