BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: xeroc on March 10, 2015, 08:02:02 pm
-
Hey friends,
in this discussion (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14845.0) and this discussion (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14752.0) people from the community want to get altcoins traded in BitShares DEX (as market pegged assets) ..
The questions would be how to get them into the DEX. Either someone* has to pay 500k BTS for the registration or the shareholders come to a consensus and let the next hardfork create those assets for free.
* altcoin community, individual or delegates
The issue I'd like to discuss (again (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14043.0;all)) what criteria have to be met such that the developers can see a consensus of the shareeholders about which markets to open.
Obviously, a forum poll is work nothing. Hence, I'd like to propose (similar to toast's proxy delegate) to vote for 0%-delegates.
As I don't think they will make it into the TOP101 we should discuss what threshold those delegates have to pass in BTS votes in order to be interpreted as "consensus" among a set of shareholders .. obviously, a 51% stake vote will note work. maybe a 51% of the actively voting stake .. or maybe 51% of the votes counted for TOP1 delegates ..
Let's discuss
BTW. for those not understanding the reason for this: Take a look at coin voting @cryptsy @mintpal (prior to shutdown) and possibly others .. In short, marketing this idea to individual altcoin communities will separated those communities that want their token traded in the BTS DEX from those that don't care .. AND drive the BTS price, because votes only count as BTS (with the HUGE advantage that voting with your BTS stake does not make you loos your stake :) )
Please discuss!
@toast @bytemaster @vikram @allotherdevs: what's your opinion?
-
I'd rather see an altcoin community run a funding to get listed on bitshares exchange.
would guarantee a motivated userbase from their side.
-
Asking altcoin communities for $5,000 to get a pegged version of their asset would be difficult. I think hardfork is better.
I'd really like to see altcoins on Bitshares, but they need a market!
Even BitBTC isn't liquid enough, how will altcoins be different?
-
I'd really like to see altcoins on Bitshares, but they need a market!
Even BitBTC isn't liquid enough, how will altcoins be different?
Good point .. but that's up to the individual altcoin community .. It doesn't make sense for us to do all the trading .. although I would love to do it .. I just don't have the funds to market make any market ...
-
Regarding how to do the voting:
We can create two delegates: one is a 'yes-on-bts-dex-hardfork' and one is a 'no-on-bts-dex-hardfork' delegate.
People vote for one or the other.
After a while, we can see how many votes each one has. For example, if Yes ends up with 5% and no ends up with 2%, we would know that people bothered to vote with 7% of all shares, and yes won 5/7 or 71.4% of the vote.
This will show us both the relative popularity of yes versus no as well as how much of the overall BTS stake voted.
-
Can someone list the dis-advantages to using a hard fork for this? After all, how was the original list of bitAssets created? Wasn't it just an open list on the forum that people added their suggestions to? I'm trying to remember, but I think that's how it happened......
How could it possibly hurt BitShares by hardforking a few altcoins into the list of mpas? There has to be some disadvantage I am not seeing.....can someone enlighten me?
-
Can someone list the dis-advantages to using a hard fork for this? After all, how was the original list of bitAssets created? Wasn't it just an open list on the forum that people added their suggestions to? I'm trying to remember, but I think that's how it happened......
How could it possibly hurt BitShares by hardforking a few altcoins into the list of mpas? There has to be some disadvantage I am not seeing.....can someone enlighten me?
Disadvantage of hard fork is that we would like to see the addition of more market pegged assets as a way to burn BTS, helping to make the DAC profitable over time.
Through the act of forcing someone to buy up 500k BTS and burn it to create the asset, BTS holders are rewarded.
Honestly, I would kindof like to see the 500k BTS need to be raised and burned to add assets. After all, right no nobody out there is buying any BTS, like, at all,and the price just keeps going lower. Having some buy pressure would be nice.
-
If a hardfork is needed to get an asset created either it shouldn't be created or 500k is too much. So if there is a hardfork it may be better to look at the fee structure than do one off additions.
-
Actually there used to be two alts (Litecoin and PTS).
They were hard-forked out (without any public discussion) and replaced by renamed GAS and DIESEL which to date have not attracted a single price feed and therefore never been traded.
Maybe it's time to rename them once more...
-
Actually there used to be two alts (Litecoin and PTS).
They were hard-forked out (without any public discussion) and replaced by renamed GAS and DIESEL which to date have not attracted a single price feed and therefore never been traded.
Maybe it's time to rename them once more...
Yep, I've proposed that before too but noone seems to listen..
-
Regarding how to do the voting:
We can create two delegates: one is a 'yes-on-bts-dex-hardfork' and one is a 'no-on-bts-dex-hardfork' delegate.
People vote for one or the other.
After a while, we can see how many votes each one has. For example, if Yes ends up with 5% and no ends up with 2%, we would know that people bothered to vote with 7% of all shares, and yes won 5/7 or 71.4% of the vote.
This will show us both the relative popularity of yes versus no as well as how much of the overall BTS stake voted.
Agreed. This is a good way to do it - as long as we have a statistically significant result, of course.
-
If a hardfork is needed to get an asset created either it shouldn't be created or 500k is too much. So if there is a hardfork it may be better to look at the fee structure than do one off additions.
+5%
-
I know Ive asked this before, but whatever happened to that proposal of delegates being able to come to consensus on a description of what a market-pegged asset should be, and then it is created at that point? That seemed to be a good way to solve this.
-
Is adding an MPA for a altcoin really the best way to do it? It might be better to simply trade altcoins in a centralized way but where they can trade against the decentralised bitassets. I.e. altcoin gateway + UIA.
-
Is adding an MPA for a altcoin really the best way to do it? It might be better to simply trade altcoins in a centralized way but where they can trade against the decentralised bitassets. I.e. altcoin gateway + UIA.
Well, there is TRADE.BTC and TRADE.LTC already (https://blocktrades.us/). But I would prefer if we had an open source service (at least for the gateway portion, I don't care if the bridge isn't open source) where the altcoin reserves and UIA manager were protected by an m-of-15 multisig automatically run by some subset of the delegates.
-
Asking altcoin communities for $5,000 to get a pegged version of their asset would be difficult. I think hardfork is better.
I'd really like to see altcoins on Bitshares, but they need a market!
Even BitBTC isn't liquid enough, how will altcoins be different?
+5%