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 - Empirical1.1

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
766
General Discussion / Re: Back the BTSX with physical gold
« on: September 28, 2014, 01:48:25 pm »
@ JohnC You do get $1 out with BitUSD. It's essentially a trade where if BTSX falls vs. a $, the people who are short BitUSD take a hit and if BTSX improves vs. a dollar they're in the green but the benefit to you is that your BitUSD is redeemable for close to a dollars worth of value all the time.

As for having the gold backed by a centralised entity that's a step backwards because then you just have to target the centralised entity to destroy the system.

You can already buy gold that's backed, registered in your name and stored in jurisdictions like Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. There is a value in that. But Switzerland has been increasingly forced to give up on info on US citizens in particular, it's own currency is weaker as it's backed by less gold than it used to be, to avoid it being a safe haven. Right now in the centre of Hong Kong tear gas is being fired on protestors so who knows all might not be stable there.

BitGold is about storing the value of gold in a decentralised private way and getting the different set of advantages that decentralisation brings. Like the BitUSD trade above, holders of BitGold get to maintain the value of gold while shorts get increased exposure to the price of BtSX.

Once BitGold is stable, I imagine some third party vaults may interact with it at some stage and let you exchange BitGold for real gold and vice versa, which will be nice but you certainly don't want it backed by them.

767
General Discussion / Re: Different fees for different short holding periods
« on: September 27, 2014, 02:23:43 pm »
Quote from: liondani on September 27, 2014, 01:20:33 pm
keep it please as simple as possible.
No more rules please...
If possible remove some rules when we are ready to do it!

Rules like this theoretical will work but practical will not!
Traders are no bots (machines). I want to trade without needing to read a 10 page wiki (I don't want to read a single page)


NO RULES       PLEASE



PS adding more rules you will get you more liquidity from traders that choose to stay on our exchange (only our community members) BUT you will loose more liquidity from the traders they will stop trading (due your added/"advanced" rules) and because many potential future traders will never step up when they smell  complexity....

I felt the same way but I think the actual buying and selling of BitAssets is being made very simple. Very soon it will seem no different than buying and selling on bter for example. (Though I'd like to see the current yield expressed as an annual percentage and displayed clearly)

Shorting something however is different/advanced and is on an advanced screen so I don't mind if they add some rules that are clearly explained. There are no shortage of people wanting to short so I don't think it's a big problem if they add a few rules myself as long as the normal buying and selling screens are super simple.

768
General Discussion / Re: Different fees for different short holding periods
« on: September 27, 2014, 01:48:44 am »
I think I'm in favour of long term shorts, people who want to hold longer than a month competing via fees/interest rate they're willing to pay after a certain max collateral is reached.

Something like the bidding system here maybe, 

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9364.0

Quote
The interest rate acts as the price. The trades are conducted using the "price" and time as the two major factors.
Price at transaction: The offers provided by the borrowing party with a higher price take precedence over those with a lower price.
Time: When the two parties have the same offered price, the bids put in first take precedence over those offered later. The transactions will follow chronological order going from those submitted first to last. 

This lets people be long term shorts without punishing market makers and raises funds to add to BitYield.

(There should be lots of churn because people will offer high interest rates and max collateral to get the short and then just cover within a month to avoid the interest rate and if they don't BitYield wins and more BitAsset creation is incentivised.)




769
General Discussion / Re: An open letter to Tonyk
« on: September 26, 2014, 06:13:12 pm »
There are probably less than 100 forum members not on the main team that understand BitShares & BTSX well and take the time to engage on the forum and explain it to others. There are much less than that (20?) who also have a decent background in markets and trading. Those people are forum gems for BTSX in particular imo.

Unfortunately I'm not part of the second group but Tonyk is & he's one of the very few people that takes the time to help others. I often see him sending people BTSX to register & helping in the stupid question thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8390.0
Including assisting me & I wanted to tip him but he asked me to send it to Xeroc for the community development program. Even taking into account that he sometimes comes across as abrasive/sarcastic/arrogant, I would easily put him in the top 10 most valuable BitShares forum members myself. It would be a great loss if this thread discouraged one of the few BitAsset knowledgeable, active and helpful people on the forum.






770
General Discussion / Re: Who let the DOGEs Out?
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:12:42 pm »
GoCoin processes Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin and GoCoin is part of PayPal announcement.
So PayPal announcement is good for Dogecoin was my understanding

771
General Discussion / Re: How committed is the community to bitsharesX as opposed to the next "DAC"?
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:59:04 pm »
Quote from: fussyhands on September 26, 2014, 01:48:54 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 26, 2014, 01:20:27 pm
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.

It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling.

It's pulling away in terms of adoption and therefore usefulness.  Not altcoins are making significant progress in adoption, but Bitcoin has important new announcements every week.  (The entire crypto space is currently down, lead by Bitcoin's decline price decline.)

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 26, 2014, 01:20:27 pm
Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.

I doubt that PayPal is going to add support for 5 different cryptocurrencies.  Adding even 1 more is probably well more than a few months away.  No altcoins are making significant strides in mainstream adoption.  Bitcoin widens the gap everyday.

PayPal has said it's working with 3 processors. BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin.

GoCoin already processes Bitcoin, LiteCoin & Dogecoin. (1,2 & 5 on CMC) Considering we're no.4, well really no.3 if you discount Ripple's re-jig last month, it's very likely GoCoin will consider BTSX & BitAssets soon enough if they wanted to go that route.

772
General Discussion / Re: How committed is the community to bitsharesX as opposed to the next "DAC"?
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:54:50 pm »
Quote from: fussyhands on September 26, 2014, 01:27:34 pm
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 26, 2014, 01:17:00 pm
If you support bitcoin fine. Keep supporting it but as long as the peg is proved to work (which i am 98% certain it will work with all the bots trading) why not invest your bitcoins to bitbtc and earn interest? A small % of your bitcoins changed for bitbitcoins I think will convince you, and if not you can withdraw back to real bitcoin any time you feel like..

What interest rate can I earn?

I guess it depends on whether the interest rate seems commensurable with the possibility that the peg fails.  If the peg fails bitBTC could easily become worthless.  The peg is still experimental...

That's a good question. I don't know. I think the current yield expressed as an annual interest rate should be well known to everyone and I think it should be maximised to encourage the most BitAsset demand possible.

I also think there's a trade where you short a BitAsset and go long to maximise your interest which should be advertised to maximise BitAsset creation too. I would also be in favour of all BTSX currently burned being directed to BitAsset yield too to help bootstrap/encourage BitAsset owbership as I think that's most important for BTSX short term.

Either way with the amount of collateral backing it, a tight peg, and even just a bit of yield, whatever approach they take, BitAssets are a game changer. In a few months they'll have a track record too, but if you can anticipate that outcome now you can profit even more.

773
General Discussion / Re: How committed is the community to bitsharesX as opposed to the next "DAC"?
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:20:27 pm »
Quote from: fussyhands on September 26, 2014, 01:09:43 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on September 26, 2014, 12:43:33 pm
I'm well aware of the importance of network effects.  I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is.  Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it.  It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect.  I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."

Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday.  The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing.  Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects.  Adoption is driven by usefullness.  BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption.  Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.

Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution.  Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.

If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.

(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)

Because of centralisation of mining via pools, Bitcoin can be crashed in a heartbeat by getting to two people. Far from being decentralised its incredibly vulnerable, probably more so than most banks. It's also slow and expensive (inflation)

I have no doubt that Bitcoin will be replaced in the medium term. It's unique selling point was that it solved the disadvantages of centralisation and was private. In practice it's very bad at both for most.
It's not pulling away from the competition either despite global exposure and massive investment this year it's down and struggling. Also a 5 billion valuation is nothing these days. It's very vulnerable.
Bitcoin will be replaced by something decebtralised, private and less volatile. Even better if you can store and transfer the value of traditional mediums of exchange in a decentralised private way like BitAssets do.

However  if there was a sudden financial event it might benefit the most, so I hold some Bitcoin circa 18%. (Also despite the downtrend and volatility if you're staying in crypto it's more stable than most other choices if you don't want to follow them 24/7.)

Atm BTSX isn't a competitor as it's still new and in rapid development and is currently more CPOS than DPOS. + I guess they need the same merchant, PayPal type access as Bitcoin. But in general they're developing so fast that it's a few months away from changing everything.

Also who can compete with Daniel & Co?


774
General Discussion / Re: Proposal - Significant Enhancement to Market Engine
« on: September 26, 2014, 07:38:31 am »
Great job. Really like the new system and the GUI - graphs, advanced mode and the way you enter shorts with collateral. It looks good and all seems much easier to use than the last time I tried trading a few weeks ago.

Will market makers not struggle to compete with long term shorts on collateral though?

What if there was a max collateral & after that you competed on fee per BTSX you were willing to pay to short, but that fee would only be deducted if you hadn't covered within a week/month.

I think something like this would actually benefit market makers as well as increase yield for BitAssets?

775
General Discussion / Re: Do we need a BitPay?
« on: September 25, 2014, 05:17:01 pm »
Quote from: matt608 on September 25, 2014, 03:14:01 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 25, 2014, 02:44:00 pm
Looking at Dogecoin's gains in the last few days you can definitely see the perceived market value of greater merchant utility.

I think PayPal is working the three main payment processors, BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin.

GoCoin also processes LiteCoin and Dogecoin payment. So the PayPal news has been a big boost for DogeCoin as it brings Dogecoin payments to PayPal merchants.

Approaching GoCoin may have some merit?

Gocoin is one of the exchanges I contacted yesterday:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8384.msg120269#msg120269

 +5% Cool. Gocoin already does 1,2 & 5 on CMC so I would imagine they're aware of BTSX.

Of course Gocoin makes their money by charging 1% & given tight retail margins and how quickly BitUSD transactions are processed and that it holds the value of the dollar, it's likely in the near future many merchants will just bypass these processors, though the fact they facilitate payments into bank accounts could still be useful for merchants.
 

776
General Discussion / Re: yield on bitAssets not enough?
« on: September 25, 2014, 04:59:08 pm »
Quote from: kisa0145 on September 25, 2014, 04:34:43 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 25, 2014, 02:31:09 pm
Quote from: kisa0145 on September 25, 2014, 12:38:23 pm
Wrt. diversification I have to disagree as bitAssets don't offer systematic diversification away from BTSX, while BTSX has superior risk/return characteristics...

Yes but there will probably be some profit taking that stays within BTSX. Rather than pay to convert BTSX at an exchange and then pay again to convert to fiat and then incur all the fees I listed above regards moving into silver, I'll find it much more worthwhile to go long BitSLV with some of my profit taking even though it will still have BTSX failure risk.

Not that I've actually properly shorted in practice yet, but in theory I should also be able to say short BitUSD with some of my BTSX while going long say BitSLV with another portion and keep the same overall exposure to BTSX at a time like this when I think the chance of BTSX falling a lot from this CAP is low.

Thanks Empirical appreciate your thoughts! The question I was pointing out to was that the guy who sells you bitSLV most likely BTSX bull and not rushing to cover. So when you decide to sell your bitSLV you need another willing buyer or you create downward pressure on bitSLV peg. Also an arbitrageur who might buy off you slightly below the peg will need a willing buyer closer to the peg. So I am just contemplating, if 5-10% yield will attract enough buyers at any time to ensure mkt depth and liquidity, given that there is likely to be strong interest in max shorting bitAssets. Hopefully as BM said there are enough diverse reasons apart from return for investing into bitSLV... or otherwise, at initial stage at least, shorts might need to share more of their profits with the longs...

My understanding is in the new version this won't be a problem as it makes it very attractive to market makers. (The previous version made shorts compete on fees, so market making was not profitable, however the new one makes them compete on collateral.) So there will be many people willing to sell me BitSLV by shorting at 1-1 and then many of those people will be eager to cover if I am willing to sell it at less than 1-1 so that they have the opportunity to short again and compound their returns. (Probably using bots) So I think there will be a lot of liquidity and a tight peg in the new system.

The question is how many people will want like me to buy BitSLV at 1-1 in the beginning and in so doing increase the total amount of BitAssets in circulation. We'll have to see if a lot of collateral and a tight peg is enough to attract demand.

As you mentioned there are another group of people that short but that aren't looking to cover quickly, those are the people that would still be happy to compete on fees and then we could use those fees for yield that could attract more BitAsset demand. So I would like to see that opportunity captured some way.

777
General Discussion / Re: Do we need a BitPay?
« on: September 25, 2014, 02:44:00 pm »
Looking at Dogecoin's gains in the last few days you can definitely see the perceived market value of greater merchant utility.

I think PayPal is working the three main payment processors, BitPay, Coinbase and GoCoin.

GoCoin also processes LiteCoin and Dogecoin payment. So the PayPal news has been a big boost for DogeCoin as it brings Dogecoin payments to PayPal merchants.

Approaching GoCoin may have some merit?

778
General Discussion / Re: yield on bitAssets not enough?
« on: September 25, 2014, 02:31:09 pm »
Quote from: kisa0145 on September 25, 2014, 12:38:23 pm
Wrt. diversification I have to disagree as bitAssets don't offer systematic diversification away from BTSX, while BTSX has superior risk/return characteristics...

Yes but there will probably be some profit taking that stays within BTSX. Rather than pay to convert BTSX at an exchange and then pay again to convert to fiat and then incur all the fees I listed above regards moving into silver, I'll find it much more worthwhile to go long BitSLV with some of my profit taking even though it will still have BTSX failure risk.

Not that I've actually properly shorted in practice yet, but in theory I should also be able to say short BitUSD with some of my BTSX while going long say BitSLV with another portion and keep the same overall exposure to BTSX at a time like this when I think the chance of BTSX falling a lot from this CAP is low.

779
General Discussion / Re: Ripple Deal
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:22:27 am »
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 25, 2014, 07:34:58 am
Can someone please explain me why ripple as a currency XRP will ever get appreciated, since if all the banks are using it no one will ever keep XRP as investment but rather as a mean of transfer the currencies they want?
I may have got this wrong so would like to proved wrong

Their fees which are destroyed are negligible. They say on their Wiki they expect 1000x more XRP to be effectively destroyed by people losing their passwords. So there's really no business model on the fee side. https://wiki.ripple.com/Ripple_credits

Also there's no incentive for the people to hold XRP other than in the short period it takes to make a transaction. So no business model there either.

However if the volume/turnover gets really high I guess some XRP will end up getting tied up at various points which could reduce supply. Speculators could also take a lot out of circulation driving up the price of XRP in circulation maybe?

Either way I never bought XRP, didn't like that it seemed centralised, bad business model and despite what CMC says I still think there's like a 1000% inflation to come. Though I did think it could be good for a short term 20%+ trade as I said earlier in the thread on this news. Only up 7% so far though.

780
General Discussion / Re: yield on bitAssets not enough?
« on: September 25, 2014, 09:11:46 am »
The yield is probably less than 5% now as they're changing the way shorts compete in version 04.17 that will have the effect of increasing collateral but decreasing yield.

The good news is this change should actually create a stable tight liquid peg, like within 1% if they get the bots apparently under development running. It's actually very exciting. This was their goal from the start and I think this change should achieve  it and with even more collateral backing the system. Very excited about it.

How much demand will there be in a buggy risky system at 1-1 is the question of course. 10% yield would have been more than sufficient in the short term for BitBTC, BitSLV etc. with a tight liquid peg but I think we're looking at a lot less yield than that with the new system. I would like to see them maximise fees from long term shorts to create more yield & drive BitAsset demand myself.

(On the other side of the coin when you look at something like silver it's very bulky to hold the physical commodity so your next best bet is trusting a vault, but then you pay fees when you buy and register bars, storage costs and withdrawal fees plus there's still small confiscation risk. So BitSLV with a bit of yield actually compares very favourably as a way to hold a portion of your silver investment I feel even at this stage.)

Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 20 queries.