BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 12:36:56 am
-
Faith in Bitshares is feigning. That is proven by the value of the BTS token, the lessening involvement/enthusiasm of the community on these forums, Bytemaster moving on to other projects, and the overall cryptocurrency community's attitude about Bitshares.
It is time for BTS 3.0 - This is my plan to save Bitshares.
1. One of the biggest gripes about Bitshares is that consensus is obtained through dPoS. I suggest lessening Bitshares' reliance on DPoS. I am not suggesting we abandon dPoS entirely, but instead reduce its power by adding an auxiliary PoW component to the consensus algorithm. In other words, both the delegates and PoW miners will have a chance to find the next block. The PoW miners will have a 60% chance to fine the next block, and the delegates will have a 40% chance to find the next block. The percentages are arbitrary, as long as PoW is valued above the chances of the delegates to find the next block. This way, even if someone were able to commit a 51% attack on the dPoS chain, then Bitshares chain would still be secured via PoW.
1a. The logic behind the overall cryptocurrency community's dislike of dPoS is that a 51% attack can be prolonged indefinitely for very cheap once the attacker obtains 51% of the network. However, a 51% on a PoW chain requires a lot of money (electricity) to sustain an attack indefinitely. By implementing #1, IMO, a lot of people in the cryptocurrency community would reconsider Bitshares, because a lot of them immediately write it off simply because it is dPoS/PoS-based.
2. Liquidity needs to be bolstered on the DEX. There are three proposals, of which the community has to choose from. If the liquidity problem is not solved, then I posit Bitshares will never succeed. It is considered in this community as a "chicken and egg" problem, but it is not, and there are things we can do about it! After a lot of thought, I have reversed course over my opinion about TonyK's proposal, so I suggest that we adopt a combination of TonyK's proposal, a variation of Bytemaster's proposal (but more along the way it was tweaked towards the end of the thread), and ZERO trading fees for an indefinite amount of time.. Their proposals are less economically risky, and more straightforward than mine is. Before another cryptocurrency comes along and eats our lunch, we need to get serious about bolstering liquidity.
2a. TonyK's Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21409.0.html
2b. Bytemaster's Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html
2c. My Proposal - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=post;quote=276084;topic=21197.45
2d. No trading fees for an indefinite amount of time. Once a sufficient amount of volume on the DEX is obtained, then the shareholders can revisit trading fees via voting.
3. The Bitshares' community's enthusiasm needs to be bolstered, and money needs to be raised for development. I suggest doing this in two ways:
3a. Creating a road map for future development (IE, We will implement parts 1, 2a, 2b, and 2d of this proposal). This will give them a renewed enthusiasm for the project.
3b. Increasing the value of the BTS token.
3c. Bitshares 3.0 will be a fork of Bitshares Graphene, and it will be distributed evenly:
3c1. 40% By taking a snapshot of BTS chain. Reasoning: snapshots increase the value of the BTS token.
3c2. 60% By doing an IPO. Reasoning: This is the time of the IPOs... projects are raising millions of dollars (DAO, etc). We can raise a lot of money for development, and bring in new skin/investors to the game that will be vested in Bitshares' success.
3c3. The reasoning for weighting the IPO more than the snapshot: At the same time as accomplishing the main goals (raising money for development, and restoring the Bitshares community's enthusiasm via a higher price per share), we can reduce one of the other biggest gripes about Bitshares by reducing the Larimer's/insiders stake in Bitshares. Let's stop beating around the bush. The Larimer's have done a great service to the community for their participation, hard work, and ideas, but at some point we need to come to the realization that a lot of people don't like how they have handled a lot of issues throughout Bitshares' history, and their large voting power influence. Since only 40% of Bitshares 3.0 will be created by BTS snap shot, then they would need to pay money to sustain their voting power (which in turn goes directly towards development of BTS 3.0, so shareholders win either way.) This will bolster enthusiasm/acceptance both inside our community and outside our community, as there those that feel this way in both.
3c4. Alternatively, we could 100% snapshot BTS, but then we would need to figure out a way to pay for development. For example, the NXT 2.0 (Ardor) idea has really increased Nxt value:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/
4. Some are not be able to get past Smartcoins. They will not trust them, think they will fail, and fail to see the benefits compared to holding the real assets themselves (not bitBTC, or open.BTC, but actual BTC). We should cater to these individuals. If SuperNext and B&C Exchange can solve this problem, and incorporate real assets into a DEX, then so can Bitshares. Actual token trading should be incorporated into Bitshares 3.0, and we should let the market decide which is more important- actual token trading or smartcoins.
4a. Implementing this feature protects Bitshares against possible competitors by implementing Bitshares' competitor's main features, while maintaining Bitshare's original features (leveraged trading). There is literally nothing to lose.
-
Who is Bitshares target market? Investors, businesses, individuals, to use the dex?
Will changing the algorithm bring non crpyto people to actually use the dex? I'm not sure the average person cares to understand how the back end works.
-
Who is Bitshares target market? Investors, businesses, individuals, to use the dex?
Will changing the algorithm bring non crpyto people to actually use the dex? I'm not sure the average person cares to understand how the back end works.
Sorry, my OP is incomplete. Please wait for me to add all components. That is only 1 piece to the pie, which is intended to help the existing cryptocurrency community get behind Bitshares. That is... the large portion that has written it off simply because of dPoS.
Also, we should just forget about attracting non-crypto folk to the decentralized crypto currency exchange that is BTD for now. For one, it doesn't make sense to try to attract non-crypto users to a decentralized crypto exchange, and Ethereum has proven that targeting investors within the cryptocurrency community can result in a billion+ value token.
-
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
-
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.
We need to concentrate on making openledger a great centralised exchange first by focusing on the OPEN.BTC trade pairs.
When Openledger has good volumes and people actually use it instead of poloniex we can then think about how to make the BITUSD market deeper.
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
I agree with 2) without it it will go nowhere....does not mater if we have more n more stuff n new things.....work on what can improve liquidity n adoption is a must...I will take a look at those topics, thanks for input.
about 3 Im not convinced that more money is the problem here, would be great for sure, but we should make something sustainable n useful without focusing too much about creating new things......in my opinion we should focus pretty much about people use what we have, because hide behind development on somenthing is pretty much what factom maid n others do.....but do they will delivery something useful n needed for crypto world?
-
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.
We need to concentrate on making openledger a great centralised exchange first by focusing on the OPEN.BTC trade pairs.
When Openledger has good volumes and people actually use it instead of poloniex we can then think about how to make the BITUSD market deeper.
+5%
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.
I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.
You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.
I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.
While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.
I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.
You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.
I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.
While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.
+5%
-
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.
As the saying goes... "The first step is admitting you have a problem."
Liquidity is an obvious problem, of which there seems to be consensus amongst shareholders that we need to correct it.
However, you need to also admit that at this time dPoS is holding Bitshares back. You also need to admit that the Larimers/co-conspirators have rubbed the cryptocurrency community the wrong way.
My proposal fixes several problems- not just the liquidity problem.
-
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.
While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
There are many people in the cryptocurrency community that immediately write off any PoS cryptocurrency, and dPoS shares much of the same vulnerabilities as most PoS cryptocurrencies. Bitshares is immediately cutting the easiest obtainable target market of a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange (the cryptocurrency community) by relying on dPoS for consensus. This can be solved by enacting PoW at a higher weight than dPoS.
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.
While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
I am sure someone will do this. It is such a good idea. I am tempted to do it myself, but in my country (the USA) it is risky to conduct cryptocurrency IPOs. I am suggesting the Bitshares community to be the first to move on this. Otherwise, the people that decide to do it may not give Bitshares token holders such a big share drop as I am proposing. Technically, only 10% is required by the social consensus. Let the market decide whether Bitshares 2.0 or Bitshares 3.0 is more valuable.
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Everyone for the past 2 years has been certain that whatever project they were working on would bolster liquidity. There have been many proposals passed and developments made... most of which the supporters were certain of higher liquidity being the outcome. How has that worked out? The Bitshares DEX trades "pennies" while centralized exchanges trade "hundos".
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
Nxt token holders disagree with you at the moment. For the record, Ardor was announced on June 19th, and was at 0.00001130 BTC. Since the announcement of Ardor, it has increased to 0.00002688 BTC. That is a 237% increase. Going with 3c4 (cancelling 3c1 through 3c3), while still implementing some variation of #s 1 and 2, could do wonders for BTS shareholders.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1518497.0
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nxt/
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
I agree with 2) without it it will go nowhere....does not mater if we have more n more stuff n new things.....work on what can improve liquidity n adoption is a must...I will take a look at those topics, thanks for input.
It does matter though. Some variation of #2 (whether it be 2a, 2,b, or 2d, or some combination of those) will matter, along with #1 and #3. #1 will matter hugely to the cryptocurrency community that has written off Bitshares simply because it is dPoS. #3 matters because we need money to self-fund #1 and #2, or alternatively to raise money to solve #s 1, 2, and 3.
about 3 Im not convinced that more money is the problem here, would be great for sure, but we should make something sustainable n useful without focusing too much about creating new things......in my opinion we should focus pretty much about people use what we have, because hide behind development on somenthing is pretty much what factom maid n others do.....but do they will delivery something useful n needed for crypto world?
You are right, more money is not the problem. Numbers 1 and 2 of the OP are mainly the problem. However, solving problems #1 and #2 requires raising money. While we are at it, why not solve problem 3c3?
I am not trying to persuade you that these are the only problems Bitshares faces, just that these are several problems that Bitshares faces.
-
Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO
-
Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO
I agree, any IPO should be done on the BTS 2.0 network. The initial distribution of Bitshares 3.0 could be derived from that distribution of BTS 3.0 tokens issued on Bit shares 2.0
Worst case scenario, it provides short term buy pressure to the BTS token. Best case scenario... BTS 3.0 takes off like Ethereum, and shareholders are content with the equity reduction based on evaluation increase of the BTS 3.0 token.
If you antagonists are correct, Bitshares 2.0 will beat out Bitshares 3.0 in the market. Otherwise, Bit shares 3.0 will beat out Bit shares 2.0, and you may not get such a pleasant share drop. Someone will eventually come along and do what I am proposing.
-
I thought of another main problem, which I will add to the OP. It is regarding Smartcoins themselves. Some people perefer to trade real assets. There are projects that will trade the real assets (supernet and b&c exchange).
Bitshares should give DEX participants a choice whether they want to trade Smartcoins, IOUs (open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc), or the actual tokens themselves.
B&C and Supernet have concocted ways to eliminate the need for smartcoins and IOUs, and this is another way Bitshares' lunch may be eaten. However, smartcoins are still useful to provide leveraged trading. The best solution should incorporate both the real assets AND smartcoins. Then let the market decide which is more valuable.
I am not proposing you all agree that these are problems. I am asking that you admit that these are plausible problems, correct them, then let the market decide who is correct.
-
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).
Coinhoder,
I will give my input.
Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......
Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....
I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.
No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.
I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.
You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans.
I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on.
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. :) Believe me, I know the feeling.
While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.
+5%
BitShares3.0 is bad, BitShares 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, ... is bad too. The price of BTS has already explained everything -- changing MAX SUPPLY of BTS is a very bad idea.
It's terrible to lose trust, especially in the area of the BlockChain, random changes to the maximum supply will allow people to avoid and far away.
We just need to go along with the current direction of BitShares 2.0, we only need to make the use of BitShares 2.0 to build a model of the business model, people will see it.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
+5%
OpenLedger is a big customer of BitShares 2.0 now, so it is willing to support the development of GUI. Now we just need more big customers like OpenLedger, they will have a variety of needs and to support the development of BitShares. Compared with the way through the project budget (Workers) supports the development of, this can better promote the benign development of BitShares. Reserve funds ( worker budget) should be used in the development of the core.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
+5%
I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
+5%
I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.
+5%
COMPROMISING MAX SUPPLY? Absolutely not!
-
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.
And the complete transparency of the blockchain (lack of privacy).
And a few minor others :o
-
I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.
We need to focus on forex traders. This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already. There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders. That's not true. Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately. A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye. @Empirical1.2 has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.
If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come. Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit. By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive. Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins. More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price. It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.
I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.
-
I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.
We need to focus on forex traders. This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already. There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders. That's not true. Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately. A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye. @Empirical1.2 has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.
If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come. Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit. By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive. Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins. More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price. It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.
I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.
One hundred percent.
-
I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.
We need to focus on forex traders. This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already. There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders. That's not true. Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately. A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye. @Empirical1.2 has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.
If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come. Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit. By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive. Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins. More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price. It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.
I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.
Which posts by em1.2 about liquidity in particular did you think were best?
What do you propose would be the most attractive value proposition to forex traders?
-
Forking bitshares now would be a suicide for bitshares-2,3,4... Those who dream to get rich fast due to skyrocketing of BTS token just made a bad investment.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it.
+1
IMO DPOS is one of the biggest strengths of BitShares, since it provides a provable level of security for near zero cost. I could hardly care less if "the crypto community" (whoever that may be) disagrees.
Liquidity is our main problem, yes, but so far I haven't seen a convincing solution.
3b is a good idea.
-
Again, the first step is admitting you have a problem. That is the hardest hurdle. I can see most of you cannot admit/realize that these are all huge problems Bitshares faces. I see a lot of groupthink, which is unfortunate for the future of Bitshares. Don't shoot me- I am the messenger. Unlike most of you, I spend 98% of my time in the greater cryptocurrency community- not sequestered in Bitsharesland and Steemitland. I have conversed and debated with many people that do not use Bitshares over the past 2 years, mainly on the Bitcointalk forums (where I have 3.3k+ posts.) These issues always come up as being the reason why people don't like or use Bitshares. Say what you will about how your strategy is working and liquidity will improve (I would refer you to the scoreboard... the value of the BTS token). Say what you will about dPoS (the antagonists will continue to write Bitshares off because of it). Say what you will about OpenLedger solving all of Bitshares problems (but remember the whole point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties and IOUs). Say what you will about Smartcoins (some people will always prefer to hold/trade the tokens of the real assets).
I am having "deja vu". I gave a similar talk to the Litecoin cryptocurrency community in 2014. At the time, they were #2 on coinmarketcap and at the top of the alt coin food chain. Their problem was that Litecoin lacked any innovation compared to most other newer cryptocurrencies. It was, and still is to this day, being propped up by its network effect. I begged and pleaded that they break rank with Bitcoin (stop copying it code line for code line) and branch out on its own innovative path. Then, Ethereum came along and surpassed Litecoin by a wide margin and it is now valued at over a billion dollars. I knew innovation would eventually win out, as relying on network effects can only get you so far. Two years later, my prediction is starting to take place and Litecoin has reverted to the #4 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap. Is the same thing going to happen with Bitshares? If it does, then maybe people will start to listen to me when I give "the talk" to a 3rd cryptocurrency community... whoever that may be in the future. lol :P
Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?
A: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.
Q: Who uses cryptocurrency exchanges?
A: The cryptocurrency community.
In order for a cryptocurrency exchange to be successful, it must have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. At this time, Bitshares does not have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares. It always comes up when anyone mentions Bitshares on Bitcointalk. PoS is considered as being less secure than PoW, and for good reasons (of which I don't care to diving into.) Implementing a PoW hybrid would be a way to appease these types of people in the cryptocurrency community that have written Bitshares off based solely on the fact it is secured by dPoS.
You guys also don't seem to get the need for drastic liquidity measures. It is a chicken and egg problem if you continue down the same road, and therefore sufficient liquidity/depth will never be reached. Where Bitshares is headed is a dead end, and someone will come along and eat Bitshares' lunch. That is guaranteed.
Another reason people don't like the DEX are the inherent weaknesses with Smartcoins, and maybe you guys don't get that either? Reliance on trusted third parties is not the solution (open ledger, meta exchange, etc), as the point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties. Supernet and B&C Exchange will trade the REAL assets... not smartcoins and not open ledger IOUs. Maybe you all fail to see how this is a huge advantage when it comes to competition against DEXs? open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc, should be a means to an end, not the solution as you guys are hoping it will be. IOUs will always be IOUs, and suffer the inherent shortcomings that all IOUs do.
Then, of course, there is the huge dislike of Larimer & Co. throughout the greater cryptocurrency community.
-
Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.
I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.
My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.
-
Be patient coinhoarder, people will tell whatever they want when things dont go their way......or when they decide to sell at a loss......remeber that btc was dead when mtgox vanished?
More services like openledger in dex all around world is a good things, imagine bitfinex.btc, not bad it would increase our atmosphere around dex n it would have a network effect over smartasset n we could bring more transparency for exchange.assets n less costs involved, they dont need to pay fully for development n can share with other costs, virtuous cycle, they can have a bridge btween them making everything decentrilized n interconnected.
-
Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.
I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.
My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.
All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.
The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.
-
One real problem of bitshares is the lack of fiat gateways. Traders need a smooth way to deposit/withdraw fiat.
-
All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.
The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.
I know the pros and cons. I have carefully weighed the pros and cons. And the optimal solution to me is crystal clear.
There are plenty of PoW coins out there for people if they personally believe PoW wins over DPoS in the pro/con analysis. I would hate to see BitShares lose one of its defining features that makes it so great in my opinion. The good thing is I am pretty sure this community overwhelmingly sees it the same way.
-
All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.
The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.
I know the pros and cons. I have carefully weighed the pros and cons. And the optimal solution to me is crystal clear.
There are plenty of PoW coins out there for people if they personally believe PoW wins over DPoS in the pro/con analysis. I would hate to see BitShares lose one of its defining features that makes it so great in my opinion. The good thing is I am pretty sure this community overwhelmingly sees it the same way.
I fully agree with arhag here. The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
-
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
Also the PoW implementation in Steem doesn't even gain any of the pros of PoW that CoinHoarder is concerned about. It is entirely a marketing gimmick so that irrational PoW zealots [1] don't automatically dismiss it because it isn't PoW.
[1] CoinHoarder, I am not calling you that, since you seem to have weighed the pros and cons and analyzed it critically (you just seem to have different values than me on what is important for you to come up with a different conclusion). But the vast majority of cryptocurrency PoW enthusiasts don't have the skills to actually analyze consensus mechanism critically and they just follow the herd blindly.
-
I am not saying that I necessarily agree with all of the grievances of Bitshares, just admitting that they exist.
I think that correcting the main grievances people percieve Bitshares as having may sway Bitshares' target market's overall perception of Bitshares. Greatly increasing usage, support, community, and liquidity.
I am certain that implementing all things in the OP would be more effective than only implementing one or a few, but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
I disagree. I would argue that Steem's community and Bitshares' traders are of equal importance. The only way Bitshares will be more valuable one day is if it obtains traders. My suggestions in the OP are ways Bitshares can do that.
Abandoning the "if we build it, they will come" mentality is key to Bitshares' future success. Admitting Bitshares is incomplete as it exists today is paramount, just as it is to realize that getting rid of IOUs (like open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc) is one of the biggest reasons people should use DEXs in the first place.
You may not agree with the arguments that the antagonists make against Bitshares. All I am suggesting you do is accept that these arguments exist, that they are negatively effecting Bitshares, and do everything in the Bitshares' community's power to attempt to assimilate them. The most effective way to do so is by writing code, and eliminating perceived weaknesses.
-
PoW is shit, thought we got over this debate months ago :)
on a more serious note, what BTS needs is liquidity and traders - everything else is secondary
-
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
Also the PoW implementation in Steem doesn't even gain any of the pros of PoW that CoinHoarder is concerned about. It is entirely a marketing gimmick so that irrational PoW zealots [1] don't automatically dismiss it because it isn't PoW.
[1] CoinHoarder, I am not calling you that, since you seem to have weighed the pros and cons and analyzed it critically (you just seem to have different values than me on what is important for you to come up with a different conclusion). But the vast majority of cryptocurrency PoW enthusiasts don't have the skills to actually analyze consensus mechanism critically and they just follow the herd blindly.
I am most certainly not a PoW zealot. I don't have a preference, but I am willing to admit the pros and cons of each. I see both as being useful.
For instance, a marriage of dPoS and PoW would still result in one of the biggest benefits of dPoS in the first place... energy savings. Which results in a more "green" cryptocurrency. Consider that, as proposed, dPoS will have a 40% chance to find each block and PoW will have a 60% chance. Since PoW only has a 60% chance to find the next block, it reduces the possible block subsidies won by mining by 40%. In other words, profitability of mining is decreased by 40% as compared to purely PoW cryptocurrencies. Consequently, since the overall pie is smaller, less electricity will be wasted to try and obtain it. Theoretically, this reduces the amount of electricity needed to secure the blockchain (compared to purely PoW coins) by 40%. In summary, it provides the energy savings of dPoS while maintaining the higher security against prolonged attacks of PoW.
I understand that you guys don't want any more inflation, but this is unfortunately another issue that Bitshares faces. I just remembered that Bitshare's faces another problem... getting "new money" to participate, and getting the now larger cryptocurrency community financially vested in Bitshares. There have been a ton of newcomers since PTS/AGS/etc happened. There is a lot of money behind this "new money". It has propelled Ethereum to a billion+ evaluation, Bitcoin to highs it hasn't seen in two years, and other alt coins from near death to top 10 market capitalizations. For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons. I think that the OP takes care of most them but we also need to get newcomers financially vested in the success of Bitshares. What better way to do this than by starting Bitshares 3.0 via an ICO AND adding the ability for future "new money" to obtain coins via PoW mining. IMO, getting more people in the cryptocurrency community vested in Bitshares' success is another key issue that Bitshares faces.
-
PoW is shit, thought we got over this debate months ago :)
on a more serious note, what BTS needs is liquidity and traders - everything else is secondary
Regardless of your opinion on PoW or dPoS, my proposal gives you liquidity and gives you traders. It gives you everything you want.
All you need to do is take a step back and look at the big picture, and forget about dPoS vs PoW for a second.
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
arhag,
we can say dex is already decentrilized, we can create bitLTC bitETH bitBTC bit SUMO, but we dont liquidity........
Supernet is another gateway multisg. Sidechain, for me is a big thing without guarantee that people will want to lock their btc to bring a virtual btc into dex.......it does not make my mind because if they wantt to put their btc in dex in a decentrilized way, investing,they can do using smartasset, including creating smartbaskets collateralized by bts.......for me huge cost without any guarantee........n we know that smartcoins works but we do not have liquidity
exchange.assets is part of ecosystem, without gateways smartcoins cannot grow, trade n store value in a decentrilized way. of course is better to have a gateway of bitcny, bitusd...but we have to respect the stabilished ecosystem that exist right now n change it slownly.......
more exchanges using te software more fees it will generate, more development, more interest n more apreciation.
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
Great.. we need liquidity... how?
maker/taker rewards?
What does that look like?
What would be enough to attract traders?
How much liquidity is enough liquidity?
-
I think the most damaging i the instability which is implied by further drastic changes like Coinhoarder proposes. Leave the ecosystem alone once and for all.
People need to know that there will not be any more changes, so that they can trust the system and get used to it.
DPoS is the one of the best features BitShares has to offer... if you want a PoW Bitshares, please fork the code and make a PoWShares or whatever you want to call it... But leave BitShares alone... such changes now would kill this, for a good reason.
-
For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons.
From my noob perspective (reading various forums all the time):
1. People don't like constant dumps at their holdings.
"It's like someone is determined to not allow bts to rise"
2. People think bytemaster is a scammer (is he?)
I think some of the reasons are eliminated itself.
Counterparty risk is only for those who want. You can secure your holdings by keeping your funds in BTS or smartcoins and you're perfectly safe.
Trading is risk anyway.
What we need now is:
Doom of eth (in progress)
Excellent gui (in progress)
Buisnesses build on top (in progress)
Stop funding new ideas until we reach 30x marketcap and even then do it carefully => 1. People don't like constant dumps on their holdings.
Build trust: explain like i'm five why smartcoins can't fail
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have.
Exactly.
Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
They both use multisignature addresses.
Supernet's setup is pretty basic and less secure IMO. The way I understand it, they only use 3 signers spread across 3 servers. They are simply assets on the Nxt exchange utilizing multisignature addresses. Their GUI wallet is super spiffy/lightweight/gorgeous though, and the exchange is functional and works, so they are still a competitor. They need to work on their exchange's GUI, because for now it just runs on Nxt's exchange GUI which is quite ugly.
B&C's design implements multisig addresses as well, except that it uses a reputation-based system in which an arbitrary number of participants compete for blockchain rewards- based on their effectiveness and honesty. I think it is similar to dash's Masternodes... they put up a deposit of B&C tokens to become a signer, lose the deposit if they are not honest, and are incentivized to remain honest. That is just from memory the way I understand it anyways. I am having trouble finding the whitepaper... there has been a lot of drama going on in the Nubits/B&C Exchange camp, but even among the drama there seems to be a realization that B&C has a pretty good design for a DEX using real assets.
There is a 40 page thread on Bitcointalk in the Bitcoin Development section that goes over B&C Exchange in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.0 and also information on Nubit's forums.
I think we should let the free market decide whether they want to trade Smartcoins, Exchange IOUs, or the real assets. We should not play as puppet master, and doing away with exchange IOUs is one of the huge benefits of DEXs. Don't let the special interests of OBITS/METAX be the death of Bitshares! Someone will come and do it anyways, and it is better to have a piece of the pie. In this industry, you need to innovate or eventually die. There is no inbetween.
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have.
Exactly.
Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
They both use multisignature addresses.
Supernet's setup is pretty basic and less secure IMO. The way I understand it, they only use 3 signers spread across 3 servers. They are simply assets on the Nxt exchange utilizing multisignature addresses. Their GUI wallet is super spiffy/lightweight/gorgeous though, and the exchange is functional and works, so they are still a competitor. They need to work on their exchange's GUI, because for now it just runs on Nxt's exchange GUI which is quite ugly.
B&C's design implements multisig addresses as well, except that it uses a reputation-based system in which an arbitrary number of participants compete for blockchain rewards- based on their effectiveness and honesty. I think it is similar to dash's Masternodes... they put up a deposit of B&C tokens to become a signer, lose the deposit if they are not honest, and are incentivized to remain honest. That is just from memory the way I understand it anyways. I am having trouble finding the whitepaper... there has been a lot of drama going on in the Nubits/B&C Exchange camp, but even among the drama there seems to be a realization that B&C has a pretty good design for a DEX using real assets.
There is a 40 page thread on Bitcointalk in the Bitcoin Development section that goes over B&C Exchange in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.0 and also information on Nubit's forums.
I think we should let the free market decide whether they want to trade Smartcoins, Exchange IOUs, or the real assets. We should not play as puppet master, and doing away with exchange IOUs is one of the huge benefits of DEXs. Don't let the special interests of OBITS/METAX be the death of Bitshares! Someone will come and do it anyways, and it is better to have a piece of the pie. In this industry, you need to innovate or eventually die. There is no inbetween.
You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
Great.. we need liquidity... how?
maker/taker rewards?
What does that look like?
What would be enough to attract traders?
How much liquidity is enough liquidity?
Most People is using mobile now, the most important thing is providing a mobile website or App
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
Great.. we need liquidity... how?
maker/taker rewards?
What does that look like?
What would be enough to attract traders?
How much liquidity is enough liquidity?
I propose that all features I suggested in the OP will help with liquidity, but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.
As to what does it look like... there is a lot of information in their respective threads. Ideally, it incentivizes orders put on the book which are weighted for their duration, closeness to the price feed, and size.
As to "what would be enough"... we can make that parameter dynamic, just like Bitshares' other dynamic parameters which are changeable by committee consensus. We then start low, and gradually raise the amount until equilibrium is reached.
Another way of subsidizing liquidity is the way Nubits does it. So really, there are 3 different ways to subsidize liquidity (maker/taker; NASDAQ-based model, or Nubits-based model). Someone with a lot of knowledge on Nubits came here and claimed to be able to buy us thousands of dollars in liquidity for $9 or less a day.
"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."
I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.
So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider. The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers. The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account. They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.
The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity, while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.
-
You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?
B&C is still in development... vaporware at this point.
Supernet's assets cannot be traded in the main Supernet client yet, but the multi-wallet part is done. Supernet is IMO has a very slick GUI. It takes about 15 seconds to install, and you can store/send 7 different cryptocurrencies in one wallet. It is easy and fast to try it... just copy/paste and throw away the private seed (unless of course you want to try it out). I have tried out the multi-coin send and receive feature, and it works as advertised. https://github.com/Tosch110/SuperNET-Lite-3/zipball/master
-
You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?
B&C is still in development... vaporware at this point.
Supernet's assets cannot be traded in the main Supernet client yet, but the multi-wallet part is done. Supernet is IMO has a very slick GUI. It takes about 15 seconds to install, and you can store/send 7 different cryptocurrencies in one wallet. It is easy and fast to try it... just copy/paste and throw away the private seed (unless of course you want to try it out). I have tried out the multi-coin send and receive feature, and it works as advertised. https://github.com/Tosch110/SuperNET-Lite-3/zipball/master
So all of these competitors don't have liquidity either?
-
...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.
What made you change your mind? Last I remember you considered the tonyk's proposal a total pile of BS? Anyway that proposal is a no go in this community - the proposal has as its essence using the true (even if lower) valuation of its shares... as it has became crystal clear since then at least 90% of this community prefers - made up, artificial centralized some might call it Ponzi-like schemes where one gets money out of thin air granted by centralized god like whales... the community is apparently great at prizing endlessly such phony schemes so the masters can drop/grant them a few (printed by those masters themselves btw) steeeming pennies.
2b -subsidizing liquidity - is indeed the true needed step... but then again instead of this being done months ago...it was not... all the effort of this community went in supporting the crazy balloon called steem.... The lack of desire for this badly needed element to be implemented speaks volumes.
-
Where this conclusion that crypto traders don't like IOUs and DPOS comes from? They seem to be happily trading IOUs on centralized exchanges, completely relying on security of exchange server. Oh, boy, I don't even want to talk about how "secure" it is.
-
I know this has been discussed in other threads which I can not find, however what is/was the reasoning for having all the gateway specific assets? Why can they not just use BitBTC and charge a fee on deposit or withdraw?
-
Before joining Bitshares I took a look at supernet/next, nubits....n choose bts......if bts model cannot made it no one can.
I dont have the answer to increase liquidity in a faster rate.....but if big guys have contacts with some market maker maybe you will get some answers n see what they want/need to make it happen so we can focus on what is needed to be tweaked, if any, to make it happen, if a great market maker demands money to make it happen lets pay, I will gladly pay for a worker that puts a strong volume in smartcoins.
-
+5%
Before joining Bitshares I took a look at supernet/next, nubits....n choose bts......if bts model cannot made it no one can.
I dont have the answer to increase liquidity in a faster rate.....but if big guys have contacts with some market maker maybe you will get some answers n see what they want/need to make it happen so we can focus on what is needed to be tweaked, if any, to make it happen, if a great market maker demands money to make it happen lets pay, I will gladly pay for a worker that puts a strong volume in smartcoins.
-
I know this has been discussed in other threads which I can not find, however what is/was the reasoning for having all the gateway specific assets? Why can they not just use BitBTC and charge a fee on deposit or withdraw?
Gateway specific assets have a very nice property: they are tightly pegged 1:1 to underlying asset. Which makes them useful for many purposes.
-
I know this has been discussed in other threads which I can not find, however what is/was the reasoning for having all the gateway specific assets? Why can they not just use BitBTC and charge a fee on deposit or withdraw?
Well for one thing the gateways make no money on the trades made in bitassets. They make ALL the money on the IOUs.
Secondly, it is easier to issue IOUs because they do not require any collateral. I can create a LISK IOU without having any LISK and start trading.. or maybe I got say 1000 LISK but create 100,000 for trading.. these are some options that are not easy to do with bitAssets.
Thirdly, without liquidity, you have traders gone wild who sell assets at 10-20 even 40% above current price feed price and if there is no liquidity, you are stuck either shorting it yourself into existence which means locking up twice/three times the value in BTS, or paying those crazy market prices.. funny thing though, when the market is set like that, nobody wants to use them. How does a gateway take things like BTC for bitBTC then without losing a huge amount of money?
Anyways.. those are just a few of the more visible reasons.
-
...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.
What made you change your mind? Last I remember you considered the tonyk's proposal a total pile of BS? Anyway that proposal is a no go in this community - the proposal has as its essence using the true (even if lower) valuation of its shares... as it has became crystal clear since then at least 90% of this community prefers - made up, artificial centralized some might call it Ponzi-like schemes where one gets money out of thin air granted by centralized god like whales... the community is apparently great at prizing endlessly such phony schemes so the masters can drop/grant them a few (printed by those masters themselves btw) steeeming pennies.
2b -subsidizing liquidity - is indeed the true needed step... but then again instead of this being done months ago...it was not... all the effort of this community went in supporting the crazy balloon called steem.... The lack of desire for this badly needed element to be implemented speaks volumes.
If there was subsidized offering for traders to be rewarded, what level of reward would be enough to make you want to trade on the dex?
-
Why not use BTS to IPO?
Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO
I agree, any IPO should be done on the BTS 2.0 network. The initial distribution of Bitshares 3.0 could be derived from that distribution of BTS 3.0 tokens issued on Bit shares 2.0
Worst case scenario, it provides short term buy pressure to the BTS token. Best case scenario... BTS 3.0 takes off like Ethereum, and shareholders are content with the equity reduction based on evaluation increase of the BTS 3.0 token.
If you antagonists are correct, Bitshares 2.0 will beat out Bitshares 3.0 in the market. Otherwise, Bit shares 3.0 will beat out Bit shares 2.0, and you may not get such a pleasant share drop. Someone will eventually come along and do what I am proposing.
Any issuance will accelerate BTS death！！！
Now, The only thing to do is change the source of worker's wages
-
As an active trader, I do not see fee's as being an issue holding back others from trading.
I started this thread on btctalk to get some additional input. Many people claim the wallet is overly complicated. People have a hard time grasping btc, yet bts is bringing so much more to the table. Many do not know how smart coins keep the peg, others have no idea about being able to withdraw/deposit straight from the wallet utilizing a gateway etc... I would use the dex even more if there was liquidity however at this point in time I can not get away from 3rd party exchanges completely.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1513568.0
BTS goes after many different target markets, thus we should focus how to attract these specific users.
low hanging fruit:
-Short term we need to remind the crypto crowd how un transparent 3rd party exchanges are. They do not grasp the concept about having gateways competing for your business, instead of users going to specific exchanges. Your always in control of your investment!
-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.
-
I'm going to start writing articles to promote bitshares.
-
As an active trader, I do not see fee's as being an issue holding back others from trading.
I started this thread on btctalk to get some additional input. Many people claim the wallet is overly complicated. People have a hard time grasping btc, yet bts is bringing so much more to the table. Many do not know how smart coins keep the peg, others have no idea about being able to withdraw/deposit straight from the wallet utilizing a gateway etc... I would use the dex even more if there was liquidity however at this point in time I can not get away from 3rd party exchanges completely.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1513568.0
BTS goes after many different target markets, thus we should focus how to attract these specific users.
low hanging fruit:
-Short term we need to remind the crypto crowd how un transparent 3rd party exchanges are. They do not grasp the concept about having gateways competing for your business, instead of users going to specific exchanges. Your always in control of your investment!
-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.
Nicely done.
-
Again, the first step is admitting you have a problem. That is the hardest hurdle. I can see most of you cannot admit/realize that these are all huge problems Bitshares faces. I see a lot of groupthink, which is unfortunate for the future of Bitshares. Don't shoot me- I am the messenger. Unlike most of you, I spend 98% of my time in the greater cryptocurrency community- not sequestered in Bitsharesland and Steemitland. I have conversed and debated with many people that do not use Bitshares over the past 2 years, mainly on the Bitcointalk forums (where I have 3.3k+ posts.) These issues always come up as being the reason why people don't like or use Bitshares. what issues? "Groupthink?"big deal we all agree that POW is wasteful and we hate counterparty risk hence the smartcoin love. And please tell me that you have never heard a Friday morning discussion where any and all conflicting viewpoints are discussed in real time week after week. Have you met Fuzzy? What Bitshares has is a unique product that is different than the greater crypto group. You think we suffer from "groupthink" then you need to meet the Ethereum/DAO community man. I'm sorry, but I think that iconoclast is the term you are looking for. Say what you will about how your strategy is working and liquidity will improve (I would refer you to the scoreboard... the value of the BTS token). who exactly are we competing with in the smartcoin market again? I absolutely love this BTS price Say what you will about dPoS (the antagonists will continue to write Bitshares off because of it). So you think that if we had POW and smartcoins, then the bitcoin world would be beating a path to our door, but because we have 2 major mind blowers (dPoS and smartcoins) then nobody believes we exist. That is a valid point, especially after Ethereum just publicly displayed the dark side of hard forking. I tell you what would make people trust dPoS though, is if someone got a bunch of coins stolen, and the BTS was not only unwilling to hard fork to re-secure the funds, but "unable" to. This is the downside to DPOS: it is "forkable" and because of this, how can we ever claim true immutability. Ethereum can never claim immutability and even though we may never ever roll back the blockchain, we still "could" based on the mechanisms in place. So in essence, we trust the integrity of our community and most crypto heads don't want to ever have to trust a community, and those who do, are already happy at home in the Ethereum Proof of Vitalik world. The fact that Dan has let go of his control over this coin to start more projects is the next best thing for BTS immutability than switching to an expensive POW scheme. Also, is it even possible to achieve our current level of speed and scalability that we have all grown accustomed to with POW? I doubt it. Say what you will about OpenLedger solving all of Bitshares problems (but remember the whole point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties and IOUs). Say what you will about Smartcoins (some people will always prefer to hold/trade the tokens of the real assets).
OK, so not everyone is going to love smartcoins. So?
I am having "deja vu". I gave a similar talk to the Litecoin cryptocurrency community in 2014. At the time, they were #2 on coinmarketcap and at the top of the alt coin food chain. Their problem was that Litecoin lacked any innovation compared to most other newer cryptocurrencies. It was, and still is to this day, being propped up by its network effect. I begged and pleaded that they break rank with Bitcoin (stop copying it code line for code line) and branch out on its own innovative path. Then, Ethereum came along and surpassed Litecoin by a wide margin and it is now valued at over a billion dollars. I knew innovation would eventually win out, as relying on network effects can only get you so far. Two years later, my prediction is starting to take place and Litecoin has reverted to the #4 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap. Is the same thing going to happen with Bitshares? If it does, then maybe people will start to listen to me when I give "the talk" to a 3rd cryptocurrency community... whoever that may be in the future. lol :P
Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?a profitable DAO
A: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.
Q: Who uses cryptocurrency exchanges?
A: The cryptocurrency community.
In order for a cryptocurrency exchange to be successful, it must have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. At this time, Bitshares does not have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. Who cares? We don't need to dominate the cryptocurrency landscape to be profitable, all we need is a small percentage of the whole, and suddenly, we are not only the world's first DAO, but the world's only profitable DAO.Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares. It always comes up when anyone mentions Bitshares on Bitcointalk. PoS is considered as being less secure than PoW, and for good reasons (of which I don't care to diving into.) Implementing a PoW hybrid would be a way to appease these types of people in the cryptocurrency community that have written Bitshares off based solely on the fact it is secured by dPoS.
This is true, but again, can we afford to spend money to change our consensus mechanism and bear the performance degradation that comes with such a change just to offer the more security? I would not know how to quantify the potential, but I suspect that Dan could give an accurate answer
You guys also don't seem to get the need for drastic liquidity measures. It is a chicken and egg problem if you continue down the same road, and therefore sufficient liquidity/depth will never be reached. Where Bitshares is headed is a dead end, and someone will come along and eat Bitshares' lunch. That is guaranteed.
Possibly, but our smartcoin competitor you speak of will have 1000 TPS max with 20 second block times and a halving date that will suddenly make all miners unprofitable at the current price, just to theoretically offer a little more security. Bring em' on I say, I could use a good laugh. My bitUSD cares not the price of BTS or any crypto to for that matter.
Another reason people don't like the DEX are the inherent weaknesses with Smartcoinswhat? Please elaborate.., and maybe you guys don't get that either? nope, like I said, my bitUSD never loses value ever.Reliance on trusted third parties is not the solution (open ledger, meta exchange, etc), as the point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties. Supernet and B&C Exchange will trade the REAL assets... not smartcoins and not open ledger IOUs. Maybe you all fail to see how this is a huge advantage when it comes to competition against DEXs? open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc, should be a means to an end, not the solution as you guys are hoping it will be. IOUs will always be IOUs, and suffer the inherent shortcomings that all IOUs do.
Then, of course, there is the huge dislike of Larimer & Co. throughout the greater cryptocurrency community.
Of course, haters gonna hate, especially when he warned the Nubits / DAO fanatics about the pitfalls of GROUPTHINK! They killed Jesus too. Do you know what percentage of humans are actually honest? About the same percentage of the general crypto community that supports us. Coincidence? What DAO would you rather be a part of now?
BTS?
Lisk?
Decred?
The DAO?
The only difference currently is that we have a working (but still unprofitable) business model/product
-
low hanging fruit:
-Short term we need to remind the crypto crowd how un transparent 3rd party exchanges are. They do not grasp the concept about having gateways competing for your business, instead of users going to specific exchanges. Your always in control of your investment!
+5% That is correct. Saying "decentralized" is not enough to sell the DEX. We should demonstrate in practice what advantages this decentralization gives to user. It surely does, it just should be explained on practical use cases. What can you with DEX which you can't do with regular exchange?
-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.
This is questionable. Block POS project is the best project on top of bitshares imo, but this is half way for acceptance of smartcoins by merchants. Merchants don't like crypto. It is a great pain for them in terms of taxes, regulations etc. Merchants want to receive their local fiat into their bank accounts without pain in the ass touching these crypto tokens. In bitcoin world, bitpay and coinbase are sort of gateways which help merchants to go from user's BTC into fiat. How would merchant go from user's bitUSD into their bank account? Until this problem is solved, talking about real world usage of smartcoin is naive.
-
...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.
What made you change your mind? Last I remember you considered the tonyk's proposal a total pile of BS? Anyway that proposal is a no go in this community - the proposal has as its essence using the true (even if lower) valuation of its shares... as it has became crystal clear since then at least 90% of this community prefers - made up, artificial centralized some might call it Ponzi-like schemes where one gets money out of thin air granted by centralized god like whales... the community is apparently great at prizing endlessly such phony schemes so the masters can drop/grant them a few (printed by those masters themselves btw) steeeming pennies.
2b -subsidizing liquidity - is indeed the true needed step... but then again instead of this being done months ago...it was not... all the effort of this community went in supporting the crazy balloon called steem.... The lack of desire for this badly needed element to be implemented speaks volumes.
If there was subsidized offering for traders to be rewarded, what level of reward would be enough to make you want to trade on the dex?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjyZKfdwlng
The point is- it is known it is definitely > 0
... other wise swing at it...
-
No changes, no hard fork... First we need a lead developer like steem has ( Dan ) and also an economist ( Dan again? or Ned? ). Enthusiasm alone ( stan ) is not enough. How to bring liquidity to smart coins, is maybe a question more of a re-implementation. Not so simple. steem-back-dollar is one experiment, but for what bitshares wants to do, I don't think it is ideal even, but we can look at what happens there.
-
Guys, before you even consider doing anything, just do those two little things which are really obvious:
- Make the GUI finally free of bugs
(Yes, there are still terrible bugs in the GUI - no errors show up but the UI often gets stuck and needs to be reloaded in the browser)
- Upgrade the website to make it look like you actually want a new user to try out your product
(Yes, when you sell some software it's usually a good idea to show a screen-shot)
-
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
Great.. we need liquidity... how?
maker/taker rewards?
What does that look like?
What would be enough to attract traders?
How much liquidity is enough liquidity?
I've posted dozens of times about how to get traders. Kind of getting tired of typing it over or digging up the threads since it never seems to go anywhere...
I'll try to dig up the threads though.
-
I think PoW should no be more than 50% share of block generation, otherwise the "soul" of Bitshares is become PoW.
-
I don't think we should be introducing POW to DPOS at all, POW is figuratively the cancer killing cryptocurrency.
-
I think @CoinHoarder's idea to introduce PoW could make sense as a marketing ploy. But as the primary consensus mechanism, I think it is becoming more and more clear that PoS is superior. And PoS is increasingly being accepted within the crypto community. After all, everyone knows ETH will be switching to PoS, and aren't all of the recent ICO projects using PoS already, including Lisk which is specifically DPoS? We really don't need to go down this road, except maybe to have token mining for marketing purposes. But even then, I think we have much higher priorities, namely taking steps to incentivize liquidity providers.
Speaking of which, I think we should have a liquidity pool that shareholders can participate in and earn returns. Returns can be funded not only by trading profits, but also by blockchain sponsored liquidity provider rewards that anyone or any entity (including the liquidity pool) can compete for.
Also, perhaps we can introduce some form of @Empirical1.2's yield harvesting to simultaneously incentivize both BitAsset creation and participation in the liquidity pool. We really need to start taking real measures to increase liquidity.
Thank you @CoinHoarder for helping to shine the spotlight on the critical issue of liquidity again.
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
+5% +5% Well said SVK. Good points.
-
Guys, before you even consider doing anything, just do those two little things which are really obvious:
- Make the GUI finally free of bugs
(Yes, there are still terrible bugs in the GUI - no errors show up but the UI often gets stuck and needs to be reloaded in the browser)
- Upgrade the website to make it look like you actually want a new user to try out your product
(Yes, when you sell some software it's usually a good idea to show a screen-shot)
+5%
Fix bugs first. Please!
I'm a shareholder, but now i'm more of a user, I have a bug to report here.
Have you guys used the asset's Whitelist?
WHITELISTS AND BLACKLISTS
Some 3rd party service providers may want to select which customers are allowed to hold their assets , e.g. after verified their identity for KYC/AML. Those services can use so called whitelists (or, alternatively, blacklists) of their assets that will prevent unauthorized participants to use this particular asset.
In BitShares 2.0, account names (life-time members only) and also user-issued assets have their individual whitelists. Hence, if you issue an IOU on the blockchain, you can define who can hold and trade your tokens, if you wish.
User whitelists on contrast can be used by independent KYC/AML providers to state proper verification. An asset issuer may then use those providers to oursource identity verification completely. (http://docs.bitshares.eu//integration/supporting-features.html?highlight=whitelist)
us-in (an account name ) issued an asset called UIATEST , and enabled all the flags:
Require holders to be white-listed
Issuer may transfer asset back to himself
Issuer must approve all transfers
Disable confidential transactions
and add uiatest (an account name) to the Whitelist of us-in (an account name ), then us-in sells UIATEST in the market, uiatest can buy it, usin（not a whitelist account of us-in）can buy it too, Where is the problem?
-
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.
Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.
I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
+5% +5% Well said SVK. Good points.
+5%
-
the lightest idea here is to introduce real asset to trade in DEX.
in other words, to connect Bitshares and Bitcoin via sidechain.
the topic has been discussed deeply in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21263.0.html), and seems BM has put it into to-do list.but...
I wonder is it possible for the team to develop this without BM?
-
the lightest idea here is to introduce real asset to trade in DEX.
in other words, to connect Bitshares and Bitcoin via sidechain.
the topic has been discussed deeply in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php), and seems BM has put it into to-do list.but...
I wonder is it possible for the team to develop this without BM?
I agree a sidechain between bitcoin & bitshares would help a lot.
I believe Peerplays is planning to do a sidechain into bitshares. Maybe this could be adjusted for bitcoin without much problem. I'd keep an eye on Rootstock as well. They're using a federated peg with bitcoin. This should work well w/ bitshare delegates.
-
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:
1) We create the two-way peg
2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain
3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"
4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.
Any large-enough group of witnesses could claim to be hacked and steal all the sidechained bitcoins. This isn't possible on the network today, I mean, witnesses can't steal your BTS. Using this would be very scary for me, just because I'm trusting that 20 or 30 people won't be tempted to steal 25 million dollars that they collectively control.
Another potential attack: a majority-by-votes BTS holder can vote in new witnesses for himself. Before, it was scary enough, as he could mess with our blockchain somewhat, with double-spends, etc. But with this sidechain, now he can steal all the bitcoins.
Thoughts?
-
I think this is a very important issue and I thank @bitcrab for resurrecting the discussion. To add my 2 cents, here's what I posted in Telegram as part of a discussion on the matter there.
"(Graphene + Bitcoin + Ethereum) sidechains would be amazing. but i can't imagine that happening within a year. perhaps in the meantime we should consider the multi-sig gateway approach. even though it's not a trustless solution, it would be less centralized than what we currrently have, which would give users more confidence, especially if there's a proof-of-reserves component. also, it would give us a single BTC asset to focus on, which should help with liquidity and hopefully also help simplify matters for DEX users"
From Stan in Telegram RE: sidechains between Bitshares, Steem, Peerplays, Bitcoin and Ethereum:
I've discussed it with several community leaders over the past few months. It's one I'd like to see happen in the coming year - no promises yet.
-
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:
1) We create the two-way peg
2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain
3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"
4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.
If the market cap of Bitshares is low, nobody will transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain.
-
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:
1) We create the two-way peg
2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain
3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"
4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.
Any large-enough group of witnesses could claim to be hacked and steal all the sidechained bitcoins. This isn't possible on the network today, I mean, witnesses can't steal your BTS. Using this would be very scary for me, just because I'm trusting that 20 or 30 people won't be tempted to steal 25 million dollars that they collectively control.
Another potential attack: a majority-by-votes BTS holder can vote in new witnesses for himself. Before, it was scary enough, as he could mess with our blockchain somewhat, with double-spends, etc. But with this sidechain, now he can steal all the bitcoins.
Thoughts?
I feel what you are talking is still multisig gateway, not trustless sidechain, however I am not 100% sure.
I just heard steem already began their sidechain work(maybe also peerplays?), big change to bottom infrastrature will be introduced, but I am not clear about the detail.
-
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:
1) We create the two-way peg
2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain
3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"
4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.
Any large-enough group of witnesses could claim to be hacked and steal all the sidechained bitcoins. This isn't possible on the network today, I mean, witnesses can't steal your BTS. Using this would be very scary for me, just because I'm trusting that 20 or 30 people won't be tempted to steal 25 million dollars that they collectively control.
Another potential attack: a majority-by-votes BTS holder can vote in new witnesses for himself. Before, it was scary enough, as he could mess with our blockchain somewhat, with double-spends, etc. But with this sidechain, now he can steal all the bitcoins.
Thoughts?
I think instead of a bunch of anonymous witnesses, the node operators in this scenario could be known entities such as OpenLedger, Blocktrades, Blockpay, Transwiser, BitKapital, etc. Maybe a few witnesses can be added to the mix, perhaps with a requirement to ID themselves and/or put up a security deposit. A solution like this would not be trustless, but it would be far less centralized than the current setup and it would ensure that there are never fractional reserves. This would give users far more confidence.
-
Can i remind you of this concept: http://bitshares.eu/blog/2016/04/01/Decentralized-Exchange-Union/