Check this https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20822.0.html

You need to build from the source, since you have a Ubuntu machine, it's not hard.

This guide http://docs.bitshares.eu/bitshares/installation/Build.html

Quote from: tbone on January 29, 2016, 06:12:30 pm

@jakub, I understand why fees need to be charged in BTS.  But why are you not defining a target minimum fee in terms of a stable currency so that when BTS goes up ten-fold, we don't have this minimum fee also going up ten-fold?  Surely you realized that having a moving target like this means that a business model that works today may not work tomorrow.  And some users that are happy with the fees today, will not be happy tomorrow.  You are ensuring uncertainty when it comes fees, which will likely wreak major havoc.  Why are you doing that?  It seems misguided and very unnecessary.  Unless I'm missing something.  Care to explain?

From what I understood, the floor and cap is defined by each issuer and can be changed on a per asset bases as frequently as needed ..

With current BSIP, global floor/cap/percentage is defined by the committee, issuers can not define them. Otherwise the issuer will be able to game the referral program.

Quote from: xeroc on January 29, 2016, 07:24:18 pm

Quote from: tbone on January 29, 2016, 07:00:06 pm

No, I believe the 6BTS floor is the mandatory minimum that must be paid to the network, anything above that would be split between the network and referrers.  I hope I'm missing something, otherwise this is just idiotic and will put me right near my wit's end with all of this.

6 go to the network .. everything above 6 goes to referral program

Yes, that's exactly what I said already -- the minimum to the network is 6BTS.  But the point is, what does 6BTS mean to users or to a business?  Today it means about $.02.  In a few months it could mean $.20.  How can a business build around that?  One of the rationales of this proposal is to preserve the referral program.  Yet the referrers now have much more uncertainty.  In fact, based on today's BTS value in USD, if this proposal goes through, a $200 transfer with a .1% fee would generate the equivalent of a $.20 fee, or about 60BTS.  The network would keep 6BTS plus 20% of the remaining 14BTS, leaving the other 80% of the 14BTS for the referrer. 

Now let's say, just as an example, the value of BTS goes up 10X in the coming months.  Now that same transaction fee of .20 would be the equivalent of 6BTS, so the network would take 100% and the referrer would get nothing.  So much for protecting the referral program. 

Not to mention, if the value of BTS goes up any further than that, the actual rate to the user would go up.  Or for a business built atop Bitshares, their costs would be higher due to the increased fees, potentially making their model non-viable.   

Again, unless I'm missing something, I have to say WTF are we doing here?!

The committee is responsible to adjust the global floor/cap when BTS price arise/drop by x%.

This is the genesis.json file that you receive when you clone the repo:
The above file produces the "wrong" blockchain id.

Whereas this is the genesis.json file that you receive when you download a zipped version of the repo:
The above file produces the "correct" blockchain id.

Differences are the carriage returns (CR) aka "\r" or 0D in hex.
The first one is in windows text file format, which has both "\r"s and "\n"s, or 0D 0A in hex.
The second one is in linux text file format, which has only "\n"s, or 0A in hex.

So the difference may come from:
* editor settings
* git repo settings
* git client settings
* zip tool settings

Thoughts?

Quote from: merivercap on January 28, 2016, 11:56:07 pm

1.  The referral program is one key to  success for Bitshares and Bitcash.  It's an extremely efficient way of allocating marketing resources.   If anyone thinks a product sells itself without any marketing that person doesn't understand business.  The technology is important, but any other system can emulate or even fork features so that makes marketing and distribution more critical.  Dropbox, Paypal, Square and many other companies have used referral systems extremely effectively.

2.  The referral program attracts and provides an incentive for a variety of businesses to use and build applications on Bitshares.  It provides some sustenance to these businesses.  Most other businesses that build on Bitcoin or other ecosysems are not sustainable.

3.  The price someone is willing to pay reflects the value something provides.  Bitshares has to be useful. Fees help us identify areas where we are solving the biggest problem.   We can solve a problem for merchants if we make it easy to use, charge lower processing fees, eliminate chargebacks, and bring in new potential customers.  We can solve problems for those that don't want to or can't use traditional banking systems.   Those users and merchants should be willing to pay fees.   Peer-to-peer payments are already free with Alipay, Wechat, Unionpay in China and it's free in the US with Paypal, Square, Facebook, Apple(soon) ..all these companies already have a huge network effect and billions to spend on marketing.  We can go after peer-to-peer payments later.  It's not wise to use resources to go against these giants directly.

4.  The fees are not the biggest issue, but in China I understand that overall prices are lower so regional pricing makes sense.

5.  The Bitshares system doesn't need to earn a profit in the beginning.  It just has to pay for marketing, witnesses, and software development.   All we have to do is set the bare minimum network fee for sustainability.  We can have a small budget for ongoing core development, but rely on FBA's for advanced features.   

6.  What if we:

a. Determine the lowest sustainable fee structure that will pay for witnesses and a reasonable amount of software development and maintenance in the long run.  This will be the network fee.  It can be in dollar/yuan terms. 

b.  Create a flexible fee structure so that certain Smartcoins (bitUSD,bitEUR), UIA's, Privatized bitAssets, FBA's can charge an additional fee to pay for marketing costs and utilize the existing referral program as is.  We can allow other Privatized bitAssets (TCNY) or Smartcoins (bitCNY) to charge no additional fee and find a way to market itself with no money and no referral program... or possibly find outside VC money for marketing somehow.

What do you guys think?

This seems like a potential way to resolve this. I think it would be beneficial for Asset owners/creators to be able adjust the fee structure for their assets in order to better cater to their customers or marketing approach.

Already thought about this.
I am ready for more developments.

no, trade at market USD/CNY is enough and simply and safe.
no tradebots can ensure you profit from market BTS/USD, there is a big possible, you'll lost money

I think no one except you is monitoring USD/CNY market. Which means the market is even more illiquid.

On the other hand, selling USD for CNY will make the CNY market more illiquid since the committee will take some CNY out from the market.

Sell BTC for OpenBTC make some sense for liquidity, but it means have to trust an IOU.


Imo we have to take the risk of losing some money. It's acceptable if we helped liquidity.

Will the recent issue related to an expiring order with 0-fee result in an issue with percentage based transfer fees?

I have no idea.. looks irrelevant.

说真的，推荐系统有用，我0几年用过，用的好牛叉的很。

建议
1、永久收手续费更有吸引力，现在这个限额40$不够吸引人，一劳永逸的事，谁的想做，哪怕辛苦一点。
2、更适合UIA，由UIA方提供注册手续费，推广的人只管推广拿手续费永久提成，这样才有动力。
      现在模式是最为推广者得我还得提供注册费，搞毛，被刷几下就血本无归。
3、简单又易用

如此推广，保证效果杠杠的

当然  30BTS手续费 确实太贵了

这么好，要不要人写代码？给不给工钱？