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.
10% is from BM alone...so I would not really say "widely accepted by the community"No, it's not alone. BM is a proxy, he has many followers.
Anyway, the only thing to do at this point is to hope that this feature will bring lots of new users and adoption for BTS sake...
yep me .. and i've pinged monsterer on skype as well..Good to know you're protecting it. Would be better if you had more BTS at that time.
IMO better me is buying BTC empty then another non known person ..
Will pay them back --> *tbh .. i would desperatly need this "gift" as well...
(and just to say, i'm not having access to ccedk exchange site/ back end etc, if u're thinking the likely candidate is the BTS/EUR market on CCDEK )
This thread is brought to you by : STEALTHWill STEALTH do anything good with this issue?
Good. And dump more.why not? Cause i don't have any BTS to hold .. unfortunately i had to sell them over the past weeks to get some private related challenge solved
Man it sucks when the core devs dont have any stake in the project
tbh yes, it's not the best motivation .. but i will publish a worker proposal soon..
Looks like someone figured out to manipulate the CMC price which is where metaexchange gets our feeds from.
The likely candidate is the BTS/EUR market on CCDEK which is showing a huge price, and probably skewed the weighted average they use.
This has cost us a lot of BTC. If the manipulator is reading this, please consider returning the funds to us, we will issue a full BTS refund and you will be doing the community and METAFEES holders a favour.
BTS/BTC sell 0.0000068 199900 BTS 0.00407796 BTC Dec 24, 13:05:58 (UTC)http://cryptofresh.com/u/metaexchangebtc
BTS/BTC sell 0.00002118 246241.34362 BTS 0.01564617 BTC Dec 24, 12:20:44 (UTC)
BTS/BTC sell 0.00002133 46000 BTS 0.00294354 BTC Dec 24, 12:15:44 (UTC)
heluwa-1 sent 200,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,980 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTSMore? @cass?
heluwa-1 sent 246,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,917 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
metaexchangebtc sent 25,800 BTS to heluwa-1 block 2,057,885 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 25,800 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,834 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
cass sent 46,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,807 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
cass sent 100,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,721 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
cass sent 45,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,698 - 2 hours ago - 33 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 53,900 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,567 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
metaexchangebtc sent 26,460 BTS to heluwa-1 block 2,057,482 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 275,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,057,423 - 2 hours ago - 32 BTS
heluwa-1 sent 245,000 BTS to metaexchangebtc block 2,050,593 - 8 hours ago - 32 BTS
I did not say that we have incentives for the issuers now. So better to add some. For example a profit split between referrer and issuer. However, it's best if referrers and issuers come to discuss this, I'm more a user or a developer.1. I think your proposal in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20709.msg267842.html#msg267842 is lack of incentive/method to UIA issuers which want to earn some money in payment business .What incentives do we have now?
The only one I can think of is this: set CER at such a level that paying the transfer fee in UIA is more expensive than paying in BTS.
"Plasma Wallet API" https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/wiki/Plasma---Wallet-API
1. I think your proposal in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20709.msg267842.html#msg267842 is lack of incentive/method to UIA issuers which want to earn some money in payment business .Bitshares have a long way to go to get competence comparing with Paypal, please do not raise the fee first, but raise the competence first.
Let's assume that 2% is the maximum fee people are willing to tolerate when they transfer money.
The above assumption gives us these conclusions:
- With the current flat transfer fee of 30 BTS, we only support transfers above $5 (~1,500 BTS) and effectively send people away if they want to transfer anything less.
- With the percentage-based solution, we will support transfers above $1 (~300 BTS). So we will cover a very important segment between $1 and $5.
Any major payment system on this planet (including Bitcoin, PayPal, debit cards, bank transfers) supports payments between $1 and $5.
But we don't. We seem to know better.
We want to compete as a payment system, but are happy to ignore the most important customer segment.
In the real world such a product has no chance to survive.
No business (certainly not mine) is going to build a payment system around the current flat fee structure.
This needs to change, it cannot stay this way unless we want to kill the referral program or give up being a payment system.
Percentage-based fee structure is the only solution capable to reconcile those two.
Guys, I'm trying to fix a major flaw.
Why does nobody care?
So, every news story on this just needs to get commented with a link to openledger.info.
Be creative. Just say: "Nice web site at openledger.info" or something.
That helps establish prior existence everywhere.
great idea to use as a community quest that pays out in bitshares and other sponsored/donated tokens.
"For every post you write and link to as proof we will give you 500 bts, 200 Brownies, 300 Obits and.....(fill in the blank).
@Stan, @fuzzy @anyone in this thread...
You guys behave like OL is bitshares... should I say they are not quite the same, very much the opposite is true.
Let's look at the facts.
- The Obits offering is sketchy, to say the least. Profit sharing is fine, details are gold [severely lacking details in this case]. How about anwering some of those question, instead of the never arriving into reality card:
What will happen if not all Obits are sold? What percent of the income will go to the one actually sold? What will happen to the unsold ones?
-basic explanation why the Obits sells are needed in the firs place would be also good... but no one cares to mention why they need 1 mil or so USD, and/ or what they will do with that cash
- Proceed of obits sells are used to simply dump BTS on the exchanges. It might be unavoidable evil if it was clear what the money are needed for, but OL hates explaining facts of life (great words for the departed or the one yet to come, is their strength, it seems)
-If the above is not bad enough, instead of efforts to improve in someway its core business (exchange on the bts chain), the money are used to buy all kind of unrelated and semi-related businesses (casinos, advertising networks, tipping bots etc.)
- The way this 'exchange' is run is also a big suspect... I often think the guy was indeed journalist responsible for the obits section of some newspaper... great media contact and total lack of idea what he is doing on the exchange side (aka core business). What I mean? well, I semi get that bitAssets are a total screw up in their mind so they rather not touch them but run their own UIAs -OPENBTCs and the like... but even those IOUs are totally totally ridiculously done.... you send your btc and you get some OpenBTC... then you have to sell them for enormous premium to get into BTS...things get even more crazy if you want to exit the system... Currently, OL do not care to offer their OPENBTC for anything close to market rate... actually they do not care to offer them AT all for people wanting to take their btc out...some random guy is left to do that for them...and he is asking for 160,000 BTS/BTC with a market rate in the 125,000 range...
So, let's get some money to everyone promoting the above nonsense, shell we?
By transferring the owner to null-account, the original owner fulfilled its promise that any parameter of that asset (e.g. max amount, fee rate and so) won't be changed in the future.There is a special account "null-account" whose permissions are set such that "no one" has control.You mean this account? https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/account/null-account/overview
How did an account with no permissions manage to update the BRICS asset?
That is a very good question. It looks like the answer is that the old issuer "openbank" transferred the asset to "null-account". So the account history shows the transaction listed under both old and new owner. Looks like a bug in how account history is representing the UPDATE_ASSET. If you click on the "time" in the history you can get more details.QuoteUPDATE ASSET
Asset to update BRICS
Issuer openbank
New owner account null-account
Core rate 0.01 BTS/BRICS
New options
root:{} 12 items
max_supply:100000000000000
market_fee_percent:0
max_market_fee:0
issuer_permissions:64
flags:0
core_exchange_rate:{} 2 items
base:{} 2 items
quote:{} 2 items
whitelist_authorities:[] 0 items
blacklist_authorities:[] 0 items
whitelist_markets:[] 0 items
blacklist_markets:[] 0 items
description:BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. As of 2015, the five BRICS countries represent over 3 billion people, or 42% of the world population; as all five members are in the top 25 of the world by population, and four are in the top 10. The five nations have a combined nominal GDP of US$16.039 trillion, equivalent to approximately 20% of the gross world product, and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves. The asset's value is derived from the fully secured and decentralized blockchain with users participating from all around the world. The issuer is restricted from transferring the assets back to itself.
extensions:[] 0 items
Fee 21.52734BTS
no one would like to contact "Huangniu" just to save 1CNY.Right. As I said if there is "high difference".
