91
Technical Support / Is there a way I can adjust the timeout on BTSX client?
« on: October 12, 2014, 11:37:56 pm »
I find I'm getting timed out a lot, and want it to stay open for longer.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
92
General Discussion / Apart from volatility, what risks surround the collateral behind BitAssets?
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:41:19 am »
Something I've been trying to understand is how secure is the (BTSX) collateral held behind BitAssets, because in effect the level of that collateral is a factor in how confident users can be of getting paid back if something goes wrong or demand falls. So my question is what risks are there, and what protections are either in place or need to be developed over time?
93
General Discussion / Does max holding period for shorts "guarantee" longs can exit at the feed price?
« on: October 09, 2014, 10:08:35 pm »
I would like to see if others can verify what I've been thinking here - there is a touch of maths involved. Could anyone let me know if my logic or understanding of the mechanics here is wrong.
This argument assumes there no grandfathering, and every current and new short has to close their position within 30 days (a position we will eventually be in once the grandfathering rolls off).
Now lets say for simplicity we have an outstanding supply of 100 (100 long and 100 short). The worst case scenario from a peg-stability perspective is that all the 100 longs wish to simultaneously sell. To guarantee they get the feed price then, they merely need to set their sell orders at an arbitrarily small distance below the feed price, and wait for the 100 shorts to cover within the 30 days. Its not possible for extra sellers to join the queue, because there is no more supply available to sell, and new supply can only be created by shorts at or above the feed price (in which case new buyers would have to eat up the sell offers first). Now of course if for whatever reason some sellers are more urgent, they may need to take a discount within the 30 days, but the patience of hold-outs to sit ought to guarantee exit at (or extremely close to) the feed price sometime within 30 days.
Is there a flaw in this logic?
This argument assumes there no grandfathering, and every current and new short has to close their position within 30 days (a position we will eventually be in once the grandfathering rolls off).
Now lets say for simplicity we have an outstanding supply of 100 (100 long and 100 short). The worst case scenario from a peg-stability perspective is that all the 100 longs wish to simultaneously sell. To guarantee they get the feed price then, they merely need to set their sell orders at an arbitrarily small distance below the feed price, and wait for the 100 shorts to cover within the 30 days. Its not possible for extra sellers to join the queue, because there is no more supply available to sell, and new supply can only be created by shorts at or above the feed price (in which case new buyers would have to eat up the sell offers first). Now of course if for whatever reason some sellers are more urgent, they may need to take a discount within the 30 days, but the patience of hold-outs to sit ought to guarantee exit at (or extremely close to) the feed price sometime within 30 days.
Is there a flaw in this logic?
94
General Discussion / Should DAC distributions to PTS holders depend also on time held?
« on: October 09, 2014, 12:29:17 pm »
Around every new DAC snapshot there is pump before the snapshot and a dump after that is arguably excessive and driven by speculators aiming to purely to get shares in the latest DAC. Would a distribution based both on stake and time held lead to less volatility and rotation in PTS shares?
The argument against this is that maybe to a large extent the price changes in PTS are warranted, because as a new DAC snapshot approaches, and the DAC concept is presented in more detail, arguably its attributed valuation increases, and conversely after the snapshot the PTS value should fall by the value of the new DAC distribution. Yet it does seem at least to me the pump and dump is often excessive in the few weeks around a DAC snapshot, given its existence is generally known well in advance.
Maybe in the end its up to the DAC developers?
Any views on this?
The argument against this is that maybe to a large extent the price changes in PTS are warranted, because as a new DAC snapshot approaches, and the DAC concept is presented in more detail, arguably its attributed valuation increases, and conversely after the snapshot the PTS value should fall by the value of the new DAC distribution. Yet it does seem at least to me the pump and dump is often excessive in the few weeks around a DAC snapshot, given its existence is generally known well in advance.
Maybe in the end its up to the DAC developers?
Any views on this?
95
General Discussion / Can explanation of BitUSD be simplified?
« on: October 08, 2014, 02:51:35 am »
It seems to me the simplest explanation of BitUSD is something like this:
BitUSD is a currency that is backed by a network reserve of at least two times the value in BTSX. The reserve is available to support a full monthly buy-back of units no longer demanded.
Much of the marketing material refers to two parties (e.g. Alice and Bob) coming to an agreement (like a derivative) where one takes the risk of BTSX and the other doesn't. This seems somewhat irrelevant to most potential BitUSD users, who may never need to deal with BTSX in any way, and although the principle is similar, is not really an accurate reflection of the mechanics, as there are no individual contracting parties.
To me, the simplified description also highlights an important feature of BitUSD over NuBits, in that shareholders do not hold adequate reserves to support buying back 100% of its NuBits.
[When the material presents BitUSD like a derivative, it becomes very confusing. I've been here for a while and have misunderstood how mechanisms like short-covering or margin calls affect BitUSD owners (they don't). Thanks to members like Troglodactyl and Chuckone pointing these errors out to me.]
BitUSD is a currency that is backed by a network reserve of at least two times the value in BTSX. The reserve is available to support a full monthly buy-back of units no longer demanded.
Much of the marketing material refers to two parties (e.g. Alice and Bob) coming to an agreement (like a derivative) where one takes the risk of BTSX and the other doesn't. This seems somewhat irrelevant to most potential BitUSD users, who may never need to deal with BTSX in any way, and although the principle is similar, is not really an accurate reflection of the mechanics, as there are no individual contracting parties.
To me, the simplified description also highlights an important feature of BitUSD over NuBits, in that shareholders do not hold adequate reserves to support buying back 100% of its NuBits.
[When the material presents BitUSD like a derivative, it becomes very confusing. I've been here for a while and have misunderstood how mechanisms like short-covering or margin calls affect BitUSD owners (they don't). Thanks to members like Troglodactyl and Chuckone pointing these errors out to me.]
96
KeyID / Where to download the KeyID wallet/client
« on: October 06, 2014, 12:25:17 am »
I have searched threads in this forum and the website, to no avail. I give up. Could somebody please lend a hand by telling me the location? Much appreciated. (I'm on MAC.)
97
General Discussion / Coinapult Wallet with Locks - views?
« on: October 01, 2014, 11:48:34 pm »
Another contender for the role of removing crypto volatility and allowing switching between other currency exposures like USD and gold. Has recently received VC funding.
see...https://coinapult.com/locks/info
I'll start discussion with the following views:
Pros:
i) simple to understand and to access, especially for mainstream, and for small business[/li][/list]
ii) appealing options to lock in and out of a broad range of assets[/li][/list]
iii) spreads should be usually reasonable given Coinapult is accessing liquidity in major exchange markets
Cons:
i) counterparty risk with Coinapult, a small and unknown entity (even though Coinpault holds reserves, this is not transparent, and they might mess something up).
ii) user has no collateral protection (BTC are transferred to Coinapult and nothing in return)
iii) spreads are high enough that frequent switching between assets is still very costly
Even though there are risks, which may be borne out later, I think this will find some appeal in the market. Thoughts?
see...https://coinapult.com/locks/info
I'll start discussion with the following views:
Pros:
i) simple to understand and to access, especially for mainstream, and for small business[/li][/list]
ii) appealing options to lock in and out of a broad range of assets[/li][/list]
iii) spreads should be usually reasonable given Coinapult is accessing liquidity in major exchange markets
Cons:
i) counterparty risk with Coinapult, a small and unknown entity (even though Coinpault holds reserves, this is not transparent, and they might mess something up).
ii) user has no collateral protection (BTC are transferred to Coinapult and nothing in return)
iii) spreads are high enough that frequent switching between assets is still very costly
Even though there are risks, which may be borne out later, I think this will find some appeal in the market. Thoughts?
98
General Discussion / Why is the sell wall on BitBTC currently so high?
« on: October 01, 2014, 09:51:47 pm »
At time of writing, feed price around 11900, lowest ask at 13765, around 16% premium. Anybody suggest why this might be?
99
General Discussion / Strange price movement?
« on: September 27, 2014, 12:50:16 am »
I noticed on the price chart here: http://bitsharesblocks.com/assets/asset?id=USD, that in the time period Fri Sep 26 04:00-07:59, it shows the price range moved between 0.014286 and 0.031209. Did the price really go to 0.014286 and if so, what happened?
100
General Discussion / How to measure and market success of the peg
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:56:32 pm »
It would be useful to set up a place where everybody can follow a number of metrics regarding the evolving history of the peg, especially for usd. This could also be used for marketing.
Things I think would be useful to track in charts are:
- history of transactions, represented as discount of premium to feed price
- volatility of bUSD
- correlation of bUSD to fiat USD vs other currencies or gold
- supply of bUSD
- volume traded in bUSD
- bid/ask spread
- volumes transferred in bUSD
thoughts?
Things I think would be useful to track in charts are:
- history of transactions, represented as discount of premium to feed price
- volatility of bUSD
- correlation of bUSD to fiat USD vs other currencies or gold
- supply of bUSD
- volume traded in bUSD
- bid/ask spread
- volumes transferred in bUSD
thoughts?
101
General Discussion / What happens if BitAssets eventually surpass their real Assets?
« on: September 06, 2014, 07:39:17 am »
Since BitAssets are not backed by any real assets, it is theoretically possible that BitAsset markets get bigger than their real Asset equivalents. Then is the focus on the peg even relevant or is that the tail wagging the dog, so to speak? Maybe realAssets start to peg to the Bit Assets? Maybe BitAssets find their own market value based on stability and convenience? And then if they do ultimately de-peg and the market finds value in BitAssets in and of themselves, are not all BitAssets then equivalent and converge in price? Are we currently focusing on the right properties of these assets in the current debate?
102
General Discussion / Using Exchangers could peg BitAssets with free markets (for comment)
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:50:12 am »
Here is an idea I've been toying with for comment. Everyone agrees it would be ideal for BitAssets to peg better while having as little market intervention as possible.
An idea has already been discussed in other threads of using a floating interest rate (paid from shorts to longs) to better equate the supply and demand around the peg price.
Suppose there were a competitive group of 'exchangers' present who would be willing to make a two-way exchange of the BitAsset for the real Asset on a 1:1 basis. Each would independently set a floating interest rate, paid from BitAsset shorts to longs, that they would be willing to make this two-way exchange at. Each exchanger would have a book of the BitAsset (yielding them the rate) and the real Asset, and the rate they choose would depend on their existing inventories and perceived risks and returns on each holding. Escrow services would be available to enable these exchanges without any counterparty risks. Anybody could conceivably offer an exchange or escrow service, but in the case where the real Assets have a monetary nature (e.g. BitUSD or BitGold) this would be limited to the usual regulations around KYC and AML laws etc (such as existing online currency exchangers).
The floating interest rate (paid from shorts to longs) can then be set equal to something like the volume-weighted average interest rate of the BitAsset-RealAsset transactions made with the exchangers, which effectively represents where the market is indifferent between holding the BitAsset and the real Asset.
Now lets imagine some scenarios...
Suppose the exchangers set their interest rates too high. This favours longs, so BitAsset is bid higher than the real Asset, and arbitragers exchange their real Asset holdings for BitAsset holdings with the exchangers and sell these on market at a profit. Exchangers rapidly lose BitAssets, and their ability to earn the higher yield, until they bring rates to a level where the market price of the BitAsset is back in line with the realAsset.
Conversely if exchangers set their prices too low, they become loaded with BitAsset until they increase rates to a point where the market price is approximately pegged.
This approach has a number of advantages:
- It avoids any market intervention. It simply requires an extra thing to float, being the interest rate, which is necessary in any case if we want a stronger peg (i.e. less float) on the price.
- To get a good peg, it does not require all market participants to be able to deal with the exchangers. They merely need the confidence that there will be a set of arbitragers who will do enforce this.
- Merchants and customers have another convenient method of dealing with BitUSD and having confidence in its value.
- It is preferable to just relying on a social consensus spontaneously evolving around price behaviour, because there is no guarantee such a consensus won't be "BitUSD is always at an X% discount to realUSD" or "BitUSD is well pegged with interventions, but after that we don't know" or any other common view that may hold based on the evolving history.
- It is preferable to market interventions that dry up liquidity and prevent market growth.
- Confidence in the market peg and good liquidity quickly expands the entire market, making all of us Bitshares X owners very very wealthy.
There may be risks of exchanger collusion that I have not thought through, but the more open and competitive this market it, the less its an issue.
That's the basic idea. Feel free to stress and criticise the concept, I'm just initiating this in case the idea has some merit.
An idea has already been discussed in other threads of using a floating interest rate (paid from shorts to longs) to better equate the supply and demand around the peg price.
Suppose there were a competitive group of 'exchangers' present who would be willing to make a two-way exchange of the BitAsset for the real Asset on a 1:1 basis. Each would independently set a floating interest rate, paid from BitAsset shorts to longs, that they would be willing to make this two-way exchange at. Each exchanger would have a book of the BitAsset (yielding them the rate) and the real Asset, and the rate they choose would depend on their existing inventories and perceived risks and returns on each holding. Escrow services would be available to enable these exchanges without any counterparty risks. Anybody could conceivably offer an exchange or escrow service, but in the case where the real Assets have a monetary nature (e.g. BitUSD or BitGold) this would be limited to the usual regulations around KYC and AML laws etc (such as existing online currency exchangers).
The floating interest rate (paid from shorts to longs) can then be set equal to something like the volume-weighted average interest rate of the BitAsset-RealAsset transactions made with the exchangers, which effectively represents where the market is indifferent between holding the BitAsset and the real Asset.
Now lets imagine some scenarios...
Suppose the exchangers set their interest rates too high. This favours longs, so BitAsset is bid higher than the real Asset, and arbitragers exchange their real Asset holdings for BitAsset holdings with the exchangers and sell these on market at a profit. Exchangers rapidly lose BitAssets, and their ability to earn the higher yield, until they bring rates to a level where the market price of the BitAsset is back in line with the realAsset.
Conversely if exchangers set their prices too low, they become loaded with BitAsset until they increase rates to a point where the market price is approximately pegged.
This approach has a number of advantages:
- It avoids any market intervention. It simply requires an extra thing to float, being the interest rate, which is necessary in any case if we want a stronger peg (i.e. less float) on the price.
- To get a good peg, it does not require all market participants to be able to deal with the exchangers. They merely need the confidence that there will be a set of arbitragers who will do enforce this.
- Merchants and customers have another convenient method of dealing with BitUSD and having confidence in its value.
- It is preferable to just relying on a social consensus spontaneously evolving around price behaviour, because there is no guarantee such a consensus won't be "BitUSD is always at an X% discount to realUSD" or "BitUSD is well pegged with interventions, but after that we don't know" or any other common view that may hold based on the evolving history.
- It is preferable to market interventions that dry up liquidity and prevent market growth.
- Confidence in the market peg and good liquidity quickly expands the entire market, making all of us Bitshares X owners very very wealthy.
There may be risks of exchanger collusion that I have not thought through, but the more open and competitive this market it, the less its an issue.
That's the basic idea. Feel free to stress and criticise the concept, I'm just initiating this in case the idea has some merit.
103
Technical Support / Incorrect transaction displays in 0.4.8
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:16:54 am »
I have just done my first transactions today, but am noticing a couple of weird things with the display of Recent Transactions in client 0.4.8.
1. After my first transfer, the transaction kept displaying as pending (>10 minutes), even after it had gone through the block chain and credited to the receiving account. Only when I quit the client and re-opened, did it show as complete.
2. I have one transaction that is appearing twice when I am on the Overview Screen, showing as completed exactly the same time (I only did one transaction, and my balance is correct). When I click into the specific account and look at the transactions there however, it appears correctly, showing just once.
Anyone experience this and know why?
1. After my first transfer, the transaction kept displaying as pending (>10 minutes), even after it had gone through the block chain and credited to the receiving account. Only when I quit the client and re-opened, did it show as complete.
2. I have one transaction that is appearing twice when I am on the Overview Screen, showing as completed exactly the same time (I only did one transaction, and my balance is correct). When I click into the specific account and look at the transactions there however, it appears correctly, showing just once.
Anyone experience this and know why?
104
Technical Support / Help needed - Have BTSX from Feb snapshot, not sure how to get into wallet
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:25:10 am »
Hi. I held PTS in my PTS Wallet for the Feb 28 snapshot, and so was allocated BTSX which I can verify when I check my PTS address at this page:
http://bitbalance.azurewebsites.net
I want to test trade my BTSX (I note it is now trade-able on BTER), and also use some of the functionality of Bitshares, and so want to get it into a wallet. So I downloaded the BTSX wallet from here:
http://bitshares-x.info
The question is what do I do now? How do I get my allocated BTSX into the wallet? For starters, I am not sure where to transfer from - where does my BTSX sit? Second, I am not sure what to use as the BTSX wallet address I am transferring to - is that the Account Key? Third, I noticed another thread suggesting the wallet is demo-mode - so can I actually use the wallet or Bitshares anyway? Fourth, I tried to register the account I set up in my wallet, but it won't let me register until I have BTSX in my account.
I'm very confused, and would appreciate somebody setting my understanding straight. Thanks...
http://bitbalance.azurewebsites.net
I want to test trade my BTSX (I note it is now trade-able on BTER), and also use some of the functionality of Bitshares, and so want to get it into a wallet. So I downloaded the BTSX wallet from here:
http://bitshares-x.info
The question is what do I do now? How do I get my allocated BTSX into the wallet? For starters, I am not sure where to transfer from - where does my BTSX sit? Second, I am not sure what to use as the BTSX wallet address I am transferring to - is that the Account Key? Third, I noticed another thread suggesting the wallet is demo-mode - so can I actually use the wallet or Bitshares anyway? Fourth, I tried to register the account I set up in my wallet, but it won't let me register until I have BTSX in my account.
I'm very confused, and would appreciate somebody setting my understanding straight. Thanks...
