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 - Customminer

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 31
Should we require asset owner permission to use said asset as backing collateral for an MPA?

Recently, issue #1537 in the bitshares-ui Github repo highlighted the fact that despite the UI and documentation indicating that UIA cannot be used to back an MPA on the BTS DEX, the reality actually is that UIA are an allowed backing collateral asset type in the core code.

This BSIP is not arguing for/against UIA being used as an MPA's backing collateral, because this is already enforced by core (Abit has a testnet asset configured as such).

The purpose of this BSIP discussion is to decide whether or not you should require owner permissions/approval of the asset being assigned as backing collateral for a new MPA.


Why I think we should require permission

  • Any assets locked away as MPA backing collateral cannot be reclaimed/recalled by the UIA owner (even by force). This has the consequence of being unable to reduce the supply to 0, potentially preventing asset settings from being changed or the asset from being fully shutdown.
  • By 'wrapping' an UIA in an MPA 'container' the MPA owner can effectively impose new asset settings over the existing UIA flags/permissions/settings to the potential detriment of the UIA owner.

Why perhaps we shouldn't require such permissions

  • An asset owner may refuse (or be unable to) provide permission to use the asset as backing collateral, requiring an alternative asset for backing collateral.
  • The committee may be overwhelmed with requests to use committee owned assets as backing collateral, though that's subjective.
  • The committee would have a greater centralized control of backing collateral selection on the BTS DEX, however that could result in more private MPAs being created. The committee size could be increased too to offset risk.
  • Existing MPA with non-BTS backing collateral may make implementing such a permission requirement too complex? Perhaps existing MPA could be exempt?
  • What if the asset owner removed their approval at a later date? It'd have to be permanent approval unless supply was 0.
  • What happens if you have owner permissions of the backing asset & MPA, then transferred the backing asset ownership to another account?
  • Being able to avoid market fees and replace restrictive permission flags with an MPA is pretty cool.

Exclusions: The Bitshares core token (BTS) should be excluded, as nobody has ownership permissions over it.

Github link:


What are your thoughts?

Can you think of any reasons for/against requiring permission to use an asset as backing collateral for an MPA?

Excellent work, thanks for the 64bit build ;D

So what, is this an UIA/MPA issued on the BTS DEX, or a new graphene chain? If the later, any sharedrop planned?

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: proposal to create bitXCD
« on: April 25, 2018, 09:49:09 pm »
so... any news on bitxcd?
It's operational, however no news regarding its adoption yet, it has far greater collateral than that which the FIAT XCD issuers provide so that's got to be appealing..

I am going to push two proposals:

1\ Set up a bounty in the whole community, to improve the API capability of a single node. The best improvement win the prize,and the code can be merged into the mainnet.

2\ Improve the voting system by adding decay factor for voting. For example, the votes will expire unless updating their votes every month/year...

Anyway, the above is just simple thought, more details will be added gradually, and welcome any kind of discussion.
1 not covered already by the bitshares-core worker?

2 related to the following BSIP?

Did you mean adding EUVIX or JYVIX as smart assets or calculate volatility indexes of bitCNY and bitUSD with respect to BTS? By the way is there a general crypto index (like averaged DJI, but for top 20 coins) and corresponding crypto-volatility index?

I meant bitCNY & bitUSD, however VIX would be an interesting smartcoin too given that you can't directly buy/trade VIX tokens in the fiat market (AFAIK). That said, it broke in february, didn't it?

bit20 is a relevant index:

Googling found the following information on crypto volatility indexes: (no endorsement)

General Discussion / Re: [python-bitshares-qt] CITADEL Desktop Wallet
« on: April 18, 2018, 11:38:33 am »
Can you share some screenshots of the QT client please? Thanks


Neat idea, created a couple quick graphs above to explore the price impact.

What do you think about volatility indexes for the most popular smart assets?

General Discussion / Re: [python-bitshares-qt] CITADEL Desktop Wallet
« on: April 16, 2018, 05:11:44 pm »
Not bad. Have you made a steemit post here?

Thanks. Not at the moment, not.

I've tried to create a steemit account, but it requires a mobile phone number. This goes strictly against our whole ideology of the CITADEL - which is to use cryptographic and web-of-trust methods to gain reputation and respect; not by giving away personal information to unknown entities.

You can buy an account via the above, after changing the master password you'll have full control of the account.

Forcing people to upgrade their computers/OSes is not something we have any particular interest in.

To be fair, eventually older operating systems which don't receive windows updates become highly vulnerable. It's likely that most XP machines won't get meltdown/spectre fixes for example.

Does the project have a website or anything useful like that? I want to learn about the project without having to sift through a morass of telegram spam.

Anything specific you want to know?

General Discussion / Re: [python-bitshares-qt] CITADEL Desktop Wallet
« on: April 15, 2018, 12:40:58 am »
The readme mentions Windows XP, you're not still using XP right? Time to upgrade or switch to Linux? :D

How does this relate to Bitshares?

General Discussion / Re: HERTZ - Oscillating Formula Based Asset
« on: April 13, 2018, 11:43:28 am »
that commit mainly changes the warning/skip levels ets...

seems to be a bigger issue in play here..

Does it work for you?

I've not had any feedback from witnesses regarding hertz integration into xeroc's price feed script, it looks like the pull request has been merged by @xeroc, perhaps blockchaind (rudex) are using this repo and can provide input on this matter? I use the stand alone price feed script for hertz.

General Discussion / Re: HERTZ - Oscillating Formula Based Asset
« on: April 12, 2018, 07:09:33 pm »
Hey Customminer,

Trying to use: until I sort out my own pricefeed solution and I get the following error:

AssertionError: You cannot provide a 'price' this way

Are there any adjustments needed to the pricefeed code?
Have you implemented this pull request?

I'm not sure why it's not been merged into the master branch yet..

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 31