1. You can buy it with whatever the pair says. If bter lists BitUSD/BTSX then you can buy in with BTSX.

2. Yes that's the whole idea. You can store and trade value in BitAssets in a completely decentralised way. In the client click on markets go to BitUSD and you will be able to buy (& sell) BitUSD for BTSX.
Your BTSX user account will then show your BitUSD balance as well as your BTSX balance. Your BitUSD balance will also earn interest.

3. No you only have to part with some BTSX. If it currently takes 60 BTSX to make a dollar then a BitUSD will cost you 60 BTSX-ish. Then you've lost those BTSX but have a BitUSD which you can trade for however many BTSX it takes to make  a dollar in future.

4. Yes you have to put up collateral to go short. Shorting BitUSD means you think BTSX will rise relative to the dollar. The collateral is 200% I think so you have to put up 125 BTSX-ish to short 1 BitUSD based on current prices,  (You also have to enter an interest rate your willing to pay.) If someone wants to buy a BitUSD above the feed then one will be created by matching him with the short offering the highest interest. So now that guy has a BitUSD backed by a lot of collateral you provided that earns interest. (Edit: His BitUSD becomes backed by everybodies collateral and earns the average interest that all shorts are currently paying.)

The benefit for the short is that if BTSX rises in value he makes money. He would have already made money that way just by holding BTSX. So going short lets him amplify/increase how much money he can make from the BTSX price rising relative to the BitAsset he shorted without buying more BTSX.

It is really simple, I will not vote for a paid position but as long as upgrades are prompt and blocks are produced he can maintain a delegate.

Really  Ok, that surprises me.  I assume that's for one delegate position. If he's shown to have 5, I assume 4 will not get your vote at least.

Thank you for the information.

So he has 5 delegates in the top 101? Wow.

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on November 02, 2014, 06:56:03 pm

Quote from: Stan on November 02, 2014, 06:36:46 pm

Quote from: CoinHoarder on November 02, 2014, 03:00:18 pm

The profit model is apparently that there will be no "profits."

Once dilution is implemented, I venture to say BTS will never be "profitable" on its original goals of creating a profitable company out of a cryptocurrency by not diluting its shareholders and burning fees. No amount of marketing and development will ever be enough, shareholders will always want more no matter the value of the BTS tokens.

Now the model closely resembles how any other cryptocurrency would be "profitable" by its tokens' value rising. Whether this is a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but if I see someone say "they just don't see the big picture" one more time I'm going to flip shit. Apparently there are people that can tell the future, and the debate is not a debate at all as it is an objective matter and not a subjective one. 

Just out of curiosity, I pose this question:

If 3% dilution is used to fund growth this year while the share price grows by 100%, what would your recommended investment rate be for the following year?

Just out of curiosity, I pose this question:

If dilution is proposed to fund growth this year & the share price drops by 50% partly in response to that, despite being on an uptrend, despite benefitting from a value adding merger, despite market knowledge of a big marketing push in the pipeline, what should the actual dilution rate be?

Or alternatively

If 3% dilution is used to fund growth this year while the share price grows by 100%, whereas the share price of your main competitor grows by 10 000% which is a BitAsset hard cap, what would your recommended investment rate be for the following year?

(I think BitShares as it stands needs dilution, I'd like to see it locked in, though it's seeming unlikely, and I'll also invest in a competitor with shares for development set aside, which will give it the same % access to funding as BTS for the first few years anyway.)

The answer to all of these is clear:  In a race for preeminent network effect, get there first and stay there - whatever it takes.  Anything that will plausibly generate more value than the shares it costs is positive net thrust. 

The challenge, of course, is whether the shareholders as a collective, or even a company's best experts, have the ability to correctly assess whether a particular investment meets that characteristic.

But when the choice under discussion is whether to decline to spend 3% to fund development and marketing targeting several orders of magnitude (10 x 10 x 10...) growth, we have a proposition that falls pretty clearly in to the category of "penny wise and pound foolish" 

I think a lot could have been funded with 5% of shares set aside, but I can't not be invested in BitAssets & in some of the talent here, so I certainly hope to be proven wrong and eat some of my words. I'll probably be able to evaluate the plan for network effect once I see it, at the moment we're obviously in the dark.

I just read it in chinese community. I did not shout anything ....
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10842.0

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on November 02, 2014, 05:17:29 pm

Quote from: onceuponatime on November 02, 2014, 05:03:50 pm

Please don't use a sockpuppet for such an issue (especially such a misleading one as dacsunlimited,com). What is your primary account?

I agree, it is very misleading.

Using that misleading account and then shouting about a scandal, not impressed.

Ok

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on November 02, 2014, 04:31:24 pm

Quote from: Rune on November 02, 2014, 04:20:09 pm

At this point there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you can't understand the competitive advantages that decentralized fundraising gives us, then you should just sell, because it is not changing back in the short or medium term. It's unfair and almost tyrannical, yes, but it is for the best, and if you've trusted bytemaster before then you should also trust him this last time.

On the bright side, this will most definitely be the very last time a centralized choice about the future of the DAC is ever made. From now on, there will be no authority but stakeholders. Should a majority decide to remove dilution in the future when the market cap is huge, it will happen as soon as they say the word (however by then the massive advantages of dilution will be obvious to everyone).

Also I'm tired of the BS argument that a DAC supposedly needs to be deflationary before it can be profitable. That's just complete BS. Buy low sell high due to mass adoption is infinitely more profitable than tiny, utterly insignificant transaction fees burned by the system in a tiny userbase of true believers that have misunderstood austrian economics. Adoption and thus profit comes from innovation and marketing, not circlejerking about deflation.

Please don't tell people there is no point continuing discussions. These are people going to a lot of effort to try think of ways to improve BTS. He is also a loyal early adopter. He also paid 500 BTSX for this translation. I value what he has to say.

I'm just giving my honest advice. There is no way it will change and for their own sake they should rather sell than cling on and try to change it at this point.

Nothing is inevitable.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5m1A7zoIcc

Even if it doesn't change, if it doesn't work, I find in general developing talent tends to be weak on behavioural analysis so these kind of discussions help people understand where they might have gone wrong in retrospect and make better decisions for the future.

Quote from: Felix on November 02, 2014, 03:15:27 pm

Dilution  is absolutely the nightmare for btsx!!! Originally I firmly kept resisting the merging with dilution！3I should use the btsx shares of its own to buy back ags/pts！Not diluting！

Putting my own opinions on dilution aside for a moment, I'm not necessarily saying dilution is a bad thing, whether it is good or bad remains to be seen. I am just getting annoyed with the "anti-dilution crowd doesn't see the big picture" speak, as it is a subjective matter not an objective one. Also, it pretty much completely changes the original concept of making a profitable company on a block chain.

I think once people are able to quantify how profitable BitAssets & BitAsset growth is for BTS, I fully believe BTS will be & be seen as a profitable company on a blockchain.

There's still a good chance, 70%+, BTS as is will be huge. Unbelievable product, best talent & a lot of stuff going behind the scenes.

BTS may have less than 5% of shares set aside for development so it would be tough to stay a hard cap. I think a minimum of 10% set aside for a 5 year development plan would be required and even then that may not be enough for a pioneering SuperDAC.

So for BitSharesX becoming BitShares and aiming for network effect & single focus, which I kind of agree with, some dilution is a given probably. For BitShares personally I'd like defined, unchangeable dilution and I may also hedge in a credible hard cap competitor.

The profit model is apparently that there will be no "profits."

Once dilution is implemented, I venture to say BTS will never be "profitable" on its original goals of creating a profitable company out of a cryptocurrency by not diluting its shareholders and burning fees. No amount of marketing and development will ever be enough, shareholders will always want more no matter the value of the BTS tokens.

Now the model closely resembles how any other cryptocurrency would be "profitable" by its tokens' value rising. Whether this is a good thing or not is yet to be seen, but if I see someone say "they just don't see the big picture" one more time I'm going to flip shit. Apparently there are people that can tell the future, and the debate is not a debate at all as it is an objective matter and not a subjective one. 

 

Yeah there's many issues with especially undefined dilution, I would agree to anything not to lose the key talent but I think it's fundamentally flawed.

In regular companies key shareholders have to disclose their stake and disclose sales. In BTS we already know a few voting blocks have a potentially controlling  stake. So with TITAN + undefined dilution + no legal recourse, we've invented the impossible &  created something that requires MORE  trust than a company.  It's very hard to imagine new shareholders ever trusting that.

Also unlike a real company, everything a pure DAC spends a fortune developing is open source, no intellectual property, so development spending has very limited medium term value.

The company metaphor is also exactly what crypto, libertarian and mainstream is growing to distrust, especially in banking. Give them a DAC  with no dilution or at the very least defined limits and values, & you can own the world.

So something that requires MORE trust than a company, gets little development benefit & negative marketing especially vs. a limited competitor, makes the value proposition of undefined dilution questionable.

There were other factors at play, but BTSX has also lost 50% already since dilution discussions started and we we're on an uptrend before, with the world's greatest product and so many good things in the pipeline. So one could argue we may be 80%+ lower than where we would have been.

I agree with you. I wish there was some intelligent debate and discussion of the issues, so many people try censor discussion or just label it as FUD.