If you are using bitshares you are certainly not "blind" anymore

One should be considered 'legally blind' if he uses BTS.
(kind of a good deal in US, especially if you are not technically blind)

Quote from: abit on February 24, 2016, 09:48:12 pm

Quote from: meda on February 24, 2016, 08:28:04 pm

Quote from: pc on February 24, 2016, 08:09:40 pm

Quote from: tbone on February 24, 2016, 05:31:18 pm

I agree that $150 is way too high.  [...] The cost should be just high enough to ensure serious proposals, but without being a barrier.  Don't forget that a cost like this will be more of a barrier in some localities than in others.  So I think $25 would be a better starting point.  If we get too many unserious proposals, then we can raise it in the future.  But I doubt we'd need to.
 

I totally agree. It is not in BitShares interest to deter or make prohibitive making worker proposals. We need development.

1. Please keep in mind that lifetime members get 80% cash-back. Worker proposal is a LTM-only feature. So a 150$ creation fee means $30 for them. Is it really that expensive? Or you're just too miserly/lazy? If you're able to get your worker voted in, you can always ask for reimbursement of the worker creation fee by including it in the payment.

2. If we don't set a barrier on the creation of workers, funds in the reserve pool can be stolen much more easily. If alt withdraw his votes from the refund workers NOW, every LTM can create a worker with whatever amount of payment and vote for herself and get paid FROM NEXT HOUR, no need to beg for other stake holders' approval. And worse, she can create a worker every hour so others have no chance to vote against her. And even worse, she can create more than 1000 workers so technically no one can vote against all these workers. Current design of worker feature is flawed, the only way we can secure it is the fee.

Makes sense?

Can you explain this risk a little more?  How is it possible that someone could just create a worker and start collecting funds without anyone being able to stop them?  That sounds crazy.   

And by the way, we have pressure to lower the worker proposal fee because the anti "dilution" (i.e. ignorant/uneducated) segment of this community makes it risky to create even a reasonable proposal.  You can call it lazy or miserly, but it's an actual factor that developers will have to contend with.  And yes, the LTM cost is lower, but they still have to tie up those funds for 90 days.  Submit two proposals and now you have $300 tied up for 3 months.  That's just stupid considering the unreasonably low chance of getting approved with the anti-developer idiots running around here.  These people are killing Bitshares.

I find the explanation very good...might not be so for the " ignorant/uneducated"...or the  "idiots", but never the less very self explanatory .

Quote from: tonyk on February 22, 2016, 06:34:22 pm

How about the rules?
[]

I don't full understand these rules (haven't read the whole thread)1.I would maybe add - orders (say N=10 times) N times smaller than the market maker's order at better prices do not violate the best bid/ask condition.
2. The MM in those market place both bid and ask orders to qualify; if we want to give the reward for just a single side we have to weight the order toward the other side of the order book, or some other way. Say MM1 places just a buy order - it is given credit only for the sum of sell orders falling within the min spread (say 5% spread max)

So you propose that there are $X available to be distributed to liquidity providers for each market and I pay a fraction of them every 10minutes to those that have orders close to the "peg" if the orders have been open for more than 10 minutes ..
is that about correct?

All numbers/percent are parameters adjustable by the committee (for the bitAssets).

To qualify for the reward (calculated and paid  every 7 days).
1.An account must have the best bid (or ask) for min 5% of the time.[combined for all qualified orders of his during those 7 days]
To qualify:
2.A sell order should be no more than 6% above the peg; a buy order should be no more than 1% from the peg price.
3. The order should be the best bid or ask. (1)
4.The order should be for min of 150 bitUSD [it can be bigger but if the order is  for bigger amount, credit is given for max of 150 biUSD] (2)

Every 7 day the script is run and the funds are divided between accounts having placed qualified MM orders:
- proportional to the time the orders were on the order book and met all other criteria above.
- for the full 150 bitUSD and/or following rule (2)

(1)Orders (say N=10 times) N times smaller than the market maker's order at better prices do not violate the best bid/ask condition.
(2.)The MM in regular stock market place both bid and ask orders to qualify; if we want to give the reward for just a single side we have to weight the order toward the other side of the order book, or some other way. Say MM1 places just a buy order - it is given credit only for the sum of sell orders falling within the max spread (5% spread max in the example above)

Nasdaq is incentivizing the display of orders for (a) 500 shares at the best bid and 500 shares at the best offer, 30% of the time, and (b) 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best bid and 2500 shares at no wider than 2% of the best offer, 90% of the time.  I don't think we need to specify a minimum number of shares or what % of the time they need to satisfy the above conditions, but perhaps we could simply make the reward proportional to the length of time MMs have orders on the books, the size of the orders, and the distance from the price feed.  And maybe we should require that orders be on the book for a minimum period of time, as some have already suggested. 

Quote from: tonyk on February 23, 2016, 04:37:37 am

There is no d word... dilution is misnomer for btc and BTS...Let's assume I believe this (just because there is cap), and everyone else should/ is as well.

BUT

There are 23,000,000 new BTS entering into circulation each month.

23 Mil BTS needed to be absorbed by new money entering the system just so the price stays the same...

Do you think that on average 90,000 K USD are entering/buying into BTS every month right now?

 

Wait what? I think some of these numbers are wrong or I didn't get what you actually meant. First of all, if 23,000,000 new BTS entered into circulation each month the funds would be depleted in 5 years, with an inflation ~10% per year.

https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/ This is the max we can use, please link me to another source if that's wrong.

You've got to understand @tonyk , that by increasing the liquidity or incentivising people to hold bts, you are going to earn a lot more. Offering a 2.5% a year, for people to hold BTS is nothing. How many people are going to lock their funds or trade? 30% of the users? 50%? then you have 1.25% of actual inflation (dilution). This way you destroy the sell wall. Even one whale a month. Just one, that would hold their funds, would buy those 50k$ worth of shares.

And again, 90k$ a month (which is the wrong number), is nothing compared to the average trading volume which is more than 90k$.

I've followed NXT, I've followed Dash, I've followed NuBits, I own some too. But this community superior in every fucking sense. People are working on projects, expecting to be paid after they completed the work and you don't want to pay them? There are so many good things that can be done and you are rejecting these ideas. So BM is a moron and retard that is offering some feautures for free.

Let's say that BM isn't doing anything for free, that's why he got CNX formed etc etc. If BM didn't expect his shares price to rise by implementing that liquidity model, would he do it that for free? Do you think that CNX and those people own no shares? Or the people who are in this community? Please see the bigger picture and don't get stuck with some potential initial loses.

My numbers tend to be right... unfortunately.
Other people might tell you there is 6% dilution per year... but that is the long term print rate...
Read the above post.. there is a shit load of other new BTS coming into the market that are not counted in thier calculations...for the convenience of the poster...or just cause "they will end in meager 8 mo."
Those alone will be netting 100 mil or 160 mil new BTS.

PS
and do not get me started on trading volume... you think more than 3% are actual final buys/sells?
I can show you trading volume of 10x the market cap of a coin...or (if you really pay me)  I can show you I day where I traded 75 BTC and started and ended with a position of ~ 0.5-1.0 BTC worth of that coin.

Quote from: tbone on February 23, 2016, 02:49:32 am

We can also slowly raise the price of transferring BTS (vs. transferring BitAsets), so that would help as well.

This is great idea! High price of BTS transfer will effectively do the necessary thing. Someday when price has been raised high enough we can disable transfers without any problems because nobody is doing them anyways.

I gather we are closing in on how "slow and steady arm twisting" is much better than a open offer and explanation why what we propose is better, -take it or not kind of deal?


I do not like it the slightest!!!!

Quote from: tonyk on February 23, 2016, 03:19:58 am

I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.

Does it have to do with Alan Turing?

I believe so. Yes.

 "Celerity Sagacity of Desiderata"  (CSD)

or

Orange...
I mean apple and half eaten apple as a logo (I know what the half-eaten apple probably refers to, but 99.9 of the customers do not) worked well enough.

I don't think that you have considered all of the consequences. At a bare minimum a forked chain in an "overlapping market" will be competing for readily available capital.

I also think it likely that some BTS hodlers will sell in order to buy more stake in the forked chain's crowdfunder. The downward pressure on BTS will be substantial. Tonyk is proposing that the "dshares" be priced at 1/7 BTS.   BTS dumpers will be expecting a dshares pump.They will want to get 7 times the number of "dshares" as they sell BTS and then hope that they can sell some of these dshares at a quick profit in terms of DOGE or whatever.

If Tonyk had the leadership ability and personality to be a successful team or business leader then he would continue, and be able, to garner support for the changes he wants  within the BitShares consensus mechanism. But he does not. He does not have that kind of ability or personality. His considerable strenghts lie elsewhere. So he is instead attempts a very divisive fork at a time when we should be pulling together as a community which is on the verge of major innovation and progress.

Frustrated ego appears to have gotten the best of him.
Or has tonyk come up with some new consensus mechanism more to his liking to enable in this fork of his?

Let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory people.

WOW... That dangerous/destructive?

If I was not absolutly positive you are angry as hell, I would have asked -"Which victory exactly ( that is  just an arms away) do you mean?"


PS
btw New chain never was, and still is not the goal.  If I had my choice.

PSS
and my god
 "selling out of BTS"... by buying BTS products (bitUSD)?...
I will call this a "clear intend to hurt BTS", but sure the next fork will offer you pure gold delivered to BTS holders... 70 cent on a dollar, for every coin they do not drop on BTS.