Quote from: bytemaster on November 21, 2014, 10:37:10 am

It is really very simple to see how BitAsset demand drives BTS price:

We have purchased a large amount of BitUSD to give us some price stability for paying developers.  If BitAssets did not exist that means we would have had to EXIT our BTS positions via exchanges and created $200K worth of sell pressure.    $200K of sell pressure would have dropped the price, but because of our BitAsset demand instead we supported the price while hedging.   

So holding BitAssets keeps VALUE in the system rather than causing it to LEAVE the system through the exchanges.

So as a newbie here, im thinking of buying bitassets such as bitusd/bitgold but i'm still trying to get my head around how this works.

It takes roughly 80,000 bitshares to buy an ounce of gold that costs $1,200. I get it that if the prices of gold goes up i made a good buy because it would cost me more shares to buy and if i sell i still get back the equivalent of an oz of gold. So what about the value of the bitshares itself? If the value of the shares goes up but the value of gold stays the same, am i not getting back fewer shares? In that case i would be better off just holding the shares i think and not buying the asset.

Mike

You are correct but definition of "better off" may differ from person to person.

Created a pull request for Turkish translation.

Just in case you decide to add it...

Quote

BitShares is trustworthy yet requires you trust no one.

Maybe my understanding of english is too german here, but doesn't this sentence actually mean "it is explicitly required that you trust no one, to use bitshares - so if you trust anyone it wont work?

I'll second that, shouldn't it be

BitShares is trustworthy yet  [it] does not require you to trust anyone.

Lets say I short BitBTC. There are zero sellers right now, so could the person who buys the BitBTC from my short then immediately put it up for sale at a super high price, requiring > 75% of my collateral to cover? Whats the thing Im missing that prevents this attack?

who will buy it at that super high price? putting a sell order does not mean you will actually sell it.

I think concept of fairness is irrelevant. This is an airdrop to a a community. Developer airdrops to whoever he/she wants and accepts whatever community reaction arises.

The question should be what is the best distribution for maximum growth in terms of network effect and market cap.

With the addition of the pay reward halving every 4 years, there will now be an absolute hard cap on the number of bitshares.


Starting BTS total: 2.5 billion.    This comes from current BTSX (2 billion), plus stake allocated to PTS, AGS, DNS, and VOTE (500 million total).

Starting reward per year: 157,680,000.    (50 BTS per block * 6 blocks per minute * 60 minutes per hour * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year).

4 years at this rate is 630,720,000.  After that, the reward halves, and in the next 4 years, we add half that.  And so on.   The total number of bitshares that will EvER be paid to delegates is capped at 1,261,440,000.    (In reality it will be less, because many delegates are low pay delegates).



Here is the hard cap of BTS at 4 year intervals:

Nov 2014:  2,500,000,000
Nov 2018:  3,130,400,000
Nov 2012:  3,445,600,000
Nov 2016:  3,603,200,000
Nov 2020:  3,682,000,000
Forever:     3,761,440,000


Also, every share of BTS that is ever burned reduces all of these numbers by 1!  So every time a share of BTSX is ever burned for trasnaction fees, etc, this cap goes down!

Every time any delegate ever receives less than a full pay block reward, the hard cap goes down!

For example, we are going to have many 3% pay delegates, in with a few full pay delegates who are developers, marketing team, etc.
Every single time one of those 3% pay delegates signs a block, these numbers go down by 47, because that is 47 BTS that cannot be created (because the opportunity to pay the full 50 BTS was missed).



So what is the reality of how many BTS there will be?  Significantly less than these numbers!  These are a hard cap which occurs only if there are 101 full pay delegates and no shares of BTSX are burned ever.  Both of those are not true, and thus the actual amount of BTS will be much lower.

small correction

Your opinion seems to be shared by a number of people who used to promote and stand behind the concept of PTS. A lot of people sold their PTS because they thought, for whatever reason, the social contract transferred to BTS.

You are right, social contract did not necessarily transfer to BTS, however, the probability of any "new" profitable DAC coming out that honors the social contract essentialy became near zero. I3 will not be developing a new DAC in near future and MUSIC does not count because it was already snapshotted.

I blame the term "merger" for the confusion. There wasn't a merger.Nothing was bought or sold. If Pepsi share dropped 10:1 Pepsi:Coke shares on all holders of Coke stock would anyone think that Pepsi just bought out Coke, or the value of Coke? No, they'd say: Sweet - thanks for the free shares.

In the case of Coke, Coke would still be functional, still producing value and giving dividends. It would still be profitable. There would be no value transfer from Coke to Pepsi. However, in the case of PTS there is a value transfer: probable earnings from future developments.

I hope I made my point clear - not a native speaker...

fuck.people keep dumping shit load of btsx.kill me.

Chance to buy cheap