If all 5 workers are funded to completion, then Cryptonomex will also allow the Graphene-UI code used under the same BSD-style license as the core C++ code. Anyone would be able to build better hosted (multi-user) wallet solutions for BitShares without having to license it from Cryptonomex.
This all sounds good. I like the KYC integration. What is the timeframe for this?
The tasks above will be structured as 5 independent worker proposals for total of 3.5M BTS each for a combined total of 21M BTS.
Specifically, some businesses building on top of BitShares as a payment network (rather than exchange) depend upon transfer fees to generate their revenue. Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender. This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.
This all sounds good. I like the KYC integration. What is the timeframe for this?
The doc says 2 months. This is superb.....very thorough and I like the arrangement with Bunker.
ecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
Ahh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding, you are quite right. Besides, i'm all for increased time if it means increased quality.This all sounds good. I like the KYC integration. What is the timeframe for this?
The doc says 2 months. This is superb.....very thorough and I like the arrangement with Bunker.
The doc says the pay will come from the network over 2 months. However, they may not be able to deliver within that time frame. Take into account Christmas season coming up etc. However, we are not going to pay them on anything until QC and delivery is done in full on each worker. So they are motivated to turn it out as quick as they can.
and what is the incentive for a regular user to go lifetime?
and what is the incentive for a regular user to go lifetime?
Receive a discount on receiving transactions and receive a discount for trading.
There's no incentive for the normal user to go lifetime, but there is a HUGE incentive for the merchant to go lifetime, I would guess that more than 50% of all merchants would appreciate a 2-3 cent fee instead of 10+ cents for a $80 one-time fee. Huge opportunity IMHO.
What is the discount for trading for a lifetime member?
What is the discount for trading for a lifetime member?
80% discount on all trading fees and 80% discount on receiving transactions.
Receive a discount on receiving transactions and receive a discount for trading.
Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
and dump to the poor market?
NO!!!!!
Under this proposal, 100% of all trading fees for the BTS token will be subject to the same division as other fees (currently 20% to the network, 80% to the referral program). Trading fees for other assets (including Smart Coins) will not be subject to the referral program. Assets such as BitUSD or BitGOLD will still be able to charge a market fee, the proceeds of which will be denominated in BitUSD or BitGOLD and will be in the control of the committee account to be spent with stakeholder approval.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
The proposal reads specifically:QuoteBecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.
This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
im a software dev who charges 60$ an hour and im telling you theres no way it will take 8000$ worth of man hours to accomplish this task.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
im a software dev who charges 60$ an hour and im telling you theres no way it will take 8000$ worth of man hours to accomplish this task.
Great! I will tell you what, lets specify this task a little bit more fully and we will hire you to deliver it. If you can do it faster and cheaper then by all means! We will charge a small fee to review your work and verify that it is of suitable quality. Lets see a competitive bid.
Sounds great. I am in favor of the proposal. Let's get this done and get some more users/volume in here!!!
sounds good, I'll translate a summary to chinese to collect feedback.
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
im a software dev who charges 60$ an hour and im telling you theres no way it will take 8000$ worth of man hours to accomplish this task.
Great! I will tell you what, lets specify this task a little bit more fully and we will hire you to deliver it. If you can do it faster and cheaper then by all means! We will charge a small fee to review your work and verify that it is of suitable quality. Lets see a competitive bid.
interestingly lets take a look at the average salary for a google software engineer (arguably the most advanced on the planet)
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
if its an open bid then by all means freebie is willing to tackle these two tasks. however charging us a fee to review our work? really?
aren't you the ones trying to find developers to work for you? thatls pretty redic... I should be charging you the fee.
i just want to make sure the community isnt being asked to fund software development with inflated numbers, freebie is willing to step up and solve this problem if we see people trying to take advantage of this insane concept that somehow development will require a team of 3 working at 200$ an hour on... changing fees? really? its pre existing code.
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
Here, in Germany, I charge $90-$100 per hour for contracting work, and this seems pretty similiar to what BM is proposing. Keep in mind they're specialized in this field and experts. Hiring experts with lots of work experience usually comes with a markup.
You're too cheap if you're charging $60 per hour. Way too cheap.
Thanks for this, its nice to have something of a roadmap going forward.
My feedback:
#2-5 look good.
Regarding proposal #1:
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?
Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case. At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders. A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.
I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.
Could you discuss your thoughts on needing to implement this new system rather than simply change the fee for cancelled orders to only 0.1 BTS? Are you really sure that a chance to just 0.1 BTS would not be sufficient to solve the problem, or that it would still be perceived as a problem by users?
Thanks!
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
no one?
Software development is pretty expensive in reality. $8000 is like two or three people working on something for a week.
im a software dev who charges 60$ an hour and im telling you theres no way it will take 8000$ worth of man hours to accomplish this task.
Great! I will tell you what, lets specify this task a little bit more fully and we will hire you to deliver it. If you can do it faster and cheaper then by all means! We will charge a small fee to review your work and verify that it is of suitable quality. Lets see a competitive bid.
interestingly lets take a look at the average salary for a google software engineer (arguably the most advanced on the planet)
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
if its an open bid then by all means freebie is willing to tackle these two tasks. however charging us a fee to review our work? really?
aren't you the ones trying to find developers to work for you? thatls pretty redic... I should be charging you the fee.
i just want to make sure the community isnt being asked to fund software development with inflated numbers, freebie is willing to step up and solve this problem if we see people trying to take advantage of this insane concept that somehow development will require a team of 3 working at 200$ an hour on... changing fees? really? its pre existing code.
It will be real nice to have a competition. I am all for it. But let's open a thread for discussing the details, and keep this one for questions / answers regarding this particular bid.
It is first of its kind and it looks like a lot is not made even close to crystal clear.
Regarding proposal #1:
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?
Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case. At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders. A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.
I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.
interestingly lets take a look at the average salary for a google software engineer (arguably the most advanced on the planet)
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
if its an open bid then by all means freebie is willing to tackle these two tasks. however charging us a fee to review our work? really?
aren't you the ones trying to find developers to work for you? thatls pretty redic... I should be charging you the fee.
i just want to make sure the community isnt being asked to fund software development with inflated numbers, freebie is willing to step up and solve this problem if we see people trying to take advantage of this insane concept that somehow development will require a team of 3 working at 200$ an hour on... changing fees? really? its pre existing code.
The proposal reads specifically:QuoteBecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.
This is PURELY a cosmetic change. The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi. From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01. In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.
As a somewhat trading expert now , I have to say that crypto exchange is not that feasible in reality without pump and dumps by the exchange itself .
Big exchanges have big volumes for a reason .that's manipulation on their part . I can't prove it , but I know it . While small exchanges like Yunbi with low volume also for a reason ,because they don't manipulate the market .
So , fixing the UI is not gonna change anything substantial in making the DEX more profitable .
I highly doubt the incoming fee for this new UI in a year can make up to the cost .
The trick here is not good developer or good technology , but good money and good manipulators .
Of course , that's just my own view.
The proposal reads specifically:QuoteBecause this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender.
This would indicate the sender pays nothing and the receiver pays the fee. The discount is for RECEIVING transactions then, not SENDING transactions, if I may interpret that.
This is PURELY a cosmetic change. The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi. From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01. In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.
thanks. makes sense.
now what is the incentive for LT Memberships? the user based referral program would be dead, right?
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
This is PURELY a cosmetic change. The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi. From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01. In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.
Why would Cryptonomex have to review code that we (the BitShares Community) paid someone else to write for BitShares?
Screw the competition. We need this change in place yesterday. It is essential to our framework and user experience. I don't think the price or time frame is outrageous at all; let's get Cryptonomex and Bunker to put this in place and then we'll have the product to attract actual volume.
If you want to have competitions and invite any out-of-work developer whose skills are not well known to the community, then do this later for add-ons.
it is 52K but keeping in mind they are giving 5x better rate per BTS (about 0.015 instead of 0.003) it is more like ~$10,000 total.
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
how so exactly? can you explain to me how bitshares will make the money back through a cosmetic change and two fee changes?
its also 42 thousand not 25, a major difference.
interestingly lets take a look at the average salary for a google software engineer (arguably the most advanced on the planet)
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Salaries-E9079.htm
looks like its around 170k a year which puts the hourly at just above 80$ per hour...
if its an open bid then by all means freebie is willing to tackle these two tasks. however charging us a fee to review our work? really?
aren't you the ones trying to find developers to work for you? thatls pretty redic... I should be charging you the fee.
i just want to make sure the community isnt being asked to fund software development with inflated numbers, freebie is willing to step up and solve this problem if we see people trying to take advantage of this insane concept that somehow development will require a team of 3 working at 200$ an hour on... changing fees? really? its pre existing code.
I'm really starting to like this "random coder on the forum".
Why would Cryptonomex have to review code that we (the BitShares Community) paid someone else to write for BitShares?
I thought Cryptonomex was no longer part of BitShares, we are only considering hiring CNX (via a Worker Proposal) and are not obligated in any way to do so.
I'm not saying we wouldn't want code reviewed that was written by another person/group, but I'm pretty sure we have plenty of qualified coders here that could/would do that for next to nothing.
Why are you (Dan) stating this like it's mandatory that CNX would handle that job?
This is a bit confusing.
On one hand CNX can work for anyone they want, hell you've even kind of thrown it in our face that CNX could work for others at a higher rate and have offers to do so, but it's like you're doing poor old BitShares a favor by offering to do this job for 2X the rate anyone else would. And on top of that it sounds like you're saying we're required to use CNX to then review anyone else's code that we chose over you.
It sounds like CNX is operating as a proxy ruler from afar, kind of like the US Government does things. ;)
Will you be installing a puppet regime next or is this your declaration that CNX is that puppet regime?
"Let my people go!" ;)
This will be real fun explaining to user.This is PURELY a cosmetic change. The minimum transfer would be fee + 1 satoshi and the merchant would only see a gain of 1 satoshi. From the user's perspective they paid the merchant $0.20, but the merchant only pocketed $0.01. In no case can one user drain funds from another by spamming.
So it's really the user paying the fee, but it's not displayed as a fee. the merchant just gets $0.20 less in this example. Right?
From a referral program's perspective, it's still the normal user that counts, right? User is paying (hidden) fee to merchant, referral gets 80% of that hidden fee. Correct?
it is 52K but keeping in mind they are giving 5x better rate per BTS (about 0.015 instead of 0.003) it is more like ~$10,000 total.
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
how so exactly? can you explain to me how bitshares will make the money back through a cosmetic change and two fee changes?
its also 42 thousand not 25, a major difference.
it is 52K but keeping in mind they are giving 5x better rate per BTS (about 0.015 instead of 0.003) it is more like ~$10,000 total.
I don't beleive you guys are trying to nickel and dime the developers. If the cost is off +/- $25000 so what. The benefits of fixes will dwarf any cost at this point.
how so exactly? can you explain to me how bitshares will make the money back through a cosmetic change and two fee changes?
its also 42 thousand not 25, a major difference.
could you elaborate on what you mean? not sure how it comes out to 10k
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?
This will be real fun explaining to user.
"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?This will be real fun explaining to user.
"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."
The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?
Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?This will be real fun explaining to user.
"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."
The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?
Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.
Glad some others are seeing this the same way. Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS. I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well. Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?
I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?This will be real fun explaining to user.
"Your transactions are almost always free. But if you buy LM and manage to send transactions during high volume times you will get $0.16 per transaction back, while everybody else will not get even a penny."
The "0 fees" proposal adds many additional layers of complexity. When it comes to fees, we should be reducing complexity, not adding it. I agree with the idea of 0.1 BTS fee to place an order. This should be high enough to prevent major spamming, but low enough (currently $0.0003) to likely be perceived as inconsequential by traders. Am I wrong about that?
Edit: I raised this same topic in a mumble a few weeks ago - The idea of charging 0.1 BTS for placing or cancelling an order, and then having a volume based fee on successful execution of the trade. I know I am not the first one to raise this issue, but I would be interested to hear BM's take on it. IMO he has created a 0 fees plan with way too many complexities, that might take a few months to implement. Wouldn't it be easier to write the code to implement the volume based fees, and then toggle the other fees down to 0.1 BTS? Maybe they could do this part first (the volume based fees), and then we could test the 0.1 BTS fee schedule for awhile, and see how it goes. If traders are ok with this, then there will be NO need to go for the 0 fees plan at all.
Glad some others are seeing this the same way. Proposal 1 looks overly complex compared to my simple solution to change this fee to 0.1 BTS. I'd like to see Bytemaster's thoughts on our counterproposal that a 0.1 BTS fee is simpler and solves the issues well. Is there some flaw in the 0.1 fee idea that would force us to implement this complex solution?
I like proposals #2-5 and I feel they are important to our future.
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??
Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.
So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?
I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways.
Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.
Think about it this way
- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??
Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.
So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?
I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.
Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...
"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways.
It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.
Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.
Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?
Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?
Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!
I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! ::)
It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. ::)
Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.
So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. :-\
By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! ::)Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.
Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! ::)Think about it this way
No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.
How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative? Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?
Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro! But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".
Regarding proposal #1:
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?
Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case. At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders. A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.
I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.
Agreed with Ander. In my opinion, 0.5 BTS for trading operation would be good (0.1 BTS for LTM).
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??
Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.
So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?
I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.
Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...
"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways.
It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.
Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.
Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?
Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?
Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!
I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! ::)
It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. ::)
Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.
So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. :-\
By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! ::)Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.
Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! ::)Think about it this way
No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.
How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative? Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?
Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro! But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed and this forum. Constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".
@bytemaster, In your quest to make BitShares more like the centralized exchanges, (your "0 fees" plan) you have proposed a solution that will once again take BitShares farther away from the centralized exchanges, by creating a "global volume" based fees system that toggles up and down at random times, depending on total global usage of the exchange. As far as I know (I might be wrong), there are no centralized exchanges that do this.
Think about it - you are talking about penalizing people for using the exchange while many other people are using it - how absurd is that? Sure, there might be a logical reason for it (as an anti-spam measure, you cannot have 0 fees without this - or so you have determined), but it will almost certainly be PERCEIVED as a random tax on users.
You can't have uncertainty in the fee schedule. It must be reliable - users must know how much they are going to pay before they initiate the transaction. We can't say "you might get this or you might get that, depending on factors beyond your control." If we do this, Mark my words, we are going to have a bunch of pissed off users every time the global volume increases. We are going to run into the same problem as we have now - people are not going to look at this in a 100% rational way.
They won't see the big picture. They will say "I assumed that I would only pay 2 cents, but a bunch of people were online and trading that day so I ended up paying 10 cents. What a ripoff. Screw this". Sure, this thought might be subconscious, and they might continue trading for awhile, but you will be hitting them where it hurts - their perception. They will have uncertainty - they will never know for certain how much fees they will be paying. In the long term, IMO this is worse than just having them pay a relatively high fixed fee (like we have right now.)
Once upon a time.......(not calling a member on the forum , just a sentence ) , there was something called "the new dilution can be vested in years" . Is that still the case ?
Regarding proposal #1:
This seems to me to be a very complicated solution which requires additional code to get around spamming.
Before we do this, do you really think that an order fee of 0.1 BTS instead of 0 would not be sufficient to achieve these goals instead?
Imo, the problem with the perception of the fees for orders is because they are currently large, but 0.1 BTS would probably be small enough that this would no longer be the case. At 0.1 BTS, the attacker would have to pay to fill up our TPS with spam, but the fee would seem negligible to traders. A percentage based fee for trades of 0.2%, plus a 0.1 BTS fee per order (cancelled or not), looks good to me.
I do not think that a 0.2% fee +flat 0.1 BTS would feel different to users than current crypto exchanges.
Agreed with Ander. In my opinion, 0.5 BTS for trading operation would be good (0.1 BTS for LTM).
To some extent lowering the fee to below $0.03 (BTC fees) starts to lose its anti-spam benefits. Once you lose anti-spam benefits you need to start looking into rate limiting. Once you have rate-limiting solutions you might as well take the fee to 0.
At 100 TPS sustained spam and $0.01 per transaction for LTM you end up generating $3600 per hour in revenue. I suppose that might be enough to make spamming unprofitable and unsustainable. $0.05 for non lifetime member.
So perhaps we can get by with simply lowering most fees and avoid the rate-limiting worker proposal saving $8000 of development time.
We will still want to have the market fees go into the referral rewards program and implement the cash-back on order cancelation.
you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.
I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.
"We have plenty of qualified coders here who would review the code for next to nothing" ??
Tuck, forgive me if you were being sarcastic (I can never tell), but this statement is absurd. We are talking about writing new code to change the native functionality of the blockchain. Do you honestly think that it is a wise idea to ridicule the idea of asking Cryptonomex (who are more familiar with graphene than anyone else) to audit and test the new code to make sure that it will work? They could do this faster, and more efficiently than anyone else at this stage.
So just to clarify, my understanding: you are talking about hiring someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assuming that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing"?
I'm wondering why Dan is stating that CNX will have to review any code, as if we don't have any other options. There are other options, they are rarely brought up or considered.
Denying or ignoring that fact is just going along with the herd mentality that we see here far too often ... and I like going against the herd because it's the only way this forum will address any topic seriously versus the usual ...
"You da man Dan! Whatever you say is gold! I'm all for it ... with my proxy vote because I'm too lazy to think or vote for myself!"I am not trying to come to the defense of Cryptonomex, they can defend themselves. I am just stating a FACT - They are the most qualified to audit any new code for graphene, and IMO we certainly want them auditing any new code that will be adopted by the blockchain at this stage- especially since we have still not achieved major adoption and (I would argue) are still vulnerable in many ways.
It's also a FACT that we don't have to use CNX.
Another FACT is that this forum rarely discusses any alternatives. The forum herd just listens to Dan and immediately announces they back whatever he says, without any further consideration.
Why is that? Where has that mentality gotten us so far?
Why is the majority of the forum so afraid to discuss other options?
Anyone bringing up an alternate opinion gets responses like this one of yours, which focuses on my post and it's intentions instead of discussing/seeking out any alternatives that may be available, while at the same time reiterating that Dan's the best answer we have. How do you know that? Have you sought out third parties within the few hours this proposal was posted? Nope, you haven't. You're just stating Dan's the best answer, when you have no clue if Dan's the best answer because you haven't even considered any alternatives outside of the one I mentioned, which I agree is not the best one, but at least it is one!
I haven't had more than an hour myself to find a better alternative, neither has anyone else, but hey screw all that, let's just go with what Dan says, because we've exhausted all possibilities in those few hours! ::)
It's as if Dan's the only answer and any other opinions are too "this or that", so let's just go with Dan's idea, because we don't want to have any sort of real discourse, that's too much trouble and time consuming. It's not like we have more than a few hours to decide. ::)
Hell, v2.0 hasn't been out that long and we're already moving towards v3.0.
So tell me again how great Dan's 2.0 idea was? Oh yeah, so great that he himself is scrapping it after a few weeks. :-\
By all means, let's just continue to deride anyone else offering to solve the problems with BitShares by calling them "random coders" and rely solely on Dan, because we just don't have the time to think about things! ::)Of course we all hope this will change going forward, as outside teams of coders learn to write for graphene, but this has not happened yet.
Why would it happen when they will simply be talked to like a autistic step-child (it's OK, I'm an autistic step-child so I can say that) by Dan and the forum will give responses like yours, as if there's not possibly anyone else in the world as qualified as Dan and time is running out, we must hurry or else the "competition" (where are they again?) will get all our monies! ::)Think about it this way
No. Too many people here rely on others to think for them.- if there were a bunch of people sitting around who were qualified to audit new graphene code - don't you think that they would be writing code themselves as we speak? Where are they? I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am also not just assuming that they DO.
How would you know? In the few hours you've spent reading Dan's proposal, who have you sought out as an alternative? Who's council did you seek that offered other opinions on the matter? How much were you able to cover in those few hours? Do you really want to make drastic changes to your monetary future that quickly based on the thoughts of one man who history has shown repeatedly has gotten it wrong? I mean, what incarnation of PTS are we on BTW? How many name changes (so we forget the past mistakes) have we been through? How many more must we endure?
Disclaimer : Dan you're the man bro! But I want alternatives discussed. I want to hear other opinions, other coders thoughts, other alternatives to your ideas proposed, and this forum constantly bowing to your ideas is not helping that progress. At some point we have to give this some time, let others have a chance, which has yet to happen and if things continue this way it never will happen. There never will be others offering to help as long as the Community continue to do whatever Dan says and not even give others the chance to open their mouth or even find out about the opportunity (like now). We might as well slap a disclaimer on all of Dan's Worker Proposal's that reads, "You have two hours to decide or else!".
you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.
I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.
There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.
you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.
I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.
There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.
Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals
OR, alternatively, let's negotiate to get the code opensourced for some lesser amount of work (or some other proposal better than #1). #1 seems like a bad idea, for reasons already expressed by others above, let's not just do it to get a bonus that we can probably get some other way.
you know im not agreeing with every point made here but this guy has a point, we should consider that there are a large number of blockchain specialist groups that will charge far less than the requested funds to produce this code, not to mention audit it. we should seek other options before agreeing to this, and even then a negotiation for the rate they are asking should be had, its pretty clearly skewed.
I would point out that if CNX had produced what was promised in the first place a new worker proposal a month later would not be required... there was a large delay and nothing except the front end really improved, I'm not against funding changes, I'm just not sure if CNX is the ones to do it.
There are five pretty much independent projects on the list. There is no reason why all five contracts should go to same company. If you think that you can do any of these projects cheaper, faster and better, put your name against it. Let's vote.
Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals
This is a good point. Let's find out what others can offer and vote.
Are you positive you understand all the element in #2?
As I said up the thread it has some big potential negative impacts, which need addressing.
For example - It seems the LM traders might get the LM discount only on half of their trades.
We have retracted #1.
We have retracted #1.
We have retracted #1.+5%
Under this proposal, 100% of all trading fees for the BTS token will be subject to the same division as other fees (currently 20% to the network, 80% to the referral program). Trading fees for other assets (including Smart Coins) will not be subject to the referral program. Assets such as BitUSD or BitGOLD will still be able to charge a market fee, the proceeds of which will be denominated in BitUSD or BitGOLD and will be in the control of the committee account to be spent with stakeholder approval.
I know that proposal #1 has been retracted now, but I still want to argue in favor of a 0.1 BTS fee for cancelled orders.
I feel that a 0.1 BTS fee is enough to dissuade attacks. Yes, its not as much of a disincentive as 1 cent or more would be, but it is enough, while also being small enough that I wouldnt really think about it at all while trading, and I doubt most others would either.
If an attacker wanted to completely flood us at 0.1 BTS per transaction, then to fill up our 1000 TPS capacity would cost 100 BTS a second, or 360000 BTS per hour, or more than 8M bts per day. I would love a scenario where 8M bts a day was being burned, at that rate every BTS in existence would be burned in like 8 months. 8M bts a day would go through the entire poloniex sell side orderbook in 4-5 days.
Thats enough of a spam disincentive imo.
We have retracted #1.+5%
We have retracted #1.
To those in this thread that says the community always just rubber stamps everything, this is evidence that we dont just rubber stamp everything.
Are there any issues with any of the other proposals that we need to discuss more?
Things definitely seem to go best when we have a dialogue between devs and community and everyone works to refine and improve each others ideas.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year.Is it for proposals #2-5 + limited licensing relaxation? It sounds better than the original proposal for sure.
Just $90 per day.Again, $90 in this market. Will you be burning the extra BTS as price rise?
All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
Mentioning it in current BTS price is a red herring, as your own half done, botched release means that prices are lower than ever. Or was that part of a grand strategy to grab as many BTS as possible by marking prices in dollar?We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year.QuoteIs it for proposals #2-5 + limited licensing relaxation? It sounds better than the original proposal for sure.Just $90 per day.Again, $90 in this market. Will you be burning the extra BTS as price rise?
All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
I would vote for this proposal. IMO the sooner we open source the wallet software the better. Could be a huge draw for potential businesses. Out of curiosity, I wonder if someone could devise a way for the community to haggle your price?
We do not assume any particular direction for the BTS price movement, and even if you use the average price over the summer you will see that we are not even asking for our costs to be reimbursed. Ultimately, all we are looking to recover is a fraction of the BTS we had to sell to build it in the first place.
The "botched" release that went relatively smoothly with few people losing money and minimal downtime. Sure it wasn't feature complete, but who here would like to go back to the 0.9x wallet?
We have retracted #1.
We do not assume any particular direction for the BTS price movement, and even if you use the average price over the summer you will see that we are not even asking for our costs to be reimbursed. Ultimately, all we are looking to recover is a fraction of the BTS we had to sell to build it in the first place.
$60,000 around the earlier prices would have been much less than20m BTS. If you subtract the amount you got from your workers then that will be even less. So yes, you are trying to recover at least the BTS you sold to build.The "botched" release that went relatively smoothly with few people losing money and minimal downtime. Sure it wasn't feature complete, but who here would like to go back to the 0.9x wallet?
Oh please, take a look at the marketcap and if you are still blind I cant help. Of course I am sure you will have a lot of excuses ready (you see, it is all those evil market manipulators - waaaa!!!).
Let me ask again, would you be burning the extra BTS if price recovers? After all, you have said you want to be paid around the market rates. Or are you telling us you want the market rates now as well as all the potential upside?
I think you should be paid in USD. $90 a day (or lower if they can haggle you down) for a year.
Are you suggesting that the BTS stakeholder vote to guarantee us $30,000 regardless of any price declines?
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash,
BitShares Development ProposalWe need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc
The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step. Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.
Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing. BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#
We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.
Are you suggesting that the BTS stakeholder vote to guarantee us $30,000 regardless of any price declines?
I would prefer that, though obviously a lower amount. $30,000 should give something much more valuable.
$90 (or whatever is accepted) a day for a year in your USD. At least it will put your failcoins to some use.
All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
it is foolish to "hire someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assume that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing".
BitShares Development ProposalWe need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc
The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step. Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.
Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing. BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#
We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.
If those elements are put in then I'll support the worker proposal but how much would it cost?
All told CNX has spent about $60,000 developing the existing GUI.
In total this amounts to about 20M BTS.
We can open source it for everyone connecting to BitShares which will help Open Ledger, Meta, Bunker, Banx, Blocktrades, BitCash, and others by doubling their potential revenue by not having to license from CNX. This means higher referral rewards for users. Use for other blockchains would still be reserved to CNX.
We would be prepared to accept 10M BTS vesting over 1 year. This will avoid creating any downward sell pressure for the next year and I think would be widely supported by all of the major partners.
This is less than 30,000 BTS per day.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
This is a proposal for review.
I would vote for this proposal. IMO the sooner we open source the wallet software the better. Could be a huge draw for potential businesses. Out of curiosity, I wonder if someone could devise a way for the community to haggle your price?
Not so fast pinkie!
Let's see how much is left from the affiliate program after lowering the fees across the board, leaving only % fees on trading...and only trading fees on BTS it seems (so 50% and probably less of the trading volume). Leaving most of the people out of the desire for LM, and possibly even making it not profitable for traders to upgrade.
Giving up on 50% of revenue (of pretty much no revenue) in exchange for cash, in this case is like selling something worth [now] close to nothing as income stream for hard money. And it does not matter if it cost you 100K to produce it. If it offers no income stream, we are not paying your 100K just cause you incur that much expenses.
wow, this is the second post that makes me think you might be suffering from tonyk's syndrome. Very dangerous condition according to the... crowds! Be advised seek help immidiately! Symptoms include thinking for yourself, voicing your thoughts and quite a distaste for brown nosing, among others.
And on the main subject - while Dan and co might be the only one qualified and willing to do the job, this does not mean they should simply propose something... not even explain why that thing is needed or bother to answer any questions asked regarding their unclear proposal.
If they do not get it yet, with every passing hour they just sit and behave like they are simply entitled to do it the picture looks more and more like this:
They created a company to do software development. They do something to about 80%. Wait 5 min and decide they will change it and get themselves paid to code another change [necessary or not] and whatever they change does not have to pass any other test but just to involve more coding. They vote themselves to do the work and all is good...at 80% the work done, rinse and repeat.
Oh please, take a look at the marketcap and if you are still blind I cant help. Of course I am sure you will have a lot of excuses ready (you see, it is all those evil market manipulators - waaaa!!!).And what have you done to raise the marketcap?
Let me ask again, would you be burning the extra BTS if price recovers? After all, you have said you want to be paid around the market rates. Or are you telling us you want the market rates now as well as all the potential upside?
I think you should be paid in USD. $90 a day (or lower if they can haggle you down) for a year.
it is foolish to "hire someone who has little to no track record of writing code for graphene, and then just assume that some (nonexistant) qualified graphene experts are just sitting around waiting to offer their code auditing skills for "next to nothing".
Dammit, you've convinced me. <--- that's me being sarcastic. ;)
I'm now going to run with the herd again, because it's futile to do otherwise and remain a part of thisCommunityherd.
Hay guise, good talk! So m000000n! (oh wait, that's BTC getting hammered by some whale)
And remember guise ... Dan's the only answer ... never forget!!!
Everyone else is just a random coder that can't figure out Graphene, so don't even consider it, much less bring it up on the forum.
BitShares Development ProposalWe need the UI for prediction markets, and margin trading. If that isn't put in place then there will remain the low liquidity problem and it will be hard to attract users even with a nice UX/UI.
by BunkerChain Labs and Cryptonomex, Inc
The purpose of this proposal is to define a statement of work for taking BitShares to the next step. Our goal is to make the user experience of BitShares equal to or better than existing exchanges, and enhance the current referral program to become more profitable.
This proposal is divided into several independent features that will be paid for upon completion.
Cryptonomex has identified the following mini-projects with fixed pricing. BunkerChain Labs will be overseeing the project and acting as an intermediary between Cryptonomex and BitShares.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#
We would like some community feedback on the proposal before we actually create the workers and open it up for voting.
If those elements are put in then I'll support the worker proposal but how much would it cost?
Interested in knowing this as well.
btw, could you get something like this for the API? At least later on once it's complete. Looks clean and easy to understand https://github.com/ripple/ripple-api-docs
(https://camo.githubusercontent.com/14cfd4aa8ce9c2899a6c87e988d7542d428d616d/68747470733a2f2f646c2e64726f70626f7875736572636f6e74656e742e636f6d2f752f39353834373239312f676974687562253230696d616765732f736c6174652f736c6174655f73637265656e73686f745f6e65772e706e67)
I thought you said bond market would be part of 1st proposal? Where is that?Bytemaster must add a bond market or any high net worth stakeholders are not going to care about these features involving fees.
I thought you said bond market would be part of 1st proposal? Where is that?Bytemaster must add a bond market or any high net worth stakeholders are not going to care about these features involving fees.
UI is nice but add a bond market as a must have priority feature. The prediction market is a must have priority feature for people who aren't high net worth but who want a way to interact with and earn money.
Otherwise how do we sell Bitshares even with a new interface?
What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?
I for one can't believe Cryptonomex is going to get rid of the licensing for only 10mil bts.
Please specifiy if I'm correct understanding this:
The document states:QuoteSpecifically, some businesses building on top of BitShares as a payment network (rather than exchange) depend upon transfer fees to generate their revenue. Because this is a matter of appearance, transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender. This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.
What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?
What people need the most is an easy way of bringing fiat money into/out of bitshares. Right now, being in US and having wages payed in USD, the only way to bring money into bitshares is to buy bitcoins first through coinbase, or bitcoin ATM, or some other shitty way, because there is no good and reliable way to do this. Then you need to exchange your bitcoins to bitashares assets through another centralized exchange on a market with almost no liquidity. At each stage you suffer fees and slippage and waste your time. This is absolutely not ok.
A dollar denominated pay is fair for everyone, both the founding team and the shareholders. They get their assured payment and the shareholders know that the current price has not been manipulated by them to grab extra BTS. I wonder what is the reason that they do not want to accept that.
Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.
What, what what? How is this working, exactly?
transfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender. This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.
Back to proposal #2:
I do not agree that giving the committee members their own personal "slush fund" is a good idea. Regardless of whether there is some direct voting system involved in spending these funds (which doesn't seem to be outlined in the proposal), it seems to add another needless level of complexity in determining how BitShares spends its reserve pool/income from fees. Not to mention it could undermine the whole system of checks & balances we are trying to achieve with DPOS 2.0.
So that said - regarding volume based fees on SmartCoin trading - what if keep the 80/20 split with the referral program (so that this is not further undermined), but we automatically take the network 20% and liquidate at the feed price? Would this be too much of a burden on shorts?
If we did this, it would allow the network to receive all of its fee income as the core BTS token. It could all go back into the current reserve pool, and we would not have to deal with giving the committee members (an unpaid "political" position) the burden/responsibility of figuring out how to spend the network's funds. This would continue to be solely the responsibility of workers, by popular vote.
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.
What, what what? How is this working, exactly?
I think now when Bob sends to John, Bob pays the fee and Bob's referrer gets the income but they are considering changing it...Quotetransfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender. This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.
If we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee and John's referrer gets the income then we change the incentives a bit from signing up regular users (medium senders) to signing up merchants (high volume receivers)
However if we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee, but BTS sees it was sent by Bob and & gives Bob referrers the referral income, then it still keeps a bit of the incentive to sign up regular users. While if John upgrades to an LTM those fees go to John's refferer so there is still a big incentive to sign up merchants and upgrade them.
Provided the minimum transfer size is greater than the maximum transfer fee. I think it works.
I don't know though, there could be a simple reason why this dumb :-[
A dollar denominated pay is fair for everyone, both the founding team and the shareholders. They get their assured payment and the shareholders know that the current price has not been manipulated by them to grab extra BTS. I wonder what is the reason that they do not want to accept that.
Yeah obviously shareholders choose dollar denominated pay. I'm sure that won't be a problem as the jobs are priced in dollars & that's how BM is promoting it.Hopefully this will help kickstart a bunch of businesses and remove artificial barriers while helping to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements. Just $90 per day.
Sounds good. It might be good if the receiver pays the fees but the referral income goes to the senders referrer.
What, what what? How is this working, exactly?
I think now when Bob sends to John, Bob pays the fee and Bob's referrer gets the income but they are considering changing it...Quotetransfer fees will be adjusted to be paid by the receiver of the funds, rather than the sender. This means merchants will see the fees (which will be much less than credit cards) but users will not.
If we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee and John's referrer gets the income then we change the incentives a bit from signing up regular users (medium senders) to signing up merchants (high volume receivers)
However if we change to Bob sends to John, John pays the fee, but BTS sees it was sent by Bob and & gives Bob referrers the referral income, then it still keeps a bit of the incentive to sign up regular users. While if John upgrades to an LTM those fees go to John's refferer so there is still a big incentive to sign up merchants and upgrade them.
Provided the minimum transfer size is greater than the maximum transfer fee. I think it works.
I don't know though, there could be a simple reason why this dumb :-[
So before John's upgrade the Bob's referrers get the fees (well cut of them). Yes.
After John's upgrade his referrers get the same fees. Yes. John's referrer gets his big cut of 20 000 BTS LTM if John upgrades.
Bob will never upgrade, that part is clear. But why will John do it? Is it a 2 level marketing?
If John is receiving a lot of transactions he can significantly reduce his cost by upgrading. (Example, If he receives 100 transactions a day, he will pay receiving fees of $15 a day which he can reduce by 80% by upgrading to a LTM)
Also for the Bob's referrer - finding customers that shop at non upgraded merchants (assuming the upgrade makes sense for merchants and is 100 bucks? is not very...profitable)
Correct. But it will be even less profitable if all the referral fees go to John's referrer which I think is how it would work in the new proposal.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19890.msg255464.html#msg255464
Technically all Brownie Points mean is that you are on my good side. Brownie Points are not redeemable for anything and do not create any obligations between me and anyone else. BROWNIE.PTS is a tool that allows me to keep track of everyone who is in my good favor and to what extent. ]You will want to make sure you claim your BROWNIE.PTS because it would just be rude to refuse the BROWNIE.PTS and one day you may regret it; Karma can be a Bitch.
BROWNIE.PTS is merely a tool for my own use and I may choose to stop issuing brownie points at any time for any reason. I may reward them (or not) as I see fit, in the amounts I see fit, for the reasons I see fit. I may also seize brownie points from any account if you fall out of favor and anyone who complains in any way about how Brownie Points are issued or how I use Brownie Points is certainly not in my favor and may lose any Brownie Points they have earned.
I'd also like to see a proposal for bond market / margin trading, which should be linked imo, with the bond market providing the lending for the margin trading, like at polo.
And also prediction markets. :)
Then these proposals could form the roadmap for all the things bitshares needs now.
0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USDJust a quick note.
DEX orders stays in memory for ever, so at current market cap and 0.1 BTS fee for limit_order_create operation, it will take ~20K USD to exhaust all witnesses memory. ( Assuming 4GB mem witnesses )Code: [Select]0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USD
64 = memory usage of 1 limit_order_object
0.1 = fee
4*1e9 = 4GB
0.003186 = USD per BTS
Memory exhausting protection need to be taken into account also.
Just a quick note.
DEX orders stays in memory for ever, so at current market cap and 0.1 BTS fee for limit_order_create operation, it will take ~20K USD to exhaust all witnesses memory. ( Assuming 4GB mem witnesses )Code: [Select]0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USD
64 = memory usage of 1 limit_order_object
0.1 = fee
4*1e9 = 4GB
0.003186 = USD per BTS
Memory exhausting protection need to be taken into account also.
Just a quick note.
DEX orders stays in memory for ever, so at current market cap and 0.1 BTS fee for limit_order_create operation, it will take ~20K USD to exhaust all witnesses memory. ( Assuming 4GB mem witnesses )Code: [Select]0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USD
64 = memory usage of 1 limit_order_object
0.1 = fee
4*1e9 = 4GB
0.003186 = USD per BTS
Memory exhausting protection need to be taken into account also.
I'd also like to see a proposal for bond market
And also prediction markets. :)
There should be resources included on the site, you shoudnt have to go hunting for it otherwise expect people to go elsewhere.
I think fees are not that big of a deal really. If you have a good product people will pay for it. Of course they could be a little lower, yes, but not worth all this huge discussions.
I'm ready to vote for 2-5 now. those are solid proposals in my opinion.
Cnx states that they will open source the entire ui for multiuser implementations if they are hired for all proposals... Which is a very very good reason to hire cnx for all proposals
We have retracted #1.
To those in this thread that says the community always just rubber stamps everything, this is evidence that we dont just rubber stamp everything.
this guy has a point
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hWyasMJ5mL1fboAt9ZK8FEf0c7o_q-1bwm5ItsLNGo/edit#
-snip-
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?
Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.
What I think is people need to be able to do something with their money in 2.0 They can keep their money safe, ok, that's good, but what else?
What people need the most is an easy way of bringing fiat money into/out of bitshares. Right now, being in US and having wages payed in USD, the only way to bring money into bitshares is to buy bitcoins first through coinbase, or bitcoin ATM, or some other shitty way, because there is no good and reliable way to do this. Then you need to exchange your bitcoins to bitashares assets through another centralized exchange on a market with almost no liquidity. At each stage you suffer fees and slippage and waste your time. This is absolutely not ok.
If you want to bring money into Bitshares bring value into the tokens and they'll be worth more. You don't actually need to buy the tokens for them to acquire more value. Let Bitcoin be the token people buy with cash, but then you have Safecoin, you have Storj, you have Ether, and a bunch of tokens which can be backed by apps or by resources, so you don't even need to do anything other than earn them directly.
Of course having money go in and out in USD is convenient but it's not necessary, it's just convenient. Not every exchange has USD. In fact I would think you should look more to China and Europe than to focusing on USD. People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.
proxying my +5% there
#btstip "Tuck Fheman" 100 NEWBIE
Re. #5: This seems like development done mainly for the benefit of Identibit, I'm not sure why should the Bitshares network pay for it.Nope, all fiat gateways might need it, no matter if it's BitShares or Identabit.
Not just 'might', they MUST. If you want to have on/off ramps you have to have KYC compliance PERIOD.
If this is not done then the exchanges have to figure out a way to deal with it.. one more reason for them not to make the move.
The only alternative to this is to handle it off-chain. Having it built right into the blockchain is not only more desirable, but also safer.
However.. the previous statement about helping identibit is true.. yet.. it also opens up the market entirely. So unless identibit has some other value propoition.. by having this done we are essentially opening up the whole marketplace.. and giving identibit competition.
We need on/off ramps.. this is the MAJOR thing needed because it's what gives bitcoin it's current dominance.. they have the on/off infrastructure. We make it easier for everyone to use ours so that people can buy bitUSD WITH USD .. then we got the plutonium to power the flux capacitor. (back to the future reference)
Lets emulate poloniex/bitfinex/etc. 0.2% fee for both BTS trades and asset trades. 0.1 BTS flat fee on trades because we have to have something to prevent spam, but this is low enough to not annoy anyone.
Lets emulate poloniex/bitfinex/etc. 0.2% fee for both BTS trades and asset trades. 0.1 BTS flat fee on trades because we have to have something to prevent spam, but this is low enough to not annoy anyone.
how about 0.1%? we should set a fee rate not higher than most traditional exchanges, including btc38.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.
Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.
Just a quick note.We can have a parameter like "maximum open orders per account", or increase the fee to x bts when there are more than y orders placed by an account exist.
DEX orders stays in memory for ever, so at current market cap and 0.1 BTS fee for limit_order_create operation, it will take ~20K USD to exhaust all witnesses memory. ( Assuming 4GB mem witnesses )Code: [Select]0.003186*0.1*4*1e9/64 ~= 20K USD
64 = memory usage of 1 limit_order_object
0.1 = fee
4*1e9 = 4GB
0.003186 = USD per BTS
Memory exhausting protection need to be taken into account also.
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.
Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.
This is exactly how markets work. People notice when other people are making a killing with high margins and then enter to compete. If BitShares wishes to diversify its developer base then it will need to make working for BitShares profitable enough that many people come out of the woodwork to get things done. Using the example of "fixed price contracts" with a 3rd party evaluator for completion means the blockchain can ensure that it actually gets a usable product for the money it pays.
On the other hand if the blockchain decides to be "cheap" then few will bother and those that are around will get distracted by higher paying opportunities.
I for one do not want to monopolize the worker proposals. I would much rather have decentralized development and parallel efforts.
CNX has a lot on our plate, we want new developers to come in and therefore we bid HIGH prices for the work.
In other words, we bid relatively high so we can make a significant profit and reinvest it into the industry and other could underbid us.
Our workforce is also limited, so even if we wanted to bid on everything we wouldn't have the manpower to do so.
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?
Thats what metaexchange and others are for. You can buy on coinbase, send to metaexchange and you get the funds in your wallet.youonly need to send them once. Try it and it Will feel much easier than doing what you do. I know cause thats what i did before
CNX has a lot on our plate, we want new developers to come in and therefore we bid HIGH prices for the work.
In other words, we bid relatively high so we can make a significant profit and reinvest it into the industry and other could underbid us.
Our workforce is also limited, so even if we wanted to bid on everything we wouldn't have the manpower to do so.
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?
Thats what metaexchange and others are for. You can buy on coinbase, send to metaexchange and you get the funds in your wallet.youonly need to send them once. Try it and it Will feel much easier than doing what you do. I know cause thats what i did before
Yeah, right. Buying $50 worth of BTC on coinbase, I can get only $45 worth of BTS on metaexchange. Good deal for coinbase and metaexchange.
People in the USA don't seem interested in buying altcoins or Bitcoin right now.
Of course we are interested. But this is a fucking painful process. While trying to bring funds to bitshares last week, I checked many options. I even found a bitcoin ATM in a grocery store next to my block. What a useless machine. Coinbase looks to be the only suitable way to buy bitcoins, but then you need to convert them to BTS on another exchange with almost zero liquidity. So, to deposit funds to exchange you need to go to another exchange and another exchange. Is not this ridiculous?
Thats what metaexchange and others are for. You can buy on coinbase, send to metaexchange and you get the funds in your wallet.youonly need to send them once. Try it and it Will feel much easier than doing what you do. I know cause thats what i did before
Yeah, right. Buying $50 worth of BTC on coinbase, I can get only $45 worth of BTS on metaexchange. Good deal for coinbase and metaexchange.
What do you mean? That's 10% spread. Are metaexchange's prices that off? And what do you mean good deal for metaexchange? Last time I knew it was coinbase who charged more each time you bought a btc, not metaexchange. You have other exchanges you can use to get into BTS.
If using coinbase because you're in NY is the problem, then that's the exact same thing if you want BTS or any other coin. You make it seem like it's BTS's problem
Am I the only one here who actually read the costs?
can some one explain to me how its going to cost 16 thousand dollars to adjust pre existing code?
seriously id like a breakdown of why it will take 8000$ in man hours to adjust the fee code, no ones writing a large amount of new code, its an adjustment to a pre-existing system...
the same goes for market fees ?
16 thousand to plug in kyc and deposit / withdrawal ? seriously?
is anyone buying these numbers?
not trying to be a naysayer, i think all this work needs to be done, but for 3x what it actually costs in man hours and expertise? nah bro.
please provide us a breakdown of how the hours will be allocated and why they will add up to 32 thousand dollars for the features i think will take a fraction of the time and work...?
Maybe we should be paying even more to the first developers hired by BTS 2.0 because it's good marketing. We need to attract lots of good programmers to work on Bitshares – and what could be a better way? Since there haven't been any real worker proposals before this, paying little bit extra might give a nice incentive to other programmers out there.
Of course I don't mean that we should be paying outrageous amounts of BTS, but just that we shouldn't be complaining about rates in Cryptonomex's proposal. I would vote for them even if the demanded payrate was higher.
This is exactly how markets work. People notice when other people are making a killing with high margins and then enter to compete. If BitShares wishes to diversify its developer base then it will need to make working for BitShares profitable enough that many people come out of the woodwork to get things done. Using the example of "fixed price contracts" with a 3rd party evaluator for completion means the blockchain can ensure that it actually gets a usable product for the money it pays.
On the other hand if the blockchain decides to be "cheap" then few will bother and those that are around will get distracted by higher paying opportunities.
I for one do not want to monopolize the worker proposals. I would much rather have decentralized development and parallel efforts.
What do you mean? That's 10% spread. Are metaexchange's prices that off? And what do you mean good deal for metaexchange? Last time I knew it was coinbase who charged more each time you bought a btc, not metaexchange. You have other exchanges you can use to get into BTS.
If using coinbase because you're in NY is the problem, then that's the exact same thing if you want BTS or any other coin. You make it seem like it's BTS's problem
What do you mean? That's 10% spread. Are metaexchange's prices that off? And what do you mean good deal for metaexchange? Last time I knew it was coinbase who charged more each time you bought a btc, not metaexchange. You have other exchanges you can use to get into BTS.
If using coinbase because you're in NY is the problem, then that's the exact same thing if you want BTS or any other coin. You make it seem like it's BTS's problem
I mean a simple thing, efficiency. If you have a magic pipe which transfers a magic juice between people, you put a 50 gallons of juice into the pipe and get 45 gallons of juice out of it, your magic pipe is 80% efficient. On your way out you will lose another 20%. This is how bitshares works now.
Speaking from experience?
What do you mean? That's 10% spread. Are metaexchange's prices that off? And what do you mean good deal for metaexchange? Last time I knew it was coinbase who charged more each time you bought a btc, not metaexchange. You have other exchanges you can use to get into BTS.
If using coinbase because you're in NY is the problem, then that's the exact same thing if you want BTS or any other coin. You make it seem like it's BTS's problem
I mean a simple thing, efficiency. If you have a magic pipe which transfers a magic juice between people, you put a 50 gallons of juice into the pipe and get 45 gallons of juice out of it, your magic pipe is 80% efficient. On your way out you will lose another 20%. This is how bitshares works now.
Put down the pipe man, it only causes family problems. ;)
Speaking from experience?
What do you mean? That's 10% spread. Are metaexchange's prices that off? And what do you mean good deal for metaexchange? Last time I knew it was coinbase who charged more each time you bought a btc, not metaexchange. You have other exchanges you can use to get into BTS.
If using coinbase because you're in NY is the problem, then that's the exact same thing if you want BTS or any other coin. You make it seem like it's BTS's problem
I mean a simple thing, efficiency. If you have a magic pipe which transfers a magic juice between people, you put a 50 gallons of juice into the pipe and get 45 gallons of juice out of it, your magic pipe is 80% efficient. On your way out you will lose another 20%. This is how bitshares works now.
Put down the pipe man, it only causes family problems. ;)
Let's stay on topic.