BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bytemaster on October 14, 2015, 12:37:40 pm
-
It looks like the network is currently operating at a profit. We will see if things continue this way.
-
Wow!! +5%
-
Can release a full wallet,？the Chinese side a lot of people can not access the light purse
-
I guess it's mainly due to the initial membership upgrades.
The profits would've been much bigger of we had the account registration fee set higher than the current BTS 0.15.
-
It looks like the network is currently operating at a profit. We will see if things continue this way.
What happened to the idea you had of only showing the ownership percentage in the interface?
I think now is a good time to implement that.
-
Its from Buycoin -- chinese people buying up all the bts. names.
-
yes I think so.
main fee come from account upgrade. can we count the transfer?
I guess it's mainly due to the initial membership upgrades.
The profits would've been much bigger of we had the account registration fee set higher than the current BTS 0.15.
-
Each lifetime member costs 10000 bts, It is a big deal for the system .
:D
-
"Profit" a word we should see alot more of in the future :)
-
Is there a block explorer for 2.0? We need bitsharesblocks to get updated to show the new chain's stats.
-
I just want to make sure I understand the OP correctly.
Does this mean that 328k of BTS have been burned due to new lifetime members, account names registrations etc and the bts supply is currently c2,511,625 BTS instead of c2,511,953 bil BTS?
-
I just want to make sure I understand the OP correctly.
Does this mean that 328k of BTS have been burned due to new lifetime members, account names registrations etc and the bts supply is currently c2,511,625 BTS instead of c2,511,953 bil BTS?
BTS supply is actually more like 2,533,000. Coinmarketcap hasnt updated it in like 8 months.
-
Yes, for the moment we waited too long
I want to say that we have finally made a profit.
Take off, we love BTS
-
so we have reduced the supply of bts by 328k and these bts are burned within 1 day of launching? If that is the case all I have to say is wow +5% +5% +5%
-
sweet profit. yea, bitshares has come a long way to this. at last!
-
okay... +5% but I'm waiting to see some of the poloniex volume to move to the internal exchange ( and not just that... but I am impressed on how much volume bts/btc has had.) It will be constant revenue versus this one-time event.
-
Hey, so are those shares burnt or in the dev fund (for voting proposals)
I would like to know this as well +5%
If this is caused because of the migration, then it's very likely that it won't stay like this for long.
Also showing ownership percentage like luckybit mentioned would be pretty cool!
-
Hey, so are those shares burnt or in the dev fund (for voting proposals)
I would like to know this as well +5%
If this is caused because of the migration, then it's very likely that it won't stay like this for long.
Also showing ownership percentage like luckybit mentioned would be pretty cool!
Dev fund I believe.
But It is essentially the same thing. They are shares that no one owns and thus no one can sell.
-
Awesome +5%
-
(http://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/2015/06/30/2ff2a08e-c7a2-4c80-b1b9-5aded81b1d66/paulruddface.gif)
-
Forgive the dumb question, but where do the burned fees "go" ?
Do they 'simply' (in theory) increase the price of each share due to reducing the total amount of shares in circulation?
-
Forgive the dumb question, but where do the burned fees "go" ?
Do they 'simply' (in theory) increase the price of each share due to reducing the total amount of shares in circulation?
They vanish .. the supply of bts just shrinks by the network fees
-
Really nice. +5%
Is there a way to see the pool's stats?
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
Do you (or any) have any model of the supply, based on average usage and number of users? If not is ok, I understand fees will also change, so it is difficult to predict.
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
Do you (or any) have any model of the supply, based on average usage and number of users? If not is ok, I understand fees will also change, so it is difficult to predict.
We could have info on amount of BTS burnt per day on BitSharesBlocks
Forgive the dumb question, but where do the burned fees "go" ?
Do they 'simply' (in theory) increase the price of each share due to reducing the total amount of shares in circulation?
They vanish .. the supply of bts just shrinks by the network fees
They vanish or go to the pool to be used for development like Ander said above?
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
Wow! We need a dynamic billboard for this figure to stick on the bitshares home page, and all google ads, pop ups, etc!
and stick one of these right next to it:
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0810/360_debt_clock_1014.jpg)
Hey, Tuck, this is right up your alley:
"BTS vaporizer"
"BTS anti-debt clock"
"BTS DAC-ometer"
Fuck the BTS/BTC exchange price, I want to see a graph of this wallet total over time
-
Let Coinmarketcap know this amazing fact!
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.
I think it will start to really work well over the next few months as we refine the UI and work out the bugs.
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.
I think it will start to really work well over the next few months as we refine the UI and work out the bugs.
+5%
But please this time really stick to this plan. And it's a very simple plan:
- bring all the existing 2.0 features to the GUI level,
- make the traders happy by upgrading the market page to Poloniex standards
- and fix all the bugs.
Then the volume will come and profits from transaction fees will follow.
All the new features (e.g. the bond market etc) can easily wait, we are already well ahead of any competition is this respect.
What has always been missing in BitShares is proper UI implementation.
-
Now up to: 590,226 reduction in supply.
This really isnt sustainable is it? Its just new users registering names & memberships etc. Its not a level of revenue that is sustained from trading.
I think it will start to really work well over the next few months as we refine the UI and work out the bugs.
+5%
But please this time really stick to this plan. And it's a very simple plan:
- bring all the existing 2.0 features to the GUI level,
- make the traders happy by upgrading the market page to Poloniex standards
- and fix all the bugs.
Then the volume will come and profits from transaction fees will follow.
All the new features (e.g. the bond market etc) can easily wait, we are already well ahead of any competition is this respect.
What has always been missing in BitShares is proper UI implementation.
Couldn't agree more. +5%
Great work on the back end, but would love to see the UI beefed up to look like Polo.
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Nice!
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Nice!
Take that central bankers!
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Nice!
Take that central bankers!
+5%
Where can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.
-
Where can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.
I am not sure, but the first four numbers were 2,533,....
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
+5% We need a chart for showing off!
-
Where can we verify what BTS supply was at the start of 2.0? So that we can show others.
I am not sure, but the first four numbers were 2,533,....
I started keeping a record since yesterday:
18/10/2015: 2,533,418,358
19/10/2015: 2,533,393,609
But what about the paid worker developer positions? Arent we going to revote them in?
-
How can we speed this up?
-
How can we speed this up?
Get more trading happening on the bitshares exchange.
Every trade burns some BTS.
-
How can we speed this up?
Promote name squatting (for fees) and allow owners to auction off their names on the blockchain (more fees).
-
We should get bitsharesblocks updated with a chart of this.
-
Why supply is reducing and how far will it keep reducing
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
+5%
-
How can we speed this up?
Get more trading happening on the bitshares exchange.
Every trade burns some BTS.
[/quotes]
What is the fee burnt for transaction and for name purchasing?
-
Why supply is reducing and how far will it keep reducing
Because of the fees paid. It means we're profitable at the moment. It will keep reducing as long as BitShares is profitable :)
-
What is the fee burnt for transaction and for name purchasing?
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Excellent +5% +5%
-
Over 800,000 BTS reduction thus far!
Great, that's more than $3k of liquidity that were not utilizing within the internal markets.
If we calculate that as dividend that 0.03% "payout" that does not even begin to offset losses incurred in the past year.
-
so i guess most of you are trading on open ledger and not on poloniex anymore?
sorry typo
-
so i guess most of you are trading on open ledger and not on polonium anymore?
I avoid that exchange like it were polonium. ;)
-
so i guess most of you are trading on open ledger and not on poloniex anymore?
sorry typo
I am not an everyday trader but having a lightning fast thin client and web wallet that I can use on my iPhone has made it too easy. I played around in the USD:BTS pair today and will probably place some different orders tomorrow. Brownie.PTS:BTS needs some love :-).
-
Someone post once the supply reduction hits a million.
-
how do you check this?
-
Isnt there some kind of wallet command for supply or shouldnt the info command, if it still exists, show the initial and current supply, Block info, etc?
Or we could see that on the Explorer, we couçd just compqre currrent supply with Genesis block
-
Isnt there some kind of wallet command for supply or shouldnt the info command, if it still exists, show the initial and current supply, Block info, etc?
Or we could see that on the Explorer, we couçd just compqre currrent supply with Genesis block
What is the impact of the 400k a day worker proposal if any? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.html
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
-
Isnt there some kind of wallet command for supply or shouldnt the info command, if it still exists, show the initial and current supply, Block info, etc?
Or we could see that on the Explorer, we couçd just compqre currrent supply with Genesis block
What is the impact of the 400k a day worker proposal if any? https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19305.0.html
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
I don't know what that has to do with what I was asking ahah
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Oh I didn't get it the first time. I thought every BTS burnt would go to a reserve pool by default, but that only happens because of that worker?
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Oh I didn't get it the first time. I thought every BTS burnt would go to a reserve pool by default, but that only happens because of that worker?
It will go back without the worker - but it will be temporary default behavior. With the worker we are actively with our vote more or less saying - we don not want a decrease in supply we want one day it to be at 3.7bil .
-
What we are saying is "we reserve the right to issue up to 3.7" not that we "want to issue 3.7".
All shareholders want to avoid issuing new shares and to be profitable. These same shareholders value the OPTION to dilute if necessary to save the business.
The option to dilute is very valuable, more valuable than having a rigid system with no ability to ever raise money again.
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Is that what this worked does? That sounds like the worst idea ever.
Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Is that what this worked does? That sounds like the worst idea ever.
Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.
This worker will have very good uses in the future. It will be the eliminator of half ass proposals from him down [vote-wise], proposals that the people do not want to be paid.
But for it to work right now, for anything else but the negative perception, we need:
1. A burning worker - it does not have to be huge - 10K seems enough, imo.
2. BM needs to vote for the burning worker with 100% of his stake and for the recycling worker with 90% of his stake.
3. We generally should follow similar voting pattern for those 2, [and vote "Yes" for all other workers we do like to be paid, of course].
-
Apparently from reading the thread, that proposal does nothing?
On the contrary. Every day this worker stays elected with more votes than the 'burning worker', what Empirical said becomes more true.
Constantly re-funding the reserve fund makes me worry people will revalue BTS as definitely having closer to 3.7 Billion shares in the future vs. now thinking it will have 2.5 Billion or less.
Is that what this worked does? That sounds like the worst idea ever.
Lets all remove votes from this worker and also remove votes from anyone voting for this worker.
This worker will have very good uses in the future, as it will be the eliminator of half ass proposals from him down vote-wise, that the people do not want to be paid.
But for it to work right now, for anything else but the negative perception we need:
1. A burning worker - it does not have to be huge - 10K seems enough, imo.
2. BM needs to vote for the burning worker with 100% of his stake and for the recycling worker with 90% of his stake.
3. We generally should follow similar voting pattern for those 2, and vote "Yes" for all other workers we do like to be paid, of course.
That makes a lot of sense. I like it.
So, we need the recycling worker to prevent random people's worker proposals from getting paid?
-
yes
-
And we're inflationary again:
18/10/2015: 2,533,418,358
19/10/2015: 2,533,393,609
20/10/2015: 2,533,385,809
21/10/2015: 2,533,348,217
22/10/2015: 2,533,245,397
23/10/2015: 2,533,228,861
24/10/2015: 2,533,262,319
Wonderful.
-
And we're inflationary again:
18/10/2015: 2,533,418,358
19/10/2015: 2,533,393,609
20/10/2015: 2,533,385,809
21/10/2015: 2,533,348,217
22/10/2015: 2,533,245,397
23/10/2015: 2,533,228,861
24/10/2015: 2,533,262,319
Wonderful.
The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.
-
The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.
Are you saying the BTS asset page is not showing the correct supply / isnt up to date?
-
The transfer fee is still 40 BTS I think, they haven't decreased it.
Are you saying the BTS asset page is not showing the correct supply / isnt up to date?
No. I'm saying I know you were in favour of keeping the transaction fee high so we could keep BTS profitable.
However it's seems even with the high fee the supply has increased. So perhaps that is not the key.
I think we just had an initial burst of people claiming balances and moving them to exchanges and so were forced to pay the fee, but now that is largely over I think a large portion of the market, particularly China, will avoid BTS transfers where possible and so income will go down.
-
Makes sense.
We need to take away some of those juicy fees from the exchanges. I really hope we can do that when Blocktrades finally gets their TRADE.BTC deposit integration in the webwallet.
Lets say that among the supporters of BitShares here on these forums we together have 1000 BTC on Poloniex. We could all pull that out of Poloniex and into TRADE.BTC and pay the network the fees instead. That would definitely make us profitable again.
-
To decrease the supply, we need to attract more users fr the traditional exchanges. In this stage, profit is not important than expansion of the user base, IMHO.
-
To decrease the supply, we need to attract more users fr the traditional exchanges. In this stage, profit is not important than expansion of the user base, IMHO.
Yes but fees can't be too cheap because we still want the referral programme to work & we don't want BTS to be very inflationary. So it's hard to balance.
-
Makes sense.
We need to take away some of those juicy fees from the exchanges. I really hope we can do that when Blocktrades finally gets their TRADE.BTC deposit integration in the webwallet.
Lets say that among the supporters of BitShares here on these forums we together have 1000 BTC on Poloniex. We could all pull that out of Poloniex and into TRADE.BTC and pay the network the fees instead. That would definitely make us profitable again.
TRADE.BTC integration is complete now in the webwallet (although I hope in the future the webwallet's support will allow for direct conversions other than just BTC/TRADE.BTC, such as BTC/BitBTC, BTC/BTS, etc). From what I hear, OpenLedger will also be active soon as well.
-
Thanks I just learnt in another thread that webwallet Deposits are actually working for everyone expect me/Firefox users.