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.
Not that I am big fan of public restrooms with bay windows, but we will see how much difference being stealthy makes in 5 days or so.In Monero, there is none of the bullshit like where some BTS community member sends 5M BTS to poloniex, and everyone posts about it here, and dumps. Nope, because you cannot know.
I really, really, really do hate that about BTS in its current state...
Having said that if the OP is implemented then it will be more likely that whales will come on board and create those bitassets...So I don't know how I should feel about implementing this change...Please whatever you decide don't create a shock in the market and bts drops to $3 mil market cap because then my wife will divorce me..
for those of us who have to work, will there be an opportunity to listen to the recording later?
@noisy I have taken what i think you are getting at and changed it a bit. I think this could work?? @xeroc @tbone @complexring @abit @JonnyBitcoin @brainbug @Shentist @Akado @TravelsAsia @BunkerChain Labs @merivercap @btswildpig @fuzzy @bytemasterInteresting. So you are saying at worst the witnesses can collude to not allow the actual BTC withdrawal(get her BTC out off the 2 of 2 BTC account, but cannot steal the funds for themselves... this sounds enough for me ... enough for someone having something to lose from such action, to say nothing it is a group of them.
Bitshares generates a 2 of 2 multisig bitcoin address. 1 of these signitures is held by the witnesses. The other signature is held by the bitshares users account.
The user deposits bitcoin to this new btc account and will only be able to retrieve it when the witnesses provide the other key.
Bitshares then generates a sideBTC token for the user.
The user can then use this SIDEBTC as collateral to create BITBTC. but they will only need 100% collateral and have zero risk of margin call or force settlement.
To regain access to his realbtc he will need to repay all debts. Bitshares the destroys the SIDEBTC token and allows access to the real BTC by getting the witnesses to sign with the second key.
3 30% moves in 1/2 hour...what is the word I am looking for?...I bought some BTS (not on margin) at 1100 sats today, for the first time in like 4 months.
Back over 1200
localhost just sent 5 million to Poloniex, has 32 million BTS in account who's that?
On the fee pools - they are easy.Recharge the fee pools.For simplicity once the order is placed on the books at +10% maybe it should be left there. Trying to adjust it adds un needed complexity.
even if the order isn't executed for months it will still be good for the system as it adds depth.
Simple is best. Perhaps the committee should collect and sell the fees on the first day of every month and leave them there.
This would make it simple for the rest of us to quickly audit what has happened.
What to do with the BTS earned from the sells though?
What is the source of these assets in the committee account? Based on the above they didn't get there by charging a fee for something.
BTW - what is a "fee pool" The term would imply to me it is the account(s) which accumulate or track all fees paid for transactions, trades, memberships etc. If that is correct, why do they require "Recharging"? That seems to tell me we are operating at a loss. What depletes the fee pool(s)? I would assume worker pay and witness pay are 2 expenses that do, but was under the impression expenses for workers are self regulating (pay is reduced as funds / vote support dries up).
Perhaps I'm just a slow old man but this shit is complicated, I can't get a clear picture from the bursts of dots coming from this forum, mumble and xeroc's docs. A little help with this jigsaw puzzle would be greatly appreciated. Also, the OP in this thread is presumably related to the bug? discovered on the multisig committee account. I have yet to see an answer to my question about how a new multisig committee-trade account wouldn't also be plagued with the same bug. I'll get to it, just haven't reached it yet in my reading. I assume there's a good answer to that question otherwise this thread doesn't make a lot of sense.
ITS ALIVE!wow what happened? What are the news?
Prof. Lietaer ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO9bRjhV_Bo
I don't think we can make this change without impacting the implied right of transfer for BTS.
Not necessarily. In my proposal everything else, exept bitUSD, is collateralized by bitUSD [probably at lower ratio than the 1.75x ]Sounds like a closed loop and an even higher barrier to entry than the current system.
What is the benefit to business if we are all just trading shares between ourselves?
I would prefer an open free market with dynamic tools to promote trade.
Because shares aren't the product, bitUSD, butCNY, etc are and those would be more used from what I understood. It's only a higher entry barrier if you want to get shares, not to use the products people are already supposed to use but don't.
Yes but you still have to get shares to have collateral for bitUSD, correct?
Under this proposed system what would happen in cases of high demand for bts, and cases of low demand for bts. I think a couple of thought experiments are in order.
First of all high demand for bts. Since no one can buy bts directly, they will have to buy bitassets. As there are more people wanting to buy than to sell the price of these bitassets will rise. If I really want into bts, but no one is offering a bitusd for $1 of fiat then I might pay $1.10 at some price there will be a seller. Once I purchase my bitusd I will transfer it to my wallet, and purchase bts with it. Once again we will assume that there are more people wanting to purchase bts with bitsud internally. My purchase will push the price of bts vs bitusd up. Thus a rising of bts price should produce shortages of bitusd for sale on external exchanges, and gluts of bitusd for sale internally.
When the price of BTS in in uptrend there will be more people willing to short USD (to gain even more) so no shortage of bitUSD here.
More importantly someone willing to pay $1.1 per dollar in order to buy BTS means he is willing to pay 10% more for BTS than the current price. So the price of BTS will move up to that level (assuming he represents the total demand for BTS)
How would it work under low demand for bts. Once again no one can sell their bts directly. Internally we can assume that there will be more bts for sale and less bitusd for sale. The price of bts in relation to bitUSD will decline, and the collateral underlying all bitusd will go down in value. Once I have my bitusd I will transfer it to an external exchange and attempt to trade it for fiat. We can once again assume that there will be more bitusd for sale on the external exchange and less fiat to purchase it. This will naturally depress the price of bitUSD in relation to fiat. This will result in a shortage of bitusd internally and a glut of bitusd externally. If the price of bts internally falls far enough then shorters will become under collateralized. They will either add to their collateral, attempt to purchase bitusd to close their short, or get margin called. If they attempt to purchase bitusd internally to close their position or are margin called this will further add to the internal shortage of bitusd and further reduce the price of bts in relation. If the price falls far enough then there will be massive buy orders in the internal bitusd market, but the rational decision for most users will not be to sell their bitusd internally for the depreciating bts. It will be to sell their bitusd externally for fiat. If conditions get bad enough then many users will be willing to sell their bitusd externally for fiat at a discount. This will erode confidence in the system, and further the decline.
In this example the bitUSD sold on external exchanges somehow disappear. (as opposed to returning as a supply to the DEX market). After this is fixed, while this scenario is painful experience for the BTS holders, it describes just a new lower value of BTS. The massive buy walls can only represent people willing to exit but not willing to sell low enough [otherwise they will offer new lower price and 'move in front of that wall' so to speak]. At the extreme - they can always exit instantaneously by offering 1.75 times less than the last seen price.
More fundamental - you still describe the world as if there is some 'fair price' somewhere out there, and the trades in the DEX somehow deviate from it*. When the price in the DEX is THE PRICE
* for example here >>"If conditions get bad enough then many users will be willing to sell their bitusd externally for fiat at a discount. " Discount from what? This simply means they have somehow sold their BTS for that same premium, which is impossible and simple means the price of BTS is actually lower by this discount amount.
This may be a worst case scenario, but I think it is likely to happen at some point. We have already seen the price of bts decline by 50% in a day or two. the current incarnation survived to lick its wounds. I am not sure that this new version would. In short I would say that my argument is that attempting to make entry and exit entirely through market pegged assets will hinder the peg, and increase the fragility of the entire system.
I hope this wall of text wasn't too hard to read. If you disagree with any of my conclusions please let me know.
