I dont think we need a demo and a testnet .. we can just have relaxed hardfork rules in the testnet and have it very centralized ..
we can even create the usual bitassets and have the price feed be the last traded price within the dex instead of using an external proce (which wouldnt exist anyway) .. thatway .. people can even experiment with margin calls etc..

I don't think so.
A demo network should be somehow stable, for (new) users who want to know what BitShares is and/or what features are already available.
A test network can change frequently, for new feature developments, for the one who want to experience (untested) new features.

My 2 cents..

Quote from: monsterer on January 17, 2016, 10:41:36 pm

Quote from: emailtooaj on January 17, 2016, 09:51:50 pm

I can see where @monsterer is coming from and trying to move more activity into the DeX and he's right. If any exchanges considering moving their books onto the DeX then this will be a continuous stumbling block. Let me throw out a hypothetical question... Would it make sense to create an account id for exchanges only,  that pays a higher account creation fee and once opened the exchange wallet then pays a fair, reoccurring fee (every 28 days or so) in lieu of DeX order fees? 
Monsterer, do you think you'd consider this a fair trade off for Metaexchange and possibly any other interested exchanges?  @devs, could this be easily implemented?

It might be good for that case, but it does not solve the problem which fees were designed to solve in the first place: spam. You need some way to prevent spam transactions, which is why I suggested users be forced to submit a PoW in lieu of a fee.

In regards to the spam;
Adding PoW in lieu of a fee may be an unnecessary approach, adding unneeded complexity and barrier to entry for future prospects? 
Though I'm not a coder... adding PoW to the mix may be easy-peasy and a trivial task to implement,  but I'm not a person in position to comment on that.
I'll say this... if an exchange is serious enough about integrating into BitShares,  it may turn them off needing a PoW mechanism/element to offset a fee charge, just so they can go about doing business with Bitshares.  Even if the PoW was simple enough, it may create a "mental" barrier and viewed as an extra step to implement on their end and may wane their interest and look elsewhere.

Since my last post, I was thinking more about an "Exchange" only account within Bitshares and think it could be an eloquent approach to this issue?
One way to look at this is if an Exchange wallet was to get implemented, then we could "shift" the responsibility of spamming concerns (more or less) to the integrated Exchanges and their users.
The Exchange would obviously be using their own Front End and thus,  should have a more "intimate" relationship with their clients and their clients trading habits.
 If one of their clients was abusing/spamming the network via their interface, then they (the exchange) has the right to either "charge" their clients account and/or boot them off the site and/or freeze their trading activity.

In my opinion there's a few ways to go about this (assuming the "exchange account" in BTS was implemented (also I'm just throwing out the idea, not specific numbers for this to work))...

1) Charge a much higher upfront "Lifetime" or "Account Creation" fee and have lower one price reoccurring "monthly" fee, but if they exceed... idk... 15k tx/mo (?) then their charged an overage fee
or
2) Still have a high (but much lower than option 1) account creation fee and then charge a tiered "data" plan that they select. Something to the effect of...
*tier one* up to 10k tx/mo (or 30.4 days) = 50,000 BTS/mo
*tier two* 10k up to 30k tx/mo (or 30.4 days) = 75,000 BTS/mo
*tier three* etc etc and so on
or
3) A combination of 1) and 2)

With this type of setup,  exchanges will be more inclined to stay active and monitor for any client trading abuse on their end so they won't get charged overage fees by the BitShares system... because we make those overage fees VERY steep in cost!!! 
We could also require (upon account creation) a deposit that gets locked and vested for 1yr and use that as back up collateral if an exchange goes over the TX limit's and their account doesn't have the balance needed to draw the fee from.

So again, IMO with this type of approach (in some fashion) would be an ideal solution to the DeX trading fee debate and allow "responsible" Exchanges to easily use BitShares as their back end trading engine.

Just a thought  and trying to add to the conversation.

This is like what I said at the bottom of page 2: implement some kind of rate capping.

How to do the capping depends on how the exchange operates.

1) if the exchange maintain a database and map the user/trading data to Dex, users can only trade with a client program provided by the exchange, then the exchange can monitor and control the users' behavior, implement some capping in their client as @emailtooaj suggested.

2) if the exchange has their users registered on Dex directly (imo this is the correct way), the exchange is unable to control the users' actions/behaviors. In this case, it's not practicable to rely on the exchange when spam attack occurs, the capping should be done on the Dex side and limit/charge the user directly.

Quote from: xeroc on January 17, 2016, 07:02:42 pm

Proposal from @clayop:

Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs

My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..

@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?

In order to decentralise metaexchange on the bitshares chain, I would need 0 fees (except for order fill). That's the only real way, otherwise I would have to pay all the transaction fees from metaexchange's profits, which could be exploited quite easily.

Even if no changes in the trading fee, metaexchange will have got benefits already if migrate to DEX, won't it?
With current mode, user send fund to metaexchange, then metaexchange send fund back to user, total cost is 30BTS*2.
If migrated to DEX, user place an order and get it filled with a cost of 10BTS*2. If metaexchange pays it, the cost is still lower than current one. If metaexchange doesn't pay it, the cost on user is also less.

Quote from: abit on January 17, 2016, 06:02:48 pm

Quote from: btswildpig on January 17, 2016, 05:57:20 pm

Quote from: xeroc on January 17, 2016, 05:33:38 pm

Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?

IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it

charge UIA creation , etc for a higher fee .
one sale of UIA beats fee from 1000 traders .

Basically I agree with this idea.
The system needs fees. If the fees don't come from users, then it should come from the business partners.
Instead of increasing UIA creation fee, I'd rather like to add some kind of fees for using the UIA if possible. For example, an issuer pay 10000 BTS in advance, so the users can make transfers of that UIA for free for a month or so.

//Edit:
Business partners want their users to have better experience of their product, but it's not free, they need to pay for it. Imo it's a win-win.

the point is, this would not prefent spaming, so how does we prefent this?

if we find a solution for this, we can lower the placing fees and just redirect some fees from the UIA fees to the bitshares network.

Use some kind of rate capping. For example, every account is free to do 20 transactions per day. A "premium" user of that UIA is able to do more free transactions per day.
True it will be complicated somehow. So we need developers.

Quote from: abit on January 17, 2016, 05:54:34 pm

Quote from: Shentist on January 17, 2016, 05:51:35 pm

so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.

but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?

could we combine it with POS, if you have x amount on your account you can do x orderplacings for free x seconds/minutes or so?

lets say i hold 1.000.000 BTS and i place a buy order for 1 BTC , because i hold 1m BTS i have x orders for free X amount of time.

or

we create something like a discount. if you have filled orders you get a token/UIA, if you have this token your placing an order is free and
the token will automatically removed from your account. should be already possible i think.

just some random ideas.

The token is now BTS.

If placing order fee is 1 BTS, is it good for you?

I'm OK with current order placing fees, since it's refunded when order got cancelled. However I'm not a trader.

I'd rather like a fee pre-paid by the UIA issuer, so the users of the UIA can freely use something for example transferring or placing orders.

Possible to make an AMI (Amazon Machine Image) of ubuntu with a witness_node pre-installed, so anyone who want to run witness_node on AWS can just clone it and start? Or on any other VPS providers? Better if there is a web-console to start/stop/change settings and etc.

Need to trust the image creator though.

Quote from: alt on January 08, 2016, 05:54:05 am

sell BTS account

what do you mean by that ?

He meant sell the account name to others. It's possible just like domain names.