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 - Rune

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 75
226
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:10:12 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 28, 2015, 04:04:50 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 28, 2015, 04:00:09 pm
We don't need these changes anytime soon. We need to focus on stability, shareholders have already been promised that there would be no more new blockchain features for another 6 months after 1.0.

This is useful in the long term but absolutely should not be considered any sort of priority when the full node barely works and there's no light wallet.

New UIA system and relative orders are needed. Any other new blockchain features in the medium term are going to damage our market cap.

Disagree.  We need the ability to cover short positions with the already locked up collateral before a 1.0 release.  The current method of covering a short is not functional for the investors and traders we are trying to target and will most likely be our initial adopters.

Hmm, this makes sense. Then this has to come as fast as possible, before 1.0. But 1.0 can't wait too long, we need to have it out before ethereum launches. Investors/traders are above all else attracted to liquidity, and that's what the delays hurt the most.

edit: read it again and all this really does is implement a limit order for 10% above the price feed. It's not necessary and will cause far more problems than it will solve in the short term.

I also disagree with the collateral requirement increase. The current system works and it withstood the crash. It's too late to change these things now, the net effect is guaranteed to be negative. This will hurt our market cap.

227
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:00:09 pm »
We don't need these changes anytime soon. We need to focus on stability, shareholders have already been promised that there would be no more new blockchain features for another 6 months after 1.0.

This is useful in the long term but absolutely should not be considered any sort of priority when the full node barely works and there's no light wallet.

New UIA system and relative orders are needed. Any other new blockchain features in the medium term are going to damage our market cap.

228
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD Dice & BitAsset gambling
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:21:21 pm »
People who gamble are seeking risk. Why would they want to gamble in a pegged asset meant to reduce volatility?

229
General Discussion / Re: do we have some dev plan for dns(keyid) & vote?
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:54:22 pm »
Indolering has a very detailed roadmap in his delegate proposal. It's really awesome and everyone should read it.

230
General Discussion / Re: Why is there still no BitUSD:BitBTC liquidity?
« on: January 26, 2015, 11:38:21 pm »
We won't see any real internal exchange liquidity until we get relative orders and trading in light clients. Because it costs fees to cancel orders it gets a lot more complex to run profitable bots and spreads get higher. I still have no clue if there's going to be relative orders for crosspairs. I guess there won't be at first so bitBTC/bitUSD liquidity is still far off, but we could see decent bitasset/BTS liquidity.

In the end it's going to take a very long time before our decentralized exchange will become useful for trading for non-fanatics. The light wallet won't have trading support at first, so you will need a full node in order to use the internal exchange, which makes our decentralized exchange unable to compete with centralized exchanges.

231
General Discussion / Re: Double check "transfer" in GUI-terminal , prevent scamer
« on: January 26, 2015, 08:02:06 pm »
Quote from: vikram on January 26, 2015, 07:47:38 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 26, 2015, 07:43:27 pm
Quote from: vikram on January 26, 2015, 06:22:21 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 26, 2015, 11:18:30 am
I'd like to see the 'confirm your tx above' message in the CLI, again .. we had those back in the early testnets ..

Yeah I'd like that too. But it's very low priority definitely at least until we've upgraded all the wallet scanning code.

Yay, this means titan will be completely turned off and tx's will show up instantly when you import a new private key?

I am referring more to fixing how unreliable the current transaction history can be. Probably turn TITAN off by default in the future, but probably still require a rescan on new keys.

I was under the impression that titan was going to be phased out completely in order to enable light clients to function? I guess as long as you ask beforehand if the receiver runs a full node it can be useful to keep titan as an option, but it should be clear that only people who understand how they work should send them, so we dont have newbs accidentally see their money disappear if they sent a stealth tx to a light client.

232
General Discussion / Re: Add margin trading to BTS
« on: January 26, 2015, 07:48:42 pm »
Quote from: speedy on January 26, 2015, 07:42:41 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 26, 2015, 07:36:40 pm
This is certainly already planned. But like you said, it's meaningless to have this without a functional light wallet that can trade, which is still far off.

Awesome! Do you know how far off the plan for margin is?

It's not possible to put timelines on something like this. Assuming there isn't a 10x price jump to accelerate development resources I'd guess it would be ready to be put on the BTS blockchain next year at the earliest.

233
General Discussion / Re: Double check "transfer" in GUI-terminal , prevent scamer
« on: January 26, 2015, 07:43:27 pm »
Quote from: vikram on January 26, 2015, 06:22:21 pm
Quote from: xeroc on January 26, 2015, 11:18:30 am
I'd like to see the 'confirm your tx above' message in the CLI, again .. we had those back in the early testnets ..

Yeah I'd like that too. But it's very low priority definitely at least until we've upgraded all the wallet scanning code.

Yay, this means titan will be completely turned off and tx's will show up instantly when you import a new private key?

234
General Discussion / Re: Add margin trading to BTS
« on: January 26, 2015, 07:36:40 pm »
This is certainly already planned. But like you said, it's meaningless to have this without a functional light wallet that can trade, which is still far off.

235
General Discussion / Re: Convincing a Bitcoin exchange to add BitShares
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:50:49 pm »
An exchange of any real size is not gonna bother becoming a gateway on a coin as tiny as ours with our tiny internal exchange volume. Afaik the light client isn't even going to support DEX trading so becoming a gateway will likely bring close to no volume as people will 99% of traders will prefer using centralized exchanges rather than downloading a full node.

A better option is to pitch them BTC/bitasset pairs as a way to allow their clients to hedge their bitcoin holdings without going into fiat. We can organize market making and give people low spreads and thus easy access.

236
General Discussion / Re: maybe 100% delegate should burn some progress on to the wall of delegate id
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:41:53 pm »
I like this idea. Forum reports would be fine as well, we just need more transparency from our delegates across the board.

237
General Discussion / Re: So apparently this is what some people think about Bitshares
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:17:23 pm »
I see nothing wrong with smear campaigns against competing cryptos that are legitimately garbage (like nubits). It just has to be done right. People bring up that NXT's attempt at shitting on bitshares backfired, but that's because NXT is crap (monetary system lol) and bitshares actually has legit technology. It just has to wait for once we have enough resources to do it right, and can do it with proper timing (such as if nubits start increasing their interest rates). Negative ads work.

An ad on CMC that goes something like "Before you give them your money, remember that bitreserve, nubits, (other competitors) are centralized services with considerable counterparty risk. Only with bitUSD and bitGOLD is your money cryptographically secured with decentralized collateral." would help educate people on the different choices in pegged crypto while nudging them towards us.

238
General Discussion / Re: Up to 27 100% delegates. Really?
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:06:15 pm »
Quote from: NewMine on January 24, 2015, 07:58:49 pm
Quote from: CLains on January 24, 2015, 05:47:26 pm
I will hold out a few months more, but from what I have seen so far it seems self-funding with Delegates are working like a charm.
As I have stated before, Bitcoin is in the spot BitShares wants to be in. BTC did not need what all of you propose is necessary to grow BitShares. It happened because BTC holders wanted to grow their holdings or make a buck of the potential.

Bitcoin won't be in the spot bitshares is in with ~25 100% delegates until there's been another 2 reward halvings. ;)

239
Technical Support / Re: Bitshares application won't start on Mac
« on: January 24, 2015, 07:56:44 pm »
Quote from: Yuzu on January 23, 2015, 06:26:13 pm
Did you ever get it to work?  Mine is at 96d and gaining rather than counting down time.  Frustrating.

This could just be a GUI issue. Try to go to the console and type in 'getinfo', then wait a few mins and type 'getinfo' again. Check if the block number is increasing.

240
General Discussion / Re: Forking bitshares
« on: January 24, 2015, 07:28:25 pm »
Quote from: faddat on January 24, 2015, 06:57:27 pm
Okay-- I'll put it another way-- Dawn plans to be 100% Libre in the GNU fashion about everything.  When we have to use closed components, we will work to eliminate them in future versions.  We know all too well that Open Source != Gratis.  Our intent with using the phrase Open Source is to signal to people that our code, etc are available and to let users know that they can and should participate in the production of both the hardware and software.   

To those who were talking about adding value re: a delegate-- yes, that's our intent.  I could have hardware wallets in people's hands lightning-fast.  I will only need some info from people here as to how they should be configured & what UX should be like. 

My offer of a forum was totally legit-- just say the word and I can have shiny discourse up and set for you all.  I do need to look at what the migration would be like, though....

Dawn is not a DAC yet.  Dawn is a DAC startup, a proto-DAC, an organization with aspirations of DAC-hood.  Excuse my overstatement.

Getting an "official" bitshares hardware wallet that's fully integrated with the bitshares full node and light client is really one of the biggest things we could get right now hardware wise. I'd suggest you research the different hardware wallet options and use your expertise to decide on which one is best to port, then turn that into a delegate proposal. Once you deliver and start selling the hardware wallet, you will have earned trust from the community and will likely get continued support for your delegate in whatever next step you wish to take, as long as it's something that benefits bitshares.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 75

Page created in 0.186 seconds with 21 queries.