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.
You need to have a white paper discussing the byzantine tolerance, the possible attack vectors, the mitigation, the game theory etc etc - then you will at least have something to direct people towards.Honestly, I agree with this.
You can check our transaction history to see how many people upgraded to LTM, and how many upgraded to AM. IMO AM is too long for an average Joe to consider, it's hard to sell.I'm not saying only bitcrab can do it. Let all LTMs or maybe AMs to be able to do it in an easier way. Give people some free money. Decentralize it. When a lot of people earn small money, the network will earn big money.EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.I think I don't want to change LTM nor AM as they are too sensitive, instead, I'd like to introduce monthly, weekly and even daily memberships. Maybe I'll set a bottom price for selling these memberships, and let registrar or whoever want to sell them decide how to sell and/or what price should they sell, to bring more competitions and not drive all the prices to zero.
So if this idea is too radical for you because it involves LTM, feel free to replace LTM with AM.
The main concept remains the same - let the registrars decide how much AM costs on their platform, in a similar way that they decide how much profit they share with referrers.
I'm afraid if we go below AM it defeats the purpose of my proposal.
If I understand it correctly, your proposal means that bitcrab would have to renew the memberships of his customers on a monthly, weekly and even daily basis.
That's a lot to work to manage all this stuff for all your customers. I guess he would not want to be bothered with that.
Unless I'm missing something?
So you suggest expanding the concept to all possible memberships?
Why not do AM and anything shorter than AM, and leave LTM untouched.
We don't really need the advanced features LTM offers, so AM (plus anything shorter) will do the job.
I'm not saying only bitcrab can do it. Let all LTMs or maybe AMs to be able to do it in an easier way. Give people some free money. Decentralize it. When a lot of people earn small money, the network will earn big money.EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.I think I don't want to change LTM nor AM as they are too sensitive, instead, I'd like to introduce monthly, weekly and even daily memberships. Maybe I'll set a bottom price for selling these memberships, and let registrar or whoever want to sell them decide how to sell and/or what price should they sell, to bring more competitions and not drive all the prices to zero.
So if this idea is too radical for you because it involves LTM, feel free to replace LTM with AM.
The main concept remains the same - let the registrars decide how much AM costs on their platform, in a similar way that they decide how much profit they share with referrers.
I'm afraid if we go below AM it defeats the purpose of my proposal.
If I understand it correctly, your proposal means that bitcrab would have to renew the memberships of his customers on a monthly, weekly and even daily basis.
That's a lot to work to manage all this stuff for all your customers. I guess he would not want to be bothered with that.
Unless I'm missing something?
EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.I think I don't want to change LTM nor AM as they are too sensitive, instead, I'd like to introduce monthly, weekly and even daily memberships. Maybe I'll set a bottom price for selling these memberships, and let registrar or whoever want to sell them decide how to sell and/or what price should they sell, to bring more competitions and not drive all the prices to zero.
So if this idea is too radical for you because it involves LTM, feel free to replace LTM with AM.
The main concept remains the same - let the registrars decide how much AM costs on their platform, in a similar way that they decide how much profit they share with referrers.
I feel that we don't need "active" witnesses to sign btc and/or in-bts-btc transactions, actually any witness_node can do that, they just need to broadcast transactions, active witnesses will then get them into blocks. So some random algorithm makes sense.TL;DR Don't know whether this be considered in the thread yet:
If we want to automatically have top 15 witnesses multi-sig the BTC wallet, we need to improve voting participation first, otherwise for example btc38 would be able to steal the fund easily.
Please look up and read my solution regarding choosing a random 15 of the delegates to be holders of a multisignature address. I think there's the possibility of 'revolution' type events where the top 15 could be voted out, and with them, the associated keys to the multisignature addresses.
We can leave LTM fee unchanged, let it be the key to advanced features.Hi, anyone noticed my comments above?
In the meanwhile, we give annual members more discount on basic features(it's currently 0% due to a bug), and give registrar a choice of how much they charge for it.
//Update: maybe we can provide more choices: not only annual membership, but also monthly, weekly even daily membership (for example for trials). When the users found that membership is good, they'll buy when needed.
Won't we upset our most loyal bts members who paid 100$ for them LTM ??This makes more sense for me.
Would it be possible to do something similar but with "annual members" ? So LTM still have a valued product that anybody is giving for free and they also keep having part of the fee produce by the annual members and the basics accounts below ?
I would be interested in seeing the reaction of some of our larger referral-dependent businesses, such as @ccedk .I admit that CCEDK contributed much to the ecosystem, and I appreciate that.
http://cryptofresh.com/a/ENDWARI have created a new prediction market http://cryptofresh.com/ENDWAR.
can't fight the asset
The first "up to" is added by me, the second is on https://bitshares.org/referral-program/. I mean the code is acting this way, which imo is wrong. A membership with "up to" 50% cashback won't worth 5000 BTS especially when most time it's 0%.The code is doing the "right" thing in this way:
"an annual subscriber will earn up to 50% cash back and qualify for up to 50% of the fees paid by anyone they refer", but the real number depends on the registrar who registered her (50% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 100%, 0% if referrer_rewards_percentage set to 0%).
Where did you get that quote? Does it really say "up to"? In that case the code would be correct indeed. Only the UI should display the exact percentages.
But it's always been my understanding that annual membership gives you exactly 50% cashback, in which case the code would be wrong.
Great.
We'll put together a list of some of the problems we would address near term, but one of the ones that stood out for me was the high data spamming across the websocket that was stressing mobile web browsers.
We are looking for more redundancy in the API servers that can be integrated into the default wallet. Currently we have bitshares.openledger.info and bitshares.dacplay.org. To prevent/minimize downtime in the event of a server failure we would like to see additional API servers available.In addition: need a SSL/TLS certificate so it can serve secure connections:
Also we would like to see additional faucets set up and running. The faucets have control over the referral program. We will integrate the faucet / API servers into the default light wallet client. This way the user can quickly and easily switch.
All that is required is a domain name and vetting by this community.
