Delulo,

OK, thanks. So it is its own thing on its own blockchain as I thought.

I agree with your hesitation due to your listed CON, but I argue that that is just something Peertracks would have to accept because I see very little chance that the bitshares music blockchain would ever be able to maintain a strong bitUSD peg on its own.

It's adding another thing that has to work for Peertracks to succeed. An unnecessary challenge. You increase your chances by teaming up with bitshares and using their bitUSD instead of dividing the network effect.

Someone has already solved the problem of bitUSD for you, take advantage of that! Making your own bitUSD is like a grocery store trying to establish its own currency so customers have a way to pay for groceries. What's the point? They can just use U.S. dollars.

How does bitUSD work on Peertracks?

-Is it a different bitUSD from bitshares bitUSD?
-Does it have to maintain it's own real USD peg? 
-How will it interact with bitshares bitUSD (fungible, exchangeable)?

I'm worried that Peertracks bitUSD is a separate bitUSD and that it will have to maintain its own peg to the dollar. I feel like bitshares is the exchange and everything would be more efficient, intuitive, and beneficial to the system as a whole if all bitshares toolkit projects, including peertracks worked off the bitUSD established by bitshares. Splitting up bitUSD is splitting up network effect and making each peg weaker.

I think all of your arguments are pretty good and now feel my concept is not, so I won't argue.

Looks like free money-making opportunity to me. Want to make 5-10% in 3-4 days? (Next big round of forced covers).

Your method wouldn't help, people can still trade the assets off-chain. You'd just have no volume on-chain until people want to get in or out at feed price.

Thank you, your reasons make sense.

Still, 5% is too much of a difference for bitUSD to be used by most people. It needs to be tighter (within 1% always) or it is not so awesome I think. Maybe this can/will be solved through greater volume or some other mechanism. I don't know. Currently though it is a great concern of mine.

I noticed the BitUSD peg is currently not working so well and I feel like that will keep happening, especially when people expect bitshares price to change rapidly.

Could you just code it so that BitUSD trades can only be executed within $.01 (or whatever) of the price feed, that way people are always guaranteed within 1% of the dollar?

Maybe I'm missing something, please comment.

It is not that the 14% of stakeholders that are currently voting are doing a bad job. It is mainly that it is a security risk.

It's ok to have a 14% voting security risk because if those 14% do collude or whatever in a manner serious enough to really hurt things, the rest can respond by voting. Just make the system such that this can happen easily when it needs to, maybe a delay for implementations of large code changes so people have time to respond. There are a lot of ways to make this work without me being bothered most of the time.

It's the same thing with our govt. It works good enough for me so I don't waste my time with it. If they ever really start effing up I'll take some time to exercise my right to vote to change things. This is going to end up a lot like that and it's o.k. It is a better system because it is sooooo easy for people to vote when they want.

The ability to instantly update your vote is awesome too. That solves a huge problem with not being able to vote for the little guy for fear that you are just wasting your vote if barely anyone supports him. This could really be used in our current system to eliminate the two party dominance.

Quote from: davidpbrown on November 14, 2014, 05:20:09 pm

Quote from: fluxer555 on November 14, 2014, 05:15:52 pm

Some interesting ideas:

- Slates should have 'owners'
- Slates should be 'subscribable'
- Users will subscribe to slates from trusted, public figures
- Users who subscribe to these slates are notified when changes occur
- Slate owners are given the option to write reasons why they are changing their slate
- If the user takes the time to review the change, then they can accept, deny, or make an amendment to the change
- If the user does not review the change after a given time period, it will automatically be set to accept
- Popular slates should be readily available within the client

I like this. Representative democracy more effective than direct democracy.

If we're very very very lucky, we'll be able to get members to point to a guy and say 'I trust him to make good decisions about delegates, here's my proxy(slate)'.  That is the very most we can hope for.

The point is you shouldn't be trying to get lucky. You need to figure out a way to not have to have people vote unless they are naturally driven to by their own prerogative. Most people should never be bothered in the slightest. Even asking them to think about being bothered is unacceptable. When I buy stock in Google, I want to completely trust those really smart guys there to do a great job and do absolutely nothing myself. The most I want is to know I can vote and participate if I choose. It MUST NOT be necessary for the majority to participate for bitshares to function! This is critical.

DNS development is suspended until it can be re-started with a more focused effort. Right now all energy is being committed to bitUSD adoption.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Great Plan! I like it. I hope DNS can one day exist either as a user issued asset or on a side chain that can use real bitshares bitUSD somehow. I never liked the idea of separate chains having to create, sustain, and peg their own versions of USD.