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 - gamey

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 151
151
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 16, 2016, 02:11:15 pm »
Quote from: tbone on February 16, 2016, 02:03:47 pm
Quote from: monsterer on February 16, 2016, 08:19:49 am
Quote from: tbone on February 16, 2016, 06:48:19 am
Ok, let me rephrase the question.  Let's first consider that (both now and under your proposal) there are and will be multiple BTS/USD markets, multiple BTS/BTC markets, multiple BTS/CNY markets, etc.  So the question is, why would having all of those markets trade only on the DEX be much better for the peg than the current situation where some of those markets are (and some are NOT) traded on the DEX?

No external arbitrage means no need for a feed price - the prices can come from the orderbook (although price at time 0 is undefined).

Why does it matter if the markets are external or on the DEX?  You still have to factor many different BTS markets.  The only difference is that there would be no BTS feeds for the witnesses to bother with.

People can park their BTS in active orders or using a script within their own wallet.

If someone wrote the right tools, instead of all these nontransparent layers of fiat etc like nushares has, you see the collateral on the blockchain in one market. A really really conservative market making script would probably find use by many.

edit - I'm sorta misusing collateral a bit. It gives bitUSD one guaranteed liquid market... into BTS.  Which can only go back into bitWHATEVER.  What value does that bring? 

152
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 16, 2016, 01:53:40 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 15, 2016, 07:09:30 pm
At least Tony is grounded enough to admit that the economic and social issues that arise from this proposal cannot be tested on a test net. Several valid concerns have been brushed aside. Hell, no one even responded to my post with at least a few very valid concerns. It is like an echo chamber in here. I wish BM would speak up and share his opinion, as to why he didn't think this proposal was a good idea, because I have a feeling he is smart enough to understand some of the issues I brought up better than I can.

Smartcoins are seen as risky, but they also the best asset of BitShares if they can be made to work.

I thought you are the guy all for MAS.  If I am wrong, then ignore this.  MAS is more risky than this.  You say people won't take on the risk of bitUSD failing them within the hour it takes to purchase BTS, but somehow people will get into crypto (seen as risky) to try an unknown insurance (seen as risky) all based on a decentralized governance (seen as risky). People have to jump through many more faith hoops for MAS.

And a far as risk. Insurance is a gamble of sorts but meant to only pay off when you really need it. Insurance is the most risk sensitive of any investment people make.  That is implicit in the definition of what insurance is. I'd love to see MAS as an experiment. It might gain traction..

Yes, there are issues with the proposal as there are with pretty much any proposal. I do not have much of a stake in BitShares anymore, but if I felt compelled to argue about this I would point out that BTS has had almost 0 adoption as a currency. Therefore it seems reasonable to believe that it won't be hurt that much by making BTS illiquid. It removes price feeds. That is great for marketing. It is now market driven directly.

You guys need something. The currency thing has failed. Why would anyone implement BTS as a payment option?  If I had a storefront with BTS, people would first need to figure out what BTS is, then they'd need to find an exchange (not one of the easy to use BTC ones), then they'd need to get setup there, likely using BTC in between.  On my site, I would need to implement a flow different from Bitcoin. Unless I was happy to stay with BTS, then I have to cash it out. The whole BTS economy was made with blinders on hoping bitassets carries us. (And yes I've had them on myself) At this point the assets are not working and we have 0 bts as a currency adoption, even bitUSD has 0.  Ok...  the useful Scape has a website somewhere...  but nothing even close to serious.

The exchanges can force people to withdraw BTS or just freeze their internal market.  That part isn't _that_ hard for them. Disable deposits, tell people to take their money. Hopefully they support bitUSD in place of BTS, that would be the biggest concern.

153
General Discussion / Re: Rate Limited Free Transactions Feature Implemented
« on: February 14, 2016, 04:55:02 pm »

I haven't looked at the code but I'm glad to see this sort of input. Great way to set an example for others to follow, Abit.

154
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 14, 2016, 04:00:30 pm »
Quote from: vlight on February 14, 2016, 02:58:10 pm
Quote from: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 10:44:31 pm
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.
How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?

Nice try, but no thanks.

Where is BTS used as a currency?  What would it lose exactly?  If the changes in behaviors/incentives outweigh what we are losing dropping BTS as a currency then it would be a good thing.

155
General Discussion / Re: recently ,there are so many worker on chain, are you shame？
« on: February 14, 2016, 03:32:48 pm »
Quote from: deer on February 14, 2016, 04:47:15 am
Show me at least one worker who take responsibility for the shareholder,please.
proposal like:"I will develop a function,one year after this function launch,the market cap will be twice to now,or I won't get any bts as payment.

no one now  are willing to  take this responsibility, right.They just happy to to see shareholder surffer and grad USD for themselves.

"I have written so many many document! BTS will go to die without our work!just give me 100K bts a day! "(So what?We have only 10% left  of our investment thanks to your "hard work" since 2014 )

I could have a high pay job outside! (So again,why are you still here?Strongly doubt that you can get a serious job outside.)

Somebody still think these amazing inflation work can raise the market cap  base on 2013-2016,huh,wow.

Where are the Chinese developers?  What makes it ok to constantly scream that people are not doing something for you free, but then do little development from what I have heard? 

US job market is going great right now, real developers are rare. There are tons of shitty developers who decided to get into it because it pays well.  The type of developer needed for blockchain type work is one of these "rare" developers.  They would have to be screwed up socially in a very very strange way, have a criminal records, or unwilling to relocate etc to not be able to get a job. You are so clueless to think guys who can fix BItShares couldn't find a good job.  You are on a different planet.

If you are going to insult someone, insult Dan Larimer who made all the decisions unilaterally but with input.  I don't know why you think developers owe you more. It makes more sense for them to get a job, then wait and invest their money in BTS or not.

If someone was to "take accountability" and only be paid if the marketcap doubled, how do they know what thousands of quasi-irrational people are going to do ? It would be foolish to take such a deal without asking to be paid far FAAARRRR above market rates when the market cap doubles. No one would like that either.

I am not commenting on the past, but startups can blow through cash like crazy.  That is not going on currently.  If you want to win, you need to advance. Not sit around fingers cross hoping and praying for some magic to occur.

156
General Discussion / Re: Roger Ver Bonus Hangout: (SILVERTICKET Entry Fee)
« on: February 13, 2016, 03:09:04 am »

Wow Fuzzy, good job.  Makes me all teary eyed.

157
General Discussion / Re: How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 06:55:21 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on February 10, 2016, 05:55:35 pm
Quote from: gamey on February 10, 2016, 05:11:34 pm

So do small balances have to wait or not ?  Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.

Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay.  0 fee opens that back up.

If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?

The system is not subject to sybil attacks.

I wasn't talking about sybil attacks but it seems you have a minimum transfer/balance in mind which fixes the sort of things I was concerned about. It works in place of a fee.

 I like the idea all and all. Very similar to spending coin-age to create transactions.

I would suggest you choose better metaphors in your writing if they are to be key to the article. fractional reserve etc for bandwidth/networks just doesn't fit very well for me and made it hard to read the whole thing.

158
General Discussion / Re: How to build a decentralized application without fees [BLOG POST]
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:11:34 pm »

So do small balances have to wait or not ?  Either way seems to open up attacks. If you let them go immediately in front of line without some sort of value that accumulates the equity * time ... then you can attack the network/nodes by creating a ton of small accounts. Even guys with .1% of the network seem like they could do a number on the system just by creating a ton of small addresses... then at some point those small addresses can remerge their account balances because fees are 0. I get it that it doesn't make economic sense to buy shares to attack, but it could in some other context.

Basically fees keep dust based/bloat attacks at bay.  0 fee opens that back up.

If there is something in the paper that addresses this, my apologies. Is this problem covered because one is forced to register an account before receiving a transfer?

159
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Plans to Monetize through GooglePlay/App Store?
« on: February 09, 2016, 04:26:48 pm »

This is an interesting idea.  Some apps make large fortunes. A lot of that is due to the ease of use with purchasing.

Unfortunately I don't think these tokens are tradeable. So MUSE would have to be in some business where one could trade in their PLAYSTORE.UIA for MUSE.

People are already used to this idea. The people who actually pay for things and in your demographic will know how *these* tokens work. No more having to go off into crypto land. It might not even be required that you buy tokens from google.  Perhaps just "$5" or whatever.  So I have my android and want to buy $5 worth of artist tokens... well that infrastructure is already setup.

It is then up to the developers to make an exchange that is simple.

MUSE buying the google coins would be ok, since they should have revenue coming in from google to cover it.

The bad part is the significant cut Google takes.  This would make tokens purchased this way to have a rather large premium or some other approach to work around Google's cut.

160
General Discussion / Re: What is a Segregated Witness ?
« on: February 09, 2016, 03:21:05 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on February 09, 2016, 03:06:30 pm
Quote from: gamey on February 09, 2016, 05:34:07 am
If one is technically inclined (as in developer type technical), this blog post is a great read. Ahh well a year+ of lessons learned the very hard way ... this should have made front page of ycombinator etc IMO.

Apart from this, which was a big mistake IMO:

Quote
Assign IDs rather than using UUIDs

This meant there was no way to hold onto a reference of a sent transaction until it hit the blockchain, which caused all kinds of problems.

Well I did say "great read" not Best Practices Guide.  I had some issues with it too, but by and large it is rare to find  a blog post that has so many hard learned lessons.

I could pick on the post a bit too, but I don't come around here to be exclusively negative. chuckles!

What would be really really great is if BM could go into all the personal lessons he learned when running a company.  Who to hire, who to fire, and the whys and whens.  There is exactly 0% chance of that happening, but that is the only subject that would interest me more than this.

161
General Discussion / Re: What is a Segregated Witness ?
« on: February 09, 2016, 05:34:07 am »
Quote from: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 11:42:01 am
Quote from: bitacer on February 08, 2016, 11:38:42 am
Quote from: xeroc on February 08, 2016, 11:30:19 am
BTW ... those that haven't got it yet ..
BitShares does this ALREADY!
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#assign-ids-rather-than-using-uuids

In particular, I am talking about extracting the "signature proof" from the "transaction details".
So in BitShares signatures are separated from the transaction data structure?
yes ..

essentially you have a "blob" (json data) that is signed by your account's authority.
Once your signature is validated (which can be done independent of any other blockchain data),
you 'blob' is authorized.
after that its content is verified against the blockchain's data (e.g. to prevent doublespending etc.)

I highly recommend to read through this section:
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#technology-lessons

If one is technically inclined (as in developer type technical), this blog post is a great read. Ahh well a year+ of lessons learned the very hard way ... this should have made front page of ycombinator etc IMO.

162
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 06, 2016, 03:54:30 pm »

Slave developers imprisoned by the blockchain, working as slaves under 24/7 video surveillance by remote share holders willing to fire them a moment's notice.  Hrrrmmmm. I like.

163
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer
« on: February 03, 2016, 07:15:10 am »
That is a reasonable price for Bitshares to remain competitive.

Too bad there weren't any Chinese devs willing to step up to bat ?  What are the issues?

This is all a side effect of closing the source code off, getting away from any talk of a 'toolkit', etc. Hiring any developer now will require a learning curve, so the ~$70 an hour is likely a good deal ...

I see some guys seeming to get pissed off. I wouldn't let pride or jealousy force your decisions.

PS BitShares is always good for entertainment.

164
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 03, 2016, 06:23:04 am »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 03, 2016, 05:13:11 am
Quote from: chryspano on February 03, 2016, 04:25:00 am
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 02, 2016, 07:05:00 pm
You are being hypocritical. Bitshares also prints BTS out of thin air for worker proposals and delegate dilution...

You are comparing aplles to oranges. Nubits have no max cap in their printing presses and they also make the claim that their "token" will not devalue.
Hard forks happen all the time around here. You are kidding yourself if you think Bitshares has a hard cap on its printing press. The rules in Bitshares are final until they are changed. Bitshares... its marketing, and its users, claim SmartCoins are safe investments without hardly mentioning the risks involved. "Safer" than Nubits while sweeping the vulnerabilities and flaws under the rug left and right. Smartcoins are "backed" by a cryptocurrency that was printed out of thin air.... HELLO... A cryptocurrency that has lost value for almost 2 years straight with no signs of giving up. There is no way SmartCoins will ever become valueless, right?

You guys will keep diluting for useless features, because there are a bunch of idiots in control, and refuse to dilute for the things that are actually important. Important things like.... gasp.... liquidity on a cryptocurrency exchange. You guys wouldn't dilute for privacy, yet you are about to dilute to change flat fees to percentage based fees. As if that is going to be Bitshares' savior from this two year downtrend. No, it is the referral systems fault... we obviously need to tweak it. All of you "solutions" involving liquidity that don't involve dilution will not work, yet you guys are too thick to realize it. At the end of the day I  have little at stake here and have little to zero faith in the people that seem to be in control around here. So, I will peacefully bow out of here, sell my stake, and move on to another project. I suggest you guys get off this sinking ship while you still can. Sayonara

It is a bit absurd you are so hurt because a couple of guys disagree with you that dilution and the backing of smart assets have tiers in what is preferred.  BitShares has a hugely preferable method to what NuBits/NuShares is ... if only they can get liquidity. Which is the point of this thread.

edit - Thinking about this a bit further, there is a difference between diluting directly for the market's needs and diluting to pay other parties some sort of bonus system to incentivize them to be market makers. I always thought NuBits/Nushares had the first, but I suppose the 2nd is acceptable to me personally.

 Nubits/Nushares always seemed a bit odd to me .. They get away from transparency but use crypto as a ledger. I have used Nubits before, but I never kept my USD in there long. Mainly just trying to avoid big BTC drops. It worked well and was available on the exchanges. Last time I checked to get out of BTC, it had a 10%ish spread when BTC was swinging down. I passed...

165
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: February 02, 2016, 11:27:23 pm »
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 02, 2016, 08:26:00 pm
People around here seem to hate Nubits because they print money, and then look the other way when it comes to BTS printing money (dilution).

Yes, but I'd guess 99%+ of all coins dilute in the same manner BitShares does.  BitShares does not dilute however to maintain their peg. There really is a large distinction although it may be meaningless to many users.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 151

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 23 queries.