I'm going to set default witness pay and the cap of worker payment to zero. Or maybe change related code entirely. My idea is to pay what we're able to afford, or say, pay from income. Pay by ourUSD but not shares. If no income, no payment. Will you accept this? Anyway we define the rule first (at least before asking for any external fund). Less change is better.

"pay what we're able to afford, or say, pay from income"
I like this approach as well. This should also help us find support from delusion conscious BTS holders.

I also agree on the stable, not changing environment. I will even add "stable aim/goal and not ever shifting focus".


PS
I will give more though on the rest of you post, before responding.

Quote from: abit on February 16, 2016, 11:52:53 pm

Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 16, 2016, 04:57:32 pm

Quote from: noisy on February 16, 2016, 04:37:33 pm

prices of the cryptocoins by nature are very volatile. This is the reason why we should use stable bitAssets as payment for workers: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21449.msg278949.html#msg278949

Every worker should get exactly this amount of money which he need to provide a good service. For USA citizen this will be X bitUSD, for Chinese citizen this will be Y bitCNY.

The reserve fund needs to hold an assortment of bitassets.  It reduces the reserve fund risk and allows developers to be paid in their preferred currency.  It also promotes the entire BTS ecosystem, instead of just the bts token.

The reserve fund should act like sovereign wealth fund.  Constantly rebalancing it's holdings.  For starters, the reserve fund should hold 70% bts and split the other 30% between bitUSD, bitCNY, bitEUR bitBTC and bitGLD.  This would promote 5 bts currencies and improve liquidity while attracting dev's who may not want to get paid in a constantly fluctuating asset.  Fluctuating assets are nightmares to report for taxes.

You mean dump 30% of reserve fund to the market? It's about 300M. I don't even believe there are so many bit assets exist.

I never said dump... If a sovereign wealth fund wants to change allocations, they don't go and buy or sell the entire position over the next trading period.  It's is done over a period of months in order to make the transition smooth and not generate weird price distortions.

Right now the reserve fund is in an extremely risky scenario. Remember, apple doesn't hold its reserves in apple stocks. Governments don't hold all their reserves in their national bonds.  It's prudent to diversify, not to mention promotion of the bts ecosystem.

Actually everyone is keeping their  unissued (not yet issued) shares in ...unissued shares. Do not want to push anything more than I am already doing, but this returning the generated fees in the reserve fund, do end up mixing things up a lot. Revenue is mixed up with not yet issued shares. Potatoes are mixed up and compared to oranges in all kinds of explanations and argumentations.

@tonyk

A. You simply cannot make BTS untradable on centralized exchange. This proposal will simply give one exchange, or a small combination of exchanges, a stranglehold on the exchange of BTS. The first exchange that puts in the work to develop the backend for BTS exchange will gain a quasi monopoly. Thus, Bitshares could end up worse off from this proposal... going from traded on many exchanges to one or a few exchanges.

B. You cannot simply make bitUSD the "main" smartcoin that is traded against BTS. Some people, specifically China and Euros may prefer bitEUR or bitCNY. This proposal effectively fragments the main BTS/BTC market into several (possibly many) smaller markets.

Thus, each market separately will have a smaller amount of liquidity than if we were to continue BTS/BTC being the main market... possibly much less depending on how many smart coins are used in this manner and the popularity of other smart coins other than bitUSD. It is a possibility that to get the best price on BTS you would have to buy 3 different smartcoins, then trade all of them for BTS.

C. It is unclear to me how you plan to pay worker proposals and such in bitUSD without autonomously shorting bitUSD into existance or printing unbacked bitUSD. Several community members are vicously against such practices, as I found out when I brought up my proposal.

D. Even with creating a separate asset, and not freezing BTS, I still see a lot of issues arising from the transition period. What would be the value of the original BTS tokens, if anything? What happens when people purchase these tokens after the transition period thinking that they are receiving equity in Bitshares ecosystem?

There are other issues that I can think of that may arise, as mentioned in my first post, but I don't have have time to explain.

A. Yes, we can make them non-tradable on exchanges! What we cannot prevent is the exchanges coming with derivatives on top of BTS to trade. And while in the current state it seems unlikely an exchange to go through the hoops to do that, it will mean something if they go through that trouble one day, doesn't it.
You continue to think of the exchanges as something more powerful (or important) than they really are. But the true trading of the real thing will happen only in the DEX.

B. 1. USD just seem the best choice all things considered, but this is not the main point here. The main point is - it should be one currency where the effort is concentrated. I think this is needed, at least at the beginning. CNY seems the second best, but we might as well end up going with it when all pros and cons are wighted.
2. Your idea about the need to buy 3 smart coins to get the best price is simple incorrect

C. This is my favorite misconception of yours  Read the OP post again. The portion of new BTS coming into the active pool dedicated for witness pay (the same way they do now) is put in a collateral and bitUSD is shorted(created). The witnesses get those bitUSD. The short order is auto (immediately) called  and it starts 'searching' to buy the bitUSD to close itself. it is using the mechanism described in the OP.(by offering decreasing BTS price by 1% each N blocks)

D. 1.It is not new asset on BTS, it is a new chain called dShares. If somebody mistakenly thinks they are buying BTS, when they buy dUSD and they go on the dDEX to buy dDEX Shares ? They need other help.

2. The value of BTS? I honestly have no clue what the price  of BTS will be (and dShares for that matter) at the beginning. The good thing for current BTS holders - they will have substantially similar stake in both, kind of  win-win no matter what and how happens piecewise.

Could we create a bond asset that converts 1:1 to bts. The funds from the bond asset can be used by for the bot that the committee controls. The reserve pool could then be used to only pay dividends to the bond based on the performance on the bot. This would cut down on the risk of the funds in the reserve pool. The bond holders assume the risk and the network only has to pay out when there is a profit.

OK here is the very rough version of my 'market approach to some  collateral issues experienced by gateway regarding bitAssets bridges.'

The issue in short is that if a gateway/bridge (never got to remember which is which and why so) wants to offer a say BTC to bitBTC bridge, it has to come with min about 2x in BTS for each net bitBTC that is requested by customers through its bridge.

What if willing parties ['bridge collateral sponsors'???] can provide the second 100%+, for some benefit?

Important points:
In case of liquidation the collateral provided by the bridge is used to cover the losses (if any) first [before the collateral from the 'collateral sponsor'] .
The loss for the bridge is fictional BTW. That loss is exactly offset by the same gain of holding BTC received by the customer requesting the bridge from BTC to bitBTC.

Quote from: tonyk on February 15, 2016, 08:23:27 pm

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 15, 2016, 07:09:30 pm

At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

I will not speak for BM, I will just say that some of the concerns that he should have arise for the consequences for BTS and  in particular its transformation to this new state. Something that was pointed out by many. I personally have also acknowledged those issues and have never pretended they do not exist. My personal take is/was they are for the better good and are outweighed by the benefits.
Anyway, the new chain approach eliminates this, as there will be no process of 'eliminating the right to transfer' for current BTS holders and there will be no slow process of outdrawing everything from exchanges and all its messy consequences.

CoinHoarder you should stop reading here if you are not ready to read my posts for what they are - disagreement with ideas/actions and not personal attacks on the poster!!!

I really do not see any issues of any great significance in your post up thread, other than the one address above. Feel free to explain again the ' few very valid concerns' that you believe are the big no-nos. It as well could be me, not seeing them from the correct angle.

@tonyk: Let's say we cut off BTS transfers and forced trading onto the DEX only.  Would that create the "perfect peg" you're after? Or would BTS - even on the DEX - still be trading against a variety of different versions of the same assets i.e. multiple versions of BTC, multiple versions of USD, multiple versions of CNY, etc?

One would expect that when BTS is perfectly pegged to bitUSD, the usefulness of any variation of USD to go way down. People can make them and try to make a market for them. I expect the market for them to be not only thin but to mainly show a discount for the more risk they carry (in the case of IOUs USD) compared to bitUSD. In other words I expect improvements compared to the current situation in that regard as well.(less fragmentation)
Even now, even with pretty poorly pegged bitAssets, imagine one of the bridges somehow manages to offer bitUSD (bitBTC) directly instead of their  IOUs. Don't you think they will overtake most of that particular assets market pretty quickly?

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on February 15, 2016, 03:12:31 am

FWIW, I requested a withdrawal code earlier today and never received it (assuming they are still supposed to arrive on this forum in a pm).

I'll try again tomorrow.

hey guys just letting you know I messaged @kuro about having a V1.1 beta in the coming weeks.  Just to let you know.

uhh my deposit is still missing...in the 'silver ticket thread'. Not that I think I deserve said ticket. just saying the bot is pretty buggy more often than not.

I always buy in when Localhost and BM dumps     Then the price must go up for a short time . Nice trading signal .

haha, yes BM claimed localhost is not him or close relative...In all honesty, he just took the chance to mislead the public because I did not nailed it down precisely! But we all know what I meant - someone very close in the loop. (he himself, developer, CNX, huge investor with feel for the pulse etc - someone very deep in the KNOW).

@tonyk what do you think if I develop this and launch a testing network? Will you lead the testing work? And what do you think is the best approach?

1.I think it is very unlikely 'BTS main' to simply jumps into this new direction itself. Nor I am saying it should - I just see a ton of benefits if it does. Others have pointed concerns. Concerns with various degrees of seriousness. I have yet to see any outweighing the positives, but it is just one man's opinion.

2. I do not see a test chain having any way to prove one way or the other if this thing works. At  the end, We are mainly testing market incentives; and with test-chain where such  incentives are removed  I do not see the experiment working.  What I see is  a new chain testing the theory. I mean a full blown chain of its own, even if its init status matches BTS share distribution 1:1.

3.Assuming we more or less agree on p.2 - It was truly amazing how you have seeming excelled at Graphene code. Especially amazing was the speed with which you did the '*poor man's bandwidth fees' feature [Do not get me wrong - I called it poor man's because it is lacking the stuff that reduces the usage at high tx times (or increases the fee at such times) and paying the fees by locking funds in the future in order to earn fees post factum. On the opposite - they way you did it - aka keeping the fees and just earning them by having a balance for time X, is much closer to what I believe is better (for this proposal purposes and in general)]. So even that the feature (changes) to the existing code I have proposed so far in this thread seem to be just 2-3 times more work than what you have done (coded) for bitshares already, my biggest issue remain funding this new chain. And while I am willing to do what you call testing for free [I am not very sure what will I really test, as I am not much of a coder. So it will be more like running the code as a user and seeing if it works, more than true testing]
So wile I and seemingly you are ready to start working on this for free, I would feel much better if we had some more solid plan regarding the future financing of the project. While "if it starts successfully, we can later on run workers on the dShares" is a plan, but a plan not good enough in my oppinion. And not because I have wasted my own time, but more because I have not given the project enough chance to succeed. In particular I do not consider just diluting Bitshares [or dShares] by worker proposals 'financing the development'. For me it should work something like this - real investor  is found. He pays the devs in cash (so they can live). The worker proposal is for ( actual cost to develop * 1.33 ) and the worker pay is locked (for 1.5-2 years; ); the investor recieves those new shares after said 1.5 year. Selling those worker pays in the DEX in some sort of "Worker Backed Assets" is a interesting possibility, but then again the feature itself requires development (money) in itself.

* 'pragmatic man's approach' is probably a better term - it cuts the fancy [and more difficult to implement] and not particularly useful stuff out; while also keeping the possibility to pays the fees directly.

Anyway, those are some of my current thoughts. Your (and anybody else take) on those issues is welcomed.