BitShares Forum
Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: JonnyB on June 24, 2015, 03:37:26 pm
-
Is holding bitshares mandatory in bitshares 2.0? can you hold bitusd without BTS
-
Is holding bitshares mandatory in bitshares 2.0? can you hold bitusd without BTS
you'll need at least some small amount to cover tx or market fees
-
even for user issued assets like banx shares?
-
Is holding bitshares mandatory in bitshares 2.0? can you hold bitusd without BTS
you'll need at least some small amount to cover tx or market fees
I think tx fees can be paid in bitUSD. I know my bitGOLD transfers don't use bts.
-
No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Is holding bitshares mandatory in bitshares 2.0? can you hold bitusd without BTS
you'll need at least some small amount to cover tx or market fees
I think tx fees can be paid in bitUSD. I know my bitGOLD transfers don't use bts.
that's the question. now you need bitshares to cover fees, and I think this won't change in 2.0
-
No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone has done their homework. This is correct.
-
No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone has done their homework. This is correct.
what about BitUSD?
-
No bts is needed as long as the issuer funds the fee pool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone has done their homework. This is correct.
what about BitUSD?
BitUSD should have its fee pool kept topped off by workers/delegates/witnesses/ automatic market actions.
-
BitUSD should have its fee pool kept topped off by workers/delegates/witnesses/ automatic market actions.
Where do the paid BitUSD transaction fees go to after they are automatically exchange with BTS from the fee pool? Who controls that account? I imagine in the case of privatized BitAssets it is the creator/manager. But what about regular (public) BitAssets? Do the witnesses collectively control those funds? The delegates? Do they have the ability to place orders in the market funded from that pool where the proceeds automatically go into another pool collectively managed by the same group (or even directly into the fee pool)?
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/83
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/83
I'm confused by this. Does this mean that network BitAssets do not require a fee pool and the BitAsset fees are automatically converted into BTS via the markets to pay the reserve pool?
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/83
I'm confused by this. Does this mean that network BitAssets do not require a fee pool and the BitAsset fees are automatically converted into BTS via the markets to pay the reserve pool?
The easiest thing for us to implement is to have the network manage the BitAssets just like private BitAssets. This would require the issuer to update the BitAsset's core_exchange_rate property and to fund the fee pool. In this case the issuer would be the "delegates" account.
-
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/83
I'm confused by this. Does this mean that network BitAssets do not require a fee pool and the BitAsset fees are automatically converted into BTS via the markets to pay the reserve pool?
The easiest thing for us to implement is to have the network manage the BitAssets just like private BitAssets. This would require the issuer to update the BitAsset's core_exchange_rate property and to fund the fee pool. In this case the issuer would be the "delegates" account.
Okay. So that leads me back to my previous questions:
Where do the paid BitUSD transaction fees go to after they are automatically exchanged for BTS from the fee pool?
...
Do [the delegates] have the ability to place orders in the [BitUSD/BTS] market funded from that [BitUSD transaction fee] pool where the [BTS] proceeds automatically go into another pool collectively managed by the same group (or even directly into the fee pool)?
Also, is this not asking too much of the unpaid delegates? Are they also the ones who need to set the price feeds for the non-private BitAssets? Aren't operations that require 24/7 online servers more appropriate for witnesses? Or perhaps delegates could delegate the responsibilities (submitting price feeds and converting BitAsset collected fees into BTS to top off the fee pools) over BitAssets to other parties? And maybe a worker proposal is used to compensate these parties?
-
I don't understand.
This means that bitAssets (bitUSD, bitCNY, etc) will be seen as if they were created by the delegates and the delegates have to fill the transactions fee pool manually by converting the bitUSD to BTS?
Also, if the transactions fees goes to the reserve pool where are delegates taking the bitUSD from?
:/ don't getting it
-
All assets have a fee pool, including BitAssets run by the delegates/witnesses.
When a BitUSD fee is paid, it is converted from BitUSD to BTS at the core_exchange_rate specified for BitUSD just like any other asset.
The BTS received from this process is divided among referrers and the network global reserve pool
BitUSD from fees accumulates with the asset and is under the control of the issuer (in this case the joint delegates).
The delegates will have to sell this BitUSD on the market to get BTS and then continue to fund the reserve pool. This is not an ideal situation because it takes the delegates 2 weeks to take any action. So I was proposing to automate the process of selling the BitUSD and funding the fee pool.
-
All assets have a fee pool, including BitAssets run by the delegates/witnesses.
When a BitUSD fee is paid, it is converted from BitUSD to BTS at the core_exchange_rate specified for BitUSD just like any other asset.
The BTS received from this process is divided among referrers and the network global reserve pool
BitUSD from fees accumulates with the asset and is under the control of the issuer (in this case the joint delegates).
The delegates will have to sell this BitUSD on the market to get BTS and then continue to fund the reserve pool. This is not an ideal situation because it takes the delegates 2 weeks to take any action. So I was proposing to automate the process of selling the BitUSD and funding the fee pool.
So the fees in SmartCoin are converted into BTS at the same rate? (i.e. tx fee is about $0.20)
-
The delegates will have to sell this BitUSD on the market to get BTS and then continue to fund the reserve pool. This is not an ideal situation because it takes the delegates 2 weeks to take any action. So I was proposing to automate the process of selling the BitUSD and funding the fee pool.
Automation would be ideal. Couldn't the transaction include operations to do the conversion via the market? For example, a fill-or-kill limit order asking for exactly the amount of BTS needed (in exchange for the BitAsset) to pay the transaction fee, where the proceeds from that immediately go to pay the fee. If the liquidity of the market suddenly becomes really bad since the transaction was created such that the full conversion cannot happen within the price limit, then the transaction becomes invalid. If the nodes reject transactions that would not be able to satisfy the fee with the state of the market at the end of the previous block (despite the risk of false positives), it could reduce the amount of invalid transactions that need to be processed in the inner single-threaded engine at the cost that users might need to be willing to accept a slightly higher limit price to get their transaction processed.
The clients could automatically modify any transactions that deal only with BitAssets to add this fill-or-kill limit order operation to pay the fee and make the process entirely transparent to the user. If the user had plain-text BTS in the account (and the client settings were set to prefer it, which would be the default), the client would prefer using BTS directly since it would make the transaction slightly cheaper. Otherwise, it would all still work without the user having to worry about manually converting the BitAssets to BTS.
Furthermore, this could be used as an alternative to the fee pools of privatized BitAssets and UIAs assuming the BTS/{BitAsset,UIA} market had sufficient liquidity. The client could even automatically calculate whether the fee pool conversion ratio set by the issuers was likely to be cheaper or more expensive compared to fill-or-kill limit order method and choose appropriately.
-
The delegates will have to sell this BitUSD on the market to get BTS and then continue to fund the reserve pool. This is not an ideal situation because it takes the delegates 2 weeks to take any action. So I was proposing to automate the process of selling the BitUSD and funding the fee pool.
Automation would be ideal. Couldn't the transaction include operations to do the conversion via the market? For example, a fill-or-kill limit order asking for exactly the amount of BTS needed (in exchange for the BitAsset) to pay the transaction fee, where the proceeds from that immediately go to pay the fee. If the liquidity of the market suddenly becomes really bad since the transaction was created such that the full conversion cannot happen within the price limit, then the transaction becomes invalid. If the nodes reject transactions that would not be able to satisfy the fee with the state of the market at the end of the previous block (despite the risk of false positives), it could reduce the amount of invalid transactions that need to be processed in the inner single-threaded engine at the cost that users might need to be willing to accept a slightly higher limit price to get their transaction processed.
The clients could automatically modify any transactions that deal only with BitAssets to add this fill-or-kill limit order operation to pay the fee and make the process entirely transparent to the user. If the user had plain-text BTS in the account (and the client settings were set to prefer it, which would be the default), the client would prefer using BTS directly since it would make the transaction slightly cheaper. Otherwise, it would all still work without the user having to worry about manually converting the BitAssets to BTS.
Furthermore, this could be used as an alternative to the fee pools of privatized BitAssets and UIAs assuming the BTS/{BitAsset,UIA} market had sufficient liquidity. The client could even automatically calculate whether the fee pool conversion ratio set by the issuers was likely to be cheaper or more expensive compared to fill-or-kill limit order method and choose appropriately.
Very thoughtful analysis as usual. I think it makes sense to give the user options re: paying the fee, but it needs to be transparent or at least trivial to the user by default, otherwise adoption will suffer.