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.
Thanks. It works for me too right now. Will wait for more information from 38PTSWarrior.That I get, but I just checked on my phone and it works fine..Not sure what the issue is, there is no desktop or mobile version and never has been, only a responsive website. And nothing has changed in this regard recently.I think he means the website doesn't work in Chrome in Android.
Not sure what the issue is, there is no desktop or mobile version and never has been, only a responsive website. And nothing has changed in this regard recently.I think he means the website doesn't work in Chrome in Android.
The left-up corner shows an account "yourship". Looks like it's not your account since the font color is white. Font color of your account would be light blue.Do you have all keys for your account? To check, you can go to the permissions page an click the BTS..... key on the active and owner permissions tabs..
Check if you can take a look at the private key (should start with 5)
Not sure how to do this . I don't know how to post a screen shoot here so I'm posting links to my screen shoots. If you can let my know which screen is the one to use and were to go next would be great help.
1: https://goo.gl/photos/SCB3TM7HiFRqvcFC7
2: https://goo.gl/photos/UFmnNc2r2okSCMsx9
Thanks
and still nobody answer my question:A good practice for those who hate the referral program: introduce others to register via your faucet and referral link, and reimburse them the 80% fees paid by them (to you). You won't feel guilty anymore. If you want to cover some costs of doing so, reimburse less, for example 79.9%.
1. what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
2. should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?good point
we need to ask ourselves a question: what's the fee if we don't have this referral program?
and another question: should the fee change much because of the referral program? why?
In my opinion, transfer fees and trade fees should as low as posible,
because we need more active users, and good liquility.
the value of users/liquility is much more valuable than the poor transfer fees
and I guess referral program can work even more better with low transfer/trade fee,
we can got more fees for special service, such as issue an asset, active asset's market, upgrade account ....
Imo if option A is allowed to exist, the fee should be higher than minimum fee of B or C, or the issuer pay some in other ways for example a monthly fee deducted from fee pool, so it will come to a balanced situation.Thanks @jakub and @abit for the response. I think @bitcrab is very close to being in favor.
I just wanted to confirm that we can create the following scenario with BSIP10. I understand the proposal doesn't determine fees, but I just wanted to get confirmation the modes below are possible if the committee decides:
Mode A: 1 cent per transaction to the network (no incentive for referral program or membership)
Mode B: 1% per transaction, 1 cent minimum fee (example max. $1/$10/$20), lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
Mode C: flat 20 cents per transaction, lifetime/annual members: 1 cent
In all three modes 1 cent goes to the network for each transaction so it's fair and the network doesn't care which mode anyone selects. Mode B & C adds an extra fee layer that all goes to referrals.
@abit mentioned this:
"I'd like to emphasize again that fee rates can only be set by the committee, and issuers can only choose among the fee modes.
I'm willing to implement per-asset fee rates, however it would be funded via FBA, so won't come in the soon future."
I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates. Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10? Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI? Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA. I think FBAs are for income generating features.
Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B. We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins. Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now. Is that correct?
What incentive is there for a selfish issuer to choose B or C , if he can just choose A to skip the referrers and make the users of his asset happy?
I assume issuers are dependent on the committee, but eventually issuers should have flexibility to determine fee rates. Is it too complicated to add that feature in BSIP10? Do you have a rough estimate of the cost just as an FYI? Also wouldn't it make sense as just another worker proposal instead of an FBA. I think FBAs are for income generating features.In my opinion, while issuers have more flexibility, they'll get benefit from the system, so it's fair for them to pay a little more or share some profits to other parties e.g. network, referral program and FBA holders. The benefit could be more users, or more revenue, or lower management costs, or better user experience, etc. For example, if an issuer wants to provide zero fee service to users, it would be possible with per asset fee rate mode, but she must pay for the users in some way. Bottom line, issuers should be unable to hurt the system by setting a zero fee rate, otherwise the system will be vulnerable to spam attacks.
Since it seems the committee determines the fee it would be hard to accommodate all of CNY/USD/Eur for mode B. We have to assume Mode B & C is for US/Eur Smartcoins and Mode A is for CNY Smartcoins. Privatized Smartcoins, UIA's, FBA's would get to choose any mode, but can only use the fee schedule the committee determines for now. Is that correct?Correct.
Also for other types of transactions such as premium names & UIA's I assume we can keep the discounts only for lifetime and annual members?Other types of transactions won't be affected by BSIP10.
国人习惯了精英治国理念BTS再继续这样下去，只有死路一条了，让老外们自己玩去吧
看你们激情昂扬的喷了那么多，按照过去经验，一点用没有。老老实实接受BM和他的权力地位，整什么幺蛾子都是鸡蛋碰石头
是的，在BTS社区没有出现技术牛人比BM强之前，我们还是应接受BM的领导地位，社区人不能在没有别的牛人出现前先反，而是应等牛人出现后再付和！
Thanks, Akado. Great summary.@jakub I thought the one who is running http://bitsharesnews.info is not a guy but a lady..
This website is also an excellent source of news:
http://bitsharesnews.info
It's been regularly updated for a couple of months now, by this little-known but hard-working guy: @BitShares News
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20215.0.html
Unclaimed issuer income / trade fees/ fee pool. @puppies @abit @AkadoThese fees are mainly inherited from BTS1, when we had "you get what you asked for" market matching algorithm, which means if you want to sell 100 USD for 10000BTS, and another guy wants 90 USD for 10000BTS, the difference (10 USD) will go to the accumulated fee pool.
These fees collected that the committee has control over and we are debating their use in the main forum.
Why are these even collected? I thought fees were paid in bts and sent to the reserve pool.
what is the point of these fees and why does the committe have control over them.
right, but many more mobile wallets will be released after ours I'm sure.Anyone can run a full node to provide the service you need.
how hard would it be to get the Witnesses to offer this level of service. i could code it so that the mobile wallets send a flag to the Witnesses saying "hey, i'm a mobile device, please filter out the big shit so my data plan isn't exhausted!" thoughts..?
let's encourage some other devs to make mobile wallets too...
天威还要老外帮忙编译钱包，不然时代就不能充值提现天威要是真帮忙把中国的成员都投进理事会，bts或许还真有希望。
找天威帮忙吧，不能由着老外胡作非为了
