Quote from: Akado on January 14, 2016, 08:09:11 pm

Quote from: xeroc on January 14, 2016, 08:06:11 pm

BitShares is about freedom .. no wait to force anyone to do anything ..

It is also a risky thing to have their assets locked away as collateral

Quote from: Pheonike on January 14, 2016, 07:45:27 pm

Could we have a rule that an exchange must keep say %10 or %20 of their volume in collateral for BTAs? Just like banks have to maintain a reserve.

No one is forcing them to do anything, I believe that was just a suggestion, even if we agreed with that, it would ultimately be up to the exchanges to decide..

Still, I think it's way easier for them to have their btc for example, in a multi sig account managed by the exchanges participating. This would mean it's in everyone's interest not to mess things up and they could be easily monitored among themselves and by users too. And it's simple.

Thing is while we don't sort these kind of details first, it will be harder to get liquidity. Instead even if we manage them to join we'll most likely have a bunch of illiquid markets, plus we still have the risk factor of them going rogue.

If all exchanges put their (real) BTC in a multi-sig account, they're less likely to go rogue. They will monitor each other. And also the IOU issuer's account would be a multi-sig one which is anti-rogue.

However, although it's not hard to multi-sig a BTC account, imo it's much harder to multi-sig fiat accounts. In addition, is it possible to multi-sig accounts of LTC, DOGE and so? In the end maybe we can have a shared BTS/BTC market, but no other pairs.

Seems we're discussing a global (IOU of)BTC central bank schema.

Yes I'm discussing a global IOU/asset with the objective of making shared order books possible as I see they could bring great benefits.
Well I'd say fiat is different because one would only trade to fiat when he wants to cash out using the services as bridges.

As for the other currencies I assumed there are multi signature accounts for them too.. But you might be right, that doesn't mean they exist or every coin we decide to bring in has... Maybe the biggest ones have? Aren't there wallets which support multi currencies and multi signatures? Maybe that could do the trick.

Even if they don't have it, at least we could have shared order books on the main coins. btc, ltc, dash maybe?

Finally managed to create a blog and this was my first post. Just a list of the issues with exchanges. thanks @xeroc and @roadscape

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40zuy4/timeline_a_list_of_recent_issues_with/

The committee account should be bothered with this .. also, every feed they produce has to be signed-off by at least 50%+1 committee .. that is too complex ..

for the worker: why should all shareholders pay for setting up a niche market that they may not be interested in ..
IMHO privatized bitassets are a perfect match for this ..

I'm not against your idea but your last argument applies to everything it's done on BitShares. Every worker proposal will most likely have people voting against it, still if it's approved, they still have to pay for it. I think that argument isn't valid at all.

Regarding the complexity I really can't argue against it since you have way more knowledge about technical stuff than me so I'll go with your opinion on that.

As long we have the asset available. It seems it's something that people would like and Daily Decrypt even approached me about it so if we have it, we might create a little more buzz for BitShares 

Set a special kind of account. User pays a fee to get it similar to lifetime membership. Has extremely low fees. Only allows small transactions. That allows for micro payments. Still can be used to spam the network though.

Maybe add some kind of restriction where those type of accounts can perform more than X amount of transactions per second. 1 per second seems fine by now. Only way to spam the network would be to have 1000s of accounts of that type and have them all perform transactions at the same time but if members have to pay a fee to register then that makes the attack way way more difficult. No one will pay a fee of 5k bts or 10k bts thousands of times.

This also doesnt make life time membership obsolete since it still has more advantages like no restriction on the amount of bts per transaction, referral program, etc members could even have them both on the same account

I actually think it is worth considering a privatized bitasset that takes a 0.5% fee or something and by this pays a professional feed

I'm okay with both options, but may I know why you prefer it this way? Is it that expensive to get a professional feed? Why not get the committee account to do this then? Through worker proposal it gets the first initial round to pay for the feed, then use that same 0.5% fee to pay the professional feed? Or since it's a bitasset, the fee structure of individual assets can't be changed?

below your list of changed files.. there is a button called "commit to master" .. click it.. then click publish

the thing with git is that you have a local repository and you always commit stuff to your local repository and only synchronize your local repo with the online (github) repo ..

Oh I noticed it now. But it isn't "clickable" so to speak... I'll try it when I get home I dont have access atm but it doesnt look like I can click it, the colour is faded

Quote from: morpheus on January 12, 2016, 11:51:31 pm

Quote from: puppies on January 12, 2016, 08:09:40 am

Quote from: xeroc on January 12, 2016, 08:03:36 am

There is no feed price for oil because there is no "one OIL" price AFAIR

Yeah.  We would probably want to go with the futures price.  If we can get this price from multiple exchanges we could take the mean.  If not we could just use the price of the largest exchange.

We should probably specify between BRENT and WTI, the two most popular benchmarks in the oil industry.  Both have different prices.  I suppose perhaps you could take a median price feed from both or all three benchmark markets, since bitshares is truly global... we could set the standard for a globally priced oil.

I'd prefer to not run OIL as well and instead have the committee create BRENT and WTI .. that at least would be easier to understand for traders ..

Is it easier to find feeds for BRENT or are they also restricted in some way like paying for servies? Couldn't a worker proposal subsidize this if it can't be fetched from anywhere else? If it isn't expensive it might be worth it...

I'm talking about this screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/9mSX2FU.png -- click that button!

The "publish" or "master"? I'm really a noob at this  The Publish gives me an error "yncing would overwrite your uncommitted changes. Please commit or discard your changes and try again"