Quote from: tonyk on February 14, 2016, 02:33:02 pm

#6 Bulgarian is wrong

Приемаме smartcoins.

Паботим c  bitcoin.

even leaving the bitcoin part in English is OK I guess.

So chose one of the flowing 3:
Приемаме smartcoins.
Приемаме bitcoin
-----------------------------
Приемаме smartcoins.
Паботим c bitcoin
-----------------------------
Приемаме smartcoins.
We accept bitcoin.

ACCEPTED HERE in Bulgarian is wrong? Just let me know what would sound the most local/native, thanx @tonyk

haha no, допусне is wrong.
I will pick option one personally.[bold now]. As in many other languages (see above) the passive voice sounds very unnatural, so I  have done it in active voice.

Here folks we are experiencing one of cryptos greatest wonders,  the Ander pump...

Legend has it that whenever this scholar promoted an early crypto currency, a curse was put on it that retarded all market cap growth. In most cases, the cursed currency became a mere shell of itself, never surpassing its pre pump high...

Historians are still debating the death of what some call the anti predictor. But it's commonly accepted that he was run over by a bus of a developer of a coin he pumped that inherently failed.  Though his passing was sad, crypto innovation began to bloom once the fear of the death pump was gone.

Quote from: tonyk on February 13, 2016, 11:28:14 pm

Quote from: monsterer on February 13, 2016, 11:06:31 pm

Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.

I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?

There ought to be genuine arbitrage opportunities in the internal markets - e.g. triangular arbitrage between bitUSD/BTS, bitUSD/bitCNY,  bitCNY/BTS. The blockchain would always be the one profiting from any opportunity because it can act instantly before any other participants.

In my view the guy placing the last order is the one creating the opportunity. From here on there are several scenarios:
- Let his order sit on the book and wait for some guy with a bot to come and capitalize on it, or new orders to remove the opportunity;
-The blockchain finds it/matches it using the 'general' rule - the later (latest here) order gets what they asked for or better.
-The blockchain finds it/matches gives the last guy what he asked for and keeping the arbitrage for itself.


PS
hmm  with the blocks and such in blockchains, I guess all orders can come in one block, theoretically.
PSS
More generally speaking there is someone that has all the info one step before the blockchain... the signing witness. Front-running paradise.

Could we create a new a type asset called BitBond that is used for this?

What I did not like in the other thread? This bond fund might as well lose money (well over the 1% fee, with 50/50 contribution to 201% total collateral), then we have the socialization of losses. [apparently  good now thing in BM's new found believes,btw]

Without the bond - I do not like this non-market approach. It results in the case of the BTS price going down and certain collateral being sold - even more BTS in circulation. Or in the case of enormous collateral - say 10x in using artificial back up because the logical market participants are not willing to do the same themselves. And as I have said several days ago, if the leader of this project has any faith in his child he will lead with himself shorting with 7-10x collateral... and this will help a lot in everyone else also believing and following... and will go a long way.

I am personally thinking of market approaches to aid/share responsibilities with the gateways, if need be... my ideas in this regards are not fully crystalized to see public scrutiny yet though.

Thanks, sent a small tip to your accounts (assuming tony's was the right one and he claims it)

thanks, but no need to.

and nothing tony(k) related is mine.

 sell BTS to Ripple

I would really like to hear for one worker-proposal or new feature the inflation-phobics would be willing to pay for.

I only hope that the stealth features will make more votes and reason available.

If you consider me one such person - I will vote somewhat similar to jonybitcoin's current vote. Minus the blockchain maintenance worker - not because I do not think that worker is needed. I just think he is overcharging us...like 2x.

opps sorry and definitely minus those UI coordinator/Managers...definitely not for those.