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 - abit

Pages: 1 ... 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 [217] 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 ... 309
3241
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 22, 2016, 02:39:35 am »
Probably I'll try to be funded this way:
* Apply one worker or more for a budget of 3.3M BTS
* Among it, 1.8M BTS will vest immediately, which will be used to borrow 1000 TUSD with 6x collateral, then be paid to CNX  through @bitcrab's gateway, for code review.
* The other 1.5M BTS will vest over one year.

Any idea? Thanks!

3242
General Discussion / Re: Prediction Markets now available in GUI
« on: January 22, 2016, 12:27:08 am »
Quote from: puppies on January 21, 2016, 10:34:29 pm
I definitely think its too high.  The problem is that its the same operation as force settling any other bitasset.  Some may not want to lower the fee for fear that more people will force settle.

What does everyone else think?
Aren't you a LTM?

3243
General Discussion / Re: Beyond Bitcoin (CNX) Hangout w/ Bytemaster Tomorrow @ 10AM EST
« on: January 22, 2016, 12:25:42 am »
I perhaps can't attend or can't speak.
Someone please help ask some questions about percentage based transfer fee. Thanks.

* Would you support other developers and their developments? If yes, how will you support? Will you charge a fee for supporting? How much?
* Would you recommend fund it via work proposal, or FBA, or others?
* If it's approved by stake holders, what's your estimation of when it will be released?
* What's your opinion on the fee rate (lower limit / upper limit / percentage)?

3244
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 22, 2016, 12:20:08 am »
Quote from: jakub on January 21, 2016, 10:29:47 pm
Quote from: abit on January 21, 2016, 07:58:48 pm
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..
I think we could leave BTS on the flat rate scheme and possibly lower the flat transfer fee to something like 10 BTS.
(So that we can satisfy those who say we should stay competitive with other crypto)

The crucial thing is to get the smart-coins onto the percentage-based scheme.
I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.

However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.

I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.

3245
General Discussion / Re: Fiat gateway is now up and running on OpenLedger!
« on: January 21, 2016, 11:46:10 pm »
Good  :D

3246
General Discussion / Re: Percentage based transfer fee [BSIP10] implemented
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:00:15 pm »
Quote
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

Quote
I confirm that percentage based fee mode can be applied to smart-coins via committee proposals. Tested.

However it's not perfect, we have to manually set core_exchange_rate in the proposal. During the proposal voting and review period, actual core_exchange_rate of proposed smart coin may have changed. When the proposal executes, core_exchange_rate in the proposal will take effect, and it's probably inaccurate.

I wonder if it's possible to set core_exchange_rate as an optional change for update_asset operation.

3247
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 21, 2016, 07:58:48 pm »
To whom it may concern:
It's unable to apply percentage based fee mode to BTS with my implementation. To get this feature, perhaps we need a new API. I'll dive deeper into the code..

3248
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 为“我们自己”投上一票
« on: January 21, 2016, 09:17:49 am »
Quote from: agree on January 21, 2016, 12:59:34 am
投票的事，我一直不太明白，相信不明白的人不少，希望有人科普一下。顺便问一下，每次投完“赞成”或“反对”后，一定要点“保存修改”，然后花费一点手续费吗？
现在是1BTS左右手续费。

3249
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:37:25 am »
Quote from: clayop on January 21, 2016, 08:29:34 am
Quote from: abit on January 21, 2016, 08:19:44 am
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?

//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.

I will do it when I have time. But I think big transfers won't decrease much, because they are real demands. On the other hand, we can expect more micro-transactions, but I cannot guess the number because if some services using micro-payment (e.g. messaging / telecommunications) are really successful, they can increase the number dramatically. Assuming 10,000 messages are sent a day, the total fee goes up from 600k to 1.1mil BTS.
Yes, you got my idea definitely. That's why we tried to design a percentage based fee structure.
Charge a little more on real demands, charge less on small payments to attract more uses.

3250
General Discussion / Re: 10k of bitUSD just got destroyed for no reason
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:33:04 am »
Quote from: yvv on January 21, 2016, 01:54:28 am
Quote from: clayop on January 21, 2016, 01:37:20 am

It buys BTS collateral of lowest shorts, not BTS on the orderbook.

Is there any reason why the system should not check the order book first, and if there are better offers than settlement price, take them first, then go buy lowest collateral? It would really seem to be a good deal for everybody.
The reason is no fund provided for develop this change, and/or no enough priority.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 21, 2016, 01:54:05 am
If you create smartcoin it is not always a short. it is only a short if you sell your newly created smartcoin.

when a smartcoin is force settled it takes the equivalent value in bts from the the lowest collateralised smartcoin and returns the remaining bts collateral to the smartcoin creator.

This is how it currently works and I understand it. What I am saying is that the system should check for any buy orders that are higher than the feed price first before taking collateral from the smartcoin creators. This way everyone wins.
Next time you can just borrow some USD first and keep you collateral ratio low, then sit there until your position are settled. No difference except that you'll get an even better deal.

3251
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 21, 2016, 08:19:44 am »
Thanks for your hard work @clayop .
One more thing need to be considered add into analysis: If we apply % fee to an asset, hopefully quantity of micro payments in that asset will increase, and perhaps quantity of big payments will decrease. If we make an estimation for example apply *5 to the former and 1/3 to the latter(depends on the parameters change), how will the result change?

//For example, 30BTS is unacceptable for most of tipping UIAs, so there are very few tips in the historical data. If we set the fee to 1BTS, perhaps tipping would get much more active.

3252
General Discussion / Re: [Public Testnet] testnet.bitshares.eu
« on: January 20, 2016, 06:06:58 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 20, 2016, 05:24:46 pm
However when I try to register a new account called zajac in the CLI:
Code: [Select]
register_account zajac TEST652Ynn6QAP518Po2GM7t8Ws5gJGTyFYBsfyvNr9KjzH2pgJZaT TEST652Ynn6QAP518Po2GM7t8Ws5gJGTyFYBsfyvNr9KjzH2pgJZaT neura-sx neura-sx 0 true
Looks like you need to import the active key of neura-sx.

//Update:
Yes I checked it's the reason. Although I don't know why the API still need active_key when you already have owner_key. Will check when have time.

3253
General Discussion / Re: poll for the percent based transfer fee
« on: January 20, 2016, 06:03:19 pm »
Quote from: clayop on January 20, 2016, 05:54:59 pm
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wS1MU8AsmNbUpaXzZid0JSWjQ/view?usp=sharing  (98M)

Based on some descriptive analysis, I think 0.05% / 1 Min / 300 Max is reasonable numbers.
Thanks for the analysis. Would you like to provide a summary of the analysis here? It's a bit hard to download a 98M file or open it in Google Sheets.

3254
General Discussion / Re: Cryptofresh Block Explorer + MUSE now available
« on: January 20, 2016, 06:00:29 pm »
Is it OK to list "standby" committee members and their opinions in the committee proposal page?
For example https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.63

3255
General Discussion / Re: Why I like Ethereum [BLOG POST]
« on: January 20, 2016, 05:08:11 pm »
Quote from: TravelsAsia on January 20, 2016, 03:52:54 pm
Quote from: betax on January 07, 2016, 02:42:17 pm
Overall this is a great idea, specially EVM becoming an standard as it was mentioned and the capability to interop across different chains. Bitshares provides already a great BitAsset interface / Exchange etc. This will be like running Java in different OS.

Ill have to say I am the first to say it is hard to add functionality to BitShares, as it was mentioned on the blog post it is hard to sandbox yourself to test extra functionality. It is simpler to test your models in Ethereum BUT I am also the first one to say that if you need extra performance you can move to Graphene.

I look forward to this and is never too late. Yes Toast / Rune / Ryan are great candidates to do this.

Anyone considering creating a worker proposal for it?
I'm afraid worker proposal can not afford it. :-X

Pages: 1 ... 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 [217] 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 ... 309

Page created in 0.203 seconds with 23 queries.