BitShares Forum

Main => Technical Support => Topic started by: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am

Title: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 01:23:46 am
I will leave most of the exiting new features to be praised by other fan-boys. Below are some the concerns I have after reading the proposal.



1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends

The BTS from fees are kind of recycled (put back in a ‘future spending fund’). The question is not anymore if Bitshares will ultimately has 2.5+1.5 bill BTS in existence, the question is only ‘when’. What we have given up is the dividend for the shareholders. I will not theoreticise  here if such dividends is essential for the shares to have value and what is the impact of having/not having dividends.
Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burnt



2. The bond market is clearly not well thought and developed. It will take far more features to actually work and work well.

Why? – Put yourself in the lenders shoes. You will require collateral equal to the loan amount + interest+ some amount to guarantee for negative price movement of the collateral. So if you are lending bitUSD and accepting say BTS as collateral you will ask for 100% + interest + some% to insure yourself if BTS goes down during the term of the loan. So say 125% of the loan amount in BTS at the current BTS/bitUSD price.

Now to the shoes of the borrower. If you have to provide $125 in BTS to borrow $100 in bitUSD, and keeping in mind that nature of the asset that one can own on a blockchain, the circumstances in which such loan sounds like a real loan is very very small. It is not like owning a house and taking a loan to start a business. Most of the blockchain assets are of such a nature that simple selling them at current price is the best way to go. The cases that are left are not true loans but more akin to speculation that the collateral will go up in value during the loan term.

Some form of reputation system (credit score of kind) and or insurance/guaranty third party is clearly needed for true active bond market.



3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Recurring & Scheduled Payments as well as the enormous amount of transactions (TPS) that the system is promised to be able to handle are more than AWESOME but let’s address the problem areas and not pretend such do not exist.

Go BTS!
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: eagleeye on June 09, 2015, 03:36:25 am
Legitimate concerns.

Taking off the fee to place orders just a fee to execute should be standard.

(I just read your post not the post bytemaster made.)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: clout on June 09, 2015, 03:39:20 am
1. We haven't had BTS burnging since BitsharesX. We've already agreed to the dilution model. Burning really doesn't constitute a dividend. You're not going to see an appreciation in value from the process of burning BTS. While dilution might add a marginal amount of short term sell pressure it ultimately adds long term value creation which is what is most important.

2. The bond market works like the margin accounts on various other crypto exchanges. You don't need to a reputation system for collateralized lending. The bond market is primarily a means for traders to short BitAssets relative to other BitAssets or BTS relative to BitAssets.

3. I think the pricing makes sense. If you make more than 200 trades in a year it is more economical for you to purchase a yearly subscription. Any trade greater than 100 dollars you are paying less in fees than btc38.com which charges a 0.1% (probably the lowest fee of any crypto exchange that charges fees). If you make more than 625 trades in a "life time" then it is in your best interest to purchase a lifetime membership. Any trade greater than 40 dollar you are paying less than the 0.1% fee of btc38.com. I think that these are pretty reasonable price points and the fees are negligible enough that no one except market makers with automated trading bots would care about having to pay a fee to place an order.

With that being say I think that there should definitely be an incentive program for market makers, particularly in order to bootstrap the BitAsset to BitAsset markets. It would be great if the devs could either implement some variation on maker taker fee model or provide a rebate to those market makers that provide a certain amount of depth within a given spread.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 04:17:23 am
1. We haven't had BTS burnging since BitsharesX. We've already agreed to the dilution model. Burning really doesn't constitute a dividend. You're not going to see an appreciation in value from the process of burning BTS. While dilution might add a marginal amount of short term sell pressure it ultimately adds long term value creation which is what is most important.
We have burning even as we speak. Burning from all delegates that are <100% pay rate. A 3% delegate current burns 97% of  the transaction fees [97% of 1/101 of all  fees collected in the last 2 weeks or there about]. So currently we have both the process of  creation and destruction of BTS . Creation far outpaces destruction, for a net creation indeed, but this is not the point I am making.

On the long term value creation claim - it creates value if it does... I am not saying it is one or the other currently or in the future.

2. The bond market works like the margin accounts on various other crypto exchanges. You don't need to a reputation system for collateralized lending. The bond market is primarily a means for traders to short BitAssets relative to other BitAssets or BTS relative to BitAssets.
Those are the few use case that do remain, hopefully. It is not true peer-to-peer lending - it is one party getting interest the other not so much taking a loan but mainly speculating on a price movement.
 In my view  limited use case remaining. That is wat I said or at least tried to say in the OP in 2.
Also if you look at the numbers you will  see that in reality it does not make sense to borrow say bitUSD @ interest and 125% collateral on the bond market if you can instead simply short the same borrowed asset (bitUSD at 100% collateral and no interest owed) ...

3. I think the pricing makes sense. If you make more than 200 trades in a year it is more economical for you to purchase a yearly subscription. Any trade greater than 100 dollars you are paying less in fees than btc38.com which charges a 0.1% (probably the lowest fee of any crypto exchange that charges fees). If you make more than 625 trades in a "life time" then it is in your best interest to purchase a lifetime membership. Any trade greater than 40 dollar you are paying less than the 0.1% fee of btc38.com. I think that these are pretty reasonable price points and the fees are negligible enough that no one except market makers with automated trading bots would care about having to pay a fee to place an order.
I am not talking about me as a use case...for me this kind of works due to a high # of transactions I make anyway and I am not a new user that need to be hooked to BTS. A new user (just signed)  has generally 2 not too attractive choice - almost 10x higher fees than say BTC ($0.20 as opposed $0.023) or pay $100 to try the system and have comparable fees.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Ander on June 09, 2015, 04:34:08 am
Burning BTS is very important. I didnt read anything that suggested no burning would take place, I assumed that part of the fees were going to be burned, and part go to referrals.  If there is actually no burning, then there is no reason to hold BTS, because it could not be profitable.  Burning is essential.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 09, 2015, 05:07:12 am
bump

I need some more sub 3k bts
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: onceuponatime on June 09, 2015, 05:13:15 am
Burning BTS is very important. I didnt read anything that suggested no burning would take place, I assumed that part of the fees were going to be burned, and part go to referrals.  If there is actually no burning, then there is no reason to hold BTS, because it could not be profitable.  Burning is essential.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16747.msg214794.html#msg214794
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Shentist on June 09, 2015, 05:14:24 am
i assume the BTS you pay for creating UIAs of MPAs are still burned?

so at the moment the only source, but the papers didn't show how much will a name costs in the future etc. so maybe we will have a lot of sources left for burning BTS.

Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: CryptoPrometheus on June 09, 2015, 05:22:55 am
Workers can run on a platform of burning their wage - shareholders just have to vote them to the top if they want BTS burned. Right? Am I misunderstanding the worker branch of DPOS 2.0?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Ander on June 09, 2015, 06:10:33 am
I need some more sub 3k bts

NEVER AGAIN.


Also, given the cup and handle formation that looks to be forming, you'd better buy the sub 4000 sat BTS as fast as possible.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 06:37:19 am
Workers can run on a platform of burning their wage - shareholders just have to vote them to the top if they want BTS burned. Right? Am I misunderstanding the worker branch of DPOS 2.0?
Yes .. you understanding is correct ... There will be dummy delegates that just burn their pay!!

Hence, tony is only half right: There is no implicit burning in bts any longer.
However:
(http://i.imgur.com/W4rfxB5.png)
you can see that the "burned" funds from the "left over delegates" are fed back to the reserve.
Also note that the workers are the only once allowed to take fund out of the reserve.
Max amount the workers can take out is 5 BTS per second or 50 BTS per 10 seconds (like atm)

In the end it doesn't really change much ... however, we might right a higher supply eventually .. but are also much more flexible as shareholders ..


// edit: seems I have some facts wrong... delegates can vote on the max dilution (i.e. 5 BTS/sec) ...
also I though witnesses are paid by transaction fees ..
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Ander on June 09, 2015, 06:49:10 am
Imo, we should vote to keep total pay below about 40% of the max possible - similar to current levels. 
We have a good rally going, lets keep it going by not overdiluting.

As the price increases, this pay will go further. 



This is a good system, it allows voters to control whether the DAC is focused on being profitable, or on spending to fuel growth.  Early on we can vote for more funding, but later as the system matures we can show profits and burn BTS by voting down the pay level and letting more BTS be burned.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: arhag on June 09, 2015, 06:59:30 am
Well first all these numbers including the total supply can be changed with hard forks if there is enough shareholder approval. But let's consider what is possible without hard forks. Also, let's assume another change to increase total supply above 3.7 billion BTS is so undesirable that we would "never" hard fork to do it. If the rate at which BTS is pulled from the reserve pool follows the same hard-coded rules of the current BitShares system (5 BTS/sec and halving every 4 years), then there is effectively no difference from a dilution standpoint. However, if a majority of the delegates are able to change this number, then that is a different system than what we currently have. Dynamically adjusting the number makes it much easier for a large enough quorum of stakeholders to effectively retroactively reclaim funds that we earlier "burned" (but still never exceeding the 3.7 billion BTS hard limit, assuming no hard fork). But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I would like clarification on whether the rate that is pulled from the reserve pool is set by delegates or hard coded (or maybe it is set by delegates but with a hard-coded upper limit?).

Regarding the bond market, I have some other concerns actually, but I rather just wait until more information is provided. Personally, I consider it a work-in-progress that will likely be greatly improved over time. I'm just glad that it is being considered a priority though.

Regarding the high transaction fees, I believe different operations can have different fees set by the delegates (is that correct?). If so, my concerns about the fees is greatly reduced. I think that certain operations like updating an account's votes and placing and cancelling limit orders should have very low fees (in fact, I think we could just get away with making cancelling orders free without worrying about spam issues). We shouldn't penalize people who update their votes because they help keep the system secure and running properly. And high fees on placing and cancelling limit orders hurts bots which will hurt market makers and thus liquidity. I would rather have very low fixed fees on placing market orders and have percentage fees on the matched volume instead (but still at a lower rate than our centralized exchange competitors). But I am fine with all other operations (including transferring assets from one account to another) having the higher fixed fees for the sake of the referral system.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: blockhead on June 09, 2015, 07:46:04 am
I'm concerned about the fees aswell. Price stable BitAssets with a good yield could be a huge advantage in the unbanked markets but they need to be able to afford to trade them. 0.4$ seems too high in my oppinion.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 07:54:19 am
Well first all these numbers including the total supply can be changed with hard forks if there is enough shareholder approval. But let's consider what is possible without hard forks. Also, let's assume another change to increase total supply above 3.7 billion BTS is so undesirable that we would "never" hard fork to do it. If the rate at which BTS is pulled from the reserve pool follows the same hard-coded rules of the current BitShares system (5 BTS/sec and halving every 4 years), then there is effectively no difference from a dilution standpoint. However, if a majority of the delegates are able to change this number, then that is a different system than what we currently have. Dynamically adjusting the number makes it much easier for a large enough quorum of stakeholders to effectively retroactively reclaim funds that we earlier "burned" (but still never exceeding the 3.7 billion BTS hard limit, assuming no hard fork). But I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I would like clarification on whether the rate that is pulled from the reserve pool is set by delegates or hard coded (or maybe it is set by delegates but with a hard-coded upper limit?).

Regarding the bond market, I have some other concerns actually, but I rather just wait until more information is provided. Personally, I consider it a work-in-progress that will likely be greatly improved over time. I'm just glad that it is being considered a priority though.

Wow. I do admire how  elegantly and yet precisely you put all (or most all)  issues and possibilities. I hope that the designers of the system see that your statement is actually loaded with  questions that need to be answered, though.


Regarding the high transaction fees, I believe different operations can have different fees set by the delegates (is that correct?). If so, my concerns about the fees is greatly reduced. I think that certain operations like updating an account's votes and placing and cancelling limit orders should have very low fees (in fact, I think we could just get away with making cancelling orders free without worrying about spam issues). We shouldn't penalize people who update their votes because they help keep the system secure and running properly. And high fees on placing and cancelling limit orders hurts bots which will hurt market makers and thus liquidity. I would rather have very low fixed fees on placing market orders and have percentage fees on the matched volume instead (but still at a lower rate than our centralized exchange competitors). But I am fine with all other operations (including transferring assets from one account to another) having the higher fixed fees for the sake of the referral system.

Now this is pure optimism... I wish you are right, but I have not read anything confirming that different [deeply thought out and reasoned] fees for different transactions are coming to BTS. Are they?
?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 07:56:24 am
Now this is pure optimism... I wish you are right, but I have not read anything confirming that different [deeply thought out and reasoned] fees for different transactions are coming to BTS. Are they?
In the hangout yesterday BM claimed there will be about 30 fees that have to be defined by delegates (maybe I misheard it and he meant 13 .. not sure)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 07:59:08 am
Overall I think this is many shades of awesome.

But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.

This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.

What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card?

There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: tonyk on June 09, 2015, 08:08:38 am
Now this is pure optimism... I wish you are right, but I have not read anything confirming that different [deeply thought out and reasoned] fees for different transactions are coming to BTS. Are they?
In the hangout yesterday BM claimed there will be about 30 fees that have to be defined by delegates (maybe I misheard it and he meant 13 .. not sure)

Cool!

I do wish I am unnecessarily worried on all fronts in this thread - aka all fees are adjustable and reasonable; there is now way to dump/ distribute to the workers the 1.2Bill BTS from the 'reserve fund' in 1 just week instead of at 5BTS/sec clip max; we do have way to decide what % to burn; the bonds work like charm; etc etc.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 09:54:47 am
I do wish I am unnecessarily worried on all fronts in this thread - aka all fees are adjustable and reasonable; there is now way to dump/ distribute to the workers the 1.2Bill BTS from the 'reserve fund' in 1 just week instead of at 5BTS/sec clip max; we do have way to decide what % to burn; the bonds work like charm; etc etc.
I don't know which parameters in the end be defined but the delegates but I recall BM saying that his intentions are to have them ALL be defined by delegates and thus shareholder approval.
That includes the percentage of takeouts from the reserve fund aswell as the pay of witnesses and workers ...
see this:

(http://i.imgur.com/W4rfxB5.png)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: zhangweis on June 09, 2015, 11:04:34 am
(http://i.imgur.com/W4rfxB5.png)

What I understand of "burn" is that burnt BTS are gone and will never come back again. But in proposed BTS 2.0, the fee goes to a pool and can later come back to circuit and I don't think it's a "burn". This means the estimated final supply grows (again) to 3.7 billion from estimated 3.0 billion even if it's locked in pool.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 11:29:39 am
I was just thinking about the high fees issue again when going for my run this morning. I really think consumer fees this high will harm the chances of mass market appeal, but at the same time I really do like the referral program.

Would it be possible to force shopping carts to use a kind of pending transaction, and to place all of the fees on the person initiating the transaction, allowing the consumer to approve or deny it at no charge?

Under a system like that a person going to their wallet and making a transfer would still pay a fee, but a person going to a shop and clicking buy at the checkout to make a transaction would not pay a fee - the merchant would pay instead. I really think moving the cost burden from the consumer to the merchant would get rid of a massive barrier in the way of average Joe public adopting this technology, whilst potentially still maintaining the required level of total fees paid.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin already massively favour the merchant over the consumer, and the result of this is lots of merchants starting to use it but not so many consumers. But on the other hand, favouring the consumer may not reduce the number of merchants getting involved. Many retailers have mark ups of 50-200%. I don't think payment processing fees are a major cost burden on most retailers, but acquiring and keeping customers is. If consumers want to use Bitshares then merchants will come on board to get that extra business. Since the cost to them would still be comparable to the cost of credit cards or paypal, I don't see how that would be a problem. Also, the referral program already ads a potential extra level of monetization to merchants' checkouts, because they can add a link for people to create an account if they don't use Bitshares already.

An additional benefit of re-balancing fees towards merchants rather than consumers may be that referring a merchant account would be a lot profitable than referring a consumer, possibly allowing people to make money from marketing merchants solutions or on-boarding new retailers.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: fav on June 09, 2015, 11:33:58 am

2. The bond market is clearly not well thought and developed. It will take far more features to actually work and work well.

Why? – Put yourself in the lenders shoes. You will require collateral equal to the loan amount + interest+ some amount to guarantee for negative price movement of the collateral. So if you are lending bitUSD and accepting say BTS as collateral you will ask for 100% + interest + some% to insure yourself if BTS goes down during the term of the loan. So say 125% of the loan amount in BTS at the current BTS/bitUSD price.

I really like all announcements except for this one. I'm always for a secure investment method, and I initially thought bonds would provide just that. however, the risk is completely with the lender it seems.

what about the Yield system? will this be gone with 2.0?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Permie on June 09, 2015, 11:40:46 am
I was just thinking about the high fees issue again when going for my run this morning. I really think consumer fees this high will harm the chances of mass market appeal, but at the same time I really do like the referral program.

Would it be possible to force shopping carts to use a kind of pending transaction, and to place all of the fees on the person initiating the transaction, allowing the consumer to approve or deny it at no charge?

Under a system like that a person going to their wallet and making a transfer would still pay a fee, but a person going to a shop and clicking buy at the checkout to make a transaction would not pay a fee - the merchant would pay instead. I really think moving the cost burden from the consumer to the merchant would get rid of a massive barrier in the way of average Joe public adopting this technology, whilst potentially still maintaining the required level of total fees paid.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin already massively favour the merchant over the consumer, and the result of this is lots of merchants starting to use it but not so many consumers. But on the other hand, favouring the consumer may not reduce the number of merchants getting involved. Many retailers have mark ups of 50-200%. I don't think payment processing fees are a major cost burden on most retailers, but acquiring and keeping customers is. If consumers want to use Bitshares then merchants will come on board to get that extra business. Since the cost to them would still be comparable to the cost of credit cards or paypal, I don't see how that would be a problem. Also, the referral program already ads a potential extra level of monetization to merchants' checkouts, because they can add a link for people to create an account if they don't use Bitshares already.

An additional benefit of re-balancing fees towards merchants rather than consumers may be that referring a merchant account would be a lot profitable than referring a consumer, possibly allowing people to make money from marketing merchants solutions or on-boarding new retailers.
I've been thinking that supermarkets can present a QR code at checkout, that downloads the user a BitShares wallet with a gift amount of bitUSD or a supermarket couponUIA.
The supermarket can market to customers in-person and has multiple incentives to do so.
Referral fees, UIA fees, UIA competitions (e.g all UIA holders with 100 points or more get a free basket of shopping) and they can accept bitUSD at face value, and then immediately sell it on the DEX for the premium.

The supermarket may even choose to partner with popular brand names that stock their stores. The brand issues a UIA that can be QR scanned from a box of cereal etc.
An existing bts user can just scan the QR and get the UIA, and a new bts customer is directed to make a new account.
Both the supermarket and product brands benefit from BitShares customers so they can work together to encourage adoption.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: theoretical on June 09, 2015, 12:04:30 pm
I would like clarification on whether the rate that is pulled from the reserve pool is set by delegates or hard coded (or maybe it is set by delegates but with a hard-coded upper limit?).

TLDR:  Set by delegates, but with a hard-coded upper limit of 17 / 4294967296 of the reserve pool's value per second, with daily compounding.

I wrote the code which actually implements this, and was heavily involved in its design, so I can answer this question.  (In fact the image xeroc posted in this thread is based on a design diagram I drew on a white board.)

The upper limit on witness plus worker pay is equal to a fraction of the reserve pool.  Here's part of the get_max_budget() function:

Code: [Select]
   int64_t dt = (now - dpo.last_budget_time).to_seconds();

   share_type reserve = core.burned(*this) + core_dd.accumulated_fees;

   fc::uint128_t budget_u128 = reserve.value;
   budget_u128 *= uint64_t(dt);
   budget_u128 *= GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE;
   //round up to the nearest satoshi -- this is necessary to ensure
   //   there isn't an "untouchable" reserve, and we will eventually
   //   be able to use the entire reserve
   budget_u128 += ((uint64_t(1) << GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE_BITS) - 1);
   budget_u128 >>= GRAPHENE_CORE_ASSET_CYCLE_RATE_BITS;

It sets an upper bound on the budget equal to the reserve pool times a hardcoded factor of 17 / 2**32 per day.  Since we know the initial float (2.5 billion) and initial reserve (1.2 billion), this is enough information to calculate the annual monetary inflation with your favorite calculator (e.g. a Python shell):

Code: [Select]
>>> (1 - (1 - (17. / 2**32 * 60 * 60 * 24)) ** (365*1)) * 1.2e9 / 2.5e9
0.0563356758462306

It is a little tricky to get the compounding exactly right in the above computation (intraday is non-compounding, daily is compounding).  That number's returned from get_max_budget(), let's look at what happens to that number next:

Code: [Select]
      share_type available_funds = get_max_budget( now );

      share_type witness_budget = gpo.parameters.witness_pay_per_block.value * blocks_to_maint;
      witness_budget = std::min( witness_budget, available_funds );
      available_funds -= witness_budget;

      fc::uint128_t worker_budget_u128 = gpo.parameters.worker_budget_per_day.value;
      worker_budget_u128 *= uint64_t(time_to_maint);
      worker_budget_u128 /= 60*60*24;

      share_type worker_budget;
      if( worker_budget_u128 >= available_funds.value )
         worker_budget = available_funds;
      else
         worker_budget = worker_budget_u128.to_uint64();
      available_funds -= worker_budget;

      share_type leftover_worker_funds = worker_budget;
      pay_workers( leftover_worker_funds );
      available_funds += leftover_worker_funds;

      // available_funds is money we could spend, but don't want to.
      // we simply let it evaporate back into the reserve.
   }

gpo.parameters is the list of parameters under the delegates' control.  So the delegates set the witness pay per block and the total worker budget per day, to get a daily budget with two line items (witnesses and workers).  This delegate-set budget is restricted based on available_funds which is initially the result of get_max_budget(), and reduced by the amount spent on each line item as it is processed.  Witness are paid first, workers are paid second, and any leftover goes into the reserve.

Where I've used the word "daily" I actually mean "per maintenance block."  The maintenance block frequency will initially be daily, but it is one of the delegate-settable parameters.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:13:24 pm

2. The bond market is clearly not well thought and developed. It will take far more features to actually work and work well.

Why? – Put yourself in the lenders shoes. You will require collateral equal to the loan amount + interest+ some amount to guarantee for negative price movement of the collateral. So if you are lending bitUSD and accepting say BTS as collateral you will ask for 100% + interest + some% to insure yourself if BTS goes down during the term of the loan. So say 125% of the loan amount in BTS at the current BTS/bitUSD price.

I really like all announcements except for this one. I'm always for a secure investment method, and I initially thought bonds would provide just that. however, the risk is completely with the lender it seems.

what about the Yield system? will this be gone with 2.0?

The lender may purchase an option separately (not implemented yet).    If a lender has an option and the interest covers the cost of the option then there is no risk to the lender.   For now the lender must provide the option themselves and thus is exposed to option risk. 
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: monsterer on June 09, 2015, 12:30:07 pm
The lender may purchase an option separately (not implemented yet).    If a lender has an option and the interest covers the cost of the option then there is no risk to the lender.   For now the lender must provide the option themselves and thus is exposed to option risk.

Why can't you make the blockchain enforce the contract fully via the same margin call mechanism the bitAssets use?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:39:51 pm
The lender may purchase an option separately (not implemented yet).    If a lender has an option and the interest covers the cost of the option then there is no risk to the lender.   For now the lender must provide the option themselves and thus is exposed to option risk.

Why can't you make the blockchain enforce the contract fully via the same margin call mechanism the bitAssets use?

There is not a price feed for every possible combination of assets.   Even if there was a "price feed" there may not be a market. 
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Stan on June 09, 2015, 12:44:16 pm
Overall I think this is many shades of awesome.

But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.

This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.

What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card?

There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.

Well, one way is to use one transaction to load a debit card and then make all your mini-payments from that.
Such cards are one of the fastest ways to get merchant and user adoption because they already work everywhere.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 12:46:23 pm
Fees for creating and canceling orders are set separately.   So it is possible that canceling orders could be free.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: monsterer on June 09, 2015, 12:49:04 pm
There is not a price feed for every possible combination of assets.   Even if there was a "price feed" there may not be a market.

Is it possible you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater here? You could restrict bonds to MPAs, and have them black swan to the collateral in the worst case where there wasn't sufficient market depth.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:30:10 pm
Overall I think this is many shades of awesome.

But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.

This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.

What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card?

There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.

BitUSD and other market pegged assets will likely be used in the same ways bitcoin is currently used. Prediction markets, gambling, buying "alternative" items, etc. It won't spread to mom and dad until a decade of more out. Please note that I'm not encouraging these activities, I'm just being brutally logical.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Xypher on June 09, 2015, 01:37:00 pm



3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: topcandle on June 09, 2015, 01:39:40 pm



3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

So your bowing out?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 01:40:57 pm
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 01:51:25 pm
BitUSD and other market pegged assets will likely be used in the same ways bitcoin is currently used. Prediction markets, gambling, buying "alternative" items, etc. It won't spread to mom and dad until a decade of more out. Please note that I'm not encouraging these activities, I'm just being brutally logical.

I think you lack ambition. With a decent set of wallet options 2.0 will be able to start competing against the likes of Paypal. Yes it will probably take a decade or longer to get any major market penetration, but that's no reason not to start now.

I also think it will be difficult to compete against Bitcoin and other cryptos for those markets. Gamblers don't care too much for stable value, buyers of 'alternative' items want strong privacy which isn't really provided by 2.0, and prediction markets are still a very minor use case even for btc.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Permie on June 09, 2015, 01:52:15 pm
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).
The user also doesn't need to pay to sign up, just pay more for transaction fees ~$0.4.
If freebieservers refers a customer to BitShares then they will receive ~$80.
Could you offer your service to Bitshares users at a discount to entice new users to sign up and net you another $80?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: robrigo on June 09, 2015, 02:00:15 pm



3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

From what I understand, you could purchase the membership which makes your account its own referrer. Then you can have your own affiliate program where you set a % of the referral fees that goes to an affiliate (i.e. the kid using paypal) that you split with them. As long as the kid doesn't need to have an annual / lifetime membership to take a percent of your referral stream defined by you.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 02:12:10 pm
I think you lack ambition. With a decent set of wallet options 2.0 will be able to start competing against the likes of Paypal. Yes it will probably take a decade or longer to get any major market penetration, but that's no reason not to start now.

I also think it will be difficult to compete against Bitcoin and other cryptos for those markets. Gamblers don't care too much for stable value, buyers of 'alternative' items want strong privacy which isn't really provided by 2.0, and prediction markets are still a very minor use case even for btc.

Why would a mainstream user use a currency that isn't accepted anywhere?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 02:22:13 pm
Why would a mainstream user use a currency that isn't accepted anywhere?

Its a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Xypher on June 09, 2015, 02:34:28 pm



3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.




3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

So your bowing out?

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).
The user also doesn't need to pay to sign up, just pay more for transaction fees ~$0.4.
If freebieservers refers a customer to BitShares then they will receive ~$80.
Could you offer your service to Bitshares users at a discount to entice new users to sign up and net you another $80?




3. The referral system is killing the product [while probably being very good tool to sell it], or very actively working on it.

In order to provide decent referral bonuses ($80 per account seems to be the target) the transaction fees are $0.20 for free account (and $100 + $0.04 per transaction for lift time one). Do you really thing the customers will come flying to the system at those levels. [Leaving aside how astronomically high that is for each placed/canceled order on the DEX…not filled just placed]. Do you think customers will jump on the system with $0.20 per transaction when the competition is 10x less? I know a lot of marketer will try to sell it to them to get their $80 bucks, but how many will really use it 10x higher transaction cost (or be happy to pay $100 for the privilege to try it and enjoy normal fees)


Go BTS!

We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

From what I understand, you could purchase the membership which makes your account its own referrer. Then you can have your own affiliate program where you set a % of the referral fees that goes to an affiliate (i.e. the kid using paypal) that you split with them. As long as the kid doesn't need to have an annual / lifetime membership to take a percent of your referral stream defined by you.

There's a number of things that needs to be noted.


1. Kids barely have any incentive to try a new financial system if the existing system "works" for them. For instance, when we integrated Nxt into our back-end, it was mainly "on-site" . Sure they did do transactions off-site, but the majority of their transaction was on FS' internal system, so unless we create an eco-system that facilitates such transactions for them  (eg :  marketplaces, exchanges or services catering to them) , they would not fall into this

2. The level of entry barrier is pretty high. I saw CCEDK offers debit / credit card to Bitshares in real time but having a user go through that, without a definite ecosystem or a user experience that appeals to them becomes hard.

Now don't get me wrong , start-ups like ours have due incentive in this, provided we have a system that has

1. High number of internal transactions
2. Reduce entry barriers for access to the coins
3. Create an ecosystem that enables  this.

I've done a fair amount of research into this aspect, long before any of the referral news came out. I will be making news in regards to how the system is expected to work pretty soon. Preferably, later today. It will be a sister concern of FS and the largest project to come out from our studio's in a year.

P.s - I've been trying to get in touch with PLS for a month now. We've conversed a bit via skype, but since I don't see those conversations going anywhere, working directly with Bitshares now seems smarter.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 02:48:19 pm
Its a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.

The referral program encourages both merchant and user adoption. Merchants integrate bitusd and refer users to the platform (getting paid for doing so). To achieve this dynamic, you must first financially incentivise the merchant to recommend bitusd as a payment option in the first place.

Take porn for example. Porn merchants are known for having to pay outrageous fees (10 - 20 percent). They won't recommend bitcoin because a) it's too volatile and b) recurring payments are impossible. Bitusd offers an alternative that will make them money on referrals, doesn't take 10 - 20 percent, is stable and allows recurring payments. That's a solid sell assuming easy on/off ramps.

Another example is Latin America where demand for USD is high but supply is low. With a referral program, you'll start getting organic user adoption there.

BitShares is not an alternative to PayPal and it won't be for quite some time.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: profitofthegods on June 09, 2015, 03:05:09 pm
Its a chicken and egs scenario and that makes it difficult, for sure. But they may use it initially for sending money to friends and family, especially with gateways being launched. Hopefully some online shops will start accepting it before too long, and new options such as recurring payments will help with that as will the referral program if those shops think Bitshares may appeal to their customers because they can get paid for introducing them. It will be a slow process at first but it will accelerate as more customers bring more shops on board and more shops introduce more new customers.

The referral program encourages both merchant and user adoption. Merchants integrate bitusd and refer users to the platform (getting paid for doing so). To achieve this dynamic, you must first financially incentivise the merchant to recommend bitusd as a payment option in the first place.

Take porn for example. Porn merchants are known for having to pay outrageous fees (10 - 20 percent). They won't recommend bitcoin because a) it's too volatile and b) recurring payments are impossible. Bitusd offers an alternative that will make them money on referrals, doesn't take 10 - 20 percent, is stable and allows recurring payments. That's a solid sell assuming easy on/off ramps.

Another example is Latin America where demand for USD is high but supply is low. With a referral program, you'll start getting organic user adoption there.

BitShares is not an alternative to PayPal and it won't be for quite some time.

I don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 03:21:58 pm
I don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.

I'm only disagreeing with the PayPal comparison. I don't think any cryptocurrency will appeal to "normal" users until much later. It's like computers in the 80s. They started off with niche uses and increasingly became more mainstream with time. Cryptocurrency will follow a similar pattern.

I think the best use case is always going to be countries with high inflation or instability of some sort (bail ins). These people literally want an alternative to keeping cash under a mattress. A referral program can go a long way in getting adoption started in places like this.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Xypher on June 09, 2015, 03:31:30 pm
I don't disagree with most of that, and those are great example uses. I'm not really sure if you're disagreeing with what I said or just the comparison with Paypal, but you acknowledge that the referral program provides an incentive to merchants as well as the reduced fees compared to what some are paying now, but seem to be saying merchants still need some additional financial incentive on top of that? I think that's enough of an incentive, and I think customers also need an incentive.

I'm only disagreeing with the PayPal comparison. I don't think any cryptocurrency will appeal to "normal" users until much later. It's like computers in the 80s. They started off with niche uses and increasingly became more mainstream with time. Cryptocurrency will follow a similar pattern.

I think the best use case is always going to be countries with high inflation or instability of some sort (bail ins). These people literally want an alternative to keeping cash under a mattress. A referral program can go a long way in getting adoption started in places like this.

I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 03:34:12 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Xypher on June 09, 2015, 03:35:51 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers
[/quote

The entry barrier gets high in that case imo.
Assuming I spend 100 usd in give aways and noone buys premium, I make no ROI technically. ]
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: fav on June 09, 2015, 03:36:16 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers

it's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 03:37:26 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers

it's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.

"we" don't need one .. the marketer needs one .. and is free to chose .. from facebook to ID verification
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 03:39:03 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?

$80 for premium users. How many users will actually convert to premium is anyones guess.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Method-X on June 09, 2015, 03:41:56 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers

it's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.

 +5% Hence it must be based on incurred fees.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 09, 2015, 03:44:20 pm
I think the  entire paypal comparison is flawed because Paypal had given 10 usd to every user that signed up on the platform. Is bitshares doing so ?
A marketer could decide to do so .. e.g. moonstone, or faucet.bitshares.org (cryptonomex) ..
it's up to the marketers

it's only possible if we had a secure system to prevent cheating.
Hm .. I can recall BM saying something about "identity verification" to be an integral part of VOTE!
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Empirical1.2 on June 09, 2015, 04:16:46 pm
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).

BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market.

But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling.  (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ )

BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting.   

Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point.

Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly. 
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: robrigo on June 09, 2015, 10:12:56 pm
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).

BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market.

But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling.  (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ )

BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting.   

Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point.

Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly.

Speaking of gambling platforms, I reached out to CoinGaming (http://www.coingaming.io/) a few days ago to see if they would be interested in using BitShares to build a casino platform to enhance the usability of their product. Hope they bite.  8)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Empirical1.2 on June 09, 2015, 11:39:50 pm
We were pretty bullish on pushing the referral system ourselves, but now we have no choice to back out from integrating it.
I don't see any reason why a kid using paypal would pay 80 USD and use this instead.

There are lots of things you can't do with PayPal. Their rules are very strict. For example, you can't gamble (among many other use cases).

BitShares can't offer blockchain based gambling either at least not in a way that benefits BTS shareholders because of the risk of losing the Chinese market.

But until the current financial system experiences serious problems again, much of the near term profit in crypto will be derived from areas such as gambling.  (Over half the companies advertising on CMC/Coindesk these days seem gambling related. ( www.Vitalbet.com , http://www.dragons.tl/ , www.anonibet.com , https://www.betcoin.tm/circle/ )

BTS 2.0 would be ideal for this, it's very unfortunate that we won't be participating & profiting.   

Hopefully we'll have a prediction market or some other applications from BitShares PLAY at some point.

Many BTC based bookmakers have large problems with BTC volatility and are required to hedge quite a lot, BitUSD would be ideal for them so hopefully we'll have some third party sites soon enough bringing in that market and increasing volume even if we won't profit from it directly.

Speaking of gambling platforms, I reached out to CoinGaming (http://www.coingaming.io/) a few days ago to see if they would be interested in using BitShares to build a casino platform to enhance the usability of their product. Hope they bite.  8)

 +5% Good idea

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/signpost-easy-money-hard-work-11854663.jpg)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: xeroc on June 10, 2015, 01:17:49 pm
1. There is no more BTS burning. No more dividends

....Anyway this matter is easily fixable – by setting 3 way split instead of the proposed 2 way (80%/20% for referral program/ future spending’s fund), by just adding % to be burnt

Of course there is another way to do this, another way which allows actually even more aggressively  removing/burning of BTS

https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/37

Thanks for listening to the feed back from the community BM!  +5%

Bam .. power to the shareholders!!

No one can claim BM is not listening to the community!
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: Tuck Fheman on June 12, 2015, 07:46:30 am
I need some more sub 3k bts

NEVER AGAIN.


Also, given the cup and handle formation that looks to be forming, you'd better buy the sub 4000 sat BTS as fast as possible.

;)

(http://i.imgur.com/zXD0K7c.png)
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: VoR0220 on June 12, 2015, 08:51:26 am
Overall I think this is many shades of awesome.

But the high transaction fees concern me too. If you think about average Joe potentially using it to do his shopping, then saying it compares well to traditional electronic payment methods is irrelevant - because average joe doesn't pay those fees, the merchant does.Convincing someone to pay $0.20 per transaction or buy a subscription and still pay fees on every purchase is a hard sell compared to something which appears to them to be completely free. Since this hypothetical average Joe probably doesn't care about decentralization or disintermediating the banks and won't use things like the bond market or dynamic account permissions, there is very little benefit to this person to make up for the high fees.

This update potentially has everything in place for Bitshares to be used as a financial services platform by businesses and investors, but as a payment platform (which price stable currencies should be ideal for) I don't see any target market. Crypto-enthusiasts won't flock to it en masse because they like the idea of a coin possibly appreciating in value over time and don't like perceived centralization. But non crypto-enthusiasts don't have any real reason to want to use it either.

What are the benefits for somebody using BitUSD over Paypal and real USD, or bank account and debit card?

There needs to be enough advantages to overcome the fees and lack of convenient things like ATMs in every neighbourhood, or it doesn't matter how many people are trying to market it, people won't be interested.

BitUSD and other market pegged assets will likely be used in the same ways bitcoin is currently used. Prediction markets, gambling, buying "alternative" items, etc. It won't spread to mom and dad until a decade of more out. Please note that I'm not encouraging these activities, I'm just being brutally logical.

I actually do see it working to get people into the crypto space...whether or not it will keep them in Bitshares is another story. But then again....Bitshares collects the fees. I think Bitshares should focus on the trading aspects....so far so good, now all that's left is the atomic trading of other major cryptocurrencies....
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: monsterer on June 12, 2015, 09:09:53 am
so far so good, now all that's left is the atomic trading of other major cryptocurrencies....

I still maintain this isn't possible, especially for currencies which are not based on bitcoin. You might be able to achieve a half way house if, for example, metaexchange was decentralised and every delegate also ran a metaexchange node.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: toast on June 13, 2015, 10:18:24 pm
Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?

Of course since "don't break share cap" is apparently not enforceable when shareholders can coordinate vote to hard fork then you should assume future owners will try to print shares and so we should just accept it.
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: tonyk on June 13, 2015, 10:41:19 pm
Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?

Well..if BM has said it is the same thing, you will  find fan-boys trying to prove it is the same thing... Other examples aside, I will never forget a picture of '2 rockets needed to be launched' shortly followed by 'a single bigger rocket is the only way to go' ...
Title: Re: Half-baked Elements of Bitshares 2.0 [first read]
Post by: starspirit on June 14, 2015, 12:52:26 am
Since you cannot print shares (past 3.7b) then you can reduce future flood risk if you let the fund be burned. How are people seriously trying to argue its the same thing?

Of course since "don't break share cap" is apparently not enforceable when shareholders can coordinate vote to hard fork then you should assume future owners will try to print shares and so we should just accept it.
It's definitely not the same thing. Whether you view it as a good or bad thing though, depends on one's perspective. It does make BTS much more like a share than a currency. See my description here, which is neither an attempt to promote or criticise it, only to clarify what it means...  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16812.msg215626.html#msg215626