I wonder why only matched orders would be rewarded? Are we going to encourage self trading? The orders who placed there for a long time but not yet have chance to be filled didn't provide liquidity?

Some good ideas in this thread. Mimicking NASDAQ is a great idea for a first cut solution, might as well leverage what seems to work for a dominant exchange.

I would say we couldn't go wrong by mimicking NASDAQ's market quality program. If Nasdaq has deemed it "un-gameable", then who are we armchair experts to argue? Props to @tbone for bringing that to our attention.

This is a tried and true (proven) way to create liquidity for market pegged cryptocurrencies (a la Nubits.) Dilution to subsidize (or provide) liquidity is the only certain way to achieve it. Tonyk's proposal is a gamble. It might work but it might not, as it is uncharted territory. Assuming you can work out all the kinks, and I am assuming that you can (a la Smartcoins), then I think this proposal is the best way forward as far as liquidity on the DEX is concerned.

IF Tonyk continues with his plan to fork Bitshares, then I propose that the original Bitshares chain implement this idea (or something similar). At that point the main chain is competing with Tonyk's chain, and I think it would be smart (for main chain Bitshares supporters) to implement a feature that nullifies one of the few potential benefits of Tonyk's fork.

All (or most) of the people that disagree with this proposal seem to support Tonyk's fork. I say you implement your idea BM, assuming you have the votes to support it, and let the rest of the community that disagrees with it go off and support Tonyk's fork. Then, the original Bitshares chain can go on to teach them a lesson in the strength of a network effects, and the main Bitshares chain's community would be more on the same wavelength (for other things too such as MAS).

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:31:02 am

Quote from: btswildpig on February 21, 2016, 05:17:06 am

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 am

Quote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 am

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

so you're saying after all the pain and suffering that dilution has brought upon BTS on the name of further and competitive development , BTS project will be threaten by a random guy on the forum named TonyK ??    Then why the hell should people buy BTS when it can be beaten by some random guy ?

A. Tonyk's chain can get diluted just as easy as the original BTS chain. With a 70% BTS sharedrop, large BTS shareholders will have a lot of sway.
B. I don't think that BTS will be threatened by Tonyk's fork, as Bitshares has garnered a network effect and forks are generally seen as inferior to their parents (see BTC vs alt coins, or Ripple vs Stellar, etc.) I do think however it will split the community, marketing efforts, development efforts, liquidity, etc... and lower the Bitshares price to all time lows.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 05:13:38 am

Quote from: Riverhead on February 21, 2016, 02:43:33 am

The free market will decide. That's one of the reasons it has the license it does.

I suppose you are right, but forking every time someone doesn't get their way sets a bad precedence for the future. Furthermore, simply talking about forking Bitshares is certain to negatively affect the price. I see all time lows for Bitshares in the near future, and I am glad I don't own any at the moment. Bytemaster's dilution-subsidized liquidity provisions will have less of a negative effect on the price than a Bitshares fork will.

I suggest implementing Tonyk's idea on the main Bitshares chain, or not implementing at all. Forking Bitshares is bad for both parties involved as it is unclear whether a fork of Bitshares will have sufficient liquidity to function as intended, and forking Bitshares is bad for Bitshares.

Doge was forked from Litecoin .
Muse was forked from BTS.
Play was forked from BTS.
BTS2.0 was forked from BTS1.0 .
Everyday people are forking .

Apples and oranges.

Muse/Play were not forked to compete directly with the coin they forked from (BTS). They all are going after different markets, and that is justification for the fork.

This fork Tony is proposing will compete head-to-head with Bitshares for the same target market. Muse/Play were not created out of a rebellious uprising that forked a community. This reminds me of the Sparkles debacle: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11634.0

It is quite the stretch to call BTS 2.0 a fork of BTS 1.0 ...

Doge is a different story. Doge was not created out of a rebellious uprising inside the Litecoin community. Otherwise, I think it would have had negative effects on Litecoin. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 12:51:34 am

Your proposal will not work if you fork Bitshares. Take a look at how many alt coins have over 1k USD of volume in a 24 hour period compared to how many alternative coins have less than that. It is likely this fork will fall into the "less than that" category. Thus, Bitshares as-is will have more liquid Smartcoins than your fork. Not to mention all the negatives that come along with forking a project/community.

'My fork" as in the fork that I have paid for each single share competing with everybody else?

Thanks for the "I predict...cause I predict" statement. We are all very good at that... when we decide to.

My prediction is based on sound logical reasoning. Your rebuttal is more like "you're wrong just cause you're wrong" temper tantrum style.

A. You misunderstood what I was saying and pretty much repeated the same thing I said, but added sunny skies and rainbows. Someone that wanted to monopolize the BTS volume traded on centralized exchanges may come along sooner than you think, and there is no way of stopping them. Derivatives are hardly any different from poloBTS, except you have to exchange them before withdrawing. I do not think exchanges are more powerful or necessary than what they are, but feel free to put words in my mouth. I was simply pointing out the fact that if centralized exchanges want to trade BTS they will.

B. I understand your intentions, but you can't force everyone to use bitUSD and it will fragment the liquidity of BTS into several markets. No if ands but or or about it.

B2. You don't seem to understand basic economics.

C. I misunderstood.

D. You underestimate the amount of issues and confusion that will arise from this. Someone (likely many someones) that doesn't keep up with the forums may make a huge financial mistake assuming BTS still was equity of Bitshares.

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.

The BTS order book, volume, and liquidity will be split in between ~20 SmartCoins, with a maximum of 1/20th the liquidity in each market. Realistically, you can expect at least around 1/3 of the liquidity if bitUSD, bitCNY, and bitBTC are the only SmartCoins used as on/off ramps. To get the best price on BTS, someone would have to sell/buy a small amount in all 3 (or 20) SmartCoin markets, then sell/buy all of those on centralized exchanges... what a pain in the ass. Those that don't take the time to do that will be taxed.

There will be spreads among the centralized exchanges and decentralized exchange for SmartCoins, effectively taxing the on/off ramps.

If someone was buying BTS (Smartcoins on a centralized exchange -> DEX) then they will need to pay the centralized exchanges' withdrawal fees, increasing the tax of purchasing BTS.

Then you get into the issues about BTS left on centralized exchanges after this goes into effect. Like sharedropping, some exchanges would be happy pass on the new tokens to their owners and some won't. Do you guys really expect exchanges to cooperate and go wayyy out of their way to facilitate the transition? You guys expect them to take the time, not considering the headache this would cause, to work this out for BTS shareholders for free? They then need to go through all the politics and get in the middle of the situation... what price do they sell at on the DEX? what bitAsset should their users get? If there's not much liquidity, do they sell at a discount or sell them slowly over time? The issues go on and on when it comes to exchanges and the transitioning period.

People buy BTS to speculate in BTS, not to use Smartcoins. Smartcoins are seen as being risky derivatives subject to systematic risks. If people are forced to enter what they see as a risky derivative subject to systematic risks, will they decide simply not to enter at all? What if someone doesn't like the risks involved with Smartcoins, but wants to use Bitshares for other reasons? Like: prediction markets, stealth transfers, quick confirmation times, etc.. (surely there are many features to come like MAS etc...) So, because someone doesn't want to use SmartCoins they will not enter the Bitshares ecosystem at all.

Then you also say that workers will get paid in SmartCoins. So, you will be printing BTS to short SmartCoins into existence? Which is similar to my idea for SmartCoin liquidity that I received so much hate from (ironically from tonyk himself). This will ruin the integrity of the peg... it can be manipulated... etc.... (insert all of the arguments you guys brought up against my proposal here) ...

This proposal seems a bit desperate and risky. This adds extra taxes to casual users that don't want to spend the time to do all these extra steps cost efficiently. Taxing casual users and speculators doesn't seem too smart. There are a lot of random issues that pop up with this as well. I am sure I am only scratching the surface here.