I for one stopped buying/shorting in the market once it seemed like I was placing orders that were not filled and that either there was a bug or I didn't understand what prices I could enter and get filled.

I think some kind of public auditing mechanism for delegates should provide enough security.
For example each delegate shares all his transactions with public audit node(s) and when a block is generated each audit node publishes statistics about how many unknown transactions were included and how much the block produced differs from anticipated block (if you know the version of the delegate and its transaction you should be able to predict what will be included in block).
This way the delegate's cheating opportunities will be significantly lower and if that happen everyone will know.
You just need to make sure audit nodes are really public and everyone can become such node connected to any delegate.

Using this you might ignore delegate's identity as long as he does its job properly. (not to mention that in an extremely complex scenario a delegate could be constituted with multiple nodes sharing transactions, each node controlled by different entity and a block is produced only when all of them are in agreement). With such scenario you ignore any single entity in the block creation process...

I agree with this.  I would trust real-time technical/cryptographic audting & transparency solutions.  Some of the people I distrust the most are public figures.  The concept of annonymity and privacy was a big part of bitcoin.  You only have to look at Satoshi Nakamoto himself...whoever he is. 

IMHO, the first priority thing is that we need a stable wallet without crashing and order disappear bugs. If GUI can be more user friendly, it will definitely attract more users to choose on chain market, instead of exchanges.

When most of BTSX holders stay at on chain market and trade btsx with bit Asset, the price of bitUSD/bitCNY/bitBTC on exchange will peg that of on chain market. However, a lot of users still can't even keep their wallet up without crashing, not to mention the market open order bugs.

As a matter of fact, last week the trend was very nice. Many of my friends who have millions of BTSX transferred their fund from exchanges to wallet, and was ready to play the market. However, hard fork and the following crash and market freezing make them lose temper and choose not to open their wallet before there is a very stable wallet.

So please focus on the bugs fixing, and forget about bitUSD pegging at this moment. Attracting more users to play in on chain market is the main motivation.

I might be wrong, but these are from my bottom heart.

 

 

Quote from: drltc on August 30, 2014, 07:55:06 pm

I would be in favor of holding any marketing push until after we've managed to go 7 days without an emergency market shutdown or hard fork mandatory upgrade.

I second that. Have a period where we can be sure everything is running smoothly. Only then we would start with the marketing

 

Quote from: bytemaster on August 29, 2014, 09:24:24 pm

The primary utility for BitUSD within our community is hedging against bubbles.
The secondary utility (longer term) is as a means of payment.

I agree, but I think there are more bulls than bears which creates a bit of an issue in regards to providing buy support for bitUSD.

Still even with that in mind, I think the market peg could hold given the proper variables. I don't think we can judge the experiment as failed until bitUSD has utility as payment, as we only have half of the empirical evidence of the experiment. Even worse, the half of the empirical evidence that we do have is flawed in that the past couple days since the update a lot of people haven't had access to their BTSX. I have been trying all day long for 2 days to get my balance from 0 to what it was before.. there is something really messed up this update with syncing and/or connecting. I think a lot of these people that don't have access to their BTSX would have been buying bitUSD the past couple days as the price was falling. I know I would have myself if I could of got access to it.

Half of the empirical evidence is flawed and half of it is non-existent (and likely will be for some time.) I think it is too early to tell if the original market functions work or not. If you want to make temporary changes to reach market parity, then I guess I am OK with that, but the original formula should still be tested when we are able to have more fair of a test. I believe the original plan for bitassets and how the market should function will work when all the variables that are needed fall into place. It is unfortunately at this point a flawed experiment that was setup to fail because the evidence is flawed and impartial.

I guess now I am just repeating myself (even within this post haha). That is just my opinion, I trust BM and co to do whatever is good for Bitshares, so whatever you decide I will support it.

I want to echo that sentiment.  As many others have mentioned, BM sometimes seems to have the patience of Job in explaining everything, sometimes over and over and he is often the first one to chime in when someone thinks they lost their wallet/password/funds.  I have no doubt the guy would spends days, weeks and probably months trying to help someone recover any funds lost inadvertently.   

Quote from: GaltReport on August 29, 2014, 12:18:14 pm

Quote from: alphaBar on August 29, 2014, 01:39:22 am

Exposing your realword identity is the single biggest deterrent to doing anything malicious. If you support this flawed assumption that it is "impossible" to do anything malicious then I guess you can worry more about 99.9% uptime vs. 99.85% uptime. But if security is your objective then there is nothing more important than realworld identity. As a delegate, if your pseudonym or online reputation is worth less to you than the potential bounty of an attack then we have no recourse against you. If we know your real identity then you will also think about jail time or worse (a much stronger deterrent).

Edit: unnecessary quotes

I understand your reasoning here but this should be strictly voluntary.  Some people (like myself) value their privacy and security HIGHLY and you can actually endanger people by "Doxing" (exposing their identify or other personally identifiable information) them and I am against that.  This information can be used to attack them, their systems, their family, friends and their finances.

Governments for one are very fond of gathering information on people for "good reason" as well.  Trust them, it's all for our own good!!

I have experienced this first hand on multiple levels which is why I am immediately suspicious of ANYONE who trys to identify other people online and I keep my eyes on those people. 

If you are on any forum that I participate in, I am keeping track of EVERYONE who asks people for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You are on MY LIST.    "Give us your name, address, what kind of system, how much BTSX do you have etc..."  Sure I will, NOT!!  I AM WATCHING YOU (two fingers from my eyes to YOU).    Watch the Watchers!

It is no joke to me. This is also why I (legally) carry. 

Nevertheless, I have offered to identify myself to BM & Stan anytime since they are not far from me.

Your childish response adds nothing of value to the conversation, and I'm offended that you would imply that I don't value privacy. Of course there is no doxxing and the ID part is voluntary - nobody implied otherwise. This is exactly why I am not a delegate and probably will not be one anytime soon. I am not willing to expose my identity, but I will only vote for delegates whose realword identity I know. No contradiction there. I think of being a delegate as a business decision. It has risks and it has potential rewards. If you are not willing to accept those risks you will forego the reward.

The beauty of DPOS is that we only need about 100 people who are willing to accept those risks. Many of them are already publicly involved in crypto (e.g., Dan, Adam Levine, maybe Andreas A in the future, etc). Delegates in DPOS will converge on public and widely trusted personalities such as these. For you to imply that I am doxxing people or urging them to reveal their identity shows that you either completely misunderstood my point or you misunderstand the incentives and risks involved in DPOS. I am a shareholder and I need to protect my investment by voting for delegates I can trust, not some pseudonymous account on a website with nothing to lose. Get it?

I am also a shareholder and vote!!  I don't think you know or care very much about about what people have to lose or have lost, other than yourself perhaps.

The beauty of these systems in my opinion is that they should be able to be secured via technology/cryptography not by personalities. 

Knowing someone (or more likely, thinking that you do) does not make them or the system secure or trustworthy!!

I know who George Bush is, John McCain, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke are....Do I trust them because they are out kissing babies and giving speeches?

F**k NO!!

Has knowing who these people are deterred them from screwing people?  One of the prime motivations of many of the pioneers of this field has been to AVOID HAVING TO TRUSTING PEOPLE with your PII.

BTW, If you have no bad intentions that's great.  No worries then.