Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on August 02, 2016, 11:32:26 AM

Quote from: yvv on August 01, 2016, 11:41:11 AM
Topic starter suggests to provide liquidity with brute force, by taking all bids above the feed price on regular basis. Of course, MM account will be at loss this way, and traders will game it. Imo, it is ok to use reserve for market making, but strategy must be better than this. There should be a plan for issuing AND liquidating bitAsset. And liquidity should be provided both ways, for buyers and for sellers.

Sellers always have 100% liquidity, they can always sell at the peg, this what forced settlement is. We only need to provide liquidity for buyers.

long time no post by me, real life took off in a good way so I couldn't keep up with crypto world -  but what johnnybitcoin is saying is what I have been saying for 2+ years about bitshares 2.0. There is a bitasset buyer of laser resort (settlement), but there is no bitasset seller of last resort. In bitasset supply and demand terms, the system properly destroys bitassets when there is an oversupply (settlement), but there is no mechanism to have the system create bitassets when there is an undersupply. Supply is created by speculators, which causes a chicken-or-the-egg problem: speculators won't create supply in a market with low liquidity for fear of being trapped with no seller of last resort, so a low liquidity market remains low liquidity.

Using reserves/worker as a buy wall gives BTS the missing feature of creation of bitassets when demand exceeds supply (and the market is too thin to meet supply).

I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range. When < 0% there is a buyer of last resort -- forced settlement. But at >10%, there is an undersupply of smatcoins in the market. Therefore, the system should allow some space for shorters to profit (i.e., >10%) but low enough to give shorters some protection in case price runs away from the feed and the need to close in a hurry. The committee wall is that backstop for shorters.

That's why I think 2x squeeze protection makes sense, and why I like a "wall." You can always start high and bring it closer if needed.

EDIT: 10% can also make sense. when >10%, the market is "broken" since margin calls have stopped. So setting it to whatever the short squeeze protection is makes sense too, in order to prevent the market from "breaking"

Quote from: luckybit on January 18, 2016, 08:46:46 PM
If it's the last buy back ever, how would oBits raise funds in the future?

buy back will be replaced with open.btc (or whatever) sharedrops. Fund raising is independent of buy backs. As long as sharedrops have value, people may be interested in crowdfunding

I see a bunch of settle trades at 200k BTS/BTC (.000005 BTC/BTS) on 1/7 at 7:25:18 UTC

How did this happen? (i've been away)

settlement is about 150k now (4 days later)... did the price feed really go over 180k?

Quote from: abit on December 19, 2015, 02:19:39 PM
Technically, the refund400k is

Code Select Expand


>>> get_object 1.14.0
get_object 1.14.0
[{
    "id": "1.14.0",
    "worker_account": "1.2.90742",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
    "work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
    "daily_pay": "40000000000",
    "worker": [
      0,{
        "total_burned": "1742631985322"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:65",
    "vote_against": "2:66",
    "total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
    "total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
    "name": "refund400k",
    "url": ""
  }
]

Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned". Is init0 able to change the destination of the funds in the future?

It does say burned, is that the correct word? (burn=removal from supply versus refund=return to reserve?)

Quote from: xeroc on December 18, 2015, 01:12:46 PM
Though it is a rather "simply" library still. The Websocket notification part
grew slightly in the last days and I may need to rewrite parts of it for
clarity reasons. I would also like to offer an interface for the markets, but
have put it on hold until the cli_wallet and witness API gets more improved.
Last time I checked, it wasn't really possible to get a last_price/volume ticker
for a particular market. Maybe that changed by now.

I've been exploring the wallet and ws api, source code, and your work - I think I may have some solutions to things your working on that can help this library & proposal. I can send you my bot code to see some things I've done. (It's buggy so probably still shouldn't share publicly yet.) I can move this discussion to github.

On a side note, I actually discovered the duplicate op bug last weekend when I tried to use my dynamic object for my bot account as the trigger for placing orders. Those duplicate numbers ended up causing the bot to spam 100s of transactions per block. I thought it was a bug in my code so I stopped it, but it turns out it wasn't!

All time most orders placed
Rank Account Count
#1 maqifrnswa.bot 2,962
#2 acc12 1,005
#3 asshole1 679
#4 bts-scotter 367
#5 ccedkbts 276
#6 cc 263
#7 gn1 247
#8 clayop 228
#9 enki 211
#10 bts-awc-cny 191

Quote from: fav on December 17, 2015, 05:53:34 PM

Quote from: xeroc on December 17, 2015, 04:40:05 PM

Quote from: fav on December 17, 2015, 04:28:14 PM
could you please elaborate on "Development of a Python library," ?

https://github.com/xeroc/python-grapehenlib
I plan to add transaction construction and signing to it as I had it already in the previous network.
But as the underlying wire format changed, I need to rewrite alot of code and add alot of different transaction types (i.e. operations).
Then we could have a simple python tool for instance for offline-signing of transactions .. not just the Javascript and C++ implementation

Also the development of price feed scripts and other tools for witnesses take their time.
Another idea I have is to do some statistical analysis over block chain parameters .. e.g. for committee members ..

thanks. what about some (core) features? Like claim vested balances in the GUI, could you do it?

you can do that now with his library. All cli_wallet commands and websocket APIs are available.

EDIT: technically, only database, history, and un-authenticated APIs are available via websocket, but adding others is trivial - it's just that no one needed them yet

1) I'm a big fan and user of the library. big +5%. We need more people interacting with the blockchain via scripting. My bot is almost sane enough to put in the wild as well (release open source), and it relies on his library.

2) We need more non-cryptonomex workers supported, and they should be paid competitively. If bitshares wants to be a serious business, xerox is doing real and very important work insanely cheap. He's low risk, and proven member of the team. If bitshares "can't afford" to pay him, that's a major failure of the system.

3) I propose even expanding xeroc's proposal. Have the worker fund xeroc, then xeroc "bill" the worker account for work done at his hourly rate (I'd even increase that rate). Xeroc should also be allowed the freedom to outsource tasks included in this worker proposal. Getting workers approved is hard, largely because of trust issues. People won't do work without getting paid, and people won't pay without knowing what the work will be. Xeroc is trusted, he can thus outsource specific tasks and then "bill" his worker account to pay others to do work. His scope would be limited to what is in his proposal. This way there is no concern over whether funds will be available (so people will do the work), and xeroc can optimize as needed. Excess funds can be returned or just used for the next quarter.


From my experience, i put a lot of time in to making an automated ubuntu/debian build and distribution system. People don't know this, but bitshares actually has a 100% working system exactly like https://github.com/nodesource/distributions, but it was never funded so it never went live. The work was essentially wasted. For me, it doesn't matter because I don't need the money and I took it as a challenge to build, but freelance devs won't take that risk. Streamlining the system would be important. Allowing "managers" to bill worker accounts as needed will lower that barrier. All we have to do is to trust xeroc's priorities and have clear communication between him and proxies so it will be renewed as reasonable levels as necessary.

Quote from: kenCode on December 17, 2015, 03:48:18 PM
The first Q computer was sold about four years ago.
Since then, we have Watson, D-wave, Qubit spinoffs, Google's Annealer, etc.

Call me paranoid, but all hell is breaking loose in the banking sector and I still have that uneasy feeling that we will be targeted, sooner rather than later. Hence my flames in the "number of witnesses" and "witness geo-diversity" threads.

Since IBM, Apple, ExxonMobil and others are now dabbling in the Q space, what's to stop them from flipping the switch on and wiping our witnesses out? Can we add a layer of PQCrypto (or something) for a stronger defense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

the current implementation is not impervious, but there's nothing stopping bitshares from porting the blockchain to the quantum realm as well.

just posted some questions on https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/475

My main concern is the effect on BTS profitability and referral income. Does it mean that 80% of fees will go to the maker and 20% of fees will go to cryptonomex? Is this only for new UIAs? Will this also be for current committee issued smartcoins?
How will BTS profitability and referral income be affected?

Quote from: xeroc on December 08, 2015, 08:13:56 AM

Quote from: BTSdac on December 08, 2015, 07:13:10 AM
I  don`t think it is a good idea to make Market Maker as a base feather of block chain  protocol level

The market maker is NOT implemented on the block chain level ..
The proposal proposes a way to PAY market makers for their liquidity!

While Market Making is not done at the blockchain level, incentivizing it is. It is a fair question of whether or not this extra feature is something we want.

Quote from: lil_jay890 on December 08, 2015, 04:43:27 AM
The issue I see with this is that later on in the game, market makers won't be incentivised enough to provide liquidity.  You may think that at this point the asset will have reached "critical mass" and won't need liquidity, but I doubt that will be the case.  Stocks, bonds, and forex all have market makers still and their volume is more than BTS may ever be able to dream about.
...

I think the idea is that in steady state there will be "normal" market maker rules that are common on other exchanges (makers pay less fees, or takers pay fees to makers).
But there will also be this 'start up' period where there is a bonus, which is not common.

Quote from: Tuck Fheman on December 06, 2015, 04:40:14 PM

Quote from: Thom on December 06, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Not luck ^^^^THIS.

The attorneys / legal system don't want people on juries that can't be easily manipulated, triggered by emotional theatrics or those with the capacity to analyze problems and think critically.

https://youtu.be/f40CZR2Fx2w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBuNvyo4j54

Quote from: Bhuz on December 07, 2015, 01:39:05 PM

Quote from: maqifrnswa on December 07, 2015, 01:24:42 PM
I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.

Absolutely not.

The committee's posts are pretty clear about what the situation and the reasons for temp disabling the function were.

Your interpretation does not really make sense. People exploited JohnnyBitcoin, really!? How so? Did JohnnyBitcoin lose anything?

Please do not turn around facts.

You are free to not believe in what the committee have done, for whatever strange reason you could have. But twist facts like this is really unbelievable.

I have no problems with the committee stepping in to slow things down until they are better understood in this case. I just want you to be aware of how this is perceived by non-bitshares experts (outsiders). The committee can post all they want, and have noble goals, but in the end they have to realize they are weighing pros and cons. Very few decisions don't benefit one group and hurt another. I'd like to see the committee acknowledge that they were aware of the consequences but thought they were justified.

The facts point to JonnyBitcoin being exploited. In the end, exploiting him is probably worth it as his loss was minimal to ensure everyone was on the same page and feeds were made more accurate, but nonetheless something that should be taken seriously.

Facts:
1) The BitShares blockchain was working perfectly as designed. There was no flaw in the blockchain/DEX.
2) JonnyBitcoin was using the system perfectly as designed and profiting from performing an important network roll (supply control arbitrage)
3) Due to a misunderstanding of how the system works, what price feeds do, and how price feeds should be reported, some thought there was a flaw in the system.
4) The system was changed temporarily so people could figure out how they should have been behaving all along, but weren't because of a misunderstanding.

How JonnyBitcoin got hurt:
He was going long on assets he thought were overvalued so that he could settle them for a profit. By turning off forced settling, he and other settlers were stuck with things they already knew were overvalued. In the time it took for settling to be turned back on, the market had already corrected itself and Jonny lost the profit he would have made along with losing value in assets he didn't want to begin with.

Companies have gotten sued for less.

The committee made the decision to hurt one person (or a few people) in exchange for slowing down that system so larger, more important, organizations could readjust and feed scripts could be fixed. As we're starting off, that's probably the right decision - but it should not be taken lightly.


EDIT:

QuoteThe market was working with an inaccurate feed.
The settlement function relies on an accurate feed to determine the price of the settle.

So, there was indeed something not working as it should.

Feeds are absolute, there is no such thing as an inaccurate feed. All business models and decisions must be based on the feed. Some community members did not like the source of data for the feeds, or how they were calculated. The "accuracy" of the feed must be priced into the value of bitshares. Inaccurate feeds do not mean the system is not working, it just means you need more tolerance for error and thus decreases the value of the system. Increasing accuracy was great, and increased the value of the feeds themselves, but does not mean the system was not working when the feeds were inacuate.

Quote from: Bhuz on December 07, 2015, 10:48:56 AM
The only people aggressively trying to push their own agenda were the ones that was pretty upset only because they could not expoit the bitCNY market meanwhile the settle was temporary disabled.
(eg. JonnyBitcoin posts are pretty clear about this)

I really embolden @fuzzy to take the time to read the whole post and make his mind out of it.
I am pretty confident that he will more than able to see the Committee decision as a way to protect Bitshares DAC and its community as a whole.

I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.

[Even if that is not true, that is how it appears interpreted to an outsider]

Exchanges should never do that. In this case, it is relatively minor and early on, but a lesson that must be learned by the system. You set the rules, you enforce the rules, and rules do not change unless there is significant advanced warning. Especially in cases like this, where there actually was nothing wrong with the market/settle/blockchain system.

As an academic discussion, medicinal marijuana is probably one of the better examples, except the penalty is not financial.

It's hard to find examples where there is public sympathy for the offender, because usually those laws are "corrected" in a timely fashion.

Right now there is no sympathy for white-collar financial crimes or securities (not much love for the 1%ers, which is what they will be labeled as whether or not they are), but if a "Mom and Pop Pizza Shop Kickstarter" got pulled down by the SEC, there would be public sympathy for that. There is little sympathy for bitcoin crimes, since bitcoin is that thing criminals use to launder drug money to terrorist (according to public perception) or what you have to pay in if your computer is held ransom.

Medical marijuana has more and more public sympathy. Mainstream media has specials about medicinal marijuana where they try to make it personal and show it different than other drug offenses. In general, there is still little public sympathy for drug offenses, although more people are thinking that mandatory sentencing in some instances may be counter productive