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.
for Bitshares endorsing other cryptos. That is good and cheap marketing for both sides!
http://imgur.com/g3xNdXhDoes anyone else see a different screen resolution (or font?) for bitsharestalk?
could you provide a screenshot pls?
At this point no one but PeerTracks knows enough about the MUSE chain to start basing any sort of business on it.
That is correct. Our goal is to prove that by using MUSE, all rights holders are paid instantly and automatically. Which reduces the need for a ton of middlemen, including legacy banking.
Once that works for PeerTracks, it won't take long for other to notice and start using MUSE. PeerTracks could even offer to help with setting that up as a service.
I like that vision! Maybe that is the niche (at the moment) that will grow into a new way of doing (blockchain based) business with less need for government interference. The music industry would be a prime example to showcase that. In the end the competitive advantage a blockchain brings are smart contracts (in a broad sense, not necessarily requiring a scripting environment) and automation and the reduction of counterparty risk / middlemen necessities that go along with them.
Less new coins released to miners -> less coins need to be sold by miners to pay electricity bills?You mean BTC could instantly reduce its cost to 0 thereby instantly become DEAD.
BTC doesn't work without mining, and nobody is going to mine without the financial incentive. IMO BTC will have a hard time after the reward halving next year.
They could instantly reduce their costs to 0 by copying DPOS.
Ah, then I misunderstood you. I thought you meant they could reduce their cost to zero by scrapping the block reward.
Bitcoin copying DPOS is unrealistic. They can't even agree on a minor issue like increasing their blocksize.Im curious why you think the reward halving will give them a hard time. I think it will bump Bitcoin back to $1000.
When the block reward halves, mining will instantly stop being economically viable for most of today's miners. Meaning the hashrate will drop seriously. Experience with certain altcoins (MMC2, PTS) shows that this can lead to a wildly oscillating difficulty, which makes the coin unusable.
Even if the difficulty adjustment happens smoothly, the reduced hashrate means that BTC becomes more vulnerable to a 51% attack, especially in view of the existing but unused mining hardware.
Also, I see no reason why the halving should lead to higher BTC prices. The reduced dilution does not alter the know hard cap of 21MBTC. Anyone who is betting on BTC will buy before the halving.
I see your argument. It is part of this post: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17721.msg226010.html#msg226010Having different fees for different types of tx and % based fees must not be a contradiction. What is your specific argument against % based fees?You can't justify them .. the amount is represented as an integer with 64 bits ... all those bits have to be stored on the blockchain .. independent of the ACTUAL amount ...
I can see that there is an economical reason to do so though .. there's just no technical one ..
Thanks so much arhag for your awesome contribution!a humble little wonder he is
Having different fees for different types of tx and % based fees must not be a contradiction. What is your specific argument against % based fees?By what other means than tx fees can the DAC make money?- market orders and trades
- bonds
- different fees for public and blinded transactions
in the end .. everything you do in bitshares is a transaction .. but you can tie different fees to each of them .. and most are independent of the AMOUNT, some are dependent of the SIZE .. none are in % ... all can be defined by 'delegates' in bts2
By what other means than tx fees can the DAC make money?A fixed % and a min fee would produce very high (too high to compete) total fees for high volume tx.I still dont see the point why it should technically cost more to transfer $1M than it costs to transfer $1 .. both are just unsigned integers and have the same technical cost in terms of processing and storage .. You can't justify this except for "making a bigger profit" for the DAC .. and I think there are better ways to may more profit than that .. IMHO
how come there are days that my client doesn't respond to anything and other days is working just fine? what determines how well my client is working? some days it just absorbs all my memory and other days not. I am unhappy when I want to trade and I can'tI would BACKUP (not only not delete) the wallet file and the password to access the wallet and then freshly install Bitshares..
Also should I get worried with what I mentioned about voting delegates? That voting or not doesn't make any difference?
Any other idea how to make my client work again? Should I keep deleting the files (other than wallet and chain) and try again and again until it works or there is a better way?
Am I the only one with no working client or everyone else is trading externally really?
Good point with the exceptions!QuoteResource-wise, a $2 transaction costs the same as a $1 transaction. So the current fee model is the most accurate.What does "accurate" mean? There are two ways to approach this:
1. Tie tx fees to the network's actual costs.
2. Tie tx fees to perceived value of making the respective tx.
You have to ask why you would choose which approach.QuoteAlso, I don't want to pay 100x the fees for sending $100 as opposed to $1.This makes sense from a customer's perspective. It doesn't make much sense form a business perspective. Any business, also Bitshares has to be as profitable as possible and you do that most efficiently by making the following ratio is as positive as possible: money made per customer interaction / degree to which the fee/price bothers the customer. The latter also has to include how likely it is that the respective customer will use some competing business, so at best you are as expensive as possible but as cheap as necessary to not drive people away from your business respectively to give them enough of an incentive to change from a competitor to you. The outcome of this equation might be that fees don't actually rise much if you transfer a lot of value because competitors out there (other crypto currencies) offer lower fees and high volume customers are valuable for your (exchange) business otherwise. But looking at it this way makes a lot of sense in general if you want to survive as a (decentralized) company. Money made from optimizing this equation then can be invested into your infrastructure (bitshares' workers for example).
Yeah, you're right.. it's about competition and perception. And it may work quite well for market orders.
But the sliding % scale sounds confusing.. wouldn't it be better to have a fixed % and a min fee? Or a tiered cost structure.
I still think for basic transfers, competition will soon drive the price very close to the true cost.
Also, in these cases it will not be possible:
- UIA's of unknown value (so it would only work for liquid, tradeable assets)
- Confidential tx's which hide the amount
Resource-wise, a $2 transaction costs the same as a $1 transaction. So the current fee model is the most accurate.What does "accurate" mean? There are two ways to approach this:
Also, I don't want to pay 100x the fees for sending $100 as opposed to $1.This makes sense from a customer's perspective. It doesn't make much sense form a business perspective. Any business, also Bitshares has to be as profitable as possible and you do that most efficiently by making the following ratio is as positive as possible: money made per customer interaction / degree to which the fee/price bothers the customer. The latter also has to include how likely it is that the respective customer will use some competing business, so at best you are as expensive as possible but as cheap as necessary to not drive people away from your business respectively to give them enough of an incentive to change from a competitor to you. The outcome of this equation might be that fees don't actually rise much if you transfer a lot of value because competitors out there (other crypto currencies) offer lower fees and high volume customers are valuable for your (exchange) business otherwise. But looking at it this way makes a lot of sense in general if you want to survive as a (decentralized) company. Money made from optimizing this equation then can be invested into your infrastructure (bitshares' workers for example).
