Yea I had this functionality in before but realized it wasn't adding up sums correctly so I decided to disable it until I could find the time to revisit it and see if I could implement it properly.

Trackable here: https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/758

Looks like you closed this out already.  Great!

Quote from: abit on February 25, 2016, 09:16:30 am

We just need to boost bitUSD first, THEN boost OTHER_ASSET:bitUSD pairs, but not make all kinds of xyz:bts pairs as these are much less attractive for non-crypto users. Just like what tonyk has proposed. If we don't already have a stable currency, trading on other commodities is nightmare.

I still disagree that bitUSD is Bitshare's savior. Bitshares could easily go after currently untapped markets of an unlimited amount of derivatives. Whether it be gold, silver, oil, GOOG, AAPL, NASDAQ, etc... That market is untapped in the cryptosphere right now. A year from now this market will be competitive due to all of the blockchain's with scripting capabilities. This market is Bitshares' for the taking right now, but a year or so from now who knows. Bitshares needs to be known by its primary original innovation... Bitassets.

bitUSD is important, but the actual innovation is BitAssets as a whole. I understand that by subsidizing liquidity on bitUSD, the liquidity somewhat trickles down to other bitAssets. However, I think you overestimate just how much it will effect those markets. Bitshares should be securing markets that are easily secured, and the bitUSD market already has several competitors.

If dilution was ever necessary, it is for a proposal such as this. It greatly improves already existing features... one of Bitshare's core features. Adding hundreds of features will not make Bitshares automatically succeed. Look at NXT and Bitshares as-is for this proof. The features need to be implemented sufficiently. Smartcoins are not sufficient as they currently exist. The market has been telling Bitshares that for two years now.

This proposal is perfect in that worker proposals need to keep being approved to continue liquidity efforts. The dilution to fund this feature is not forced on shareholders for the rest of eternity. Try it out- shareholders have little to lose as a whole, but so much more to gain. If it doesn't work then shareholders can stop approving workers for these purposes. Alternatively, if it does work, as markets gain a sufficient amount of liquidity we can cut back on the liquidity incentives market-by-market.

Either way, the dilution for trying this proposal is not permanent... whether shareholder decide to stop dilution for incentive to those who provide liquidity or the proposal is successful and dilution is stopped anyways. It is truly a win-win for a small price to pay for 1 worker. If it doesn't work then we never have to try it again and a lesson would have been learned.

Sidechains are not the answer. Prediction Markets are not the answer. A Bond Market is not the answer. Liquidity on our already existing DEX is the answer. Bitshares' original killer app Bitassets finally approaching the countdown to blast off is the answer.

You make some good points.  I agree that we should not limit the pairs and that BitAssets are our primary differentiator (along with the DEX itself, of course).  I think ultimately we should subsidize liquidity for many BitAssets.  But since our funds are limited, I'm sure you'll agree that we need to be systematic about it.  What do you think about starting with subsidizing liquidity for BitUSD, BitCNY, and BitEUR?  As the markets for these primary fiat BitAssets become more robust and can stand on their own, we can start moving the liquidity incentives to other BitAssets, perhaps starting with GOLD, SILVER and OIL.  Then maybe GOOG, AAPL, NASDAQ, or whatever people are most interested in. 

To be clear, I'm not talking about limiting these pairs initially and then bringing them on as we go.  They exist now and should continue to exist for people to trade as they please.  I'm just talking about prioritizing our liquidity subsidies to have a real impact rather than spreading the efforts too thinly and ultimately having little/no impact at all. 

I also agree that right now bootstrapping liquidity on the DEX should be a HUGE priority over adding features like the bond and prediction markets.  However, I think sidechains are a different story.  I don't see sidechains as a feature per se, but more structural in nature, facilitating liquidity by opening the bitcoin floodgates.  Just imagine the vast number of bitcoin holders being able to transfer their BTC onto the DEX and then trade in and out of our various fiat, commodity, and stock market BitAssets.  The liquidity will be incredible and I believe that will seal the deal for us as THE financial blockchain.

Quote from: cube on March 02, 2016, 10:58:50 pm

Quote from: tbone on February 29, 2016, 02:51:03 pm

Quote from: xeroc on February 29, 2016, 09:27:51 am

Quote from: tbone on February 29, 2016, 04:19:21 am

@xeroc, have you even heard form Ronny lately? 

Not sure .. he may simple be on a one-week vacation ..

Perhaps.  But I brought this up starting with Decred 4 weeks ago.  Ronny responded once 2 weeks ago with an answer that didn't inspire much confidence that he sees the importance of this or that he is willing or capable of making it happen.  If we want to jumpstart the DEX, we better get with the program.  A good start would be to immediately make it clear that Lisk will trade here from day 1.  What are we waiting for??

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21337.msg279699.html#msg279699

Akado did an excellent follow-up with c-cex.  Perhaps he can help us with his biz dev skill by attracting Lisk and developing it into a First Lisk's exchange. Paging @Akado.

I just emailed them, nothing more.

Well, it's just a matter of getting into contact with them, but ultimately it's up to OpenLedger to decide if it wantst to support it. Although I think it is a good idea, somehow I think that isn't really on top of Ronny's priorities now. Plus he has a lot going on with obits, bitteaset, etc. I honestly think that's too much and the focus should be OpenLedger only and handling this type of stuff but I'm not the one managing it.

If OpenLedger wanted to get Lisk on the exchange it would need to participate on the ICO I guess, just to have some lisk and help kickstart the market.

Without Ronny or someone from OpenLedger wanting to get Lisk, we can't do much. Unless someone provides some type of bridge. Metaexchange and Blocktrades maybe? I believe if OL wanted to get Lisk in it would have shown more interest.

Maybe jonnybitcoin's exchange could have it but it seems a relatively new project and I doubt he could get it ready in time for it. Later than this it's pretty much useless. And rushing things just because of a cryptocurrency doesn't make sense too so...

I can get in contact with them but in the end it's really not worth it if there's no interest from our exchanges.

Rushing things?  I've been talking about this for several weeks (since Decred) and the Lisk ICO is still running for another couple weeks.  If you're an exchange and you're serious about attracting attention and new users, then you need to jump on opportunities like this.  Otherwise you should just give up. 

@svk, very nice move narrowing the buy/sell boxes.  That's a nice enhancement on the vertical layout since the most critical live data elements were already visible.  Unfortunately it doesn't help much on the horizontal layout considering you still have to scroll down to place an order (unless you want to do it blindly i.e. without seeing the all-important order book, which is off the page now).  So now you pretty much always have to scroll to do anything on the horizontal layout, instead of having to scroll only when actually placing an order.  None of the serious UIs are set up like that, and this is one of Poloniex's biggest flaws.  I won't push for it anymore, but I do still hope we can correct that.  If/when we do, I have some additional suggestions for enhancing the horizontal layout.   

As always, thanks for your work on this.

There's going to be a lot of buzz around Lisk.  We better be one of the first exchanges to trade them.  If not, it will be one of the biggest missed opportunities.  I brought this up to Ronny/@ccedk several times on another thread but have heard nothing back.  Very frustrating.  We should have already made it known that Lisk will trade on OpenLedger from day 1.  In fact, considering Lisk is a spinoff from Crypti (which borrowed dPoS from Bitshares) we should be aiming to get an exclusive to trade them for a period of time.  This is just the sort of shot in the arm we need. 

@xeroc, have you even heard form Ronny lately?

bump.  Ronny/@ccedk?

Ronny (@ccedk), you shouldn't make decisions based on a forum thread.  And you should realize that the desire of many in the community to be careful about labeling "partners" has nothing to do with how we feel about CCEDk/OpenLedger.  Instead is had to do with supposed partners that have been announced but never materialized and from whom we have never heard a peep again.  Some may actually be working behind the scenes, but until we have something much more concrete, we should not be labeling them as "partners".  One has even been accused of being a scam.  I think that's probably going way too far, and everyone should have a chance to prove themselves.  But until that time, if we use the label "partner" too liberally, this negative image could be a problem for not only Bitshares but also for the proven partners such as CCEDK/OpenLedger.

With that in mind, I would personally be in favor of listing the proven partners that have known, working products (at least in beta) such as CCEDK/OpenLedger, Blocktrades, MetaExchange, OpenPOS. 

Quote from: tbone on March 02, 2016, 01:52:47 pm

Obviously we should be pushing to get a sidechain implementation going ASAP.  But I think we're dramatically overcomplicating it in this thread and should probably leave the precise details to the devs (primarily @bytemaster). 

Beyond that, I think we should be concentrating on pushing to incentivize a) creation of the primary fiat BitAssets and b) participation in BitAsset liquidity pools, among other liquidity measures. 

Speaking of liquidity, I think we should be doing what we can to establish robust markets in any new cryptocurrencies that hit the market.  The Lisk ICO will go for another 3 weeks and then it will launch and trade on the open market.  I'll probably say this until I'm blue in the face.  But we should make sure we are among the first exchanges (if not THE first) to trade Lisk.  That would generate plenty of buzz and new users for the DEX.

We really need to get serious about making some of these pieces of the puzzle come together.

@bytemaster solution is just a bitcoin master wallet where the witnesses share the private keys and issue IOU tokens much like OPEN.BTC minus the multisig

Can we keep on topic with this thread. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss adding lisk.

You missed my point.  It wasn't about adding Lisk.  That was just one example and my point was that we'd probably be far better served if non-technical people focused more on working toward helping the important pieces of the puzzle to come together rather than over-complicating sidechains and getting into the weeds over the details of its implementation.

Having said that, @bytemaster's solution seems to be sensible and elegant.  In your estimation, where is he going wrong? 

I can't see a need for BitBTC in this scenario.  Unless I'm missing something, the whole point of a BTC sidechain is that it effectively allows real BTC to be traded on the DEX.  Of course, mechanically, that means trading a BTC asset (e.g. SIDE.BTC) that is backed 1-1 by real BTC held in a multi-sig BTC wallet or some other sidechain construct.  But the point is, I think this makes BitBTC unnecessary.  In fact, theoretically this could be duplicated for any blockchain-based asset such that the need for all the complications associated with market pegging will ONLY be required for "real world" assets such as fiat currencies (e.g. USD, CNY, EUR), commodities (e.g. Gold, Silver, Oil), stocks (e.g. AAPL, MSFT), etc.  Where am I going wrong here?