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.


Messages - Customminer

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 35
1
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 12, 2018, 09:54:33 pm »
tomorrow the poll will be closed, please vote to express your opinion.
Create a worker proposal based poll, not an easily manipulated forum poll - I had to re-cast my vote for some reason and there's a new poll option now.. not ideal. 20% is way too much for force settlement offset 👎

2
Would it not be better to get BTS added to these CEX instead of a single bitasset?

3
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 06, 2018, 02:17:01 pm »
You are turning a free market into a centrally planned economy

what you called free market is a forrest where beasts can kill and eat people.

Then don't wander off into the forest if you're not prepared to face beasts? You could always stick to trading UIA or perhaps experiment with non-external-referenced bitassets if you're wary of the risk associated with shorting bitassets.

Quote
We have the choice, If use the highest price as the last feed price, we can keep the forcesettlement and the dynamically feed price.

Couldn't an external actor target this sole 'highest price' to force an inflation of the feed price to attack collateral holders?

4
General Discussion / Re: suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
« on: November 06, 2018, 01:04:33 pm »
No way. I'd far rather see a global settlement take place than for force settlement to be disabled. If I'm unable to claim the backing collateral directly, then there might as well be no backing collateral (fiat's worst practice).

I'd far rather see these permissions/flags entirely surrendered preventing any such proposal. Funnily enough though, I'm unable to do so within the UI at this time: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/2043

5
General Discussion / Re: Suggestions for making the bts system sound
« on: November 02, 2018, 03:10:32 pm »
Bts system can only be short after the feed price reform

You can do more and short before you reform.

Now that bitcny is stable, why not make a way to do more?
My method is to add the borrowing function to bitcny to bitcny lender interest.
The bitcny mortgaged by bts should be loaned according to the interest of the day like zb
The mortgage function of bts is the role of the printing machine rather than the interest-free loan.

This could be easily achieved by creating a bitasset which uses bitCNY as its backing collateral, then apply a x% increase against the reference price feed every year continuously, think HERO except backed by bitCNY instead of BTS. No need for any changes to the BTS DEX.

What % price feed appreciation per year were you thinking?

6
RE: P2P lending, if you were to create a smartcoin backed by [BTS|bitAsset] with an internal [BTS|bitasset] price reference then apply a sine wave oscillation to the price feed, then both the shorter and holder would have confidence in the limited volatility range associated with the debt and global settlement risk would be disassociated from external price movements, allowing both parties to focus solely on the terms of oscillation.

7
Can we add "lobby/convince CEX to enable borrowing bitasset with BTS via CEX" as a secondary bounty objective? It would help return BTS to the DEX, increase BTS buy pressure on affected CEX & solve CEX bitasset supply issues.

8
General Discussion / Re: New mechanism to handle bad debt (black swan)
« on: October 22, 2018, 06:17:42 pm »
Operating a fractional reserve is not what bitUSD was meant to do, so during this temporary bad debt sell-off they aught to be labelled as fractional reservists or bad debt holders.

Bad gamblers don't deserve much sympathy, they aught to be highlighted as irresponsible parties on the DEX whom you should be cautious to interact with (not as bad as warning not at all to interact with, like known scammer labeling). Fair enough it shouldn't disqualify them from WP/Witness/Committee but their negative actions have direct negative consequences on the bitasset/BTS holders (potentially damaging the reputation of the BTS DEX) & that's something people will probably take into account when voting.

What do you think about preventing bad debt holders from borrowing new bitasset (same asset) until they re-collateralize their old position?
Anything within the established rule IS legit.

If a community is not inclusive enough it can't grow big. From this perspective, I don't think your suggestion is good for the community.

You have the right to propose changes anyway.
Which suggestions? All of them? Please be more specific.

I wasn't arguing about the legitimacy of your proposal, rather that the current design does not advertise allowing users to operate fractional reserves to the potential detriment of the bitasset holder, however under such circumstances such accounts aught to be labelled as 'bad debt holder(s)' until the bad debt position is resolved.

In real life, if you default on a large bank loan there are serious financial and credit rating implications (for the rest of your life) regardless of your inability to pay it back; you wouldn't get the same interest-rates, size of loan nor collateral requirements in the future. If I'm not mistaken, your current proposal effectively lets defaulters entirely off the hook compared to the current situation where a single defaulter takes every debt holder down with them as a weird form of collective debt holder punishment?

Fractional reserves are far worse than being temporarily labelled as a bad debt holder and receiving economic consequences (loss of LTM idea) until the bad debt position is closed, IMO.

9
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Requesting price feeds for the Hertz ABA
« on: October 22, 2018, 10:46:08 am »
Some recent updates regarding Hertz!

Zapata42 has been added as a price feed publisher, he completed bounty work implementing hertz and hero support within the btsprice price feed script and has recently become an active witness. I met him in person at the Bitfest event in Amsterdam, had a good chat and he requested permission to publish price feeds, looking forwards to his high quality feeds in the future. I believe that Zapata42 has also added support for Hertz in his price feed tracking webpage which is great!

I've removed wackou since he hadn't published in 42 days, I'm pretty sure he has taken a break from crypto, but if he is interested in publishing price feeds again in the future there's always room for him!

The Hertz whitepaper was updated: https://steemit.com/hertz/@cm-steem/updated-hertz-aba-whitepaper-check-it-out Check it out if you've not read it yet, it'll help explain the purpose behind Hertz, the effects each phase may have on market behaviour & it introduces new bitasset collateral terminology.

We're going through our 8th successful oscillation now, it's pretty cool to see the price feed oscillation working as expected: https://crypto.fans/hertz/ (Note that the skips in the graph were logging issues on the website, not hz downtime).

Further, the following permissions have been permanently disabled to improve the trustworthiness of Hz on the BTS DEX:
* Disable force settling
* Allow issuer to force a global settling
* Committee fed price feeds  (Will never be used)

The only flags which remain (yet are unused) are:
* Enable market fee (In case we want to explore incentivizing buying the peak & shorting the trough)
* Witness fed price feeds (In case we want to set this then burn owner permissions)
* Allow issuer to force a global settling (Can't seem to disable? Raised an issue!)

---

Actively publishing price feed publishers:

roelandp
taconator-witness
blckchnd
sahkan-bitshares
sc-ol
fox
delegate.ihashfury
zapata42 (Has indicated an interest in publishing soon)
delegate-1.lafona (Met in person at bitfest - great guy!)
hertz-feed (My privately fed price feed)
clockwork
verbaltech2

Configured price feed publishers yet to publish price feeds:
witness.yao
witness.still
xn-delegate
bhuz
elmato
in.abit
abc123
delegate-zhaomu
xeldal
winex.witness
witness.hiblockchain
magicwallet.witness
bangzi

I'd massively appreciate further price feed publishers to begin publishing feeds for Hertz, thanks.

10
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Legal Council about BTS and No-action
« on: October 22, 2018, 10:11:09 am »
Well it looks like this WP did something right, because Bittrex announced they're no longer delisting Bitshares. What a roller-coaster this has been..

11
General Discussion / Re: New mechanism to handle bad debt (black swan)
« on: October 22, 2018, 10:00:07 am »
It'd be great if their account was partially nerfed until their under-collateralized position is bought off the market, like temp-disabling LTM (inflating their BTS DEX fees), perhaps disabling borrowing the same bitasset or even highlighting their account as a known "bad debt holder" within in the BTS DEX UI (similar to known-scammer account warnings)?

I think we'll gain little by doing so, because a) not like transfers, traders don't care who're trading with them in the market (which is the most efficient), and b) it can be easily get around with sock puppets.

True, you don't get any 'scammer' warnings within the market and nobody cares if they trade with scammers via the market (as long as the token you're buying isn't fake/fraudulent), but you may think twice about manually interacting with an entity which has 'bad debt holder' tagged against their BTS account.

Sock puppets could certainly get around the proposed 'punishment', but if they temporarily lost their LTM then they would begin paying larger fees across the entire DEX and they'd lose out on referral rewards - you can't transfer the 'registrar' once registered so this couldn't be evaded using sock puppets, unless you were defaulting on loans using sub-accounts instead of your main account..

Somewhat similar to a credit rating, it could help deter users from voting for said user's workers/committee/witness roles, who wants a defaulter to be in a position of power?  :o
Just saying, we should avoid labeling people. A person in poverty or has difficulties to manage his own financial status so unable to pay his bill or debt occasionally doesn't mean he is a scammer or not qualified for contributing as a worker or a witness.

Operating a fractional reserve is not what bitUSD was meant to do, so during this temporary bad debt sell-off they aught to be labelled as fractional reservists or bad debt holders.

Bad gamblers don't deserve much sympathy, they aught to be highlighted as irresponsible parties on the DEX whom you should be cautious to interact with (not as bad as warning not at all to interact with, like known scammer labeling). Fair enough it shouldn't disqualify them from WP/Witness/Committee but their negative actions have direct negative consequences on the bitasset/BTS holders (potentially damaging the reputation of the BTS DEX) & that's something people will probably take into account when voting.

What do you think about preventing bad debt holders from borrowing new bitasset (same asset) until they re-collateralize their old position?

12
General Discussion / Re: New mechanism to handle bad debt (black swan)
« on: October 21, 2018, 07:31:54 pm »
It'd be great if their account was partially nerfed until their under-collateralized position is bought off the market, like temp-disabling LTM (inflating their BTS DEX fees), perhaps disabling borrowing the same bitasset or even highlighting their account as a known "bad debt holder" within in the BTS DEX UI (similar to known-scammer account warnings)?

I think we'll gain little by doing so, because a) not like transfers, traders don't care who're trading with them in the market (which is the most efficient), and b) it can be easily get around with sock puppets.

True, you don't get any 'scammer' warnings within the market and nobody cares if they trade with scammers via the market (as long as the token you're buying isn't fake/fraudulent), but you may think twice about manually interacting with an entity which has 'bad debt holder' tagged against their BTS account.

Sock puppets could certainly get around the proposed 'punishment', but if they temporarily lost their LTM then they would begin paying larger fees across the entire DEX and they'd lose out on referral rewards - you can't transfer the 'registrar' once registered so this couldn't be evaded using sock puppets, unless you were defaulting on loans using sub-accounts instead of your main account..

Somewhat similar to a credit rating, it could help deter users from voting for said user's workers/committee/witness roles, who wants a defaulter to be in a position of power?  :o

13
Technically, the bitUSD asset type is owned by committee-account, and the permission "asset owner can transfer asset back to himself" is not disabled, so it's possible for the committee to transfer some amount of bitUSD from one account to another account, e.g. transfer back the bitUSD from the old account to your new account.

However, we've never done so in the past because it's controversial and can lead to scamming. Also it may put the committee or certain committee members to unexpected liabilities.

This would be setting a bad precedent, seizing bitUSD from accounts isn't good - it's not an UIA. I'd far prefer to see those permissions/flags permanently disabled instead of using them to seize funds from an account with minimal proof of account ownership. The funds in question should be considered burned until OP can remember his account credentials.

OP, I don't think you're going to get donations but you could try in the 'random discussion' sub-forum.

14
You can sent a memo to seyseich66 by the send button and ask him, if he can return 90% to you.
It's his own account that he no longer controls, the funds are effectively permanently destroyed.

15
Quote from: customminer
...otherwise what's preventing these exchanges from simply delisting these tokens in a few months due to a lack of liquidity like multiple CEX have done in the past?

Have other exchanges listed bitUSD and bitCNY historically?
Yes, and removed them due to low liquidity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 35