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 - well.attenuated

Pages: [1]
Openledger / redeem OPENBTC
« on: July 31, 2017, 11:49:14 pm »
I purchased some OPENBTC ages ago shortly after bitshares2.0 rolled out but now that CCEDK has replaced it with open.BTC is there a redemption process in place, ether to open.BTC or to BTS directly? I would expect a massive 1:1 buy order to clear out the old asset but there is nothing in that trade pair.   

Technical Support / v2.0.160309 linux binary crashing
« on: March 12, 2016, 05:08:48 am »
Has anyone else been able to get the new light front end released yesterday to work? I went back to 151202 and that is still working but 160309 crashes immediately. I will admit I only know about 90% of what I am doing in linux but I don't think I am doing anything wrong on my end.  Is there something I might be missing in this new version?

General Discussion / Gateway Iiquidity
« on: November 06, 2015, 10:50:20 pm »
There was a thread that was already discussing but I searched and searched and can't find it so sorry for starting another one.

There is a lot of talk about how to support the price of BTS on outside exchanges, volume within the DEX, and many ideas about how to increase liquidity - mainly revolving around fees and how to attract day-traders to extract fees from them while still making them feel welcome.

The problems with using UIA as on-ramp gateways into the DEX (currently) is that those UIA are not fungible with bitBTC. As BM stated in today's mumble, given enough liquidity, UIA representing bitBTC will become fungible due to arbitration - this is true but only once bitBTC is available enough to fill those markets - currently it is waaaaay too rare.

People are discussing buying BTS on margin on poloniex over in the speculation board - if you want to support BTS.... short BTC - make bitBTC within the DEX.

This is the same net long position ( +5%), fees stay in our ecosystem ( +5%), and it works toward solving one of our biggest problems ( +5%).  Once more bitBTC is out there (we need TONS) it will find its way onto the order books of bitBTC:openBTC and bitBTC:BTS and bitBTC:metaBTC etc etc.  We need all these books filled and don't need traders to do it - we need the underlying asset to exist or it's impossible. Day traders won't be creating bitAssets anyway, they will be buying and selling once already out there so they can cover their positions easily when they want to exit.  All the day traders in the world are not going to materialize the bitBTC we need to make the markets function properly.

Right now the current price of 1bitBTC:BTS is 115600 while tradeBTC:BTS is 62500, this is ridiculous.  If you want to use your BTS to support the ecosystem, don't leverage it out for the chance of pumping a value on an external exchange with the risk that a whale is going to come along, clean you out, force you to call, you loose your BTS and the price gets hammered even further down - just make some fresh bitBTC within the exchange, or bitOIL, or bitANYTHING.

Nanocard / Nanocard on CCEDK - Is this how it works?
« on: October 16, 2015, 02:31:00 am »
Given that everyone is so excited about this debit card I assume that it works like this, if I am wrong please correct me in a similar play by play manor.  (assuming the nanocard actually gets linked to CCEDK in 2 weeksTM butterflylab).
0) I register my nanocard  with CCEDK and setup an account [me-nanocard] with multisig: activekey weight [CCEDK-nanocard]=1, activekey weight [me-nanocard]=2, threshold=3.
1) I go buy a pizza at dominos for $10.99 USD and swipe my nanocard
2) the BM bank issuing the debitcard pings debitcard holder CCEDK for the $10.99
3) BTS user [CCEDK] issues a multisig transaction from account [me-nanocard] to [CCEDK-nanocard] for 10.99 bitUSD (plus fees)
4) I get some kind of approval popup asking for me to approve transaction as activekey holder of [me-nanocard] which I validate
5) threshold is reached and [me-nanocard] pays [CCEDK-nanocard] 10.99+ bitUSD
6) CCEDK approves request from BM bank issuing debitcard.
7) Debitcard pays dominos $10.99
8) I leave dominos with pizza in hand and my [me-nanocard] account 10.99+ bitUSD lighter

am I correct here? because this is exactly how it should work IMO

Technical Support / How do members receive fee reimbursements?
« on: October 15, 2015, 07:14:45 pm »
What is the process for getting 80% of your fees back for members?
I got the lifetime membership and then paid a bunch of fees for random things but continue to pay 100% of the fees.
As I understand it one would still pay the full fee but get a portion distributed periodically - how does that work in practice?

Technical Support / No new users allowed = stagnant marketcap
« on: October 15, 2015, 11:57:26 am »
Are we eventually going to allow new users to sign up for new accounts? It seems the only way to get an account at this point is to:

A)already have and import a registered account from 0.9.3
B) buy a transferable account from a lifetime member / account spammer

I have tried to bring in several new users but they have all reported that they are unable to make a new account from both the web-wallet and the lite-wallet.
Furthermore, as a non-lifetime member I cannot create an account for them.  I don't care about fees, but it would be nice to be able to use the full functionality of the software without paying $100 for what is turning into the "full version" of bitshares. 

IMO this referral system has broken the ability of bitshares to grow.  If new users cannot enter the system AND new-ish (non-lifetime) users cannot bring in users,  the only way to join the club is to know someone already deep in it.  If this is the case, than the only way for bitshares to grow slightly is for its current users to funnel more capital into it.

EDIT: I have been able to convince some of these people to retry making account given the info in this thread.  I still think it's stupid to not allow free users to register new accounts (without the fee bonus of course) but redact some of my original criticism.

Technical Support / How to Restore Wallet from Brainkey?
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:32:09 pm »
I have been playing with the Graphene Webwallet for a good day now but I cannot figure out to import a 2.0 wallet from Brainkey.
I made a wallet+ account, imported balances from 0.9, saved a backup file as well as the brainkey and cleared my cache.
I was able to restore from the backup file no problem but cant see how to alternately restore from the brainkey alone.
I tried making a new wallet with the (same) custom brainkey but it generated empty.
Is there something I am missing?

Maybe there's something simple here that I am missing, maybe some of the regulars here can fill in the gaps:

First, 3 things to keep in mind: Please do not try to turn this thread into a debate about these 3 realities.

A)  The BTS collateral system inspires confidence that if a real-world asset revalues significantly, the corresponding bitAsset should maintain its market peg by increasing or decreasing the balance of BTS that that asset corresponds to.  We all know this of course as it is what validates the bitshares platform as a worthwhile cryptocurency.

B) The key vulnerability in the bitShares/bitAssets ecosystem has always been a significant drop in the value of the underlying asset (BTS), this is a very real possibility in an ecosystem with such a relatively small market cap.

C) In the event that the BTS market cap drops bellow it's tipping point, bitAsset shorts would be called and bitAsset holders would realize a significant increase in their underlying BTS balance - unfortunately these BTS would be worth much less. The asset holders would be forced into a large net long position in a now collapsing BTS; furthermore, confidence in the system would be shattered by the rapid calling of shorts and users rebalancing their portfolios out of a newly created BTS long.  The flooding of BTS previously locked up in collateral into the market with no influx of external capital (real world assets) would cause significant further valuation drops in BTS and more and more market peg would be broken.  Again, this is a known limitation/vulnerability that we all accept for the opportunity of investment.

My question is:

Why is the additional layer of abstraction in a more vulnerable cryptocurrency necessary in the first place? As far as I can tell, it only adds an unnecessary level of risk.

Real-world asset=BTC=BTS=bitAsset. 
All of these must retain value to ensure a transition from bitAsset to real-world asset or a gateway will not be able to function.

1) We have a bitAsset, this is "guaranteed" to represent a value-equivalent basket of BTS via held collateral.  OK
2) BTS must retain its value for the reason stated above. ~ Vulnerability
3) For BTS to retain its value BTC must as well.  Without BTC there are no BTS - no one is dealing with banking restrictions to convert asses into BTS.  This is however, largely safe as the size of the BTC market-cap makes it tamper-resistant to all but the largest (ie sovereign) players.

While the BTS market is impressive, the underlying altcoin exposes users to much more valuation risk.
Is there no way to build the bitshares market with 3x collateral directly onto BTC? Maybe through a decentralized sidechain? 

The downside to BTC denominated user issed assets like colored coins is that as an asset holder you trade risk 2 above for risk 1 - ie the issuer can  fail to acknowledge the value of the asset.
I haven't looked into it but my basic understanding of NXT is that it combines both of these risks: faith in user issued  assets (risk 1) and faith in underlying currency (risk 2).  But I don't care to understand NXT at this time so I don't care.

I would think a platform could exist that tracks ownership of digital assets on its own chain (using DPOS - I forgot that is also an important innovation to bitshares) and interfaces with the BTC blockchain to provide collateral to those assets.  The interest generate by shorting those assets could provide incentive to the delegates maintaining the chain.

There's probably something basic I am missing, maybe someone more familiar with the code knows?

Just my 0.02 bitUSD

Pages: [1]