Steem is helping BTS.  And I believe in Bytemaster.  He had to work on other projects for a while because he had no choice, but eventually he will help BTS as well. 

I would love to believe in that, but right now we have to help us first. Bytemaster just set a bar, and we now know how much graphene-based technology can be worth.

Also, I think it would be good to have more than a faith of his will, that he some day will help us.

Everyone was so exited when BM announced that he have an idea for solving problem with fees. I have prepared a quick recap what happens when:

On Feb 5 @bytemaster during hangout described whole idea starting with words: "Could we imagine a scenario where the blockchain had no fees, at all?"
On Feb 8 @-banano- created a topic Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment? where 74 (93.7%) forum members agreed that this is a good idea.
On Feb 10 @bytemaster posted on his blog: How to build a Decentralized Application without Fees
On Feb 14 @abit created post: Rate Limited Free Transactions Feature Implemented

On March 1 @abit created a ticket #603 on cryptonomex/graphene github - Implement simple rate limited free transaction feature.
On March 8 @abit created a Pull Request #612 - "Implement rate limited free transactions feature #603"

On March 2 @abit first time (according to my knowledge) mentioned in comment of #603: "We need a BSIP document for this feature."

What happen next?

Today is April 25.

Rate Limited Free Transactions are still not a part of bitshares.

Some time ago I asked on dev slack of graphene:



This feature stucked somewhere and it seems that right now no one is finalizing a work on that.

I created this blog post in good faith, that this will help us:

- describe what is needed to finish that job (what are the blocker? Missing BSIP? Testing? Code Review? Something else?)
- develop a plan (with described steps) how to do that
- prepare a schedule for those steps with deadlines

We have to do something with that. I have a feeling that most of work is already done. It would be stupid and totally ineffective to abandon that work and this idea right now.

One more quote from YouTube:




OFFTOPIC:

@JonnyBitcoin created a PM market MILLLIONTDD - https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/MILLLIONTDD_BTS

You can upvote this thread on TDD subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDailyDecrypt/comments/4cniv4/millliontdd_bet_whether_tdd_will_have_1_mln_views/

good timing

We got great coverage about our Prediction Market feature.... and that is bad thing, because our prediction market is terrible.


Our core developer spent 20 minutes describing how this works... and as people say in youtube coments:


This is obvious that no one would spent this amount of time to investigate how this works... and if someone will not be sure, simply will be too afraid to use it.

Amanda also didn't decide create her own prediction market smartcion... i guess... mostly because of price. I am sure, that if that would cost her only let say 100 BTS, she would create that asset.

My thoughts:

- short selling is too complicated for average Joe. I would like to just have to buttons - [BET A] or [BET not A]
- prediction smartcoins should be cheaper. Why? Because very often they will be live only... for example one week (because next football match is in next sunday). Right now there is no way to reuse those smartcoins after they are "decided".

Having "feature" like that makes us more harm than profit. Don't believe me? Go to youtube and read people comments.

I am not writing this because I want to complain. I am writing this because I believe that together we can design better look and feel for that feature.

Quote from: noisy on March 30, 2016, 08:40:36 am

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

THE MOST important thing is consistency. So they can be called superUSD, superCNY... or just plain symbols $... but they have to be called everywhere exactly the same.

I can't easily check it myself without nuking my wallet I think

You can always use private mode in your browser (or even create profiles in Chrome )

But for me, default view is: