46
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum price discussion
« on: October 29, 2015, 03:48:13 pm »
Apparently, etheruem seems find a real usecase.
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.
Thanks for the warm welcome everyone!thanks for explaining. I have several question.Welcome David. Your website looks very nice and the project sounds very intriguing. Would you mind explaining a little bit about the governance architecture of IOTA please? How trust in the system established and maintained?
Thanks for the kinds words.
For sure, so in IOTA there is no mining and there are no fees, instead transactions are confirmed by very lightweight PoW which is established by an unique alloy of techniques whose combination gives an unprecedented result. If you have read the whitepaper you will get a better idea. The details are quite challenging to explain in layman terms. But if you are an experienced programmer it will be easier to grasp. In short: Iota client doesn't need to order transactions, it doesn't need to track balances, it doesn't need to validate transactions most of time except lightning-fast verification of a PoW token.
If you have any specific technical questions we'll try to answer them as clear as possible
Sorry. I do not understand the idea that burn for the network. If one can not get the USD generated by one's burn, will there be decent abount of USD created by this burn?I proposed exactly this earlier. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19338.0.html That may have been what you read. I don't know if the blockchain itself could provide liquidity, but maybe it could work in some form... or perhaps even a worker proposal to provide liquidity services. IMO liquidity is the missing link to boostrap internal markets. Much more so than the debate over fees.
Yes I believe I saw it there!Rent USD will always lead to lack of USD. There will be no liquidity.
Burn is a good idea, but it is hard to control amount of USD. This will lead too much USD in the market and hard to realise pegging.
And people can just burn bts to get USD, and no need to sell bts for USD. So how can you buy bts,.when nobody sell.
Even if it is too much bitUSD in the market with what I proposed they would only be able to be bought at feed price. And once bought, if the person wants to sell it, would probably do it above the feed for a small profit.
As for people burning BTS and get USD for themselves, that I do not agree. The concept of burning is to benefit the network. If that would happen people would just burn BTS, get USD and wouldn't short with a higher collateral of BTS.
My definition of burning assumes when you do, you get nothing in exchange other than reducing the supply of an asset. However with this you would do it and create bitUSD for the market. You wouldn't get the bitUSD for yourself. If you did you would not be burning unless you would burn 2 times what a bitUSD is worth of BTS.
High fees mean that BTS will not be used for certain high-volume, low-value transfers... aka: micro-payments.
To compare the difference between high-fees and low-fees simply compare the number of transfers on BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0. We don't have enough data yet to do a meaningful comparison, but it would be a good start.
I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.
The question isn't "what does it cost", but "what is the value provided".
The fees are only high for non-lifetime members. The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.
So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.
This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.
Low fee maybe will not attract new users.In the first half of the year, I think we have to lower the charges, to get more customers
The level of fees is not the key
In the past year, our fees are very low, only 0.1bts, but we do not have the user
my good friend, According to your point of view
Should we be further reduced to 0.001bts? LoL:
It is naive and extremely wrong to attract the user's opinion by reducing the fees. [emoji14] [emoji14] [emoji14]
I feel 1 usd fee not expensive if the order filled.Lets assume you are a trader on BitShares and plan on updating your order often, so become a lifetime member. The cost to place an order is 2 BTS or $0.01.
20k BTS for lifetime member is also a cost. Why don't we think about a normal user who is not a lifetime member?
I have paid more than $100 in fees to BitStamp and am a "normal" user. Paying a lifetime membership fee makes sense and is still cheaper than paying regular exchange fees. If I were an active trader on BitStamp my regular fees would be an order of magnitude higher than a lifetime member. So I think it is safe to assume that anyone who will trade so much that the fees matter it is worth it to become lifetime members. Everyone else it is still cheaper at the full rate.
It is all psychological.