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 - pendragon3

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
91
General Discussion / Re: Price feeds for Gold, Siver, Euro, Pound, Oil, Litecoin, Peso, Franc, etc.
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:37:15 am »
Quote from: Markus on September 14, 2014, 10:25:21 pm
The price Gold and Silver are supposed to track is definitely one ounce of physical metal, not any ETF.

I would prefer calling them BitXAU and BitXAG anyway - that way there is no language bias applied.


Right, they shouldn't be named BitGLD and BitSLV. Those names would cause too much confusion among people familiar with the ETFs.

92
General Discussion / Re: Price feeds for Gold, Siver, Euro, Pound, Oil, Litecoin, Peso, Franc, etc.
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:55:44 pm »
Has there been any discussion yet about whether it's better to have BitGLD and BitSLV or BitGold and BitSilver? The reason I ask is because "GLD" is the SPDR gold shares ETF and "SLV" refers to the iShares silver trust ETF. Obviously, the ETF prices are quite different from the physical metal prices. For example, the price of gold is about $1,250 per ounce, while the price of GLD is about $118.38 per share.

Quite a few precious metals "experts" have argued that the paper asset ETFs GLD and SLV do not provide as much security as the physical metals because (1) the ETFs may not be backed by as much physical bullion as they advertise; and (2) in a real economic/financial catastrophe, the paper prices could decouple from the physical prices and become basically worthless.

So, should the new Bitassets aim to track ETF per-share prices (BitGLD and BitSLV), or should they track per-ounce physical prices (BitGold and BitSilver) instead? It could be argued that the latter would be safer and more useful for those seeking to hedge against a real monetary or financial crisis.

93
Technical Support / Re: Problem buying BitUSD: "insufficient funds"
« on: September 14, 2014, 08:25:08 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on September 14, 2014, 06:05:28 pm
Quote from: pendragon3 on September 13, 2014, 08:58:43 pm
In 0.4.14 windows GUI version, I tried buying a small amount of BitUSD, and the BTSX balance is certainly more than enough for the purchase. However, the order doesn't go through.

I get the following message: "Order failed: insufficient funds (200101)". What could be causing this?

Can you run the transfer/order from the console and give me the full exception trace?



PM sent.

94
Technical Support / Problem buying BitUSD: "insufficient funds"
« on: September 13, 2014, 08:58:43 pm »
In 0.4.14 windows GUI version, I tried buying a small amount of BitUSD, and the BTSX balance is certainly more than enough for the purchase. However, the order doesn't go through.

I get the following message: "Order failed: insufficient funds (200101)". What could be causing this?

95
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Any latest information?
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:57:12 am »
Quote from: gamey on September 10, 2014, 08:54:51 pm

Money has to come from somewhere.  If people want the thing to be a success then the money needs to be taken out of btsx fund. 

To be a success and appeal to the young demographic then this thing really needs to be slick.  So there needs to be software close to iTunes or we need to luck across the next Justin Bieber.  I dunno.. How do all these things go together ?  Development is not cheap.  It requires expensive labor.  It is also not easy.  There are great differences in the abilities of developers, it can be easy to hire a dud which is only revealed after a few weeks of training etc.

Yes. To compete successfully against the likes of iTunes, Amazon, and whatever other competitors emerge from the woodwork, Bitshares Music/PeerTracks is going to need every advantage they can get, including full support of the community.

Let's hope they come to their senses and see the wisdom of a higher allocation for PTS & AGS, e.g, at least 15-20% (which would likely translate into a larger, more successful presale anyways).

96
Technical Support / Margin orders displayed incorrectly 0.4.12
« on: September 06, 2014, 05:10:45 pm »
I installed 0.4.12 and it seems that some of my margin orders are displayed incorrectly.

For example, one of the orders has a much smaller BitUSD cost and collateral amount than it should (the numbers look fine when I start the wallet, but after a short while they refresh and just duplicate erroneously those of a different margin order that I have).

Also, a short transaction of mine that filled earlier is missing entirely from the list of margin orders (it was definitely not removed by a margin call or paid off).

Are these known issues? Has anyone else had these problems?

97
General Discussion / Re: Interest on BitUSD - A Proposal for Review
« on: September 06, 2014, 03:50:30 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 06, 2014, 03:41:06 pm
Quote
if traditional interest rates rise to 10%, 15%, 20%?

I doubt that anyone of us will still be alive when this day come...That's why we invest in cryptos...lol..


Don't be too sure... the Fed has pretty much quintupled (5x) the US monetary base since 2008. What happens when velocity picks up?

98
General Discussion / Re: Interest on BitUSD - A Proposal for Review
« on: September 06, 2014, 03:31:33 pm »
Yes, simple is a must. If savers cannot transparently see past average interest rates and how much they have earned over the past month, year, and so on, they won't be very interested. After all, it's the savers this would appeal to, not the traders. But isn't the vision for the network that the peg is mainly supported through trading and "arbitrage" activity, not because of a coincidental balance between saver and shorting demand? So, this might not boost BitUSD demand as much in the short term as one might hope. In the longer term, traders will be doing most of the work supporting the peg within tight ranges, so here again the savers are less important in maintaining the peg.

I think if an interest program is implemented, it should be in the main BitUSD, not a separate bitasset. A bitUSD5 would kill off demand for the main BitUSD asset, making it even harder to maintain the peg.

I also worry that even paying interest on the main BitUSD could change people's perception somehow. This changes the entire dynamic. With an interest program, BitUSD would seem less like a twin to the USD and make it harder to eventually maintain a really tight peg.

Finally, consider what would happen if, someday in the future, inflation goes high (which forces nominal interest rates to rise--they will need to be above inflation in equilibrium). Would interest on BitUSD still be competitive if traditional interest rates rise to 10%, 15%, 20%?

Basically what I'm saying is that paying interest seems like only an indirect, blunt way to artificially stimulate demand for BitUSD. It could work in the short term, but it certainly has some drawbacks and could have a weaker-than-expected effect on demand BitUSD since it appeals to savers, not traders. It also could have a number of unintended consequences and weaken the psychological basis for a tight peg.


99
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Any latest information?
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:47:31 am »
Quote from: cob on September 04, 2014, 09:32:24 pm
Think of it this way.
Would you rather have 20% of a crapcoin or 10% of a billion dollar DAC?

In order for this to be a serious project we have to pay for QUALITY developers, expert legal counsel and of course, marketing. The Pre-Sale is what opens up the gates to the big boy world.

Sure we can just launch a DAC with NONE of that and give it all to you, here you go, take 90% of the worthless fork!

I guarantee you that with the funds amassed by the pre-sale, we will be in a position to launch a blockchain that actually has value.

So the options are not 10% of gold or 20% of gold. where we decided to give as little as possible.
The real world options are:
Do we give 20% of a valueless, plain ol altcoin or do we use 10% to make the final 10% into gold?

These are the real world options, take your pic.

Does this make sense?


I hear you and agree that it's critical to have a successful fundraising.

But something to consider is whether allocating 10% only to PTS/AGS would really maximize the pre-sale. I think the people most likely to participate as donors/investors and to drum up support for the fundraising are the PTS and AGS holders themselves. These early donors/investors are the ones who best understand the potential of this music DAC, who are familiar with the BitShares approach, and who are proven donors.

In my view, going from an earlier stated 25% to 10% could piss off some PTS and AGS holders and maybe lead to lower funding than you could get by keeping them reasonably happy. For example, 15% for each would be far better than 10% (50% higher amount), but it  would only reduce the rest of the allocation from 80% to 70%. Is that extra 10% really going to make a big difference for the pre-sale? I can see how losing the goodwill of PTS, AGS holders could easly cost more than 10% of fundraising.




100
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Any latest information?
« on: September 04, 2014, 03:56:52 pm »
Quote from: xeroc on September 04, 2014, 03:41:31 pm
Quote from: pendragon3 on September 04, 2014, 03:25:31 pm
Any chance you guys will reconsider the allocation to PTS and AGS to be 15% or 20%? Please? I think 10% wouldn't really be fair and will disappoint a lot of people. Many people donated and invested thinking that Bitshares Music would be one of the most important core Invictus DACs, like Bitsharss DNS which is giving at least 20% to each, probably significantly more depending on dilution.
... once again ... invictus simply does not have a product besides the toolkit ... they do not have a 'core DAC' ... DACs are launched by independent startups

But a few DACs are "core" in the sense that since virtually the beginning they were touted prominently and featured by 3I in newsletters to donors, videos, and such.

These four or five DACs were the initial selling point for AGS and PTS ones that got foundational design help and publicity from devs and the community. I don't think they are in the same category as a newer third-party DAC that simply borrows the BitShares toolkit software.

101
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Any latest information?
« on: September 04, 2014, 03:25:31 pm »
Quote from: cob on September 04, 2014, 01:58:22 pm
Yes the plan changed. About 10 times. Each time coming out better with even more potential.

Zenith coin has nothing to do with this project.

We are only going to be accepting Bitcoin for the Pre-sale for now. Simple and straight forward AGS style method with a touch of Ethereum's way.

Hi cob

Any chance you guys will reconsider the allocation to PTS and AGS to be 15% or 20%? Please? I think 10% wouldn't really be fair and will disappoint a lot of people. Many people donated and invested thinking that Bitshares Music would be one of the most important core Invictus DACs, like Bitsharss DNS which is giving at least 20% to each, probably significantly more depending on dilution.

102
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: Any latest information?
« on: September 04, 2014, 03:16:19 pm »
Quote from: delulo on September 04, 2014, 11:10:51 am
Quote from: cob on September 04, 2014, 02:56:27 am
We are!

The name will be announced in a few days.

With the landing page where you can get all the info you can read ^^

Also the white paper yes!

There is going to be a Pre-Sale announced soon too. For those that want to throw some BTC our way for dev funding and attorney fees.

10% of the DAC will still go to PTS holders of course. 10% to AGS too. Some is used to fund the project and establish partnerships, etc. And the rest is being distributed through the pre-sale. News coming soon! Within a week guys. Bear with us just another couple of days haha

Plan changed?

Quote from: Stan on April 09, 2014, 08:45:39 pm
Eddie and cob announced their groundbreaking entry into the Bitshares Music family in New York today

We will have video of their presentation for you in a day or three.

He split his shares with Bitshares  50/50 which gets you

25% PTS
25% AGS

The other half honors the coin he had planned to use before meeting us in Texas - Zenithcoin


Hopefully cob meant at least 10% for AGS and PTS. Otherwise that's not good for initial donors and stakeholders  :(

103
General Discussion / Re: Giving out $1.337 bitUSD / sign up to support Thunderclap campaign
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:49:39 am »
2 days left, need 9 more people. Are we gonna make it?

Why not post a plea for help in the delegates' thread?

104
General Discussion / BitBTC order matching not working?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:35:04 pm »
So I tried placing an order to short BitBTC. My order shows up on the book, but it hasn't filled for quite some time.

Meanwhile, I see other short and bid orders filled at higher prices and lower quantities than my order.

What explains this? Is the BitBTC order matching broken somehow?

105
General Discussion / What's next?
« on: August 26, 2014, 02:05:54 pm »
It has been an Interesting launch. It seems the most important thing right now is to increase liquidity.

I hope the team is hard at work on improving the client. The trading functionality and user experience could be better. Debugging and improving the GUI quickly is important.

Maybe start a bug bounty thread or email? Why not learn from Ripple's client, or centralized exchanges' user interfaces?

Also, make registration easier so more people can actually use the trading functions.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

Page created in 0.193 seconds with 23 queries.