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 - abit

Pages: 1 ... 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 [242] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 ... 310
3616
I still prefer my suggestion, your method can be applied to BitAssets.
this is not only a problem of small or big transfer.

if there's one way to help me to pay to a US bank account from China, then maybe 0.5% fee is OK.

but now transfers of BTS are not so useful yet, not so useful as BTC yet. transfer of BTS are mainly deposit/withdraw to/from exchange, user always compare the fee with other cryptocoins, is 30 BTS not expensive for a 50000 BTS transfer? I think everyone feel it is expensive, not because 30 BTS is too much, but because it is much higher than other coins. 

BitAssets is a little different, perhaps it can be used as payment tool for merchants, so higher fee can be accepted. and can give chance to referrers.

for UIA and privated smartcoin, I think the issuer need to decide how to develop the business, if they feel referrers can help, they can share fees with them, otherwise they can define low transfer fee to attract users. issuers need to have this kind of freedom. issuers always need to pay a lot to bootstrap the market but the high fee always plays a role to drive the users away, this is absurd.

referrers can also be issuers to make profits.

This is what I effectively propose:
- you need to pay 6 BTS for transferring 50 BTS (12% fee, instead of the current 60% fee)
- you need to pay 300 BTS for transferring 50,000 BTS (0.6% fee, instead of the current 0.06% fee)
If you say an increase from 0.06% to 0.6% (on bigger transfers) in exchange for a reduction from 60% to 12% (for smaller transfers) is a bad deal for you - indeed, we are not able to reach an agreement.
I feel that charging a (high) percentage fee for transferring BTS (the core ASSET) is very strange. No other coin does this.

3617
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 当前的强平规则
« on: December 21, 2015, 08:43:13 pm »
你说的是这个改动吧?
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/436
就是这个帖子里的第一步,
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19735.msg253383.html

如果这样的话,那是不是现在SQP参数已经没什么用了?
就是这个改了。说实话,改完后变成算法我还没研究过,上面发的帖子就是希望有人研究整理一下 :P

3618
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Questions about the refund400k worker proposal
« on: December 21, 2015, 08:40:40 pm »
I have added a few paragraphs at
docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/worker.html
to clarify a few things about the worker concept in general
Thanks!

Quote
PSEUDO WORKERS

Three types of pseudo workers exist that are not primarily used to for salary.

* Polling Workers
A worker proposal can be used to poll the shareholders for an opinion. Those workers usually have no or very small pay. Additionally, they come with a proposal, recommendation or other topic on which shareholders can publish a binary opinion (pro, or contra).

*Refund Worker
This worker is used to set an approval limit for worker proposals and their payment by simply refunding his payment/salary to the reserve pool. If its amount of daily pay is as large as the daily available funds, and the worker has highest approval among all worker proposals, all funds will be returned to the reserves and no one will be payed. If, however, an other worker proposal has more votes than the refund worker, the proposal gets paid its salary, and the rest is return.

*Burn Worker
This type of worker is similar to the Refund Worker above but burns his pay.
@roadscape Would you like to add some description on http://cryptofresh.com/workers, and add a "type" column for the workers?

Yeah, I can definitely do this. Is "polling worker" defined on the blockchain or do we need to define a threshold? (i.e. e.g. anything below 4000 BTS/day is considered a poll?)
The quoted text I posted above is copied from docs.bitshares.eu, so better discuss with @xeroc :)
Thanks!

3619
Percentage based transfer fees are completely untenable. Every single other coin in the world has a low, fixed fee for any amount sent, bitshares would lose out to the competition and it would be a PR nightmare. Percentage based trade fees on the other hand, are acceptable.
If the fee is charged by IOU/Smart coin issuers then would be OK (in addition to basic network fee). Best if the issuers are able to define several thresholds and % of the fee. Under this condition the committee can control fee of transferring BTS to be low or higher (as demand). Maybe the ones who benefit by the reference program won't agree though.

to me a good idea is like this:
1. for BTS and BitAsset(or at least BTS) transfer charge a minimum fixed fee.(5-10BTS?)
2. for UIA and privated smartcoin issuers can define the transfer fee(percentage, fixed or percentage with a cap).
3. income referrers' income should be mainly from referrals' trading fees, not transfer fees.

high transfer fees is a big psychological hurdle for new comers to join and need to remove asap.
I remember someone else in this forum dislike that "trading fees go to referrals" thing very much. She/He is also an IOU issuer, but in different business.

3620
Hmm.. I checked again and found them at last.
I'm automatically forwarding all mails to that address to another mailbox, however gmail filtered the mails as spam and didn't forward them for me, so they are left in the spam folder of the original address. Annoying. I added a few new filters just now, wish it helps.

Thanks for your help  +5%

3621
The referral program plays a bad role in this scene.. transfer to myself & earn money from the issuers!
That's a good point.
To fix this vulnerability we would need to tie the referrer's income to the issuer's transfer fee income, not the blockchain's income as we have it now.

It would have to work like this:
- for each transfer made on the BitShares network the issuer pays 6 BTS (20% of 30 BTS) to the DAC and this is her/his fixed cost
- if the fee received for this transfer is less than 6 BTS, the issuer has to cover this loss and the referrer gets nothing
(EDIT: we could set the minimum transfer fee to 6 BTS so for payments below 2 bitUSD, which is the break-even point, the network can cover its costs but neither the issuer nor the referrer gets any income or loss - which I think is fine)
- if the fee received for this transfer is more than 6 BTS, the issuer gives 80% of the profit (i.e. the excess above 6 BTS) to the referrer and keeps the remaining 20%.

So if an issuer sets the CER wrongly and makes a loss in the long run, the referrer will get some compensation but it will probably be less than s/he has now.
But on the other hand, if the issuer makes a profit, 80% of it will be shared with the referrer.

EDIT: This will incentivize the referrer to attract users that usually make bigger transfers.
Good idea.
However if 80% of fees goes to referrer without a cap, issuers may have not enough incentives to promote. Perhaps add a cap like this?
* If the fee received for a transfer is more than 36 BTS, the issuer give (36-6)*80%=24BTS to the referrer and keeps the remaining.

3622
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 当前的强平规则
« on: December 21, 2015, 02:13:23 pm »
12月16号以后规则已经修改,强平触发条件变成喂价而不是市场最低买价,请更新一下。

3623
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 为什么你应该选择TCNY而不是BitCNY
« on: December 21, 2015, 01:29:14 pm »
delegate.taolje 已经开始为TCNY喂价每三分钟。
@taoljj 你设的 SQP=1100 大概不太合巨蟹胃口。。
建议改用alt的喂价脚本。准确高效省钱。

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20529.0.html

3624
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Questions about the refund400k worker proposal
« on: December 21, 2015, 01:18:37 pm »
I have added a few paragraphs at
docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/user/worker.html
to clarify a few things about the worker concept in general
Thanks!

Quote
PSEUDO WORKERS

Three types of pseudo workers exist that are not primarily used to for salary.

* Polling Workers
A worker proposal can be used to poll the shareholders for an opinion. Those workers usually have no or very small pay. Additionally, they come with a proposal, recommendation or other topic on which shareholders can publish a binary opinion (pro, or contra).

*Refund Worker
This worker is used to set an approval limit for worker proposals and their payment by simply refunding his payment/salary to the reserve pool. If its amount of daily pay is as large as the daily available funds, and the worker has highest approval among all worker proposals, all funds will be returned to the reserves and no one will be payed. If, however, an other worker proposal has more votes than the refund worker, the proposal gets paid its salary, and the rest is return.

*Burn Worker
This type of worker is similar to the Refund Worker above but burns his pay.
@roadscape Would you like to add some description on http://cryptofresh.com/workers, and add a "type" column for the workers?

3625
I have another idea, possibly better than the tier-based system.
This idea assumes that each asset (be it SmartCoin, private bit-asset, UIA, FBA) is a financially independent business entity run by the asset's issuer and operating within the BitShares DAC.

An asset issuer has her/his costs and incomes:

The costs
The BitShares DAC charges the issuer 30 BTS per transfer. So the issuer has a fixed cost of 30 BTS s/he needs to pay to the DAC for each transfer made by a user.

The income
The transfer fee policy is entirely up to the issuer. S/he can charge the users whatever s/he finds suitable. And this is what we have now - an asset's issuer sets the actual transfer fee by adjusting the CER parameter (Core Exchange Rate).


But what if we went one step further and allowed the transfer fee to have a minimum and maximum value but generally be percentage-based?
This way the only concern of an issuer would be to set the CER in such a way that the average transfer fee is at least 30 BTS (so that the issuer can cover her/his costs in the long run).

E.g. for bitUSD the issuer (i.e. the committee account) could do the following:
- set the minimum transfer fee to $0.01 (~ 3 BTS)
- set the maximum transfer fee to $1 (~ 300 BTS)
- set a percentage-based transfer fee expressed in bitUSD and defined as 1% of the amount being transferred (the BTS value of the transfer is irrelevant, all that counts is the bitUSD amount)

This way the issuer is happy as long as the average transfer fee paid by the users is equal or above $0.1 (~ 30 BTS) because this is the actual cost s/he has to pay to the DAC.
The blockchain itself is happy because it receives a fixed income.
The user is happy because the transfer fee is related to the perceived value of the service received.
The referral program plays a bad role in this scene.. transfer to myself & earn money from the issuers!

3626
51% is a gross overestimate. Try a 13% attack; that's what bitshares is currently vulnerable to.

DPOS was designed without the realisation of  what voter apathy would actually mean for the security of the chain. Instead of being the most decentralised currency, it is currently the least decentralised with one account controlling 100% of the chain.

Time to throw the referral system back to the flames of hell from which it came and implement a collateral bid system where the client automatically votes for the top 101 accounts that put up the most collateral denominated in BTS?

I would just have the system pick the top N forging accounts (by stake) and use those automatically as the delegates.
Any guarantee that top stake holders or collateral holders run witness nodes?
The problem is some of those accounts aren't currently voting.

3627
What are the other files' names?
node_config.jason
So all you've got is a
config.json and a
node_config.json?

Those do NOT contain your wallet and never did. Have you made a backup from the main menu? Or do you happen to have a "brainkey"?

I think I have, when i import the wallet to backup, the message is :the password is wrong, not say the the key or something is not right!
I have a backup folder which include many files.i donot know which one is you need.could you tell me more?
I assume the names of those files include some numbers that indicate the DATE and TIME of its creation ..
Take the most recent json file and try to import with your passphrase .. if its not working take the second most recent one and try again .. and so forth
I think he may have a 'wallets' folder, in this case he only need to copy it to the right place and upgrade to 0.9.3c then export from the menu. There may be a tutorial of doing this somewhere.

3628
He gets to keep whatever tiny earnings there may be as a bonus for writing a successful proposal.

OT: The funny thing is that, that "tiny" earning is like 60% more of what a witness get in an entire month xD
Good point .. but then on the other hand, I provide the witnesses with useful tools and advice and never charged anyone for it ..
It's included in another worker proposal, isn't it?

3629
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Feed Upgrade Announcements
« on: December 20, 2015, 09:36:58 pm »
Is this thread still useful?
If you're using xeroc's script, please update to latest version.

3630
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: witness, please publish a correct feed price
« on: December 20, 2015, 09:35:28 pm »
many witness publish a wrong price

Since you seem to be an authority on the subject, could you please enlighten us witnesses what the right price is?

I can publish a price of 0.0245 CNY/BTS all week if you think that's better.
From my experience, it would be ok to publish a price of CNY and/or TCNY near the latest price of CNY/BTS pair on btc38. If unable to get latest price of that pair, don't publish.

Pages: 1 ... 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 [242] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 ... 310