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 - pc

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 102
406
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 16, 2017, 08:12:53 pm »
Look, I don't claim that what I'm saying is The Truth (tm). Whatever that is. There may not be a single truth.

Why don't you create a smartcoin with MCR=MSSR=1.75 and see what happens?

407
Openledger / Re: BitShares Lost my eth
« on: July 16, 2017, 08:10:09 pm »
Indeed, https://etherscan.io/address/0x00829fb28d977aa3d5cdd9942faf61ebd16f4ffa does not show any matching transactions around that time.

If OpenLedger support claims that they sent the funds they should be able to prove that they did. I. e. they should come up with the tx id of their payout. If they don't it means they still owe you the money. IMO.

408
Technical Support / Re: broadcast_fail
« on: July 16, 2017, 08:21:54 am »
Quote from: coguar2 on July 16, 2017, 06:16:22 am
In the program it was written that they can withdraw the commission directly from SBD (which would be logical and convenient). But no.

There's a pool of BTS available for fees paid in SBD, but it seems to be empty.

409
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 16, 2017, 06:54:18 am »
Quote from: yvv on July 15, 2017, 09:50:44 pm
Quote from: pc on July 15, 2017, 09:04:11 pm
If you put a large order on the market all at once you will move the price a lot.

You will move the price to maximum of call_price*MCR, and this limit will be reached only in shallow markets, where price moves all the time by a lot anyway.  What is a problem with this?

This could trigger a panic reaction from other market participants, and once the price moves beyond call_price*MCR you have a black swan.

Quote from: yvv on July 15, 2017, 09:50:44 pm

Quote
If you spread the same amount over a longer period you are less likely to affect the price.

MSSR does not solve this issue. It moves the price the same way up to the short squeeze price, which in current set up is lower than collateral actually allows, which does not make sense to me.

Yes, it moves the price up to the short squeeze price. This is less likely to trigger a panic reaction and might even be seen as an opportunity by others.

410
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:04:11 pm »
If you put a large order on the market all at once you will move the price a lot.
If you spread the same amount over a longer period you are less likely to affect the price.

411
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 15, 2017, 06:36:53 pm »
Quote from: yvv on July 15, 2017, 02:14:07 pm
A maximum price at which a margin call can buy back a debt is naturally limited by the amount of collateral. Just go ahead and buy all the way up to call_price*MCR. Let the bad shorter pay his price. By putting a limit on buy back price lower than call_price*MCR, we just increase a chance of black swan.

If you buy too much too quickly there is the danger that the available collateral will be used up before the debt can be covered, which actually increases the chance of a black swan. A balance needs to be found there, which is certainly difficult.

412
Openledger / Re: BitShares Lost my eth
« on: July 15, 2017, 01:52:34 pm »
If you want help you must provide more detail, otherwise everything we can say here is pure speculation.
Give us accounts, transaction IDs, ETH addresses and everything else that is required to pinpoint the problem.

413
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Re: Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 15, 2017, 01:49:06 pm »
Quote from: yvv on July 15, 2017, 12:29:53 pm
Everything is vise versa actually. MSSR protects the owner of short position, since it puts a limit on a price at which the borrowed asset is bought back when margin call is triggered. For the trader this limit is not good, because it does not allow to sell at better price.

Well, that depends on the direction from which you're looking at it. :-)

The fact that the blockchain will buy above the market price is an incentive to both, like I described. The fact that there is a *maximum* at which the blockchain will buy protects the shorter and limits the effect on the trader, like you said.

Because it is difficult to find a balance there, the MSSR is not hardcoded but part of the price feed data, and can thus be set by the feeders.

Quote from: yvv on July 15, 2017, 12:36:23 pm
Also, settlement price and feed price are two different prices for some bitAssets due to settlement offset.

That depends on what you call "settlement price". In the code, the term is used both ways.
I left the settlement offset out of the example because I wanted to keep it simple.

414
Beyond Bitcoin [closed] / Followup to yesterday's hangout
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:01:36 am »
Like I promised, I posted an example about margin calls on steemit: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cyrano/how-bitshares-protects-mpas-using-margin-calls

415
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [worker proposal] 201707-bsip18: Worker has been created as "1.14.56"
« on: July 15, 2017, 08:16:27 am »
I'm in! Thanks everybody! :-)

416
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: fav - Journal
« on: July 14, 2017, 07:47:49 pm »
Thanks!

417
General Discussion / Re: [Translated] How to make one of my 2 assets only buyable with the other one?
« on: July 14, 2017, 04:34:05 pm »
You can whitelist or blacklist markets for your asset. In your case, you'd have to add LZKJF to the whitelist of LZKGF.

But this way you cannot prevent that people trade or otherwise exchange LZKGF off-chain.

Edit: try it on testnet first: http://testnet.bitshares.eu/

418
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: July 14, 2017, 06:04:16 am »
Quote from: 麥可貓 on July 14, 2017, 03:05:22 am
Who is going to pay to make the settlement fund BACK reach the minimum required collateral? Because it should not be the responsibility of every bts holders to rescue a specific bad MPA. The exchange sould not rescue a bad asset, they should let bad assets die out and good assets survive.

I fully agree with that. The proposed mechanism does not *force* anybody to pay for the revival.

Quote from: 麥可貓 on July 14, 2017, 03:05:22 am
Or else, is this proposal really going to cover the above issue or just to provide a methodology (and leave this issue to be determined case by case)? This could be better IMO. I mean, each case could differ vastly. For example, if one MPA has vary little trading volume, I prefer to stop this MPA, restart a new one after coming up with a better plan.

Exactly. I see three main use cases for the mechanism:

1. When the price of BACK recovers sufficiently, no additional collateral is required and the asset is revived automatically. I believe this would be applicable to the black swans we had in the early days of BTS-2.0, i. e. SEK and RUB.
2. The creator of an MPA may be interested in keeping his asset alive, and might be willing to add the required collateral, possibly after reviewing his price feed policy and MCR. Candidates for this might be GRC (GridCoin) and some of the formula-based assets that are being discussed here in the forum.
3. When BACK recovers to a point above the nominal value of SWAN, but is still below MCR, an investor who is bullish on BACK may be willing to pay additional collateral, hoping to make a profit if BACK rises even higher.

419
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP-18: How to easily revive a BitAsset after Black Swan - read for comment
« on: July 13, 2017, 06:22:04 pm »
Quote from: 麥可貓 on July 13, 2017, 06:02:32 pm
Setup a backup pool to act as collateral to rescue those not-sufficiently backed MPA out.

Yes, that's a good simplified summary. :-)

420
Technical Support / Re: witness_node.exe keeps crashing
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:57:29 pm »
The chain stopped a couple of days ago, after all nodes crashed. You must upgrade to the latest release: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/releases/tag/2.0.170710

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 102

Page created in 0.179 seconds with 20 queries.