Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on January 18, 2016, 06:26:54 pm

I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:

http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Limit order create   10 BTS   2 BTS
Limit order cancel   FREE   FREE
Call order update   1 BTS   0.2 BTS
Fill order   FREE   FREE

What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.

I can't charge users for creating an order, or updating their orders, so that cost I will have to swallow... I thought it was cancels that cost a small fee and refunded creates, my bad.

Metaexchange is mostly used as a bridge right? If so then get users to pay those fees. An extra 30bts or whatever the fee is in a transaction from time to time isn't much.

Quote from: abit on January 17, 2016, 06:02:48 pm

Quote from: btswildpig on January 17, 2016, 05:57:20 pm

Quote from: xeroc on January 17, 2016, 05:33:38 pm

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

I agree with this too. 5000 BTS is too cheap for having the most powerful blockchain-based asset in the world. IMHO 20k~30k BTS for long name asset would be better.

I found many business runners (bitcrab, monsterer, kencode, and potentially me) are raising issue about high fees. Lower fee may not significantly attract users, but it incentivizes entrepreneurs who actually provide utility for users.
One could easily say that the network cannot be profitable with low fee system. But are we really able to profitable without broader utilities and large user bases? I doubt this.

We should listen real business runners' voice. This is really important for our ecosystem.

Sounds great .. could you be a little more open with regards to collected fees? Something like a "collected fees this month" ticker on the webpage?

Enjoy: http://hoskinsoncharles.blogspot.com/2016/01/goodbye-mike-and-some-thoughts-about.html I even mentioned Bitshares.

So you moved my post to random? Fucking seriously? Fuck it Fav, I won't post any articles or items on Bitsharestalk anymore.

You know what the fundamental problem that the Bitshares community has always had. You guys decided that you solved all of the space's problems and then went into a bubble saying let's not interact with others outside of declaring our vast superiority. This debate is a perfect opportunity to inject Bitshares into the discussion about reaching scalability. Bitcoin issues are Bitshares issues. Bitshares was funded by Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reference cryptocurrency for all people to compare against. And both use the same family of technologies.

If someone is saying hey let's improve the core technology in Bitcoin, then everyone in the Bitshares community should be leaping at the opportunity to have a discussion about it. It means you get media exposure, new developer interest and perhaps more funding. Use common sense man!