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 - moinyoin

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
it's nonsense that uses ideas worse than nubits

3
General Discussion / Re: Why BitShares is being delisted from Bittrex?
« on: October 04, 2017, 12:21:25 pm »
1. No one knows why. There has been no reason given by Bittrex at all. They stated they cannot give reasons or assurances on what is delisted.

2. There was no 51% attack and it's very resistant to such attacks. dPoS is designed to specifically resist concentration of wealth with Pareto principle by splitting power to 27 (currently) equally weighted witnesses who are fired if misbehaving. According to dpos white paper, it actually requires 2/3+1 witnesses to resolve all cases, so it's more resistant than 51%.

3. There was no ICO, afaik bitshares was distributed completely via processes like PoW and airdrops in projects it was created from. Therefore, it literally can't be a security. There's not even a company in charge that might've raised that money because it's governed by the very first DAO.

4. We don't know if it was targeted only due to having the word "shares" in title which means little.

5. We can just as easily speculate that bitshares, unlike etheruem, is too decentralized and poses risk to their platform, so it was delisted in fear of competition. The adoption by Bitspark with UN deal might've caused too much fear in its future. Again, speculation like any other.

6. Until China closed all the exchanges responsible for 80% of BTS volume, bittrex was barely even top 10 in importance. The timing of this seems very specific to weakened state its market value is in, but speculation.

4
General Discussion / Re: bitUSD black swan possiblity
« on: September 28, 2017, 02:32:09 am »
Bailing out margin calls with reserve funds is like bailing out banks with taxpayer's money.

Nobody complained about bitassets while BTS was going up. AFAIK nobody sent the profits from going short to the reserve pool.

If a black swan damages the reputation of BTS, then the solution is not to spend money on preventing black swans. The solution is to educate traders about the risks involved with bitassets.

No need to bail out bitassets. But simply paying workers and witnesses with bitUSD by creating it only as needed from reserve pool (e.g. only ~2500:1 ratio at most in a day) would go a long way to creating them (and thus avoiding black swans) in same manner done by steem.

5
General Discussion / Re: market fees
« on: September 12, 2017, 02:00:00 am »
don't miss the detail at bottom of http://cryptofresh.com/fees

Unfilled orders, when canceled, receive a 100% refund on fees.

Claim refund on vesting page.

6
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] MagicWallet 1.2.1 Released
« on: September 11, 2017, 12:02:34 am »
there's option for just making "source available" but not having open source license as well

that's what coinomi does

7
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: September 11, 2017, 12:00:37 am »
can follow on https://steemit.com/@kenCode

I think also now working on Agorise

8
The absolute dependence of centralized suppliers for the acquisition of currencies is the biggest problem of the crypto ecosystem. From time to time news like these shout that the king is naked. What percentage of bts trade depends on the next Chinese ban?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-08/bitcoin-crashes-massive-volume-china-plans-shut-local-exchanges

could add a link to bitsquare/bisq for fiat based transfers maybe then.

9
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] MagicWallet 1.2.1 Released
« on: September 08, 2017, 11:47:37 am »
nice.

github?

10
Openledger / Re: Withdraw Fee over $1000.00 USD
« on: September 08, 2017, 05:42:08 am »
Maybe more luck with another UI like bitshares.org one? Can try smaller amount first.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1949828.0

11
Yes, Atomic Swaps would allow to transfer BTC to Bitshares DEX bitBTC without third party UIAs. It would be great progress, but there is still the problem on the FIAT side. My proposal is to use gateways but with P2P exchanges, not with third parties.

see lower in github discussion, to where there can be new backed assets

1. witnesses handle multisig account backing it
2. paper linked there can allow rotation of witnesses by changing the key of each witness needed to create secret

Then it would be simple enforced 1:1 backed asset enforced via decentralized witnesses. Doesn't rely on people shorting bitBTC vs BTS which is much riskier than shorting fiat vs BTS.


fiat part is always hard as it requires KYC often, offering trustless fiat stable crypto is already more than anyone else offers. closest alternative is p2p solutions like bisq/bitsquare that use escrows. anyway, I don't think focusing on real fiat onramp to crypto is important given other methods.

12
trustless gateways are being attempted as well: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/issues/363

if successful, can be implemented for more

13
Was there a BSIP submitted for this proposal on github?

a) worker requests payment with bitUSD (keeping it simple is good)
b) reserve fund of BTS is used in entirety as collateral to create amount of bitUSD necessary for payouts (no fixed ratio)
c) fees set in bitUSD to pay off debt, also payable in BTS rate determined through price feed conversion that add to reserve fund collateral (no market use necessary)

if forced settling occurs for any reason, you still have BTS so nothing changes, keep borrowing to create only what's necessary

done

14
General Discussion / Re: IOTA in the DEX?
« on: September 02, 2017, 12:10:02 am »
IOTA is a new currency without mining that uses a kind of graph, called Tangle, without blockchain. It is taking a considerable volume and is practically no more negotiated than in Bitfinex. Would it be a good idea to create OPEN.IOTA and bitIOTA to take advantage of that volume in the DEX?

it's new, untested, unreviewed, centralized (coordinator), not official white paper (other than general tangle paper with many issues) at this point. no incentive to run full nodes despite what they say, no real protection against spam, not a secure coin to add in any capacity to a gateway that wants to be solvent.

15
posted about this on steemit: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@eosfan/did-you-know-you-can-trade-on-bitshares-built-in-decentralized-exchange-with-2x-leverage

derivation of leverage here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1949828.msg21369333#msg21369333

working through simple example in excel: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1949828.msg21364483#msg21364483

imo if we start adding trustless assets through pegged gateways like trustless btc we have proposal coming up in core github discussions, this will be key to gain interest.

And it could work with any assets at all. (specific ones chosen by each lender)

Even including borrowing BTS and borrowing bitUSD from others to gain higher leverage (but pay daily fee).

Need to give traders the tools they want. If you're worried about traders losing money, put a warning there that feature creates additional risk from book liquidity - typical on any exchange.

Pages: [1] 2 3