What a bunch of FUD'sters. Lol.

No wonder Bitshares 2.0 worth less than dogecoin.

Quote from: Marky0001 on October 14, 2015, 04:06:26 pm

why are the fees 21bts?

any reason for that? didnt it use to be less than 1bts?

is the burning thing a new feature? so over time how can that work out if bts are being reduced?

I am really wondering right now

https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/

Quote

In the case of BitShares, this means setting transaction fees that are high enough to cover all costs, including the cost of customer acquisition, while still being low enough to compete against real competitors. Most cryptocurrency networks barely charge enough in transaction fees to cover the cost of running the network. They attempt to attract users with low fees. While low fees are important, undervaluing the service provided is counter productive. For this reason, BitShares charges a price that is much higher than competing cryptocurrencies but much lower than traditional exchanges and payment networks like Dwolla or PayPal.

It's a positive imo. Using the referral programme you can earn a % of the fees from everyone you refer to BitShares. $0.1 or whatever the fee is, is still cheaper than any real competitors but incentivises people to advertise and promote BitShares.

In theory great. In reality, this is a dissaster. Nobody outside of the core here will pay $80 or whatever for a lifetime membership and high fees otherwise. Perception perception perception. If the float wasn't 3 billion but 3 million, you could get away with charging 10cents or more per transaction because the fee would be .00whateverBTS.

I predict a hard fork removing the referral program within 6 months.

By the way, check out BTS 2.0 market cap. It's under dash post release. I guess not everyone got the memo. Or perhaps these changes aren't as revolutionary as once predicted.

How much did that cost to publish? Was it a serial?

Quote from: monsterer on October 05, 2015, 07:10:19 pm

Quote from: clayop on October 05, 2015, 07:07:31 pm

I don't think so. Dev team changed transaction throughput 50x and due to this network dies. I had a test before the test and it was quite stable.

How long did that 'stable' test network live? More than 10 days?

IIRC, it was the longest testnet.

That's what she said.

I thought Lottoshares died as it was not feasibly possible to integrate to the blockchain? This section may need a sticky differentiating itself.

I would think the CCEDK and Identibit partners would have the most expertise on this, since they have dealt with banks and compliance. That expertise is probably not elsewhere on this forum, but worth checking. More likely, you may need to draw in another third party partner. It's a matter of time, people. Just a matter of time until we get these pieces in place.

The fact that the father of Bitshares ponders this and supposed partners haven't, says a lot into something. I'll let you decide what.