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 - abit

Pages: 1 ... 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 [202] 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 ... 309
3016
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 08:01:45 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 04, 2016, 07:56:37 pm
Quote from: abit on February 04, 2016, 07:45:10 pm
Quote from: jakub on February 04, 2016, 07:36:59 pm
Quote from: abit on February 04, 2016, 07:25:44 pm
Quote from: jakub on February 03, 2016, 11:21:21 pm
EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.
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 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.

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?
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.

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.
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.

3017
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:45:10 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 04, 2016, 07:36:59 pm
Quote from: abit on February 04, 2016, 07:25:44 pm
Quote from: jakub on February 03, 2016, 11:21:21 pm
EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.
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 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.

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?
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.

3018
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 07:25:44 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 03, 2016, 11:21:21 pm
EDIT: as @abit and @EstefanTT have noticed, the same goal could be reached by using the Annual Membership (AM) instead of LTM.
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 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.

3019
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?
« on: February 04, 2016, 06:24:04 pm »
Quote from: complexring on February 04, 2016, 04:01:06 pm
Quote from: abit on February 04, 2016, 08:33:01 am
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.
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.

//Update:
With my "heart-beat" proposal, it's possible to identify which witness is alive.

However, with randomly selected witnesses, we can't not prevent an attacker from running thousands of witness_nodes so that increasing chance of having all keys. I think some kind of PoW based witness selecting may work.

3020
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 04:53:15 pm »
Quote from: abit on February 04, 2016, 04:33:14 pm
We can leave LTM fee unchanged, let it be the key to advanced features.

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.
Hi, anyone noticed my comments above?
I think short-term membership is more attractive and better for competitions .
Better if users can buy membership from any LTM's, but the seller are always need to split some to registrar/original referrer.
If the price not be driven to zero, all parties will happy.

//Update: I think it's OK to leave LTM and annual membership fees unchanged. Play with shorter period of memberships.

3021
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 04:33:14 pm »
Quote from: EstefanTT on February 04, 2016, 04:19:03 pm
Won't we upset our most loyal bts members who paid 100$ for them LTM ??

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 ?
This makes more sense for me.
We can leave LTM fee unchanged, let it be the key to advanced features.
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.

3022
General Discussion / Re: What if we let the registrars set the LTM price?
« on: February 04, 2016, 04:19:15 pm »
Quote from: donkeypong on February 04, 2016, 03:34:54 pm
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.
However, I think ccedk currently has unfair advantages when competing with other registrars, since it's the only one registrar listed on http://bitshares.org. Also BM recently suggested that we need more faucets integrated in wallet.
Competitions will make the ecosystem better, right?

Jakub's proposal is very interesting. Right now I don't know if it's good, I need to think more.

3023
General Discussion / Re: Is it possible for bitshares to become a sidechain of bitcoin?
« on: February 04, 2016, 08:33:01 am »
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.

3024
General Discussion / Re: First USD backed prediction market
« on: February 03, 2016, 07:28:48 pm »
Quote from: Akado on February 03, 2016, 07:27:29 pm
Quote from: sports-owner on February 03, 2016, 07:23:47 pm
I have created a new prediction market http://cryptofresh.com/ENDWAR. 


can't fight the asset
http://cryptofresh.com/a/ENDWAR

3025
Technical Support / Re: Anyone else have Annual Membership small fees don't show at all
« on: February 03, 2016, 07:02:32 pm »
Quote from: pc on February 03, 2016, 05:49:18 pm
Quote from: abit on February 03, 2016, 12:40:13 am
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.
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%.

3026
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:56:42 pm »
Quote from: dannotestein on February 03, 2016, 04:17:21 pm

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.
Great.

3027
General Discussion / Re: API Servers for Wallet
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:02:49 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 03, 2016, 03:21:09 pm
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.

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.
In addition: need a SSL/TLS certificate so it can serve secure connections:
need to use wss://youdomain.com/ws but not ws://youdomain.com/ws.

We've ever had 3 more API servers, but all of them don't support secure connections, so at the end we can't use them.

3028
General Discussion / Re: [DAC] Possible financial focus for the next few months
« on: February 03, 2016, 05:17:08 pm »
@Bhuz One concern about the built-in referral program is about how new business benefit from existed user bases, and share benefits to whom brought in those existed users, and how businesses share benefits with other businesses built on top of the same platform.

3029
Technical Support / Re: Blocks Missed
« on: February 03, 2016, 04:04:38 pm »
Quote from: bitacer on February 03, 2016, 04:01:51 pm

Yes, the "missed blocks". They are historical data. It indicates that something have happened before.

3030
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 03, 2016, 03:28:10 pm »
Here I quoted some discussions on Telegram channels which happened yesterday:
Quote
(someone)   EMERGENCY FIX! ALL WITNESSES PLEASE UPGRADE TO LATEST bitshares BRANCH ASAP!

(witness1)   building now
(witness2)   Building
(witness3)   Building
(witness4)   I'll be building in a few minutes
(witness5)  building
...
...
...
(someone)
GUYS
so sorry... BM just told me that this is a false alarm..

(someone)
the one liner change is .... i am not sure if the witnesses understand the code involved since they are not a dev. nevertheless, it is important to verify before broadcasting to the rest which may cause an unnecessary alarm.

(Dan Notestein)
in this case, Eric and I took a look at the line in question and realized it didn't do anything, then contacted BM (the author) to see if he agreed (it didn't do anything cause the same check was already included about 10 lines up). He agreed and the update was cancelled.
So there is review of the changes, but it should have had more review before such a hard fork announcement was made, IMO.


Pages: 1 ... 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 [202] 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 ... 309

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 21 queries.