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 - santaclause102

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 166
1
General Discussion / Witness pay framework
« on: April 29, 2017, 07:36:53 pm »
There seems to be consensus that discussing witness pay every two month is no long term solution. The only way out is a general framework that automatically adjusts witness pay according to BTS market cap changes. So here is my suggestion. I am looking forward to your feedback on it.

The building blocks (with my rough estimates):
A) Amount of work in hours per month and witness: 5
B) Hourly rate for witness work: 60 USD
C) Hardware and network expenses per month and witness: 100 USD
-> A * B + C = 5*70+100 = 400 USD / month and witness

-> Overpaying witnesses 2x to increase their loyalty -> 400*2 = 800 USD / month and witness. Rather than going lower here I would rather have less witnesses. As fav pointed out the quality (responsiveness in case of a fork for example, quality price feeds, not missing blocks) of witnesses is much more important than their number.

Adaptation algorithm: Delta witness pay = Delta BTS market cap * 0.1. This means that if BTS market cap for example increases 100% witness pay increases 10%.

If we reach Bitcoin market cap (~20 bn) that would be 45,000 USD per month per witness and 900,000 USD of security costs for the whole BTS network per month if there are 20 witnesses.

If you are a witness please report how many hours of dedicated witness work you put in monthly and for what specifically. Also, as a witness, what hourly rate do you think is adequate? What hardware/network costs do you have and for what specs? 

2
Deutsch (German) / Übersetzung eines Artikels über Apptrade
« on: February 21, 2017, 08:28:21 pm »
Ich habe für Ronny (Openledger) folgenden Artikel ins Deutsche übersetzt: http://bravenewcoin.com/news/no-app-is-an-island/

Smartphones sind ein integraler Bestandteil unseres Alltags geworden, sei es um die eignen Finanzen mobil zu verwalten oder diverse Onlinemedien zu konsumieren. Statista schätzt [LINK: https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/%20http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2016/2016-world-population-data-sheet.aspx], dass mehr als zwei Milliarden Menschen, also ein Viertel der Weltbevölkerung, Smartphone-Nutzer sind und sagt vorher, dass diese Zahl auf 2.8 Milliarden im Jahre 2020 steigen wird.

Mit diesem Wachstum der Smartphone-Nutzer wächst auch deren Nutzung von Smartphone Apps. Es wird geschätzt [LINK: https://www.statista.com/statistics/269025/worldwide-mobile-app-revenue-forecast/], dass die "Mobile App Industrie"  2016 weltweit einen Umsatz von 88 Milliarden US Dollar  generiert hat und, dass sicher dieser Umsatz bis 2020 auf 188 Milliarden U.S. Dollar erhöhen wird. Der meiste Umsatz wird hierbei durch "In-App Käufe", Werbung und dem Sammeln von Big Data gemacht.

"Die seit einem Jahrzehnt existierende App Industrie hat, zusammen mit dem Aufstieg des Smartphones, ein explosives Wachstum erfahren. Smartphones haben die Software Industrie revolutioniert und gelten als die sich am schnellsten verbreitende Technologie der Zivilisationsgeschichte." -  The App Association

Trotz der Größe dieser Industrie, ist es schwer hier Fuß zu fassen. Im ersten Quartal 2016 wurden 94% des Umsatzes in den U.S. App Stores von einem Prozent der gewinnorientierten Publisher gemacht.

"Ungefähr 1.34 Milliarden U.S. Dollar der geschätzten 1.43 Milliarden U.S. Dollar, die an Gewinn in Q1 erziehlt wurden gingen an 623 publishers," so [LINK: https://sensortower.com/blog/app-store-one-percent] Sensor Tower, ein Marktforschungsunternehmen für die Mobile App Industrie. "Die verbleibenden sechs Prozent - ungefähr 85.8$ - verteilen sich auf 61,677 weitere Publisher deren Apps gekauft werden müssen oder sich durch In-App-Käufe finanzieren."

Laut der Vserv.mob Umfrage [LINK: http://www.fiercewireless.com/developer/vserv-survey-82-developers-struggle-monetization] ist für 82 Prozent der Spiele und App Entwicklungsunternehmen die Monetarisierung die größte Herausforderung. Zudem verdienen 100 Prozent der Entwickler, die nur eine einzige App anbieten, weniger als 1000$ pro Monat.

Daniel Pineda is einer von vielen, die eine App veröffentlicht und die Frustration der schwierigen App-Vermarktung erlebt haben. "Seither war ich besessen die Frage zu beantworten, unter welchen Umständen eine App viral geht", so Pineda.

Daniel Pineda, der Gründer von Apptrade ist dann auf den Business to Business Markt für digitale Güter gestoßen, auf dem Entwickler "Apps kaufen und mit Gewinn wieder verkaufen" so wie Sponsoren dies auch mit Immobilien tun. "Wir haben erkannt, dass kleine App Publisher oft nicht die Ressourcen haben, um die eigene App erfolgreich weiterzuentwickeln. Wir haben beobachtet, wie Entwickler Portfolios, einschließlich aller Rechte, an Käufer mit mehr Ressourcen verkaufen statt einer Lizenz für die fertige App."

"Einige meiner Kollegen und Ich haben gelernt, dass die Vermarktung von Apps und das Fundraising einem gnadenlosen Wettbewerb unterliegt" - Daniel Pineda, Apptrade Gründer.

Apptrade [LINK: https://www.apptrade.io/] ist ein Marktplatz, der es erlaubt, Gewinne zu teilen und als "Kickstarter auf einer Blockchain" bezeichnet wurde. Anstatt nur ein Projekt zu unterstützen, können Apptrade Nutzer eine Gruppe von Apps unterstützen.  Im Gegenzug zahlt die Gruppe der App-Entwickler einen Teil ihrer Gewinne in einen digitalen Gemeinschaftstopf. Die Apptrade Nutzer erhalten Gewinnbeteiligungstokens, um an den Gewinnen aus dem Gemeinschaftstopf zu profitieren. Diese Tokens sind auf dem Openledger DEX ("decentralized exchange") handelbar.

Openledger [LINK: https://www.openledger.info/], geleitet von Ronny Boesing, ist eine peer-to-peer Platform, die im Oktober 2015 gegründet wurde und auf Graphene Technologie basiert. Graphene wurde von Cryptonomex Inc [LINK: http://cryptonomex.com/], einem unabhängigen Blockchain-Entwicklungs-Unternehmen, das von den Entwicklern der BitShares [LINK: http://bitshares.org/] blockchain gegründet wurde, entwickelt.

Auch bekannt als "The Decentralized Exchange (DEX)", fungiert die Openledger Platform als Grundlage für einen dezentralen Mischkonzern, d.h. ein Ökosystem aus sich ergänzenden Unternehmen.

Apptrade hilft Publishern und Entwicklern ihr Risiko zu teilen und bietet cross-marketing und ein gemeinschaftliches Finanzierungsmodell durch App-Portfolios. App Entwickler können Kapital durch die Emmision digitaler Blockchain Tokens, die deren Halter an den Gewinnen der Apps beteiligen,  als Gruppe einwerben. "App portfolios geben Sponsoren die Möglichkeit ihr Risiko auf eine Reihe verschiedener digitaler Güter zu verteilen ohne diese besitzen zu müssen", erklärt Pineda.

Ein Apptrade  Portfolio wird durch digitale Tokens repräsentiert, die auf dem Openledger DEX bzw. auf der BitShares blockchain erstellt werden, insofern der Openledger DEX  die BitShares Blockchain nutzt. Diese digitalen Tokens berechtigen an der Gewinnausschüttung des jeweiligen App Portfolios teilzuhaben. Boesing erklärt, dass "Apptrade Nutzer diese Tokens auf dem OpenLedger DEX mit anderen Markteilnehmern direkt handeln können ohne auf einen Mittelsmann angewiesen zu sein. Man kann den Wert der Tokens mit Hilfe von Fiat Gateways abheben oder gegen andere "market pegged assets" traden, die eine weitere Errungenschaft der OpenLedger Handelsplattform darstellen. "

"Apptrade sorgt sowohl für das Marketing als auch für die Finanzierung. Um eine Finanzierung zu erhalten legen Portfolios ihre künftigen Profite zusammen und schaffen ein gemeinsames Marketingbudget. Die Innovation liegt in dem gemeinsamen Gewinnausschüttungspool in den sich Sponsoren auf einem dezentralen Exchange einkaufen können".  — Pineda

Apptrade nutzt eine öffentliche Blockchain, so dass alle Transaktionen von jedem verifiziert werden können. Alle Marktbewegungen sind öffentlich. "Das gleiche kann man nicht über Marktteilnehmer von Aktienmärkten sagen", so Boesing.

Portfolios werden von den App Entwickler verwaltet. Sie können abstimmen mit welchen anderen Apps sie sich zusammenschließen wollen. Sponsoren, die Gewinnrechte-Tokens halten, haben auch die Möglichkeit ihre Stimme abzugeben und haben gegebenenfalls Interesse daran die Eigentumsrechte an einer App zu erlangen, die aus dem Portfolio heraussticht.

"Apptrade's Spezialisten für die App Industrie, werden mit Portfolio Sponsoren und Publishern zusammenarbeiten, um Apps nach Qualität und Potential zu begutachten," erklärt Boesing. "Wenn ein Entwickler überzeugt ist eine Sammlung digitaler Güter zu haben, die ein eigenes Portfolio rechtfertigt, stehen wir dem offen gegenüber".

Boesing sieht in den Portfolios eine bessere Möglichkeit eine Reihe von Apps zu testen ehe man sich als Sponsor auf eine Akquisition festlegt. "Eine öffentliche Datenbank zu haben, deren Transaktionen nachvollziehbar sind, erhöht das Vertrauen unter ansonsten im Wettbewerb stehenden Interessen. Jeder Entwickler kann nachvollziehen, ob die anderen Apps innerhalb des Portfolios sich an die Regeln des Portfolios halten und einen Anteil ihrer Gewinne in den Portfoliopool zahlen."

"Der Wert unsere App Portfolio Tokens hat das Potential im Wert zu explodieren ohne signifikante Nutzerzahlen. Sollte irgendeine App innerhalb unseres 2 Jahres Abkommens viral gehen und ihre monatliche Gewinnausschüttung an den Gewinnpool erhöhen, könnte das ganze Portfolio einen großen Aktivitätsschub erfahren. Plötzlich könnte ein unbekanntes Portfolio Token sehr viel Wert werden für eine Gruppe von Leute, die sich nicht kennen." --- Pineda.

Apptrade wird am 28.2 durch den Verkauf eines Master tokens Kapital einsammeln, was für diejengen von Interesse sein könnte, die einen Anteil am Ganzen des Kuchens haben wollen. Denn jedes Portfolio legt 10% der Liquiditätsreserve beiseite, um damit den master token (APPX) zu stützen. Jedes Portfolio wird seine eigene Reserve verwalten.

Auch wenn Apptrade keine Wertpiere oder Beiteiligungen mit Hilfe einer Blockchain verkauft, ist die Nutzung von Blockchain Technologie im Kontext von Wertpapieren und Aktienmärkten ein wachsender Trend geworden. Die Koreanische Börse (KRX) hat KSM gegründet [LINK: http://bravenewcoin.com/news/korean-stock-exchange-launches-blockchain-based-startup-market/] - eine blockchainbasierte Börse auf der Anteile an Startups gehandelt werden können.

Vor kurzem hat die Equibit Development Corporation eine Plattform lanciert [LINK: http://bravenewcoin.com/news/equibit-building-a-decentalised-securities-platform/], die Blockchain Anwendungen bereitstellen und das Problem Wertpapiere zu emmittieren und abzuwickeln lösen soll. Innerhalb des ersten Tags der Finanzierungsrunde hat das in Kanada ansässige Unternehmen 250,000$ durch den Verkauf von Equibit, dem Token, der der Plattform zu Grunde liegt eingesammelt.

3
By locking up an asset, making it impossible to increase the quantity of the asset, it would be possible for an artist or any producer of a physical or digital good to prevent counter-fitting of their work. For digital assets (e.g. digital art) this in addition would allow to make it rare.

How would it work?
For every item (e.g. a diamond) the real world producer creates he/she also creates a UIA. The producer would sell his diamond along with the IUA. The first buyer (buyer-1) now has the diamond and the IUA. A secondary buyer could request the transfer of the IUA if he/she buys the diamond from buyer-1 in order to proof to anyone (police, further buyers, insurance companies) that the diamond has not been stolen. This could reduce the prospects of stealing in order to sell it again to zero given the good is valuable enough for the producer to issue an IUA and send it to the buyer. 
 
Now if the item is not a diamond but a piece of digital art (e.g. http://rarepepedirectory.com/) that piece of digital art can be copied like anything digital can be. The difference to how digital art works today is that the ownership wouldn't have to be enforced through the judicial system which doesn't work anyway for the most part so that ownership of digital art is not viable in practice. Instead, ownership of digital art would be determined by how costly it is to take it away from the owner which is the same principle that organizes our perception of what legitimate ownership of non digital art is.
I am curious to see how this could be expanded to digital goods in general like music, documents etc. But I don't see how it would apply to digital goods in general that derive their value from their utility and not from their rarity like digital art.

Counterparty on which the above rarepepe assets are issued allows to lock assets, http://counterparty.io/docs/protocol_specification/

Two companies also catering to this use case:
For diamonds: https://www.everledger.io/
For art: https://www.ascribe.io

4
Technical Support / Re: Failed to sync with the API server
« on: February 01, 2017, 04:23:08 pm »
For LInux: Had the same problem until I installed ntp

5
I agree most of the ICOs are way overpriced but nobody is forcing anyone to buy in and everyone should do their own due dilligence.

I think it would be better for the ICO to be done in OPEN.BTC for 2 reasons.
1.) ronny makes more money on OPEN.BTC trades (0.2%)
2.) BTC is a well understood liquid market

But at the end of the day its up to ronny to do whatever he likes.

We can't blame free market traders for BTS price not going up.
The argument wasn't that it is a moral problem. Rather I hoped to stimulate a discussion that may help to align incentives. Surely no one is to blame, but the Bitshares product should be constructed in a way that doesn't allow a situation where it's users harm the product.   

You can ask a simple question: Will more people carry BTS to external exchanges where the bts:btc price is made in order to sell them in case of an overpriced ICO? The following conditions have to be met for the answer to be Yes:
- Those who sell their ICO.token for BTS have to be overall more wiling to sell for BTS or fiat than those who bought the ICO.token with their BTS. 
- The most liquid/cheapest option to get out of the BTS ecosystem is to sell BTS for BTC on an external exchange no matter whether the ICO is initially sold for Open.BTC on the DEX.

On the other side if the ICO token is underpriced after the ICO and the most liquid/cheapest way to buy the ICO token is to acquire BTS on an external exchange in order to then buy the ICO token on the DEX, it creates BTS buy pressure.   

I haven't seen any flaw pointed out in this argument. I 'm looking forward to be proven wrong.

Encouraging Ronny to do ICOs with price discovery (no set market cap) would only be an intermediate cure since anyone could offer ICO / IUA tokens with a set high market cap - so also he isn't to blame, he should do whatever is best for his business.
The solution is relatively simple in general - assuming the issue of overpriced ICOs: The most liquid way out of the BTS ecosystem should not involve BTS, instead it should be Open.USD:USD or Open.BTC:BTC or BitUSD:USD and so on. In the long run when BTS is a mature exchange with liquidity that can compete with centralized exchanges, this may be more likely.
A side chain would be a solution too so that it would be possible to trade directly ICO.token:BTC. Another, more likely, solution would be if the Open.BTC:BTC or the Open.USD:BTC markets on external exchanges would be more liquid than BTS:BTC. The latter case would profit from an incentive to keep BTS of external exchanges - I'm not up to date on the options here.

6
General Discussion / Re: Why Bitshares?
« on: January 21, 2017, 12:36:19 pm »
Why Bitshares?
[The why question imo may be better answered by businesses that build ontop of Bitshares. The answer may be different to all of them. More generally, I think the why question can either be answered individually or by a strong leader that creates a product, leads a team and unites them team through the vision.] 

Why does it matter?
More or less objectively, because trading and the possibility to issue UIA is the biggest real world use case today and the one blockchain that is most suitable for this use case will win. 

Why does it matter to me?
To me personally, because efficiency is sexy.

8

9.  Original investors start selling SCAM.UIA because there was no initial pop and barely any buy orders on the books.
10.  All of a sudden the trading book for SCAM.UIA is loaded with sells with hardly any buy orders.
11.  This leads to steady sell pressure on SCAM.UIA.  Many of these investors who are selling SCAM.UIA have no interest of being in the BTS ecosystem, holding BTS, or using the DEX.
12.  What are these uninterested investors who just received BTS for their SCAM.UIA going to do??? That's right! SELL THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED BTS!
13.  What do they sell it for??? bitcoin, ethereum, or fiat.
14.  What does selling BTS for fiat do to the price of BTS?? Causes it to decline.
[member=23744]lil_jay890[/member] Thanks for the write up, having read it I think you have a point. I was critical because it seemed as if the ability in Bitshares to issue ICO tokens would always be negative for the BTS price. There is another side to it too though: If the UIA would be undervalued after the IPO, all after-IPO investors would need to buy BTS in order to buy the UIA which would be good for the BTS price.

Also there is the effect of a generally bearish or bullish BTS market. A bearish BTS market would make those that sold their ICO token for BTS, sell their BTS for Bitcoin like you said. If it's bullish though, holding BTS would be encouraged.

Overall I we can conclude:
(-) Creating downward pressure on BTS price: Overpriced ICO, General bearish BTS market.
(+) Creating upward pressure on BTS price: Underpriced ICO, General bullish BTS market.
(+ -) If there is one negative and one positive factor they cancel each other out.

If we could encourage trading in BTC or Open.BTC and leave BTS for fees, platform operations (issue account/ assets etc) and smart coin trading and issuance / collateral do you think the net result would be positive for the price of BTS.
I think that wouldn't help too much - as long as BTS (as opposed to open.btc) has the highest liquidity on external exchanges vs BTC -  since the ICO investor who wants to get back to BTC or fiat will sell BTS on external exchanges.

What would help is if ICOs would not have these ridiculous valuations which bring them close to being a scam. The only solution I see is to have ICOs that don't set valuations of their token market cap, but have a price discovery, there are two options I know of:
1) Either dividing all ICO tokens among all investors
2) Or the AGS model where 1/200th of the tokens sold are distributed among all investors who sent money on day 1 of 200 days. The same on day 2 and 3 etc...

So, there may actually be a conflict of interests since Openledger wants to maximize the token market cap/valuation of their customer's (Centz) ICO while it would be good for the BTS price to have the opposite.

9
It is exactly correct what btswolf said.


Very roughly: 1000 usd = 1 BTC = 1000 centz tokens.  And 1 centz token gives you 1 A share of the centz company --> Since there are 100 million A shares in total the centz company would be valued at 100 million USD - pre-product and without any users.

Everyone should judge these numbers by themselves but it is very rare for a seed investment valuation to exceed 10 million, see for example https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/what-reset-both-seed-and-late-stage-valuations-just-hit-record-levels-says-new-report/

b) dividends in the form of token drop from revenues of Centz operations
The pdf btswolf quoted states that the dividend is 10% of the revenue of the centz business until the equity is dropped onto centz token holders when the threshold is reached, yet all centz token holders hold 16% of the whole centz business....

It wouldn't be a Crypto ICO if it didn't value itself at some obscene 8-9 figure valuation...

Most of the ICO's done on the bitshares platform have done this as well, leading to the constant downward pressure on nearly every UIA.  Basically anyone who bought into any UIA has lost money in both BTS terms and Dollar terms.  This is a huge reason, among several others, that the BTS token gets sold off hard on every single pump to lower highs.
Why would that effect the BTS token?
btw, it's always hard to call a valley, but I think it's time to take of your BTS depression glasses;)

And put on the rose colored ones that have caused so many here to lose tons of cash?  Maybe when this dog stops getting sold on every pump I'll think about it.  Maybe when almost every single UIA doesn't look like a downward ski slope.

Reason why it pushes the BTS price down.  UIA's are distributed to all these people... many of who just want to sell on the first pump.  Because of this, the pump is small but they still want out.  The try to dump the tokens for bts, then try to dump the BTS of btc.  Because there is a lack of new blood in BTS, and because most of the supporters here have nothing left to invest, there is no buy liquidity.  It can be seen in nearly every order book.
Sorry, but your explanation lacks an independent first reason that is not the same reason BTS would go down without the UIA tokens as well.

10
It is exactly correct what btswolf said.


Very roughly: 1000 usd = 1 BTC = 1000 centz tokens.  And 1 centz token gives you 1 A share of the centz company --> Since there are 100 million A shares in total the centz company would be valued at 100 million USD - pre-product and without any users.

Everyone should judge these numbers by themselves but it is very rare for a seed investment valuation to exceed 10 million, see for example https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/what-reset-both-seed-and-late-stage-valuations-just-hit-record-levels-says-new-report/

b) dividends in the form of token drop from revenues of Centz operations
The pdf btswolf quoted states that the dividend is 10% of the revenue of the centz business until the equity is dropped onto centz token holders when the threshold is reached, yet all centz token holders hold 16% of the whole centz business....

It wouldn't be a Crypto ICO if it didn't value itself at some obscene 8-9 figure valuation...

Most of the ICO's done on the bitshares platform have done this as well, leading to the constant downward pressure on nearly every UIA.  Basically anyone who bought into any UIA has lost money in both BTS terms and Dollar terms.  This is a huge reason, among several others, that the BTS token gets sold off hard on every single pump to lower highs.
Why would that effect the BTS token?
btw, it's always hard to call a valley, but I think it's time to take of your BTS depression glasses;)

11
It is exactly correct what btswolf said.


Very roughly: 1000 usd = 1 BTC = 1000 centz tokens.  And 1 centz token gives you 1 A share of the centz company --> Since there are 100 million A shares in total the centz company would be valued at 100 million USD - pre-product and without any users.

Everyone should judge these numbers by themselves but it is very rare for a seed investment valuation to exceed 10 million, see for example https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/what-reset-both-seed-and-late-stage-valuations-just-hit-record-levels-says-new-report/

b) dividends in the form of token drop from revenues of Centz operations
The pdf btswolf quoted states that the dividend is 10% of the revenue of the centz business until the equity is dropped onto centz token holders when the threshold is reached, yet all centz token holders hold 16% of the whole centz business....


12
General Discussion / Re: Gridcoin's BTS Web Wallet Customisations!
« on: January 17, 2017, 11:22:58 am »
I thought the idea of Gridcoin is to combine POW with making calculations that are helpful to science.
What purpose does Bitshares server here? I am sure the answer is simple, I just don't get it. 

13
General Discussion / Re: MineBitshares/Bunkermining - Shutting Down
« on: January 16, 2017, 10:58:21 pm »
[member=19864]BunkerChain Labs[/member] can you clarify what happened to all the funds from that worker that were not utilized for the purpose of the worker?
http://cryptofresh.com/u/bunkermining for example still has 1k usd worth of bts

14
How many class A shares will there be in total? Without that info there is no way to evaluate the offer.

Quote
https://ico.centz.net/assets/files/The%20Offer.pdf

16,000,000 Centz token represent 16% of total outstanding Class A shares
= 100,000,000 total Class A shares
I read that too. But since it wasn't part of the OP I didn't want to make that assumption. So can ronny confirm?

15
How many class A shares will there be in total? Without that info there is no way to evaluate the offer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 166