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.


Messages - abit

Pages: 1 ... 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ... 309
2926
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: February 12, 2016, 02:32:23 am »
Update:
2016-02-12 Implemented a new operation, so the committee can change some options of the core asset (BTS), including:
  * percentage market fee / market fee cap
  * transfer fee mode

OP updated accordingly.

If you want this feature, please vote for the worker "1.14.29   [BSIP10] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER". Thanks.

2927
General Discussion / Re: Why I like Ethereum [BLOG POST]
« on: February 12, 2016, 01:21:41 am »
Quote from: topcandle on February 11, 2016, 09:08:00 pm
Quote from: fuzzy on February 11, 2016, 05:18:41 pm
Quote from: VoR0220 on February 11, 2016, 05:09:13 pm
Just now read the article and wanted to make a comment. Particularly in regards to what you'd do differently. Doing all of this in memory kind of defeats the purpose of having stored data. It adds speed, that is true, but there are problems in regards to having truly decentralized applications and to have them be verifiable. On the other hand, the way Bitshares operates it would likely not be an issue mainly due to the way that the consensus algo operates. As for the merkle tri-graph, I would like to hear why it is redundant. It is very much expensive, that is true, but if you want a truly decentralized and trustless application, it is somewhat necessary. But again, I can see why you'd do it this way due to the Bitshares algo as the goal in the algo is not to be trustless, just to be decentralized. There are tradeoffs to everything. In any case. Hope all is well.

btw, everyone please congratulate vor as he was hired by gavin to continue his work on solidity. :)

Is this a Possibility for BITSHARES?!
Quote from: VoR0220 on December 24, 2015, 04:07:38 pm
I am holding onto BTS because I believe that along with Ethereum, it is going to be the only other cryptocurrency 2.0 project to make a difference...and I actually see the model of DPOS melding quite well into the new Ethereum Serenity model if I understand it correctly.
Hopefully..

2928
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] What rate should the committee sell the collected bitassets over feed?
« on: February 12, 2016, 01:05:34 am »
Quote from: xeroc on February 11, 2016, 11:57:32 am
No that the committee-trade account has the funds, and I finished up some extension of the exchange.py to allow proposing of trades ... I would like to resurrect this thread.

I'll propose the corresponding sell orders at +10% for everything we have in the committee-trade account later today, but would like to give everyone a last chance to voice their opinion
I propose that we set different start point for different assets, lower by 1% everyday, to a bottom.
* set the bottom as 5%
* if current premium of an asset in the market is less than 5%, place ask order at 5%
* if current premium of an asset is greater than 15%, place the order at 15% for the first time, then lower by 1% everyday
* if current premium of an asset is between 15% and 5%, place the order at ([current premium] -1%), then lower by 1% everyday

The "current premium" described above should not simply be the lowest ask price, it should be with a total volume (market depth) which is not less than 1/2 of amount of the committee-trade account wants to sell.

2929
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:48:42 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on February 09, 2016, 02:26:11 pm
Quote from: noisy on February 09, 2016, 02:11:06 pm
@xeroc I seems that I was voted out, and right now `noisy` is no longer a witness, `necklace` is. Could I ask for the votes of the committee-members? I think it will be better to have better distribution of nodes.
done .. I removed some more init delegates so that we can start decentralizing the testnet
It seems not the case..
Confirmed. Maintenance interval is so long.

2930
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:44:08 pm »
Quote from: bitcrab on February 11, 2016, 02:11:05 pm
Quote from: abit on February 10, 2016, 03:26:16 pm
Quote from: bitcrab on February 10, 2016, 02:59:42 pm
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on February 08, 2016, 09:44:22 pm
Also, we propose to implement this new fee schedule for LTM-only for a period of time, and offer it to basic members only later. This way, we effectively upgrade memberships into premium products. As more and more features are added to LTM, we may increase the account upgrading fee accordingly.

I think the fee schedule should be offered to all the members from the beginning, to make a distinction in offering time regarding core fee schedule will make the basic user feel even worse and is not good for attracting more new users.
Sorry I didn't get your point. Imo it's a good strategy that provide difference services to VIPs and normal users.

they are already offered different service in the proposed fee schedule, for transfer fee:
for LTM: $0.018, 80% cash back.
for basic user :$0.018 no cash back.
right?
what I said is no need to implement this in different time for LTM and basic user.
I see.
I think the text you quoted from the proposal refers to only some special features and/or new features.

2931
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:11:08 pm »
Quote from: Akado on February 11, 2016, 08:55:42 pm
Quote from: morpheus on February 11, 2016, 08:37:21 pm
Quote from: Akado on February 11, 2016, 08:19:02 pm
Quote from: iHashFury on February 11, 2016, 07:56:58 pm
Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?

I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.

Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.

Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?

To create it I guess, but you can just buy it, which should be way easier assuming this model does provide the expected liquidity.
If nobody create it, how to just buy it? Chicken and egg.

2932
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 09:07:10 pm »
Quote from: puppies on February 11, 2016, 05:34:42 pm

This may be a worst case scenario, but I think it is likely to happen at some point.  We have already seen the price of bts decline by 50% in a day or two.  the current incarnation survived to lick its wounds.  I am not sure that this new version would.  In short I would say that my argument is that attempting to make entry and exit entirely through market pegged assets will hinder the peg, and increase the fragility of the entire system.

I hope this wall of text wasn't too hard to read.  If you disagree with any of my conclusions please let me know.
I've thought of this as well. We need to think about the worse scenario SERIOUSLY.
With the new design, BTS price will be backed by (expected) PROFIT of the platform, or say, fees - costs. It's more or less the bottom line.

2933
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 01:13:45 pm »
Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 12:34:35 pm
Quote from: abit on February 11, 2016, 11:33:02 am
Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 07:37:44 am
There is one more possible alternative:

3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net.  Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts.  Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.

?

We need bootstrap.

All babies cannot feed themselves.  If this idea indeed materialised into a forked Baby net by the bitshares community, I believe there would be a good number of donors and volunteers to be its low-pay witnesses, and to see it grow.
Distribute payments at a monthly basis.

Like @alt said, if system earns no revenue, then pay 0 to workers, pay 0 to witnesses.

If system earns some revenue, split it to witnesses/workers/stake holders.

No dilution is needed at all.

2934
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 11:33:02 am »
Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 07:37:44 am
There is one more possible alternative:

3: Forked bts into a Baby net and test the concept on the Baby net.  Baby net starts with a low valuation and sharedrops 100% on bts.  Once it is proven a success, Baby net can be merged back into the parent bts.
As a low value token, the BabyBTS is unable to support (or create) so much BabyUSD which is needed to pay for witnesses and workers. Without demand, the market become illiquid, then black swain event will occur, then BabyUSD become not fully backed. Then the baby die.

?

We need bootstrap.

2935
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: clayop - Voting power for reasonable fee system and healthy network
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:57:00 pm »
@clayop Please vote for the refund or burn workers.

IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.

By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.

2936
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: jakub - better execution / implementation / communication of BM's ideas
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:56:36 pm »
@jakub Please vote for the refund or burn workers.

IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.

By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.

2937
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:56:08 pm »
@fav Please vote for the refund or burn workers.

IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.

By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.

2938
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:55:11 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on February 05, 2016, 08:19:01 am
I have changed my votes for committee members to show support for those that actively participate in the fee schedule discussion behind the scenes.
That said, I am quite disappointed by those that I voted down that they have not voiced their opinion neither via telegram, nor via forum, or github.

Furthermore, since @alt seems to be quite aggressive when it comes to paying for workers, I am now rejecting refund/burn workers to so that we can keep the development going.

@alt, keep in mind that your current vote for my worker will result in me having to get a regular job which will certainly take 40h+/week.
With that, I will not be able to contribute to BitShares as I do now (if at all).
@xeroc Please vote for the refund or burn workers.

IT'S DANGEROUS NOW.

By now, the refund worker which got highest votes is refund400k (113,325,926 BTS), which means any whale or group of whales or group of proxies who have more than 113K voting power is able to vote in a worker and steal funds from the reserve pool IMMEDIATELY. There is a flaw in the worker system, see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/565. We(proxies and stake holders) can't all keep watching the worker list 24 hours.

2939
General Discussion / Re: How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:21:30 pm »
Quote from: noisy on February 10, 2016, 03:56:41 pm
Quote from: abit on February 10, 2016, 03:37:48 pm
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.

this will give us a possibility to set each fee according to attractiveness to the user, not attractiveness to abuser of the network. Personally I think I would be good for bitshares to lower basic fees to 0 (transactions, all staff related to exchange), but leave or maybe even increase some fees for creating a LTM/AM, creating new assets, end so on. So far according to my knowledge profits from selling LTM are much grater than from regular transaction fees.
If I can transfer and trade for free, why the hell I need LTM?

2940
General Discussion / Re: Appearance of Deflation vs No Dilution
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:39:32 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 03:17:29 pm
... allocate it as best as we can. ...
How?

Pages: 1 ... 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ... 309

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 21 queries.