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.
It settles $10k short positions from the bottom collateral level. Buy orders never be matched.
Well there is no reason it shouldn't it shouldn't take any buy ordrers that are above the feed price first is there?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wS1MU8AsmNbUpaXzZid0JSWjQ/view?usp=sharing (98M)Thanks for the analysis. Would you like to provide a summary of the analysis here? It's a bit hard to download a 98M file or open it in Google Sheets.
Based on some descriptive analysis, I think 0.05% / 1 Min / 300 Max is reasonable numbers.
I think percentage based fee can satisfy both sides (micropayment vs. network profit/referral system). So I would suggest like,
1 BTS (lower than the current) / 100 BTS (higher than the current) / 0.1% (These are just my rough hypothetical numbers)
I do not understand why you set cap to 100 BTS, which means each time one transfer more than 100k BTS will pay 100BTS, about $0.3
in my view the cap should be close or a little above 0.0001 BTC, that's why I prefer 20 BTS.
it will be funny if the BTS transfer be more expensive than inter-Bank CNY transfer.
We are inching closer to the launch of gamebet.gg and we have very strong incentives to integrate Bitshares into it.
The PM has been something I've been looking into for a while , but maknig it appealing to gamers in general is another ball game together.
We emphasize a lot on developers but in all honesty, from my observation..
1. A lot of key projects are centered around a few companies (Data, CCEDK, CNX.. and there's us somewhere in the corner)
2. There is very little incentive (other than the product) for new organizations to enter this space. We need to make it more welcoming.
3. Documentation will help but grabbing developer attention is another ball game. Why don't we host a 10,000 USD hackathon ? I'd donate a little for that.
4. We need a team of devoted business developers working with media and vc's to show why Bitshares is a useful / viable entity.
5. As CNX moves away from Bitshares, we need to make more avenues for new leaders to lead the way. These leaders should have opposing views so that the community can make the best of choices.
To put what am saying in perspective..
Compare
1. No. of daily tx's of nxt/btc with Bts
2. Amount of VC investments into BTC vs BTS on year 3
3. Amount of discussions about BTC vs BTS
We are nowhere in the limelight. How the fuck do we expect people to know about us when all we do is sit here and discuss worker proposals ?
If there is utility, it needs to be marketed. The sharebot was one step in that direction. What @kenCode and @ronny are doing is another.
In my personal opinion, businesses shouldn't depend on worker proposals to build services of utlity but create viable business models that generate a ROI over a period of time. The worker proposal system reminds me of the soviet union and you know where they ended up at.
If an attack happens, you first can decrease CER to discourage the attacker. But if the attack lasts or you cannot detect the attack early, your fee pool will be 0, and users cannot make transaction unless they have BTS. So my point is (1) fee pool balance = maximum damage you potentially get. (2) You can stop the attack by decreasing CER. (3) If attack lasts you can suspend your service by maintaining fee pool 0.
The problem is DDOSing the exchange then becomes completely trivial; abuse the system for spam, forcing the CER to adjust to freeze the service.
@monsterer
I think you can handle the attacking problem by changing CER. You may want to set CER very high so users don't pay any UIAs as a fee, while you pay the fee via fee pool.
If an exploiter begins attack, you can decrease the CER and he/she will has to pay fees for the attack. And you can limit your damage by not putting enormous amount of BTS in the fee pool (if fee pool is 0, people have to pay fees in BTS)
How can users possibly send a transaction without using the fee pool? They won't have any BTS, since they are totally unaware that they are using bitshares at all - to them, it just appears like a centralised exchange.
Imo, 100% collateral easily causes fractional collateral (the ratio below 1.0), and has no big difference with IOUs.Still the question is how can we create a BitAsset that requires only 100% collateral from the short side?
That way a bridge can accept LTC and credit BitLTC & vice versa.
explain further?
A centralized exchange accepts real LTC and credits you with an LTC IOU.
We need a bridge like Metaexchange to be able to accept real LTC and credit people with BitLTC for a very low cost, then we can replicate the services of a centralized exchange.
I was under the impression that in addition to market makers, this would be easier if there was a lower collateral requirement to create BitAssets but I might be confused
@monsterer @Shentist
@kuro112 @hybridd, @Xypher
@dannotestein
thoughts?
what is the financial incentive for an organization doing this ?
good question. more volume?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21032.0.html
Thanks! That did it.
