i see one big advantage is that the exchange is less likely to get hacked!
why?
because they dont have to care about userinterfaces and breaches into their database, because there is no database to be hacked.
the only point of failure is that their wallet get hacked. if you look into the past hacks of exchanges, most of them had problems, because someone
took advantage of a security breach in their database, who is holding which coins etc.
now, this risk is taken care, because the bitshares ledger keeps track of this.
i don't understand why you are trying to sell openledger to them? if they want to use bitshares they would issue their own tokens. like in ripple!
[21:25:41] Akado Sang: Thanks for the opportunity. OpenLedger can be considered a Decentralized Exchange Network which runs on top of BitShares 2.0
[21:26:11] C-CEX.com: what is bitshares?
How did you find them ?
Me too I couldn't explain it to someone running an exchange because I have never tried to fully understand what someone running an exchange is doing technically in depth.
The point with the wallet server is a good example. Next time one could try to explain step by step how they would operate their wallet servers differently.
Taken Open-Ledger and OPEN.BTC I would assume they own a BTC-adress which holds the exact number of OPEN.BTC, shoudn't they?
So while am at it: When I look at the open-ledger Site I don't see a link to this said BTC-Account in some BTC-Block explorer and the possibility to request a signed message as proof.
Shouldn't for the sake of transparency that is always mentioned be an easy way for me as a potential user of Openledger to verify that those BTC really are "there" and not just at the moment where my OPEN.BTC leave some gateway into my BTC-Wallet-address?
Me too I couldn't explain it to someone running an exchange because I have never tried to fully understand what someone running an exchange is doing technically in depth.
The point with the wallet server is a good example. Next time one could try to explain step by step how they would operate their wallet servers differently.
Taken Open-Ledger and OPEN.BTC I would assume they own a BTC-adress which holds the exact number of OPEN.BTC, shoudn't they?
So while am at it: When I look at the open-ledger Site I don't see a link to this said BTC-Account in some BTC-Block explorer and the possibility to request a signed message as proof.
Shouldn't for the sake of transparency that is always mentioned be an easy way for me as a potential user of Openledger to verify that those BTC really are "there" and not just at the moment where my OPEN.BTC leave some gateway into my BTC-Wallet-address?
Me too I couldn't explain it to someone running an exchange because I have never tried to fully understand what someone running an exchange is doing technically in depth.
The point with the wallet server is a good example. Next time one could try to explain step by step how they would operate their wallet servers differently.
Taken Open-Ledger and OPEN.BTC I would assume they own a BTC-adress which holds the exact number of OPEN.BTC, shoudn't they?
So while am at it: When I look at the open-ledger Site I don't see a link to this said BTC-Account in some BTC-Block explorer and the possibility to request a signed message as proof.
Shouldn't for the sake of transparency that is always mentioned be an easy way for me as a potential user of Openledger to verify that those BTC really are "there" and not just at the moment where my OPEN.BTC leave some gateway into my BTC-Wallet-address?
OK, Asset-Explorer Shows, that 70 OPEN.BTC are in existence. Will ask ronny for the address, maybe I'm missing something.
However this whole thing should be made clear and easy to understand. I'm a regular lurker since 2013 and consider myself not as dumb as my nick suggests :o
[21:54:05] C-CEX.com: I don't want to send users elsewhereHard to answer this question indeed.
Good job @Akado !Quote[21:54:05] C-CEX.com: I don't want to send users elsewhereHard to answer this question indeed.
It seems that our first mover, CCEDK, still hasn't migrate their user database into OpenLedger yet. Without this, I don't know how to efficiently use the market engine of BitShares platform. Proxy the user's bid/ask requests to BitShares? Map BitShares's order book and/or trade history to their website? How to handle the fees involved? In the end, is OpenLedger actually independent from CCEDK?
//Edit:
Since they don't even know Bitshares, maybe the first step should be tell them BitShares is on top 10 of CoinMarketCap.com, and ask them to list bts on their own exchange.
[21:56:11] C-CEX.com: then what's the difference?OK, let me try to answer.
[21:56:18] C-CEX.com: Deposit on me, trade on me, withdraw on me...
Quote[21:56:11] C-CEX.com: then what's the difference?OK, let me try to answer.
[21:56:18] C-CEX.com: Deposit on me, trade on me, withdraw on me...
(better a table here)
deposit --- user send coins/fiat to exchange's address/bank account, exchange save info in database --- user send coins/fiat to bridge's address/bank account, bridge issue/send IOU to user on BitShares blockchain
withdraw --- user request withdraw, exchange send coins/fiat to user's address/bank account, save info in database --- user send IOU back to bridge on BitShares blockchain, bridge send coins/fiat to user's address/bank account
all we need are 2-3 simple one pagers.
How about cass's worker proposal, and why?
still thinking about this. my main concern is that we should concentrate on core functionality for now.
workers could hire cass on a "per job" basis and add x amount to their worker proposal to pay him
thanks @xeroc and @BunkerChain LabsImo don't ask. Why will she answer? You should already know it before talk with her, at least you should know some possible problems she's facing. Or perhaps I'm wrong since I'm not a marketing/sales guy.
You're right. I could have researched first. It was just that I sent a few emails just for the sake of it and really wasn't even expecting them to reply back. It was an innocent task. I tried to mention how they could benefit from us but I guess I didn't express myself better.
I think a better approach would be to start by asking what problems do they have when managing operations and how that could be prevented with BitShares. I wanted to but failed to show that concern you mention. I'm just not really used to doing this but I believe it was a good experience. I can always have someone else talking with him, someone with more knowledge.
Any volunteers there?@Stan please?
@cass
Just letting you know I approve your worker.
Stuff missing are those easy steps. In case they're interested they need to know how difficult it is to migrate. What consequences that might have for them. How much time it takes and drawbacks. They need to know that so it doesn't affect their business.
One other detail is, atm we only focus on the users. How they benefit. But we should also focus on businesses because they're the ones who bring great amounts of users. They need to know why they benefit, what's in for them. What to they gain with this. Atm I can only come up with two things: database hosted on the blockchain so less expenses and more safety, saving them money and work. But there should be more. We won't be able to see them BitShares just with this. Referral program... yes, but they already make money with each trade their users do so there's not really a difference. We need to focus on businesses. This case, exchanges. There must be other advantages other than those, otherwise they won't come in.
So, could someone answer the following question in detail for me please: How do exchanges benefit from BitShares? How do they make more money or have more exposure? Let's not confuse with the benefits users have. Exchanges might not care about transparency, etc
Imo don't ask. Why will she answer? You should already know it before talk with her, at least you should know some possible problems she's facing. Or perhaps I'm wrong since I'm not a marketing/sales guy.
Imo @ccedk may know answers of most of your questions. Best if they can help. Have you joint the Telegram group? Many discussions have been made there. Ronny of CCEDK is active at most time.Imo don't ask. Why will she answer? You should already know it before talk with her, at least you should know some possible problems she's facing. Or perhaps I'm wrong since I'm not a marketing/sales guy.
Yes, we need to know the general problems first which are mostly security related. But we also need to know what problems each exchange has as each case is a different case right? And from then, explain how we can prevent and solve those same problems, specifically for them. I'm writing a post which is kind of big atm, however, I'm missing the part where exchanges benefit the most, that's the main part to get them on board.
Thanks for pinging Stan, he might be able to help. He pitched BitShares to businesses already, maybe not to exchanges directly? But still, some situations might be similar.
thanks @xeroc and @BunkerChain LabsImo don't ask. Why will she answer? You should already know it before talk with her, at least you should know some possible problems she's facing. Or perhaps I'm wrong since I'm not a marketing/sales guy.
You're right. I could have researched first. It was just that I sent a few emails just for the sake of it and really wasn't even expecting them to reply back. It was an innocent task. I tried to mention how they could benefit from us but I guess I didn't express myself better.
I think a better approach would be to start by asking what problems do they have when managing operations and how that could be prevented with BitShares. I wanted to but failed to show that concern you mention. I'm just not really used to doing this but I believe it was a good experience. I can always have someone else talking with him, someone with more knowledge.QuoteAny volunteers there?@Stan please?
@cass
Just letting you know I approve your worker.
Stuff missing are those easy steps. In case they're interested they need to know how difficult it is to migrate. What consequences that might have for them. How much time it takes and drawbacks. They need to know that so it doesn't affect their business.
One other detail is, atm we only focus on the users. How they benefit. But we should also focus on businesses because they're the ones who bring great amounts of users. They need to know why they benefit, what's in for them. What to they gain with this. Atm I can only come up with two things: database hosted on the blockchain so less expenses and more safety, saving them money and work. But there should be more. We won't be able to see them BitShares just with this. Referral program... yes, but they already make money with each trade their users do so there's not really a difference. We need to focus on businesses. This case, exchanges. There must be other advantages other than those, otherwise they won't come in.
So, could someone answer the following question in detail for me please: How do exchanges benefit from BitShares? How do they make more money or have more exposure? Let's not confuse with the benefits users have. Exchanges might not care about transparency, etc
-snip-
-snip-
He could integrate a bitshares wallet to the website and on top of that earn up to 80% of the fees they generate via ref program
I'm a bit disappointment with this reply. Only abstract things.thanks @xeroc and @BunkerChain LabsImo don't ask. Why will she answer? You should already know it before talk with her, at least you should know some possible problems she's facing. Or perhaps I'm wrong since I'm not a marketing/sales guy.
You're right. I could have researched first. It was just that I sent a few emails just for the sake of it and really wasn't even expecting them to reply back. It was an innocent task. I tried to mention how they could benefit from us but I guess I didn't express myself better.
I think a better approach would be to start by asking what problems do they have when managing operations and how that could be prevented with BitShares. I wanted to but failed to show that concern you mention. I'm just not really used to doing this but I believe it was a good experience. I can always have someone else talking with him, someone with more knowledge.QuoteAny volunteers there?@Stan please?
@cass
Just letting you know I approve your worker.
Stuff missing are those easy steps. In case they're interested they need to know how difficult it is to migrate. What consequences that might have for them. How much time it takes and drawbacks. They need to know that so it doesn't affect their business.
One other detail is, atm we only focus on the users. How they benefit. But we should also focus on businesses because they're the ones who bring great amounts of users. They need to know why they benefit, what's in for them. What to they gain with this. Atm I can only come up with two things: database hosted on the blockchain so less expenses and more safety, saving them money and work. But there should be more. We won't be able to see them BitShares just with this. Referral program... yes, but they already make money with each trade their users do so there's not really a difference. We need to focus on businesses. This case, exchanges. There must be other advantages other than those, otherwise they won't come in.
So, could someone answer the following question in detail for me please: How do exchanges benefit from BitShares? How do they make more money or have more exposure? Let's not confuse with the benefits users have. Exchanges might not care about transparency, etc
1. Their users never give up control of their assets so there is no risk of the exchange being hacked and losing their customers money.
2. They are completely transparent by placing all their assets on the blockchain so no one worries about their solvency or whether there may be hidden gotcha's that have popped up frequently in the industry already.
3. They can share liquidity and order depth among the customers of all member exchanges while still keeping their own customers' fees. This makes their Network Effect as big as the sum of all members.
4. They can offer their customers access to the products and services of all member exchanges while retaining their cut of the transaction fees.
See also original Summer Announcement (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16982.msg217170.html#msg217170).
@abit and that was pretty much what I said, obviously not being enoughYes I know. Obviously Stan didn't read the OP at all. My fault for haven't quoted more for him.
I've tried to address those problems @Empirical1.2
If assets are collaterized, exchanges can't keep up with deposits unless they place collateral of their own, which I think they won't.
As for shared orderbooks, it can happen if either they use collaterized assets like the MPAs we have or use all the same asset (ie exchange joins OpenLedger and also adopts OPENBTC as their asset). I guess it's really up to them to choose what we have to offer, but collaterized assets are out of their reach imo. Otherwise they would always need twice the amount of deposits they have, which they might not be able to keep up with.
Now, if they received some kind of interest for their collateral that could be a different history. They could try go for it as it would be another revenue source.
I've tried to address those problems @Empirical1.2
If assets are collaterized, exchanges can't keep up with deposits unless they place collateral of their own, which I think they won't.
As for shared orderbooks, it can happen if either they use collaterized assets like the MPAs we have or use all the same asset (ie exchange joins OpenLedger and also adopts OPENBTC as their asset). I guess it's really up to them to choose what we have to offer, but collaterized assets are out of their reach imo. Otherwise they would always need twice the amount of deposits they have, which they might not be able to keep up with.
Now, if they received some kind of interest for their collateral that could be a different history. They could try go for it as it would be another revenue source.
So as a customer of an exchange that is using BEN you are still exposed to the same risk of that exchange being hacked, seized or running away with customer funds?
If so it seems like the main advantage would be accessing a shared orderbook, however the BEN orderbook is probably currently thinner that most exchanges you are approaching?
thanks @Stan and I understand you're busy. Would you consider chatting with C-CEX on Skype? He even came back to me telling that no one has contacted him yet (I told him I would try to get someone who could explain things better). I can pm you or anyone else who would give this a go, his skype account.
@Akado I hereby very appreciate your efforts. You've learned much and knew the strong point and weak point of our solution. You indicated how can we get stronger. What's your bts account? I'd like to donate a few.
@Stan thanks for drawn another huge pie for us.
For a shared order book, we need a same asset for all the exchanges. Obviously like OPENBTC which is issued by a single entity won't be accepted by other exchanges. But BitBTC which need 2x+ collateral won't be adopted as well if the exchanges need to put in the collateral. We need an asset with around 100% or less collateral so the exchanges can sustain.
One solution could be the bond market. Others will put in the collateral for you! You just need to pay for a market decided interest.
Another solution could be an asset owned by a multi-sig account, on which every exchanges have some weight of control, just like the Federal Reserve System. It's not collateral related anyway. With this, exchanges are able to issue the same asset on demand, and they'll find a balance among themselves.
I think OPENASSETS have a chance. Obviously every exchange decides what it's best for their business model. But from a user pov shared orderbooks could be very interesting. If we at some point get bigger I'm sure we could get smaller exchanges to use them.So why haven't blocktrades and metaexchange join OPENASSETS? They are competing for the first bite. I think it's best if we start with this, try to let them be combined as soon as possible.
I think OPENASSETS have a chance. Obviously every exchange decides what it's best for their business model. But from a user pov shared orderbooks could be very interesting. If we at some point get bigger I'm sure we could get smaller exchanges to use them.So why not blocktrades and metaexchange join OPENASSETS? They are competing for the first bite. I think it's best if we start with this, try to let them combined as soon as possible.
@Akado Imo it's better if you can talk to ccedk and metaexchange and blocktrades directly if you have chance , with some prepared information and questions (perhaps Stan has already tried but it doesn't matter). Perhaps they haven't much time to spend on the forum, so missed the discussion or unable to get the essentials of the discussion.
Thank you.
@Akado I just want to second others opinion that you did a very good job. Thanks for taking the initiative.
@Akado I just want to second others opinion that you did a very good job. Thanks for taking the initiative.
thanks @Stan and I understand you're busy. Would you consider chatting with C-CEX on Skype? He even came back to me telling that no one has contacted him yet (I told him I would try to get someone who could explain things better). I can pm you or anyone else who would give this a go, his skype account.
thanks @Stan and I understand you're busy. Would you consider chatting with C-CEX on Skype? He even came back to me telling that no one has contacted him yet (I told him I would try to get someone who could explain things better). I can pm you or anyone else who would give this a go, his skype account.
I had a nice chat with him today.
I have now been assigned more homework.
That said, I love how some of you guys have become proactive, rather than waiting on CNX as the huge bottleneck. BitShares was always intended to be something decentralized that everybody works on. It would appear that we had to take a big step back to make room for others to step up. I'm looking for more ways to encourage that.
:)
thanks @Stan and I understand you're busy. Would you consider chatting with C-CEX on Skype? He even came back to me telling that no one has contacted him yet (I told him I would try to get someone who could explain things better). I can pm you or anyone else who would give this a go, his skype account.
I had a nice chat with him today.
I have now been assigned more homework.
That said, I love how some of you guys have become proactive, rather than waiting on CNX as the huge bottleneck. BitShares was always intended to be something decentralized that everybody works on. It would appear that we had to take a big step back to make room for others to step up. I'm looking for more ways to encourage that.
:)
Nice! Did you manage to explain things better where I failed?
btw don't know if you saw it but a brazillian exchange claiming 100k users might approach you too, I provided your email
My explanation of "why" was dismissed as "Don't use big marketing paragraph when you speak to developer".That's what I wrote above "you drawn a huge pie", yes, it looks like a drawn pie, not a real one. ;)
Here's another way of explaining it in terms of our growing understanding of this particular exchange's Way of Thinking. I'd like to get your opinions on it before I forward it to him...My question (as if I'm an exchange) would be: if you can't help us, why would we help you? Or say, they are less motivated if we say we need their help to build something, we should (be able to) say we already have something and if they join they'll be benefited (Of course they need some efforts to be able to join).
Since you are first and foremost a technical developer, why not work with us to design the world's first exchange network?
Help us optimize the design until it's too good to resist using yourself. Here's a sample of what we've got so far:
From a technical perspective, a decentralized exchange has access to the orders of all member exchanges and the ability to execute atomic trades via a single neutral trading engine resident on a shared blockchain. Here’s the mother lode of “simple” technical data: http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/dex.htmlThese paragraphs make sense. But maybe not so attractive.
As you pointed out, an exchange can emulate this using a bot talking via APIs to the trading engines of many exchanges, but race conditions and conflicts are inevitable. On a common decentralized blockchain platform like BitShares, trades are finalized in one atomic 3-second block, no matter which exchange initiated the offer. No race conditions are possible.
When you all place your orders under the control of the same neutral exchange engine, you get instant atomic arbitrage across all asset pairs.
Then it gets interesting.
As an exchange you routinely issue your users what amounts to IOU-USD or IOU-BTC or IOU-DOGE “virtual-assets” to trade with on your exchange. You take their real USD and BTC and DOGE at the door (just like always) and let them trade with your exchanges "IOU" assets like poker chips until it’s time to check out. They trust your reputation that you will always reliably redeem their poker chips when it is time to cash out. So your IOU assets are backed by your reputation.
Why not make your reputation a globally tradable commodity? As it grows, more people prefer to hold your asset as their reserve currency. And you earn fees every time they use your global reserve currency.These make less sense for me. It's not an exchange's core business.
Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.
As a customer, my assets can take advantage of arbitrage opportunities between member exchanges in a twinkling of an eye. People taking the slow bot route get left in the dust or find that their assets are sitting on the wrong exchange when they need to move quickly. Not so on the common real-time trading platform powered by BitShares.Something wrong here. Tell these to users but not exchanges.
Thinking as an innovative developer, you have a unique opportunity to help work out the details of the world’s first network of exchanges.Yes "an innovative developer" may be attracted by these words, but a "conservative" developer would refuse them. I don't know whether you know you're talking to whom.
Right now, there are just two exchanges involved so far - CCEDK’s OpenLedger and BitShares DEX. Several other small exchanges have expressed intent to join but are not yet members. You could be the second mature exchange partner working with OpenLedger and BitShares to optimize the network interoperability to make the benefits to member exchanges more compelling and obvious.
When we have fully optimized the design to where CCEDK and C-DEX are both happy with the increased synergistic services we can each offer our own customers, then the three of us can go rolling up all the small exchanges as new partners. This will increase our collective apparent size, making membership more attractive to even bigger exchanges.
Like a rolling stone.
So, since you think like a developer looking for a new edge, why not work with us and help invent the only exchange network the world will ever need? By the time the Big Exchanges wake up, they'll be asking to join us.
My explanation of "why" was dismissed as "Don't use big marketing paragraph when you speak to developer".That's what I wrote above "you drawn a huge pie", yes, it looks like a drawn pie, not a real one. ;)Here's another way of explaining it in terms of our growing understanding of this particular exchange's Way of Thinking. I'd like to get your opinions on it before I forward it to him...My question (as if I'm an exchange) would be: if you can't help us, why would we help you? Or say, they are less motivated if we say we need their help to build something, we should (be able to) say we already have something and if they join they'll be benefited (Of course they need some efforts to be able to join).
Since you are first and foremost a technical developer, why not work with us to design the world's first exchange network?
Help us optimize the design until it's too good to resist using yourself. Here's a sample of what we've got so far:QuoteFrom a technical perspective, a decentralized exchange has access to the orders of all member exchanges and the ability to execute atomic trades via a single neutral trading engine resident on a shared blockchain. Here’s the mother lode of “simple” technical data: http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/dex.htmlThese paragraphs make sense. But maybe not so attractive.
As you pointed out, an exchange can emulate this using a bot talking via APIs to the trading engines of many exchanges, but race conditions and conflicts are inevitable. On a common decentralized blockchain platform like BitShares, trades are finalized in one atomic 3-second block, no matter which exchange initiated the offer. No race conditions are possible.
When you all place your orders under the control of the same neutral exchange engine, you get instant atomic arbitrage across all asset pairs.
Then it gets interesting.
As an exchange you routinely issue your users what amounts to IOU-USD or IOU-BTC or IOU-DOGE “virtual-assets” to trade with on your exchange. You take their real USD and BTC and DOGE at the door (just like always) and let them trade with your exchanges "IOU" assets like poker chips until it’s time to check out. They trust your reputation that you will always reliably redeem their poker chips when it is time to cash out. So your IOU assets are backed by your reputation.QuoteWhy not make your reputation a globally tradable commodity? As it grows, more people prefer to hold your asset as their reserve currency. And you earn fees every time they use your global reserve currency.These make less sense for me. It's not an exchange's core business.
Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.QuoteAs a customer, my assets can take advantage of arbitrage opportunities between member exchanges in a twinkling of an eye. People taking the slow bot route get left in the dust or find that their assets are sitting on the wrong exchange when they need to move quickly. Not so on the common real-time trading platform powered by BitShares.Something wrong here. Tell these to users but not exchanges.
Cross-exchange business (or arbitrage opportunities) is not which an exchange would focus on, it's more attractive to traders.
With a shared order book there will be less arbitrage opportunities.QuoteThinking as an innovative developer, you have a unique opportunity to help work out the details of the world’s first network of exchanges.Yes "an innovative developer" may be attracted by these words, but a "conservative" developer would refuse them. I don't know whether you know you're talking to whom.
Right now, there are just two exchanges involved so far - CCEDK’s OpenLedger and BitShares DEX. Several other small exchanges have expressed intent to join but are not yet members. You could be the second mature exchange partner working with OpenLedger and BitShares to optimize the network interoperability to make the benefits to member exchanges more compelling and obvious.
When we have fully optimized the design to where CCEDK and C-DEX are both happy with the increased synergistic services we can each offer our own customers, then the three of us can go rolling up all the small exchanges as new partners. This will increase our collective apparent size, making membership more attractive to even bigger exchanges.
Like a rolling stone.
So, since you think like a developer looking for a new edge, why not work with us and help invent the only exchange network the world will ever need? By the time the Big Exchanges wake up, they'll be asking to join us.
Here I listed some brief Q&A's, wish we can improve them together:
Questions from an exchange and answers to them:
1. I want more volume / users / profit / influence
--> shared order book
2. I don't want to send users elsewhere
--> self designed/hosted GUI (Website and/or mobile app)
3. I want more security
--> user data and trading data on blockchain, so don't need to worry about database-hack
--> (unavoidable) if host a GUI, need to make sure it's secure.
4. I want less risk
--> you don't need to issue IOUs which need to be guaranteed by yourself *ALONE*, other member exchanges will share your risk
--> (unavoidable) with BitShares you still have to manage the equities deposited by your customer
5. I want lower cost
--> less maintenance cost on market engine, databases if use BitShares blockchain and market engine
6. How to migrate to BitShares (required efforts/changes on my system)
7. The cost of migration?
8. Risks of migration?
9. Difference / Pros and cons between self-issued assets and shared assets?
We would either need them to use BitAssets or a common UIA like OPENBTC for example. Other than that it doesn't really change anything.
Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.
We would either need them to use BitAssets or a common UIA like OPENBTC for example. Other than that it doesn't really change anything.Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.
In the current model the customer has to trust the centralized exchange but the exchange doesn't have to trust anybody.
They only credit a customer with an IOU once they've confirmed the actual alt-coins have been received in their wallet.
While I'm sure I've misunderstood something, does your paragraph above mean an exchange would have to redeem IOUs from other member exchanges?
If so that would create a situation where a Cryptsy default would fall on other member exchanges or worse a rogue member exchange could issue IOUs out of thin air and redeem them on other member exchanges?
We would either need them to use BitAssets or a common UIA like OPENBTC for example. Other than that it doesn't really change anything.Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.
In the current model the customer has to trust the centralized exchange but the exchange doesn't have to trust anybody.
They only credit a customer with an IOU once they've confirmed the actual alt-coins have been received in their wallet.
While I'm sure I've misunderstood something, does your paragraph above mean an exchange would have to redeem IOUs from other member exchanges?
If so that would create a situation where a Cryptsy default would fall on other member exchanges or worse a rogue member exchange could issue IOUs out of thin air and redeem them on other member exchanges?
We would either need them to use BitAssets or a common UIA like OPENBTC for example. Other than that it doesn't really change anything.Now what if your reserve currency tokens were good in many other exchanges and you got transaction fees from everyone using your currency? Transfers between member exchanges is a simple matter of exchanging IOU tokens, bypassing all the slow non-real-time blockchains out there. And giving your customers another reason to do all their business with you.
In the current model the customer has to trust the centralized exchange but the exchange doesn't have to trust anybody.
They only credit a customer with an IOU once they've confirmed the actual alt-coins have been received in their wallet.
While I'm sure I've misunderstood something, does your paragraph above mean an exchange would have to redeem IOUs from other member exchanges?
If so that would create a situation where a Cryptsy default would fall on other member exchanges or worse a rogue member exchange could issue IOUs out of thin air and redeem them on other member exchanges?
No, each exchange has its own UIA and they compete on how credibly they back it. Whichever exchange demonstrates the Exchange Backed Asset (EBA) with the most transparency stands to become a popular Reserve Currency.
Then users can trade against EBAs from other exchanges (perhaps at a slight discount or premium) if they want to exit/enter through that exchange to use any of its unique features. Since BitShares lets you switch holdings in 3 seconds, you can spread out your risk using several of the EBAs or put your long term holdings into a counterparty free bitAsset if available.
The point is that something the exchange must do anyway (issue EBA IOUs for trading) can now become a new asset from which they can generate new revenue. Especially if they innovate in how to prove credible, transparent backing.
Exchanges might even become a steady market for bitAssets if they chose a basket of them as a way to back their EBAs.
Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.
BitShares is about freedom .. no wait to force anyone to do anything ..
It is also a risky thing to have their assets locked away as collateral
Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.
If all exchanges put their (real) BTC in a multi-sig account, they're less likely to go rogue. They will monitor each other. And also the IOU issuer's account would be a multi-sig one which is anti-rogue.BitShares is about freedom .. no wait to force anyone to do anything ..
It is also a risky thing to have their assets locked away as collateral
Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.
No one is forcing them to do anything, I believe that was just a suggestion, even if we agreed with that, it would ultimately be up to the exchanges to decide..
Still, I think it's way easier for them to have their btc for example, in a multi sig account managed by the exchanges participating. This would mean it's in everyone's interest not to mess things up and they could be easily monitored among themselves and by users too. And it's simple.
Thing is while we don't sort these kind of details first, it will be harder to get liquidity. Instead even if we manage them to join we'll most likely have a bunch of illiquid markets, plus we still have the risk factor of them going rogue.
If all exchanges put their (real) BTC in a multi-sig account, they're less likely to go rogue. They will monitor each other. And also the IOU issuer's account would be a multi-sig one which is anti-rogue.BitShares is about freedom .. no wait to force anyone to do anything ..
It is also a risky thing to have their assets locked away as collateral
Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.
No one is forcing them to do anything, I believe that was just a suggestion, even if we agreed with that, it would ultimately be up to the exchanges to decide..
Still, I think it's way easier for them to have their btc for example, in a multi sig account managed by the exchanges participating. This would mean it's in everyone's interest not to mess things up and they could be easily monitored among themselves and by users too. And it's simple.
Thing is while we don't sort these kind of details first, it will be harder to get liquidity. Instead even if we manage them to join we'll most likely have a bunch of illiquid markets, plus we still have the risk factor of them going rogue.
However, although it's not hard to multi-sig a BTC account, imo it's much harder to multi-sig fiat accounts. In addition, is it possible to multi-sig accounts of LTC, DOGE and so? In the end maybe we can have a shared BTS/BTC market, but no other pairs.
Seems we're discussing a global (IOU of)BTC central bank schema.
Akado, I think you are a little bit too fixated to the shared orderbook and common asset thing. I agree that it would be great to see that but given that it's very difficult to achieve I don't think that we should focus on that right now.Technically it's possible, but not easy. Think about these questions: what they need to invest by doing so? What they will get in return? At what risk?
First, let's try to get at least one exchange to use Bitshares blockchain as their trading engine (besides OL).
This is how I would market it:
You can use Bitshares blockchain as a trading engine: You can either use it just for your own tokens or let users trade all assets that are available. No need for development and maintenance of your own trading engine.
You need to do only the GUI, hot and cold wallets and a gateway to handle the deposits and withdraws.
Users will use IOU-tokens in the blockchain, issued by your gateway.
Whitelisting is optional. This means that you can restrict how your IOUs are traded. For example, you could have BTC-IOU that can be traded freely in the blockchain, and you could have USD-IOU that can be traded only by those accounts that are identified, and only with IOUs that are issued by you.
You will get a share of the transaction fees when users make transactions with the assets that you have issued.
You can make extra money by referring users to the Bitshares blockchain. You will get referral income automatically, handled by the blockchain, everytime when users make transactions. For exchanges this might bring significant amount of extra revenue.
Steps:
1. Create GUI for your exchange and a gateway with hot and cold wallets.
2. Issue UIA for all assets that you are going to use.
3. Start marketing and advertising.
The main challenge I see here is "users" or say "customers". They said "I don't want to send users elsewhere". However, unless an exchange let their customer register on BitShares platform, it's difficult to use BitShares's Market Engine. Even CCEDK has both a self maintained engine + self maintained user database, and BitShares Engine + BitShares user registration entry, which are independent to each other so far.
So another challenge is resource. In this way the exchanges have to split efforts between 2 platforms. It's hard if they haven't enough resources.
An issue of shared order book strategy just came to my head. In short, if we try to get small exchanges adopt BitShares first, we will probably harder to get the big ones.
Say if we have already 3 small exchanges happily operating on top of BitShares. One day, come in another big exchange, which is bigger than the combination of the 3 small ones, guess what will happen? I guess, either the small ones be unhappy that some customers may go to trade with the big one, or the big one will be unhappy that it have to accept tokens issued by the small ones and/or have to ask the small ones for approval when need to issue shared tokens / withdraw from shared collateral. Will this cooperation schema succeed?
Anyway, at least the small ones should be able to survive at very first. When we're getting bigger and bigger, I don't know if the small ones can still survive.
Thoughts?
Maybe with BitShares that wouldn't happen, assuming their argument can even be considered legit..Likely a BTC issue. I don't think BitShares is able to help in this case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48dcm9/cexio_seems_to_be_suffering_from_some_kind_of/
Another one
Maybe with BitShares that wouldn't happen, assuming their argument can even be considered legit..Likely a BTC issue. I don't think BitShares is able to help in this case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48dcm9/cexio_seems_to_be_suffering_from_some_kind_of/
Another one