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 - renkcub

Pages: [1]
General Discussion / Requesting New Explorer
« on: January 27, 2018, 07:23:57 pm »
It would be nice to get an improvement over the existing explorers. Cryptofresh is always down and outdated, and the new one isn't an improvement (yet).

Technical Support / Node Lag
« on: December 07, 2017, 01:44:37 am »
All nodes showing down, best node 2500 ms lag. what gives?

One of the more exciting developments I've seen for BitShares.

Use of SmartCoins is probably the single most way to drive up the price of BTS due to collateral requirements.

Let's encourage other exchanges to adopt and Volume Tracking sites to list this activity!

Listing of BTS Exchanges:
Kevin Messerly, [06.12.17 11:00]
Can you all think of another CEX that lists BTS?
Bitcoin Indonesia (ETH pair only)

BTS SmartCoin Pairings:
Coinbene (BitCNY/QC Pair Only)

QTUM (QC) Stable Coin Pairings:

ETH(MKR)  Stable Coin Pairings:
EthFinex (anticipated)

Ardor Stable Coin Pairings:

BitShares as Base Pair: (yowow, seer)

General Discussion / Latest Market Making / Liquidity Bots for BitShares
« on: October 17, 2017, 12:56:20 am »
What are the most popular bots for BitShares right now?

Anyone know what the most liquid market makers are using at the moment?

I have a feeling it is custom, as the popular bots (btsbots, stakemachine) are out of date, depreciated, etc.

Anyone heard differently?

Proposal Idea for Bitshares - Use SmartCoins instead of User Assets for Altcoins


Let's officially encourage moving volume from centralized Bitshares gateway exchanges (OpenLedger) to the Bitshares Asset Exchange itself, expanding on the successful model of BitBTC.


I've followed BTS since early PTS days and met Dan in 2013. I was instantly hooked. Even so, I had some concerns, especially about dishonest "DACs" and left the community before BTS was launched (,5407.msg72497.html#msg72497).

These concerns were well founded, as many "DACs" (now better known as DAOs), ICOs, or any centralized what-have-you, have eventually fallen prey to problems, whether it be hacks, mismanagement, exit scamming, or just honest error.

While, I am very impressed and thankful about what Ronny / OL have brought to the reputation of BTS and the DEX, I'd like to critique the centralization of this "gateway / UIA" model with BTS. OL is very separate and distinct from BitShares itself, and this needs to be made clear to BTS investors. We, as a whole, are becoming far too reliant on OL / Obits and some of the other upcoming gateways being "layered" on the DEX. Without some marketing changes by BTS positioning these are distinct from BTS, if one of these "gateway exchanges" were to collapse, the BTS reputation would be irrevocably damaged. When I hear "EOS is coming to BTS", I want it to actually be BTS, not OL.

As a reminder, your User-Issued coins are not yours on any BTS "Gateway". See MintPal, Crypsy, MtGOX. If OL fails to send you your "OPEN.BTC", for whatever reason, they're gone (although your BitBTC SmartCoins accessed via OL are perfectly safe). I have also witnessed some concerning service issues with OL (similar to Polo/Trex), and can't recommend OBITS as an investment in their current state. Although the attempts at transparency at admirable, they have quite a long way to go. The monthly "excel sheet' is poor (for true transparency, I suggest development of an OBITS "explorer" with tables for all fees generated by OPEN UIA, as well as signed addresses (similar to cryptofresh) so buybacks could be easily tracked in advance and crypto balance sheet assets verified).

My Suggestions:

BTS should build upon the successful example of BitBTC, and 1) immediately allow issuance of SmartCoins for major alts (BitLTC, BitETH, BitZEC) that are large and liquid enough to not be as prone to market manipulation. 2) Encourage liquidity on SmartCoins through implementation of a Maker Taker model, in which limit orders are free or receive credit back. 3. Less Important - Fund an official "bot" for users to run and add liquidity to the Dex (see BTSBOTS))

There is already a "BTC" tab in the Dex using BitBTC, so clearly I'm not the only one thinking this.  Let's ask Gateways to also support BitBTC (and perhaps BitETH) as a "base" pair (tab on UI) instead of UIAs, in addition to the Core BTS Dex, which already does this.

What are the key benefits of this switch? With SmartCoins instead of UIA, there is NO "black swan" exchange risk, so users funds will be safer (key thing here), trading fees lower, and new business opportunities arise for "Gateways"  to compete with each other to offer crypto (or fiat) in-out service for a fee in case users want to "Send" their BitAlt to an on-chain address instantly, rather than unwinding the asset back to BTS and moving value in that way (now, to send alts from BTS instantly, you'd only have to trust these "gateways" for a one-time transfer, instead of storing coins there as long as you keep them on BTS, whether for storage or active exchange).

The criticisms I've heard of the Altcoin = SmartCoin approach have centered around the volatility of altcoins not being appropriate for SmartCoins. While there is some truth to this (see "market-manipulation" on, I'm not buying it. Despite the recent "pump and dump" nature of BTS itself lately, BTS has served well as collateral for our existing SmartCoins. BitBTC has existed as a "crypto smart coin" for a long time with no issue. Besides, the genius collateral design of SmartCoins makes volatility of the asset a total non-issue, although there is a risk for cascading margin calls as things currently exist that should be discussed further (Check out the Gdax flash crash).

To sum thing sup, the most stable assets volume on the dex should all be using SmartCoins. This is NOT a critique of OL, just of the centralized exchange model. Still a huge place for centralized gateways/exchanges on BTS, such as for assets not large enough to justify a SmartCoin, and other new services.

What now? Let's start by beefing up liquidity on BitBTC / BTS and creating BitLTC, BitETH, and BitZEC / BitBTC markets.

General Discussion / Cryptofresh - Charts
« on: May 02, 2017, 04:16:05 pm »
With the growth lately the chart no longer really fits historically... can you add the ability to zoom?

General Discussion / Stealth Transactions - updates??
« on: April 26, 2017, 06:25:32 pm »
I was excited to hear something about this was happening soon but can't find any info.

Anything documented?

Openledger / Reporting & P&L on OL?
« on: April 18, 2017, 07:11:03 pm »
Is there any current way to track Position Cost Basis, P&L, or at least get trade histories from OpenLedger?

The Recent History section is no help, either with the drop down or CSV. My bot is placing and cancelling far too many orders, I can only see the last few.


Any roadmap for this? Poloniex type P&L functionality is very useful both directionally (trader) and as a Market Maker, to see my average buy / sell by date, etc.

General Discussion / Noob Question: Revenue from DACs?
« on: August 03, 2015, 03:26:32 pm »
Hi BitShares,

Hope all is well. I was an original supporter of PTS in 2013 and met Larimer in person, but ended up selling and not being involved in the whole IPO last summer as I had some concerns with the distribution and accountability of the BTC influx (looks like I probably would have ended up benefiting much more by holding).

Anyways, now that the price seems potentially a bit cheap for BTS, and I like the system of delegates instead of POS/POW, I had one question regarding the sustainability of the model..

If I remember correctly, the whole way BTS would be self sustaining would be DACs that paid a 10% or some other % return to the ecosystem.. these would be decentralizable as in a prediction market, betting exchange, arbitrager bot, etc.

How many DACs currently exist making a profit and what return is BTS getting on those? Sorry if this doesn't make sense. It's based on my memory of PTS plan over 18 months ago and doesn't seem related to most of the discussion around here. If no, is there a plan for such a thing or how is BTS going to make money. Thanks!

General Discussion / How do you prevent fraud within DACs?
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:22:19 pm »
I've been very excited about PTS from the beginning last year, but took some time away from the Alt market.
I met some of the team in person in Las Vegas Bitcoin conference last December and came away feeling very good about future of PTS.

However, I have a simple, but important concern I was not able to resolve with a few searches around the forum.

I've seen it happen dozens or even hundreds of times now in the bitcoin ecosystem (just look at Bitfunder, or any asset exchange) - most of the "listings" turn out to be scams or fraudulently run. All BTC are somehow lost or founder disappears.

I've seen some GDoc attempts at accounting for PTS expenditures, but what really is to prevent a "DAC" founder from pulling an Enron or running with the AGS funding?

I will say that the best and sole defense I've really seen against this (since there is no auditing in the bitcoin world) is to only create DACs for 100% decentralized businesses that are open-source (someone else can "right the ship") and pretty much run themselves, and require minimal "centralized" management towards development etc.. If this is the only way DAC funds will be used, I've answered my own question.

Examples would be centralized betting, poker, asset exchange, coin exchange, file sales (music, documents) etc.

Pages: [1]