there is a bit off topic

I guess most of you don't know bitcrab because of he handle his business so professional, never ask for a cent from community. so you even don't know his exist.
there is a world in China: a baby who cried louder can get more candies.

and I guess you also don't know, bitcrab is one of the guys who first translate bitshares whitepaper to Chinese,  almost all Chinese fans got to known BTS because of him.

Ironically, you call this guy  toxic to bitshares
you don't learn to respect our old friend, no new friend will come
you don't learn to respect share holders(how many times you have said, fork it  if you not satisfied), no money will support us

Quote from: bitcrab on January 29, 2016, 02:40:37 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on January 29, 2016, 07:09:34 am

1.what a transfer fee is reasonable according to cost and competetion?

below is the data of the transfer fee of the top12 cryptocoins in coinmarketcap:



some info:
1. the average transfer fee is $0.01.
2. the top3 high fee coins are MaidSafeCoin, Bitshares and Factom. however the other 2 are both coins for special functions - MaidSafe is for distributed storage and Factom is for notarization.

it is said that BM has said(not confirmed yet) in recent mumble session that in order to cover costs and prevent spam, the minimum fee should be $0.005-0.01

to calculate the cost of 1 transfer is not easy, it depend on several factors, especially the TPS, so now I just take BM's conclusion, if anyone has better result, please kindly share.

upon the above data, I give 2 areas for reasonable transfer fee on Bitshares platform for reference: the wider one: 1BTS-10BTS, the narrower one: 2BTS-5BTS.

This describes the issue well... that chart is certainly telling.

As mentioned up-thread, there must be a compromise somewhere in this. Although the referral program is practically worthless right now we should probably not give up on it,  and although transactions are really expensive right now we should probably not give up on offering a cheaper solution.

Quote from: twitter on January 18, 2016, 07:45:35 pm

Spring is belonging to twitter

Quote from: fuzzy on January 18, 2016, 05:22:50 pm

#sharebits donkeypong 1 SILVERTICKET
#sharebits onceuponatime 2 SILVERTICKET
#sharebits onceuponatime 50 COPPERTICKET
#sharebits clayop 50 COPPERTICKET
#sharebits clains 50 COPPERTICKET
*need frozenfan's forum name*
*need spring's forum name*
*need zapply81's forum name*
*need panagiotis's forum name*

#sharebits twitter 50 COPPERTICKET

What's with the hate?

WTF did Charles do to you to illicit such a powerful negative response?

Quote from: IOHKCharles on January 16, 2016, 06:08:15 am

This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability.

Are you guys nuts?

Maybe I'm too new here and don't know the history of how he pissed in stan's gas tank, but I would love to learn, so I could hate this guy too.

Quote from: Stan on January 16, 2016, 02:38:05 pm

Might even host Ethereum VM on the Graphene real time platform and simply 100% sharedrop it on Bitcoin holders. 

The trouble is it would have to be done by somebody other than us or it would be perceived as an attack.

Why would it be viewed as an attack?

Is IBM attacking ethereum by using a fork of its code and sharedropping it to its businesses?

No

Did NEM  get pissed when that bank forked its code (POI) and distributed it to its subsidiaries?

No, it's market cap doubled.

What present reality are you guys watching, because I have no real world reference for your scientific perspective, and frankly, I'm beginning to think that we are speaking a different language.

I prefer math, science, and historical fact, vs unprecedented speculation.  What historical precedent are you referencing when you make such claims that we would not be perceived as just another Ethereum marketing fanclub like IBM?

Where are all the "OMG IBM is ATTACKING Ethereum" links?  All I've seen are "down goes another domino, first, IBM, now BTS gives in to Ethereum's superior VM tech"

Thanks to BTS, Ethereum becomes the global turing complete standard.

What would appear adversarial is if we tried to set a different VM code standard.

Where are you coming from here?

Standardization is what every crypto community has always clamored for.  No?

Without standardization or standardized languages and references, great social projects are inefficient:

Quote from: IOHKCharles on January 16, 2016, 05:13:28 pm

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

Oh, I can assure you that we DO see BitShares as a solution to Bitcoin's scaling problems. And its 1-hour confirmation times problems. And its governance problems. That's for starters. Amid the current controversies there, we have certainly used this as an opportunity to promote our solutions.

Two questions for you: First, if you don't see BitShares as part of the solution, then why do you bother posting here? Second, if you think BitShares and Etherum and other crypto-projects each offer something from which others can learn, perhaps puzzle pieces that fit together make up something greater, then why the hell don't you mention this in any of your writings?

If you want to bust bubble thinking, then how about helping your readers connect the dots just a bit?