0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
what are you thinking , charging BTS on stocks or charging stocks on stocks ?
a) We need a hard forkb) there are some issues with it that make the code messy (iirc)c) we need someone to properly audit the coded) there is no money to pay any of the points above .. yete) If you think about it .. it may make sense to have a way more powerfull fee structure .. for instance, ideally bitUSD can be transfered for free, while stock shares shouldn't ..
Quote from: Akado on July 07, 2016, 09:42:03 amI've been away, has this been done and currently live on chain?Nop ..
I've been away, has this been done and currently live on chain?
Quote from: abit on March 07, 2016, 11:31:15 amQuote from: Akado on March 07, 2016, 11:20:19 amHow will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower. A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.If so I couldn't find it searching over the last 2 months using keyword "fee" and member ccedk.
Quote from: Akado on March 07, 2016, 11:20:19 amHow will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower. A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.
How will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower. A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.
Quote from: abit on March 07, 2016, 11:31:15 amQuote from: Akado on March 07, 2016, 11:20:19 amHow will referrers like OpenLedger be affected by these type of fees? Their revenue coming from this will be significantly lower. A business shouldn't rely solely on that but it's one less revenue stream.If I remembered correctly Ronny of OpenLedger welcomes this feature. Someone can help check again. Lower fees sometimes means more users, so maybe better combined results.I agree, but it does kill the referral program right? It makes it a little bit useless now, not 100% sure, but it's possible revenues get severely restricted right? I actually prefer it this way, I just want to know because of the rate limited fees BSIP. I havent got much time lately, was sick and only managed to get an introduction. Need more info on this kind of stuff, even though I think I won't be able to pull it off due to lack of time. I'll just try making what I can and have someone else complete it.
Quote from: abit on February 10, 2016, 03:37:48 pmJust one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.I'm not trying to kill it. Just give BTS more flexibility in how to use it.
Just one thing, you built the referral program, don't try to kill it.
I'd like to see some marketing budget to be included in the worker proposal, for example for a short video that explains clearly how Bitshares will function from now on. This revolutionary feature has to be understood, otherwise people won't get interested and won't care.
To be honest, I doubt there's enough interest. We'll need to raise thousands to make this happen. With just 9 replies 3 retweets and 375 views.... in two weeks.
So this is being developed already? What are the costs? I know the feedback was very positive but it still needs to go through the voting process.
Quote from: Bhuz on February 10, 2016, 05:25:16 pmCould we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.E.g.I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.
Could we add the ability of "linking account" ? That could also be a nice feature for LTM.E.g.I have the account "bhuz-bot", and I have to do quite a lot of transfers/trades, but for security reasons I do not want to put all my balance in that account. So I would end up beeing very rate limited.But I also have my main account "bhuz", that is more secured and hold all my balance.It would be nice to have the possibility to link bhuz to bhuz-bot, while deciding the % of rate-capability to pass from one account to the other.
Dang, you didn't have to be rude.Everyone knows that Dan works for us, but you don't have to rub his nose in it all the time
You own the network, but who pays for development?
Yeah, maybe we are jumping the gun a little with the 2.1 name change. If anything, this needs to be put to a vote.
I suggest that we will move to Bitshares 2.1 when this feature is released because it is a really big change in the Bitshares blockchain. It will also give a little bit help with marketing – easy way to signal everybody that we are doing something new here.
Still don't get, what is coin days and how is this related to fees?
@abit: Great work! Just wondering if you've made any progress with dynamic adjustment based on load?
Don't know much about coding but you seem to be doing great fast work, abit, well done!
chinese still pissed offfees still too expensiveyou must send 100 BTC randsom to china or else suffer the wrath of the monkey new year (all chinese dumpall BitShares!)按百分比计算转账手续费功能,开发完成只要降低,就支持,降得越低越支持sarcactually, props to the red dragon for showing us that we can have our cake and eat it too. subsidized microtransactions and happy Long Term Members!!
Or a giant middle finger.
awesome job!for your next project ... could you please fork from graphene/develop? that would make it way easier to integrate this into MUSE or the testnet!!! anyway
I did a quick review of the implementation and believe it accomplishes 90% of what I wanted to accomplish. The only thing this doesn't do is dynamically adjust the fee in response to load.Assuming this gets properly tested I would support integrating it.
The "accumulated fees" can only be used to pay fees. Or say it's budgets. When you're running out of budgets, you can pay fee in the original way. Make sense?And fees paid with coin-days wont go to referral program (or cash back for LTM), they are eliminated.
I haven't looked at the code but I'm glad to see this sort of input. Great way to set an example for others to follow, Abit.
Wow that was way faster then I expected.I don't get how you're describing it though. why it should work this way? It sounds like fees are still being charged / still being paid, but accounts earn BTS to pay fees at a defined rate with a cap?Is it just how its being described? or is that really how it works? Was it just the easiest, quickest way to get it done with existing code?It sounds like saying fee = 10(old) - 5(new) - 3(limit) - 2 = 0 , instead of just saying fee = 0 with rate limit If that's really how it works, it seems like a band-aid, but I really wouldn't know, and certainly mean no offense. It shouldn't be described this way for a new user at least. Just say fee is zero with rate limit.anyway, Awesome effort abit!
So if you're an LTM, and you have 1M BTS in your account, ... you can transfer once for free every 10 minutes.
@abit: maybe this is too much, but could you prepare a brief video in which you could present new functionality? All of us will have a better understanding of this feature.Pleasee....