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.
very cool ..Yes very impressive. We probably should write some docs for it. Xeroc: is it on your to-do list ?
Didn't even know invoices are already implemented.
Good job!
What's your application going to do?
Imo CDF contracts are new markets for trading. Image that we have a EUR/USD CDF market..what i love is, that anyone just post in "General" because on the subforums your posts get no attention at all.Maybe you could bring this up on tomorrow's mumble?
would be nice, but i am not available at he mumble times, because of work. I will add this as a question. Thanks for the idea!
Why do you need CDF contracts , when you have a stablecoin?
I've been off grid from the community for a bit, so i apologize if this topic is a repeat. if so, i'd love to see the discussion.To be honest BitCNY is currently very very weak in competition with Alipay, WeChat and some other popular online payment systems in China.
Yesterday was my first time opening up my Web wallet and playing around for at least a few months, and i have to say i'm VERY impressed with where the devs have gone with the technology! We have an awesome infrastructure in place, just need to attract people (and money) to play in our sandbox.
I still see bitUSD as our most valuable product and pushing for its acceptance by merchants, or just use in online funds transfers would be the best way to put the blockchain to good use. Would anyone else be interested in a campaign to market bitUSD? Off the top of my head I'm thinking this would entail getting it incorporated into cryptocurrency payment services (i just petitioned here: https://www.coinpayments.net/addcoin ...everyone else reading this should also petition), games, gambling sites, tip bots, and anything else you can think of that transfers value online.
Any other ideas for sparking bitUSD demand? it'd be great if we could get some businesses to issue bitUSD-denominated bonds on our DEX.
*I also like bitCNY, but don't think the Chinese government would be too accepting of merchants using it. Nonetheless, any Chinese nationals on here should feel free to adopt a similar marketing campaign locally!
In this way there will be no balance imported.thx for your quick answer!
You were right, the asset was there just had to wait..
Nevertheless I still can't recover my accounts, I followed the guide but I get a:
bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast
Any ideas on what to do?
also should this post move to another topic as it goes into migration problems?..
Try to do it manually, from BitShares 0.9.3c client for each account export 2 keys (owner and active) using following commands in console:Quotewallet_dump_account_private_key account_name owner_key
wallet_dump_account_private_key account_name active_key
When import these keys into BitShares 2, key by key. You should get your accounts back.
thx for your quick answer!Describe your issue, step by step. More detailed, more helpful.
You were right, the asset was there just had to wait..
Nevertheless I still can't recover my accounts, I followed the guide but I get a:
bad_cast_exception: Bad Cast
Any ideas on what to do?
also should this post move to another topic as it goes into migration problems?..
BTS referrer program bring a price more higher than reasonable, no referral will be happy if he get known the price is so high and 80% are paid to the referrer. on the other hand, it's not easy for the referrer to recommend a product/service with so high price.Some logical reasoning:
please understand why Chinese are sensitive to the price, China is a country where alipay is free, wechat payment is free, most inter bank transfers are free.
I have discussed the reasonable transfer fee above, for BTS the reasonable transfer fee can be 2-5 BTS.
fee are the renenues of the network, but also are costs of shareholders/users. transfer fee are friction, friction always slow down economy.
in the updated plan, there will be 3 mode, both mode A and mode C are flat fee, but for A the fee totally go to network, for C referrer will take 80%, the flat fee will be set by committee, but I think A will own a lower fee than B. BTS is the fundamental asset in the system, need to be applied mode A with transfer fee as low as possible.
for public smartcoins, as now there are privatized smartcoins, so its ok for public smartcoins to be applied mode B. users do not like referral program/high fee can play with privatized smartcoins.
I would suggest starting a new thread every week, like fuzzy does for the hangouts.
This shouldn't be a thread for discussion imo... just for someone to post the updates so next week, if you're interested, PM me and do it. I might not be able to do this every week. Let's keep this clean and easy for everyone to find what they need.
I would suggest starting a new thread, locking it, and getting it stickied.
I'm not blue, don't have the powers to do that lol only mods. guess I'll just try to edit the OP and then give it a bump. If after a while i'm not able to edit it i'll spam some mods to do that
If I remember correctly, in the blockchain settings we have a tool that addresses this - I think it's called multiplier or something similar.It's called "scale", which is currently set to "1x".
It enables the committee to automatically adjust all fees by a given factor and this way keep the fees in sync with BTS value.
No need for a worker proposal for that, the GUI work is all done thanks to jcalfee, it was finished months ago. We just need a bug in the witness node fixed before releasing it.A little off topic here but @svk can you make a list of witness bugs ordered descending by priority? I may have some time to look into them, and hopefully can get some of them solved.
That bug happens to prevent the GUI from knowing about exactly the scenario you describe..
I have an estimation of 1M BTS of my work, so maybe 1.5M BTS in total.With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
I don't think this is a good way, especially for the privatized smartcoins which has a feed price dependent CER, seems a independent mode for this is needed.So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
Mode C: flat fee, 80% to referral program and 20% to network.
IMHO don't eliminate any other possibilities when you want to add your (new) options, and don't change default behavior unless the stake holders agreed. It will make the things easier to get more progress.
If we have 3 modes implemented, the committee would be able to decide which mode BTS and/or smart coins will have.
I'm capable for implementing the new mode you proposed, and I'm willing to do it if well funded.
if we have 3 mode, then the flat fee in mode A and C can be set independently, right?
and the budget will rise if there will be 3 modes? then how much?
I am trying to understand. You seem to be saying that you have a fundamental problem with the referral program. Are there really not any similar systems in China? There are so many in the United States. Near my house there is a sporting association. They have a pistol range, rifle range, skeet shooting, and trap. Its open to the public at a certain price, but members get a greatly reduced rate. So a day of shooting trap might cost me $40 as a member, but would cost a non member $120.In China, there are also many this kind of shops, a typical case is barbershop. Every time in a barbershop, the barber (hired by the shop owner) endlessly suggest you to buy a membership to get more discount and they can earn some referral income. Some people tend to buy it, but others don't, because many owners of these kind of shops just run away after collected a large amount of prepaid fee, and usually it's hard for the customers to get back the prepaid fee. Bigger shops are more unlikely to run away with customers' money, so their memberships are easier to sell. But negative examples are too many.
I now believe the debate on transfer fee come from the conflict of different business culture.With current percentage-based fee designation, set CER of your assets to 0.00001BTS, set the floor to 1-5 BTS, the result will be same to your proposal.
In China(maybe also in some other regions in the world), the current referral program is just a trouble maker, very few people are interested in playing as a referrer, on the otherside, the high fee brought by it make the old players unhappy and drive a lot potential new joiners away. even worse, the logic behind the referral program is not appreciated by the China blockchain/cryptocurrency community. the whole China BTS community are in pain because of this.
However, maybe the referral program really play a key role in BTS development in some other regions, maybe US and western europe? I am not sure, but from the feedback from the forum it seems so.
So now let's come back to the problem I have raised before: Is it possible that Bitshares become a platform that businessmen can develop their business of different types upon it with great convenience and without disturbing each other?
Now considering the transfer fee issue, referral program and also BSIP#10, I now propose a solution as below:
1. define 2 different mode on charging transfer fee.
mode A: only charge a resonable flat fee(1-5 BTS?), all the fee will go to network, and there are no difference in LTM and common user.
mode B: percent based fee, with defined min limit/max limit/percent parameters, the max limit can be defined as high as possible. and the fee will divided by network and referrer.So with your proposal we come to 3 modes. The one which is missing in your proposal is CURRENT MODE:
2. BTS will be applied mode A, issuers of other assets will decide which mode to apply. I suggest all the public smartcoins, including BitCNY, be applied mode B.
I feel this solution is possible to end the debate. however, this need some modification in BSIP#10, and need confirm from all sides.The reason why the time needed to implement BSIP10 is long, is that stake holders don't want to or aren't able to pay for it quicker (aka quicker decision making and higher per-day dilution). Most people assume that longer payment period means lower cost, or, more time to have work done means to do more work.
China community hate dilution, but if most of the relevant people support the solution described above, I'll try to persuade China community to support BSIP#10.
because the implementation of BSIP#10 will cost more than 3 months, I'll suggest to reduce the transfer fee to a balanced level first(5-10 BTS) first, and then wait for BSIP#10 implementation. and then reduce the fee in A mode to the final reasonable level.
any thoughts? @ccedk @kenCode @jakub @BunkerChain Labs @xeroc @abit @Akado @clayop @puppies
I would suggest to add intrest for not moving bts in your wallet instead of lower transaction fee. Low transaction fee means easier to spam . Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank accountThen btc38 would earn huge interest, which is paid by dilution.
Great job @abit!The issuers can switch at anytime.
Same to you @jakub!
Good suggestion on the GUI solution @roadscape!
I like the idea. I'm strongly leaning towards percentage based fees because:
1) it will lower fees for new users who will probably test out smaller amounts in the beginning
2) might be slightly easier to explain
3) higher potential referral income for businesses and affiliates
4) it shouldn't make a noticeable difference to high risk merchants who accept payments and who subsidize fees.
Question:
-We can switch back to the original fee structure anytime right?
-What is the timeline for this to be available?See https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21230.0.html .
Thx!
Can the the flat/percentage be dynamic? What I mean is the system checks to see which fee is cheapest in terms of a default reference fiat (USD,CNY,EUR). So in addition to setting the flat fee and percent, the issue er can also set a parameter like "if flat fee) > X in fiat terms then use percentage fee. Maybe even charge the issue er a fee for extra resources to compute the fee if they choose this option.Good idea. Thanks.
