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 - SpiritofJefferson

Pages: [1] 2
Technical Support / Re: Can't trade even though I have assets
« on: July 25, 2016, 03:43:18 am »
Damn alright that makes sense, well thank you for the help

Technical Support / Re: Can't trade even though I have assets
« on: July 24, 2016, 05:25:29 pm »
It says the same thing.. I've used other assets to pay fees in the past, how come I can't now?

Technical Support / Can't trade even though I have assets
« on: July 24, 2016, 04:34:20 pm »
I was trying to trade some OL assets and I ended up getting this error message:

itr->get_balance() >= -delta: Insufficient Balance: ted-jones's balance of 0.00548 BTS is less than required 0.14676 BTS

I thought you could use other assets for fees? If I'm wrong here do I try to buy more bts or will my lack of a balance be a problem buying more..? I really don't want to have to buy a few cents worth from outside the DEX. Anyway, thanks!

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares Bank UI
« on: June 16, 2016, 03:54:44 pm »
For average Joe, bitshares is missing something like ripple path finding. It makes automatic currency conversions smart way. For example, suppose you save in bitGold and you want to make a payment to online shop which accepts bitUSD, but is no market between bitGold and bitUSD. The system goes and checks different order books, and finds a cheapest path for you like BitGold -> BTS -> BitBTC -> bitUSD. This is a killer feature of ripple and must have in bitshares in order to be accepted by merchants and by general public. It is not trivial to implement though.

This right here, combined with the market maker proposal would be the best way to increase liquidity. With the market maker proposal, the market makers would make money by subsidizing the cheapest pathways. Implement these proposals plus private transactions into the background of a simple UI, and we have a decentralized bank with a tight peg. Once November 5th hits, and people stop with the anti-dilution stuff (hopefully), this is what we should focus on. I came to Bitshares because I saw that I could keep any asset I wanted on the blockchain - I didn't need a bank anymore. I honestly didn't care much about the exchange. I think we should separate the wallets, call one "The Bitshares Bank", the other "The Bitshares Exchange", and market them for different users. We could even have a shapeshift-style trading interface in the "Bitshares Bank" UI which could be great.

On another note, someone mentioned yield for holders, which doesn't make much sense to me because banks are able to do this by investing everyone's savings. In Bitshares, you actually own your money, so in not allowing the system to loan out your smartcoins, you give up that .5% yield for that luxury. If we want yield, we need to make the system more attractive to investment firms. Instead of the yield coming from dilution, it should come from these firms that people can invest in. They would be trading the safer stocks and currencies, making steady money as they do it, taking a cut, giving the investors a return, and profiting bitshares from their actual use of the DEX. This is a much better way to do yield in my opinion.

Technical Support / Can't register
« on: May 04, 2016, 09:30:01 pm »
Hi, there's no steem forum to ask this so I'm asking here. I am having a lot of trouble signing up. I entered my facebook in but it says I can't register twice.. But when I try to log in, it says my account doesn't exist. No idea what's going on but I wanted to buy some and participate. What should I do?

The problem with that idea is that a proposal that people find unlikely to increase the BTS price will probably not be implemented and the prediction can never be settled. Or did I miss something?

Ah, I honestly forgot about that. In Robin Hanson's paper that money is refunded, but with how bitshares currently is it might be difficult.. Are there any prediction asset permissions that might allow this? Or would it matter if it was just settled at whatever it was at the time limit? I've been wondering this too actually.
Some other problems with it are deciding when to start the prediction market, when to end it, and how we can decide to stop paying for it if we don't like it. I have a few ideas of how we could do this which I mentioned before. But again, I'm not an expert by any means. Another thing is that you can't just have it track the price automatically because the price might move due to external forces having nothing to do with the proposal. This is why we need the time limit on how long the market can exist. All of this aside, I'm thinking we could even just do this now informally just to help aggregate information for the shareholders to act on. This might be the easiest and best decision. Plus it would be way less complicated.

Also, I just realized I accidentally misused the word liquidity. I meant that it would increase the use of the DEX and profit bitshares in increased trading. My bad everyone

     This community is amazing in the sense that we really have a say in what goes on, and we can actually impact the direction and development of our coin. This is a revolutionary feature, but the question we must always remind ourselves to ask is, can we do better?

     I've been doing a lot of thinking on futarchy and how it might look if we applied it to the blockchain. We could have the shareholders vote for proposals like they do now, but we could also apportion part of the daily budget to funding proposals above/under certain vote thresholds. The proposals would each have a corresponding prediction market, and each would have yes and no tokens. If you think the bitshares price will go up as a result of this proposal, buy a yes token, but if you think there are other better projects to focus on at the moment, buy a no token. The market with the highest price difference where yes > no wins, and the yes holders profit (or if they're wrong, the no holders profit). This lets someone bet on what feature will profit bitshares the most and put their money where their mouth is. It would also help us to prioritize our worker proposals, and would even be great for liquidity.

     Everyone talks about voter participation being a problem, but if we have a market incentive for people to make smart decisions, we don't have to worry about it as much anymore. The voters would still be able to impact what is considered and would have control over the committee. The prediction market would also draw a lot of liquidity and likely profit bitshares just through the trading fees. It would also get people to use the wallet, which may even get them to trade in other markets. We already have a prediction market feature, and I think if this idea is already halfway built we should really look into doing this. We could even just test this out and run some prediction markets alongside our current governance so we can potentially come to a more informed decision.

     I do see an issue where we'd be locked into funding the project (since the markets need to have a decision made), but we could maybe set a certain veto percentage to stop the funding if we needed to. Just an off the top fix; I honestly have no idea if this is the best way to do it. We may have some more pressing issues to deal with at the moment but I think we should seriously consider this for a future proposal if it is indeed possible. @bytemaster might there be any downsides to doing this, and how difficult would this be to implement? I have a sneaking suspicion it would still be very difficult even with the prediction market operational. I'm a terrible programmer so I'm not even gonna try to do this myself :P. Anyway, I'm just curious as to what the community thinks.

P.S. Vitalik has a blog post on the subject and you can google the creator of futarchy to watch some videos or read his paper on it. His name is Robin Hanson. Just for some reference on the subject.

General Discussion / Re: An alternative vision for Bitshares 2016
« on: January 01, 2016, 12:59:07 am »
Jeepers Hunter_S, I'm pretty sure that is not what I've said or meant, but if I've miscommunicated my points, I appologise.
No worries Ben. I see what you mean and actually agree about the vision of Bitshares and whatnot, I was just a little annoyed with what I thought was some random and sudden change in direction. My bad if I misinterpreted that. I just feel very strongly about getting things done right before we move on to the next idea.

General Discussion / Re: An alternative vision for Bitshares 2016
« on: December 31, 2015, 09:16:32 pm »
@BenMason Saying that people who disagree with you don't care about the poor is just insulting. The point is that Bitshares needs to be really REALLY good at one thing, and, as Peter Thiel put it, try to "monopolize" that part of the industry. If we aren't trying to be the go-to exchange, why are we building it in the first place? Sure it's cool to be decentralized, but in the end it's just a gimmick if that's our only superior feature. I like the MAS idea, but I feel like bytemaster just made it up a couple days ago and now we're abandoning our focus as Samupaha said. The real way to change the world is not by putting out a bunch of small projects that aren't perfect, but by revolutionizing and perfecting one aspect of our business at a time. We can get to MAS, but first we need to build the markets, and make our exchange the best in the game. MAS would no doubt be useful, but I really don't think people would use it other than the community as both our company, and our existing features are still unproven (in terms of business, not tech). We need to prove our company's worth by putting out one near-perfect product, and accomplishing one goal at a time. Anything else is just a distraction and wishful thinking.

General Discussion / Re: Against FBA
« on: December 24, 2015, 02:45:12 am »
The proposals are still voted in, so it's still "democratic"... The only difference is the shareholders aren't directly paying for it through dilution. No dilution and a new feature is no doubt good for the price. The committee should control the fee so bitshares still has control over the feature, and also just for UI purposes I think the FBA should be listed next to the proposal with the total value, but other than those criticisms, I just see it as more money and features for all of us.

General Discussion / Re: UIA Giveaway - BRICS
« on: December 08, 2015, 08:13:39 pm »
Wondering what this is for.. Either way, good chance for me to experiment with UIAs

I really like the idea of people buying shares in features and getting dividends through lifetime fees. If we were to automate the creation of shares for a proposal like this one, the person/people investing the money or work-hours would own all of them, and if they'd like, they could go public to make some of their money back by selling shares. I think the ability to trade the ownership of the fees could help us with the centralization issue here, as well as give us a way to measure the profitability of different features. I guess it could be argued this could be done with the existing framework but I still like the idea of having it right on the blockchain.

There are two businesses here:

1. Payments
2. Exchange

What about differentiate the Payments business in
A: user to user (lower fee nexto to 0, if not 0 at all)
B: user to merchant (higher fee)

There will be need of a new account type for merchant, with different setting on fees.
And maybe also some pros attached to this new type of account...

Would be this feasible ?!

Well if we were to put a transaction cap per day on individual accounts (which I think bytemaster listed as a possible alternative), we could encourage merchants to buy lifetime memberships. The transaction cap per day should be reasonable so that everyday users can send, say, up to 10 transactions a day. If a merchant were to do more than that they could upgrade their membership to do more transactions a day. In the meantime though, I feel like we should focus on the exchange first and keep transaction fees for a while and adjust accordingly, but in the future we could for sure differentiate them in some similar way.

General Discussion / Re: PROXY TRADE - DEX Feature Proposal
« on: November 08, 2015, 06:43:54 pm »
Well what if we just didn't pay these people? Sort of like we don't pay proxy voters. That way there's no incentive for people to do that sort of scam. Good traders want to be good because they'll make more money, there's no reason to pay them more for that since the incentives are already lined up. I guess if it can't be built into the protocol, like someone simply following another trader, then hedge funds would be set up and regulations would take care of the rest. But I think it would be cool if it was as simple as clicking copy. That would attract a lot of people.

Technical Support / Re: Web socket api
« on: October 13, 2015, 05:53:50 pm »
Ah alright, thanks bytemaster.

Pages: [1] 2