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.

Topics - Ander

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
General Discussion / I/O Coin
« on: May 09, 2017, 12:44:41 am »
I have recently discovered this coin (IOC) after it was delisted from polo. 
It reminds me a lot of Bitshares and Syscoin, both of which I also like.   Roadmap is similar, but its market cap is far lower than SYS and BTS.
Has a major release coming within 2 months.   Dev team is very committed and purchased their coins with their own money, isntead of getting them in a premine.

This is imo a very very easy 10x at least once they release their product they have been working for over 2 years on.  Chart is also strong, the price is just above a very major support level that has held many times, but its currently cheap and has not yet pumped in this altcoin pump cycle. 

This is like Monero sub 200k.  

Its similar to Bitshares but all fees that the blockchain generates are paid directly to stakers, so you can also earn interest/dividends.  And the inflation is super low, below 1% a year.  I've been buying this 30-35k level. 

I found out about it from a pro trader on his podcast, who was raving about it.

Also, I recommend this coinigy podcast, I've been learning a bunch of trade setups to look for from it.

Lets see.  Those BANX guys were a ponzi scam.  Muse never released anything and looks like a scam.  Moonstone wallet was a scam?  Did Play ever release anything?  Probably a scam.

Heck, even Dan left to make a new coin with a scammy distribution where he owns most of it.

What was wrong with bitshares that it attracted al lteh scammers back in 2014, lol.

General Discussion / At least BTS outlasted NuShares
« on: June 08, 2016, 11:57:18 pm »
Looks like Nubits peg is broken and NSR is going down in flames because Nushares cant handle the high bitcoin price, after they spent all the BTC buying back NSR. 

General Discussion / Maker coin
« on: May 24, 2016, 05:43:29 am »
I'm interested in Rune's Makercoin, and I noticed that I have 30 'MKRCOIN' asset in my account that I got from an old bitshares hangout. 

Are these convertable into the new MKR coin?  If so what do I do?

What ways can one purchase more Maker?


Muse/SoundDAC / Whats the status of MUSE now?
« on: April 02, 2016, 09:39:35 pm »
I havent paid attention for a few months.  Can someone summarize how things are going?  Thanks!

Yes, we would all like to see more BTS trading inside the DEX.  It generates fees for the network.  It is the real use of the token.  This represents actual use of BTS (not just speculators buying, selling, or hodling BTS).

Yes we want more people to move BTS into their wallet, and use it to trade on the DEX.

However, sometimes I get the impression that some people want 100% of the volume of BTS to be internal to the dex, with no trade between BTS and BTC/CNY/USD happening on poloniex or btc38 or other exchanges.  But that would cause a big problem!

BTS' internal market mechnisms rely on witnesses to provide price feeds to the blockchain, telling it the price of BTS relative to that of smartcoins.  The blockchain needs to know how many BTS a USD is worth, how many BTS an ounce of gold is worth, and so on.  It needs to do this so that it can enforce margin calls on the smartcoins, so that the peg remains in place.  Without the price feeds, the system doesnt work. 

The value of the price feed relies on the price of BTS on poloniex, btc38, etc.  If those trading markets are too thin, it allows huge spikes in the price of BTS, which then results in too much volatility in the price feeds, which then results in margin calls and the internal DEX not working.

Therefore two things are needed:
1) We need solid volume on external exchanges (polo/btc38), to provide a good price feed, and keep voluatility low enough that we dont have extreme black swans.

2) We need solid volume on the internal DEX, representing real use of BTS.

Both of these are beneficial to BTS.

Obviously we are doing better so far in terms of BTS volume on external exchanges, so getting more volume on the BTS DEX would be good right now.  But we should always keep in mind that our gateway from the BTS world to the outside world is also important!

General Discussion / Syscoin
« on: March 06, 2016, 10:00:11 pm »
What is this Syscoin?  I saw sidhujag talking about it on polo a few days ago.  Is this worth looking at?

Random Discussion / Monero
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:46:36 am »
Absolutely massive breakout on XMR, breaking the weekly downtrend line of an 18 month bear market. 

167k was the key level. 

Imo Monero will now become the #1 privacy coin, surpassing Dash market cap.

General Discussion / The BTER zombie moves closer to its inevitable doom
« on: January 28, 2016, 06:56:16 pm »
In case anyone is still dumb enough to have any coins on bter, you should get them out ASAP.

Bter just added a 1% fee on all bitcoin withdrawals.   Remember when Cryptsy added a 0.5% fee on BTC withdrawals to try to stem the bleeding, and it resulted in everyone fleeing the exchange and revealing them to be running a fractional reserve.

(Note: BTS on bter is not withdrawable, because they never upgraded to 2.0, and they are also most likely running a fractional reserve of the BTS they claimed to have.  But some other coins can still be withdrawn, and you should get all your BTC out fast before they claim another 'hack' and go down for good. 

Its incredible that they managed to survive this long as a zombie exchange, they outlasted Cryptsy somehow!

General Discussion / The CLAMS insanity
« on: November 29, 2015, 08:32:52 pm »

Margin calls + illiquid altcoins = hilarious.


This could let you trade directly between BTC, Burst, and Qora on the blockchains.  It works differently than an asset on the Bitshares exchange would, in that you would be trading the underlying coins, rather than derivatives.   

Qora is proof of stake, no inflation.
Burst is proof of capacity, which is an interesting alternative mining algorithm which doesnt burn tons of energy like bitcoin and is based on hard drive storage space.   It is still in an inflationary phase, but it had been beaten down to extremely low levels prior to this news.

I bought 1 BTC in each yesterday when I saw this. 

General Discussion / My plan for how to make Bitshares succeed
« on: November 05, 2015, 11:44:47 pm »
Starting from the ideas in threads like this:,19791.0.html

Here is my plan of ideas that Bitshares needs to execute on in order to succeed. 
This plan involves several parts, some of which can be done at the same time by different people, in parallel.

Part 1: Fix what is broken and add new needed features.
1A: Fix trading fees.  The fee for a cancelled order becomes X, where X is as low as possible, and only exists to prevent spam attacks.  The fee for a completed order becomes Y + Z%.  Z% is initially set to 0.2%, and can be modified by shareholder vote in a delegate proposal.  Y is a small value used to prevent spam, it could be the same as X.  0.1 BTS is preferable imo.
MOST of the trading fees should come from the 0.2% fee!  Not the flat rate that is used to prevent spam!
Lifetime membership reduces these amounts by 80%.  Therefore, a lifetime member pays 0.04% fee instead of 0.2%, which is much lower than almost all the exchanges out there!  This makes lifetime membership attractive.  It makes referring people attractive, since you get a large cut form their trading.  The referral program still works!

1B: Implement margin trading just like poloniex system.  Implement lending system just like poloniex system.  Lending for the margin trading IS the bond market!!  It works great currently for poloniex, so it should work for us, we just have to get it working on the blockchain.

1C: Implement prediction markets. 

The most important thing about this is that we are not reinventing the wheel like we tried to do in Bitshares past, but instead we are taking the trading system and margin system that already works, and is used by all exchanges, and just copying it and implementing it on the blockchain.  We just take what works, and make it decentralized blockchain technoogy, instead of a centralized 3rd party exchange that users must trust, and that gets hacked and loses their funds.

Part 2: Improve the UI. 
2A: Take a poll of bitcointalk users.  Ask them what exchange interface they like best and what they want us to emulate. 

2B: Implement this UI, or license it from a partner, or get 3rd parties to develop this for us.  The bitshares core dev team needs to work on Part 1 of my plan, which is their area of expertise anyway, we really need the UI improvements to come from a partnership or from using or licensing what already exists that people like.

Part3: Attract users.
3A: Make it easier to migrate from 0.9.2 to 2.0.  This will help us get more users (like me!) who are not as technical and had trouble migrating and therefore couldn’t use 2.0 yet.

3B: Referral system kicks in, people promote Bitshares through it, and bring in users.

3C: Continue developing business partnerships, and get these business partners using Bitshares, generating more users, liquidity, transactions, etc.

Part 4: Communicate the plan to the crypto community at large.  Create a roadmap for the creation of these features.  Explain to everyone what we are looking to improve about bitshares 2.0, and why.  Follow the roadmap, and when we reach a milestone, have our marketing guys announce this milestone via press releases, like we were doing this summer.

These four parts of the plan can be done in parallel.  Different people will be working on them.  The core devs are working on Part 1, GUI people are working on part 2, the community plus our business partners plus marketing team is working on part 3 and 4.

Some of these parts are already in motion.  A bitshares team and community working together to achieve these goals and doing a good job to communicate them to the crypto world would do well and regain the traction that we started to have in the runup to 2.0, but lost after release. 

We need traders to buy in to what we are doing.
We need to provide traders something that works well and is a good experience.
We need to listen to their comments that they dont want to pay fees for cancelled orders, and they want the UI to be simpler to use.
If we do this, traders will want to use us because they can avoid getting goxxed, they can cut their fees from 0.2% to 0.04% with a membership, and they can refer people and make money doing it.

Thank you!  I hope that we can as a community discuss and flesh out this plan and perfect it, and then execute on it and make Bitshares succeed.

What is the net change in bts supply since the 2.0 launch?

If this figure is nice it could be good to promote right now.

General Discussion / Lets talk about fees again
« on: November 02, 2015, 10:46:05 pm »
The thing I see over and over from traders on polo (this is one of our main target audiences for using bitshares), is that having to pay a fee for a cancelled order is the thing they hat,e nad is making them not want to use bitshares.

Imo, the make order/cancelled order fee should be made as low as possible (only nonzero to prevent spam).  For ALL users, not just lifetime.

Transfer fees and fees for an order that actually executes can be high as they are now.

I think this needs to happen in order for Bitshares to have any traction among traders.

Technical Support / I think we need to fix the fee structure for trading
« on: October 22, 2015, 07:54:33 pm »
People are discussing this polo and I agree with the traders (who by the way, are one of our main target markets):

* The fee to place a trade needs to be extremely low.  Just enough to prevent spam.
* The fee to cancel an order should be 0.
* The fee upon the EXECUTION of an order should be "high" (aka, current levels).

Traders want to be able to place an order but be able to move it later, and not lose to a fee.  At polo or other sites I can place and remove an order for no fee at all.  Our fee for this should be just enough to prevent spam, like 1 BTS or even .1 BTS. 

When an order executes, the fee should be extracted then.  (If it executes in pieces, its important that it is only paid one time in total).

This is what we need to get traders on board.  We need the fee to mostly be paid at execution, not when placing or moving an order!  Traders dont want to risk paying a fee for an order that doesnt happen.

Please consider this.  I think we should do the following:
* Modify the fees as described above.
* Post something explaining the change and telling traders "we listened to your feedback and are changing things to meet your needs".

Note that I am not advocating low fees, I am simply advocating not charging people for non-executed/cancelled orders, any more than necessary to prevent spam. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7