Quote from: yvv on August 01, 2016, 11:41:11 am

Topic starter suggests to provide liquidity with brute force, by taking all bids above the feed price on regular basis. Of course, MM account will be at loss this way, and traders will game it. Imo, it is ok to use reserve for market making, but strategy must be better than this. There should be a plan for issuing AND liquidating bitAsset. And liquidity should be provided both ways, for buyers and for sellers.

Sellers always have 100% liquidity, they can always sell at the peg, this what forced settlement is. We only need to provide liquidity for buyers.

long time no post by me, real life took off in a good way so I couldn't keep up with crypto world -  but what johnnybitcoin is saying is what I have been saying for 2+ years about bitshares 2.0. There is a bitasset buyer of laser resort (settlement), but there is no bitasset seller of last resort. In bitasset supply and demand terms, the system properly destroys bitassets when there is an oversupply (settlement), but there is no mechanism to have the system create bitassets when there is an undersupply. Supply is created by speculators, which causes a chicken-or-the-egg problem: speculators won't create supply in a market with low liquidity for fear of being trapped with no seller of last resort, so a low liquidity market remains low liquidity.

Using reserves/worker as a buy wall gives BTS the missing feature of creation of bitassets when demand exceeds supply (and the market is too thin to meet supply).

If it's the last buy back ever, how would oBits raise funds in the future?

buy back will be replaced with open.btc (or whatever) sharedrops. Fund raising is independent of buy backs. As long as sharedrops have value, people may be interested in crowdfunding

Technically, the refund400k is

Code: [Select]

>>> get_object 1.14.0
get_object 1.14.0
[{
    "id": "1.14.0",
    "worker_account": "1.2.90742",
    "work_begin_date": "2015-10-20T17:30:00",
    "work_end_date": "2035-12-31T00:00:00",
    "daily_pay": "40000000000",
    "worker": [
      0,{
        "total_burned": "1742631985322"
      }
    ],
    "vote_for": "2:65",
    "vote_against": "2:66",
    "total_votes_for": "21716971826670",
    "total_votes_against": "7192913280182",
    "name": "refund400k",
    "url": ""
  }
]
Looks like the fund to this worker is "burned". Is init0 able to change the destination of the funds in the future?

It does say burned, is that the correct word? (burn=removal from supply versus refund=return to reserve?)

Quote from: xeroc on December 17, 2015, 04:40:05 pm

Quote from: fav on December 17, 2015, 04:28:14 pm

could you please elaborate on "Development of a Python library," ?

https://github.com/xeroc/python-grapehenlib
I plan to add transaction construction and signing to it as I had it already in the previous network.
But as the underlying wire format changed, I need to rewrite alot of code and add alot of different transaction types (i.e. operations).
Then we could have a simple python tool for instance for offline-signing of transactions .. not just the Javascript and C++ implementation

Also the development of price feed scripts and other tools for witnesses take their time.
Another idea I have is to do some statistical analysis over block chain parameters .. e.g. for committee members ..

thanks. what about some (core) features? Like claim vested balances in the GUI, could you do it?

you can do that now with his library. All cli_wallet commands and websocket APIs are available.

EDIT: technically, only database, history, and un-authenticated APIs are available via websocket, but adding others is trivial - it's just that no one needed them yet

The first Q computer was sold about four years ago.
Since then, we have Watson, D-wave, Qubit spinoffs, Google's Annealer, etc.
 
Call me paranoid, but all hell is breaking loose in the banking sector and I still have that uneasy feeling that we will be targeted, sooner rather than later. Hence my flames in the "number of witnesses" and "witness geo-diversity" threads.
 
Since IBM, Apple, ExxonMobil and others are now dabbling in the Q space, what's to stop them from flipping the switch on and wiping our witnesses out? Can we add a layer of PQCrypto (or something) for a stronger defense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

the current implementation is not impervious, but there's nothing stopping bitshares from porting the blockchain to the quantum realm as well.

The issue I see with this is that later on in the game, market makers won't be incentivised enough to provide liquidity.  You may think that at this point the asset will have reached "critical mass" and won't need liquidity, but I doubt that will be the case.  Stocks, bonds, and forex all have market makers still and their volume is more than BTS may ever be able to dream about.
...

I think the idea is that in steady state there will be "normal" market maker rules that are common on other exchanges (makers pay less fees, or takers pay fees to makers).
But there will also be this 'start up' period where there is a bonus, which is not common.

Quote from: maqifrnswa on December 07, 2015, 01:24:42 pm

I actually interpreted the situation in the opposite way. By changing the rules, people exploited JonnyBitcoin because he was the only one that was correctly following the rules. When some didn't like that he was following the well publicized rules to which everyone agreed, they changed the rules to favor themselves. It sounds like those that changed the rules exploited the system.

Absolutely not.

The committee's posts are pretty clear about what the situation and the reasons for temp disabling the function were.

Your interpretation does not really make sense. People exploited JohnnyBitcoin, really!? How so? Did JohnnyBitcoin lose anything?

Please do not turn around facts.

You are free to not believe in what the committee have done, for whatever strange reason you could have. But twist facts like this is really unbelievable.

I have no problems with the committee stepping in to slow things down until they are better understood in this case. I just want you to be aware of how this is perceived by non-bitshares experts (outsiders). The committee can post all they want, and have noble goals, but in the end they have to realize they are weighing pros and cons. Very few decisions don't benefit one group and hurt another. I'd like to see the committee acknowledge that they were aware of the consequences but thought they were justified.

The facts point to JonnyBitcoin being exploited. In the end, exploiting him is probably worth it as his loss was minimal to ensure everyone was on the same page and feeds were made more accurate, but nonetheless something that should be taken seriously.

Facts:
1) The BitShares blockchain was working perfectly as designed. There was no flaw in the blockchain/DEX.
2) JonnyBitcoin was using the system perfectly as designed and profiting from performing an important network roll (supply control arbitrage)
3) Due to a misunderstanding of how the system works, what price feeds do, and how price feeds should be reported, some thought there was a flaw in the system.
4) The system was changed temporarily so people could figure out how they should have been behaving all along, but weren't because of a misunderstanding.

How JonnyBitcoin got hurt:
He was going long on assets he thought were overvalued so that he could settle them for a profit. By turning off forced settling, he and other settlers were stuck with things they already knew were overvalued. In the time it took for settling to be turned back on, the market had already corrected itself and Jonny lost the profit he would have made along with losing value in assets he didn't want to begin with.

Companies have gotten sued for less.

The committee made the decision to hurt one person (or a few people) in exchange for slowing down that system so larger, more important, organizations could readjust and feed scripts could be fixed. As we're starting off, that's probably the right decision - but it should not be taken lightly.


EDIT:

The market was working with an inaccurate feed.
The settlement function relies on an accurate feed to determine the price of the settle.

So, there was indeed something not working as it should.

Feeds are absolute, there is no such thing as an inaccurate feed. All business models and decisions must be based on the feed. Some community members did not like the source of data for the feeds, or how they were calculated. The "accuracy" of the feed must be priced into the value of bitshares. Inaccurate feeds do not mean the system is not working, it just means you need more tolerance for error and thus decreases the value of the system. Increasing accuracy was great, and increased the value of the feeds themselves, but does not mean the system was not working when the feeds were inacuate.

As an academic discussion, medicinal marijuana is probably one of the better examples, except the penalty is not financial.

It's hard to find examples where there is public sympathy for the offender, because usually those laws are "corrected" in a timely fashion.

Right now there is no sympathy for white-collar financial crimes or securities (not much love for the 1%ers, which is what they will be labeled as whether or not they are), but if a "Mom and Pop Pizza Shop Kickstarter" got pulled down by the SEC, there would be public sympathy for that. There is little sympathy for bitcoin crimes, since bitcoin is that thing criminals use to launder drug money to terrorist (according to public perception) or what you have to pay in if your computer is held ransom.

Medical marijuana has more and more public sympathy. Mainstream media has specials about medicinal marijuana where they try to make it personal and show it different than other drug offenses. In general, there is still little public sympathy for drug offenses, although more people are thinking that mandatory sentencing in some instances may be counter productive