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 - jifehuang

Pages: [1] 2

中文(Chinese) / Re: BTS 要小心以太的狙击
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:41:46 pm »

General Discussion / is the countdown correct?
« on: February 25, 2014, 05:20:08 pm »
Is the countdown for snapshot on correct? It looks like the countdown will be 0 some time in between 2/28 0:00am and 2/28 11:59pm GMT. Shouldn't it be closed at 3/1 0:00am GMT? Getting confused.


I have concern over short squeeze that it may be exploited by an attacker to manipulate the market. Suppose the attacker is holding plenty of xts and several bitusd. He can create an order asking 1 bitusd for 1M xts. Of course no one buys his bitusd right now.

Then he starts to buy in bitusd with his xts. By rapidly doing it, bitusd rises and margin calls are triggered and short squeeze more margin calls.  Eventually no bitusd is left for sale except for his, and margin calls are forced to buy his bitusd even though the asking price is ridiculously high.

Whether this will be successfully depending on market depth. If there are lots of bitusd listed for sell at one moment, the price for the attack will be high. However one cannot guarantee market depth at all times. It can be low sometimes, or if the attack holds lots of xts, he can still initiate the attack. Once the attack is initiated, most people may be watching instead of getting ready to catch the squeeze. More over, since margin calls are automatic, manual orders may not be added fast enough to catch the squeeze if they are not listed before the attack.

Remember that a few days ago, btc was down to 102 on btc-e? Isn't it an example of short squeeze? On traditional exchanges, most people are not playing margin account or stop buy/sell, so the implementation of short squeeze may not be easy. However on btsx margin accounts are everywhere, and short squeeze should be much easier to happen.

I have 2 ideas to solve this issue. One is to make the margin call an uncancellable limit order instead of market order. This should prevent chain effect from happening.
Second is put an up limit for bitasset every day or every certain number of blocks. This allows plenty of time for people to join to catch the squeeze.

This is called a short squeeze and if it happened there would be many people looking to enter new shorts (fully collateralized shorts) to make a profit and keep the price in line.   The challenge will be if the short squeeze happens all in one block.   I suspect there would be a large number of orders ready to catch any squeeze and put a stop to the rise.

I guess the main concern here is how to avoid chain effect on margin calls when someone pulls bitusd double price. Should there be a daily up/down limit?

Why we must cover all the bitusd on margin call? In the case when the system is out of bitusd sell order we won't even be able to cover it no matter how many more xts created. Could it be simply to sell the collateral, and try to cover as much bitusd as possible. If not sufficient, take the rest as a global bad debt?
One way to deal with bad debt is to use transaction fees or interest obtained later to cover it before paying back to stakeholders. Considering the bad debt is a rare event, it could be get controlled within a reasonable level. Just my 2 cents.

我的理解是,只要有利息的链还是叫bitshares,就应该还是AGS和PTS 50/50分。
即使是不称作bitshares的DAC,也有可能按照AGS和PTS 50/50分。因为10%是最低保证,不排除会高过10%。除非是挖况,可以把剩余80%分配给矿工,但感觉III不太会在将来的DAC里采用挖矿的方式。如果不挖矿,剩下的80%分给谁呢?如果分配给III内部的人,势必给人感觉不公。如果引入新一轮融资,也会给人感觉圈钱。所以除了50/50分配,其他方案都不那么吸引人。

BitShares AGS / and, which one is right?
« on: February 09, 2014, 04:38:01 pm »
02/08 PTS donation on is 2,778.856 PTS (from today's home page, shown as Yesterday: 2,778.856 PTS), however on is 3870.339 PTS. Which one is correct? agsexplorer seems to be just recovered from a recent out of sync. Somehow is still out of sync. From which source is agsexplorer now sync?


Does this mean to treat our test shares as if they were the real thing because they might become so at any moment? Only a critical failure that requires a restart will reset their value?

For XT to be testable they have to have nonzero value.  They get that value from the fact that the current version could become the real one.  We will all discover this together.

Once a chain is started, can it be declared as not real afterwards? It may be phased out, by a new chain, because of bugs, or lack of functionality, etc, but it should always be real. Even when the market is abandoning it, its value greatly depreciated, as long as the value is not zero, it's still real. I believe we should consider it as always real if we let the market only to sort it out. Even if it is called XT, it should not be like the bitcoin testnet, which can be reset at someone's will.

After Feb 28 AGS investors will have a hard time making decisions, especially for investment in BTC. If the first testnet becomes successfully,  the AGS obtained in Mar and later gives you no BTS.

They give you shares in future DACs, icluding new chains of BTSX. Say, a floating interest is implemented in a future chain which releases in April; then each AGS will give you 2 shares in that new chain (while PTS will give you some 1.5).

Bytemaster has said if the new DACs don't require much extra work they will be very likely awarded 50/50 to AGS/PTS.

Still confusion. If the first chain is successful, why will there be a second chain? If the second chain contains new features, how to ensure people to adopt it when many are already using the first chain (some may even made a profit on it) ? Is it introducing competition among BTSv1 and BTSv2, and possibly more to come?

After Feb 28 AGS investors will have a hard time making decisions, especially for investment in BTC. If the first testnet becomes successfully,  the AGS obtained in Mar and later gives you no BTS.

中文(Chinese) / Re: 摘自eth白皮书结论部分
« on: January 16, 2014, 08:03:45 pm »
照bytemaster说ETH的脚本无法实现自动处理margin call,如果那样的话就更没什么用了。

BitShares AGS / Re: AngelShare Pay To Many - Be Careful!
« on: January 02, 2014, 06:13:30 pm »
Suppose this guy owns all the input addresses, how are the AGS shared when there are multiple inputs? Equally divided among all the inputs or proportional to the input amounts? Although this transaction looks much more like from an online wallet, in which case the online wallet is going to get the AGS, I guess.

Another question is I suppose it should be valid to donate from a single address multiple times, and doesn't matter on a single day or multiple days. If on a single day then the total should be counted towards the shares of that day, and on multiple days then each day is just individually calculated. Please confirm if this is correct. Thanks.

Pages: [1] 2