BitShares Forum

is this the question thread :D ?

i would like to know if bytemaster had the time to look into my proposal to create a "Contract for Difference" or "Collaterized Tradingmarket" https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/6

does my proposal need more updates?

What are your views on LMSR market makers?  Is CNX thinking about including this in the future?

Quote from: Shentist on January 28, 2016, 11:10:03 PM
is this the question thread :D ?

i would like to know if bytemaster had the time to look into my proposal to create a "Contract for Difference" or "Collaterized Tradingmarket" https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/6

does my proposal need more updates?

#sharebits "Shentist" 20 COPPERTICKET

Quote from: Bitcoinfan on January 28, 2016, 11:20:34 PM
What are your views on LMSR market makers?  Is CNX thinking about including this in the future?

#sharebits "Bitcoinfan" 20 COPPERTICKET

Hey fuzzy, here are the results of your tips...

• Bitcoinfan (http://sharebits.io/Home/Dashboard?username=Bitcoinfan): has been credited 20 COPPERTICKET

Since the core asset (BTS) is owned by "null-account", it's impossible to enable % market fee or % transfer fee for it, even if the committee wants to do so. Should we change the owner to "committee-account" and grant the "Charge market fee" permission to the committee? If yes, how can this change be done, maybe via a hard fork?

Quote from: abit on January 29, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
Since the core asset (BTS) is owned by "null-account", it's impossible to enable % market fee or % transfer fee for it, even if the committee wants to do so. Should we change the owner to "committee-account" and grant the "Charge market fee" permission to the committee? If yes, how can this change be done, maybe via a hard fork?

NO!
for very simple reasons:
- BTS is the collateral for all bitassets
- BTS is a User Issued asset
- the owner (committee-account) could issue new shares
- an exchange could replace the committee and print new BTS

We should really never EVER change the issuer of that particular asset.
It is like asking BTC to increase the 21m cap. So please DON'T.

(I appreciate though that you asked :) )

@fuzzy
I might be unable to attend the mumble, but would you please mention our official worker proposal announcement:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21230.0.html

I don't think I need to tell you how crucial this moment for BitShares is  :)

And I do not mean that you should encourage people to vote in any particular way - please just make everybody aware that voting has started.

Thanks.

Crossposting from the questions thread:

The proposed transactions feature is ready to go in the GUI but there's a bug in the witness node preventing me from releasing it. The bug is that multi-sig accounts don't get notified of proposed transactions that they're supposed to sign off on. When can we expect that bug to get fixed? https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/442

Will there be a new release of the graphene core soon?

Quote from: svk on January 29, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Crossposting from the questions thread:

The proposed transactions feature is ready to go in the GUI but there's a bug in the witness node preventing me from releasing it. The bug is that multi-sig accounts don't get notified of proposed transactions that they're supposed to sign off on. When can we expect that bug to get fixed? https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/442

Will there be a new release of the graphene core soon?

why isn't this addressed by cryptonomex? or do you have to insert a coin before they start to talk? D:

The issue was discovered only 2 or 3 days ago. You can't ask for them to fix everything in 24h .. they are certainly busy doing something way more important (namely STEALTH)
And I can tell you this, no one else then me would see that bug fixed asap.

10 min til hangout begins!

36 in!  Join us and be part of BitShares' weekly community discussion!

Recorded hangout: https://soundcloud.com/testzcrypto/e131-2016-01-29-developer-hangout-with-bytemaster-raw