It's gold in hand instead of a paper promising gold.. how is that risk prone?

It is not gold in hand. It is a derivative backed by different methods than SmartCoins. It is backed by wallets in control of the exchanges and is still subject to risks- just different risks than SmartCoins. I am not convinced yet that the pros outweigh the cons. I am not sure what would happen in all these scenarios...

What if one exchange gets hacked (if the BTC is stored in their own separate wallets)? Or, several of them are hacked and all funds are compromised (if the BTC stored is in a multi-signature address controlled by exchanges)? What if the exchanges don't agree on who/what/where/when about BTC deposits/withdrawals? I suppose everyone would monitor the BTC chain as well as a notary, and have a way to overrule a suddenly malicious (hacked) exchange? What if the two smaller exchanges blackmail the one large exchange and steal its funds?

Keep in mind ,bts is a platform for assets trading not just a simple bank account

Ideally, it should be both.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 30, 2016, 01:49:33 am

Quote from: Akado on January 29, 2016, 11:57:02 pm

I only gave it a quick read, but from what I understood, auto bridging could help solve the "issue" of having multiple types of BTC? Multiple markets get synthesized into the same order book? I think I would support a worker proposal for that unless it has any downside? But since Ripple is using it, it seems a proven model.

I really like this because it solves the problem I mentioned a few times of having multiple iliquid markets representing the same assets

thanks @Xeldal for bringing that up!

Without reading the proposal (and I'm admittedly not fully certain how Ripple works)... doesn't it cause an issue that bitBTC has different risks/value than openBTC has different risks/value than metaBTC ?? What happens to the other xBTC markets when OpenLedger/MetaExchange is defunct and the Bitcoins go missing?

Also, no one has provided an explanation as to why my proposal is so horrible, yet everyone is ignoring it as such. Please provide reasons so I can at least attempt to refute them (or admit to myself that it is flawed and I'm an idiot.)

We could do the exact same thing as your proposal right now, with a worker proposal to fund trading done by the committee-trade account.  Specifically while your proposal would be more seamless, it does require dev work, which would delay it.

I think the idea should be discussed.  Depending upon how tight you want to hold the peg, and how much collateral you use for the bitassets there could be unintended consequences.  It is risky, but it could really pay off, and could be exactly what we need to move us to the next level.  There has been a lot of discussion of it already in one form or another.  There are many people who have rejected it out of hand, but I don't think they have come up with any earth shattering reasons why.  Its mainly that they don't like the idea, or think its too risky.  afair

I don't see it as risky considering we are printing BTS, and we can put as much collateral down as we like. Hell, we could do 100x collateral. The price would have to fall to 1% of what it is now for a margin call. At that time the market cap would be approximately $90,391.89, or with 1000x collateral the price would have to be 0.1% of what it is now for a margin call. At that time the market cap would be approximately $9039.19 ... Wouldn't you consider Bitshares to already be in dire straights and on its death bed by that point? If it is in the latter position, then I think it is quite likely that the SmartCoins are no longer backed by a sufficient amount of BTS, and Bitshares could get into this position without ever passing this proposal. This is an inherent risk with SmartCoins (with or without my proposal.)

Re: Dilution is bad

I understand the word dilution has a very negative connotation, however I think that this kind of dilution is not bad. It never makes its way into the market. It is always autonomously shorted in SmartCoins purely for the use of providing liquidity. There is never any downward pressure on the market. In supply and demand, supply only affects demand if it makes its way to the BTS/"off ramp" markets (BTS/BTC, BTS/USD, etc.. any asset that isn't a smart contract on Bitshares). This BTS never makes its way there because it is autonomously shorted purely for liquidity. People hear the word dilution and automatically think "that's bad", but I don't think that is always necessarily the case. All dilution is not created equally.

Dilution for developer pay can and will exert negative value force on the BTS off ramps. I agree this kind of dilution is bad. However, I am not so sure the kind of dilution I am proposing is bad... or at least no one has convinced me yet.

@JonnyBitcoin

I finally have some time to go over your ideas. In my opinion, some of them are good, some of them are not.

- The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%

I agree. This should have happened yesterday. Fortunately, I think everyone is at least close to the same page on this. However, I posit that the reserve pool liquidity will be bought up faster than it will be generated. So, I consider this to be putting a "band aid" on the problem and not a fix.

- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.

I disagree. Unfortunately, we will never be able to compete with Nubits/Tether as far as liquidity (as Bitshares currently exists.) Also, one of Bitshares' features over other solutions (Nubits/Tether) is that we can more easily issue other types of SmartCoins (many FIAT, commodity, stock, indexes, etc.) By doing this we are giving up one of our best features versus other competing implementations.

- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.

This has a similar issue as the last proposal:

Without reading the proposal (and I'm admittedly not fully certain how Ripple works)... doesn't it cause an issue that bitBTC has different risks/value than openBTC has different risks/value than metaBTC ?? What happens to the other xBTC markets when OpenLedger/MetaExchange is defunct and the Bitcoins go missing?

To elaborate, there are more dynamics as well... what if I trust Ronnie but not Shentist? Now, all BTC markets lose my volume instead of just metaBTC or openBTC.

- Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity

The reserve pool is not a huge amount of money. If we are already tightening the peg on SmartCoins, I don't think we can afford to tighten the peg on other markets. As stated above... I posit that the reserve pool liquidity will be bought up faster than it will be generated. So, I consider this places a "band aid" on the problem and doesn't solve the issue.

- Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX

Again, this limits Bitshares functionality and eliminates our competitive advantage as far as features vs competitors features.

- Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.

This seems unreasonable considering legal, regulatory, and logistics. Not to mention the money it would cost to buy an exchange with a decent amount volume.

- Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.

I think this is a good idea. This is similar to my idea here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21124.0.html

Except, that your idea provides for more users/transaction fees/a bigger community/etc... and mine provides for a way of directly paying for developers without certain downward pressure on the value. Really, I think we could use it for both. This could be a wide-reaching feature... proof of burn and proof of funding. We could monitor other blockchains by allowing network node (or witnesses/committee/users/gateways) to monitor other blockchains' APIs. Both block explorer and exchange APIs, and make the price feed script easy to switch API data sources (so risks are mitigated by the median being used.) If the active nodes can all agree a transaction occurred, the blockchain can autonomously print them their fair share of BTS. There are more secure implementations available.. that would be a quick "down and dirty" implementation.

I've read your posts about diluting for a while now... The idea was soooo bad I didn't think it deserved a response.  Plus you seem like the type of person who can't take any criticism, and just bitches and calls people idiots if you don't get your way.  Another reason I didn't respond.

If you think it's such a great idea go fork BTS.

I can take critism, however blanket statements such as "The idea was soooo bad I didn't think it deserved a response" are impossible to prove wrong. I love a good debate, but if you can't bring anything to the table, other than a blanket statement with no substance, then I suppose I would prefer that you don't respond.

I am always hostile because there are so many assholes in the crypto community forums (and no one ever listens to me). I grew tired of it years ago and now I am an asshole towards everyone as somewhat of a defense mechanism, but I am capable of being reasonable from time to time. I am actually one of nicest and most reasonable people you'd ever have the chance of meeting IRL.

I am also very passionate about decentralized technology, so I have trouble holding holding my emotions back. I am one of the few that doesn't care about getting rich. I want to leverage decentralized technologies to promote my brand of anarchy throughout the world. If everything is decentralized, then I think governments will have trouble governing/regulating/enforcing things that shouldn't be governed/regulated/enforced (and will eventually admit defeat.)

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 24, 2016, 05:38:32 pm

I am no longer investing in Bitshares as it looks to be a doomed project.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 29, 2016, 11:25:31 am

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post?

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 29, 2016, 02:12:43 pm

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension where you are from.

Right. I do need some comprehension lessons.

You are a idiot man. Here is an english lesson for you. Learn the difference inbetween:
Investing: current or future tense
Invested: past tense

If I had said "I am no longer invested..." then you would be correct, but I didn't and instead you're just an idiot that doesn't understand English.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 29, 2016, 05:12:39 am

If OpenLedger packs up shop because we lower fees then so be it. I own some OBITS and still could care less if they survive or not. I prefer that Bitshares thrives rather than OpenLedger survives.

Nice.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 29, 2016, 05:12:39 am

I posit others will be willing to take OpenLedger's position as the cornerstone business of the Bitshares ecosystem and won't complain about transfer fees affecting the referral program. There are other profitable avenues for businesses to make money with Bitshares than simply the referral program.

I look forward to you following those "other profitable avenues for businesses".

Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 29, 2016, 05:12:39 am

Furthermore, it is kind of obnoxious to me Ronny makes 200-300k from the issuance of OBITS tokens then has the balls to blackmail us into leaving transaction fees as they are.

Indeed, it's obnoxious.

-------
@CoinHoarder
Who are you to produce statements like these? As you admitted yourself, you don't even have any stake.
I do hope you eventually become disappointed with BitShares and go away.

I do have stake. I guess you are too dumb to punch in the BTS account next to every post? Or, since I don't have much stake my opinions don't matter? Are you always this elitist? Small stakeholders opinions don't matter?

Sorry you don't agree with my opinions. If you want to live in an echo chamber, then go somewhere else as this community is anything but. Sorry, I think it is disgustingly greedy and obnoxious that he just sold 200k-300k USD worth of stake in his company (and still retained a nice amount of equity) then turns around and blackmail us into alienating our Chinese userbase. I only make 50k a year working 40 hours a week, so it disgusts me that 200k-300k is not enough for this man for a measly few months worth of work.

It is disgusting because I am sure there are many that would love to be in his position. I can name a few less successful Bitshares based companies that I am sure would love to be in his position. I would be happy to start a business and be in the position OpenLedger is now after juse banuking 200-300k from a crowdsale. They are the cornerstone business of the Bitshares economy. I have neither the time, nor money, nor jurisdiction. I work 40 hours a week and go to school, I don't have the money to focus full time on a start up, and the USA is not a friensly jurisdiction for cryptocurrency businesses.

I am not against high fees. I am against high fees before Bitshates has a chance to reach critical mass. Running people off because of fees is the last thing Bitshares needs right now. The DEX, Bitshares flagship feature, depends on adoption to be useful (have liquidity). It is a common marketing strategy for exchanges to have low fees to attract users, then increase the fees once a certain amount of volume is reached. You guys seem disillusioned as to how to increase volume, as if percentage based fees will be the savior. No, if the fees are still high you are just spending money for the sake of spending money.

I have been around here longer than you, and I am sure you will tire of the project before I do, so get used to me being around. I brought many people and attention to the Bitshares project early on. I am one of the earliest supporters, and have spent more time than anyone promoting and defending Bitshares in the biggest cryptocurrency community Bitcointalk. I can hardly make a post about other cryptocurrencies without someone commenting about my affiliation with Bitshares. All you do for Bitshares is blab on Bitsharestalk all day, get real kid.