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 - cube

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 94
196
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES -The shares! Getting rid of any token connections and a ton more
« on: February 11, 2016, 03:44:44 am »
Quote from: tonyk on February 11, 2016, 03:11:33 am
Quote from: cube on February 11, 2016, 02:41:04 am
This idea would work if there are values in the DEX co-op so much so that users want to get in.  Otherwise the effect can be detrimental.  I think we are still building values and liquidity on the blockchain and it is too early to consider such a move.

 :)

Are you saying we are all buying into valueless BTS token right now? [or the very least overpaying for the value that there is in the system]

I am not suggesting bts does not have value but rather it may not have sufficient value to pull users in such that they are happy with their bts being locked up.  I am thinking along the line of more liquid bitasset markets, a more developed prediction market, and a new bond market.

I somehow missed your point on users getting dividends from the bitasset transaction fees.  Well, this is a cool value added to the system given the low interest rate environment all over the world.  The sweet dividends will provide another value to attract users into the co-op.   Your idea may work after all.

197
General Discussion / Re: Amanda from The Daily Decrypt here -- I have a couple questions.
« on: February 11, 2016, 03:32:45 am »
Thanks for creating today's exciting episode.  It is always a pleasure watching your show.

I think this chart will help you understand our system better - https://bitshares.org/technology/stakeholder-approved-project-funding/
Replace the word 'Delegates' with 'Committee'.

All the coins are already created (hence no new coins to be created) and the excess coins are in the reserved pool (fund).  Part of this fund are used to pay witnesses and workers, and the excess fund returned to the pool by the 'refund worker'.  IMO, what we have here is an intelligent crypto that is functioning close to a decentralised organisation.

198
General Discussion / Re: BigChainDB - scalable, 1M writes, petabytes of capacity, priv and open chains
« on: February 11, 2016, 02:45:08 am »
Theirs is 1M writes per second while we are talking about transaction-per-second (includes network and operation) here.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

199
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES -The shares! Getting rid of any token connections and a ton more
« on: February 11, 2016, 02:41:04 am »
This idea would work if there are values in the DEX co-op so much so that users want to get in.  Otherwise the effect can be detrimental.  I think we are still building values and liquidity on the blockchain and it is too early to consider such a move.

200
General Discussion / Re: INPUT NEEDED from Shareholders and Proxies: Potential Security Bug found
« on: February 11, 2016, 02:01:42 am »
Quote from: Thom on February 11, 2016, 12:27:54 am
Why can't things stay exactly as they are now and roll out the change to fix the bug? Why introduce a new account?

Is it that much of a risk? And, how does creating a new account (committee-trade) fix the problem? Wouldn't ALL multisig accounts be impacted by this bug?

If this is as serious a bug as it sounds to be, please be very specific about how you're proposing to fix it. I don't understand the role of the new committee-trade account, or why it doesn't suffer from the same bug.

I think puppies addressed your question here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21218.0.html
and xeroc addressed your concerns here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21348.msg278207.html#msg278207.

201
General Discussion / Re: Political Irrationality
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:21:05 pm »
Quote from: CLains on February 10, 2016, 01:03:58 pm
After my spur of research in the Motivation litterature in 2015, i've gradually drifted toward spirituality. This is because it now seems to me that the most persistent illusion that seems to cause the most havoc is the sense of self or "ego." Our ego is constantly out go get something out of fear or desire, motivations driven by more ancient parts of our brain, which then twist our higher intellect into its service.

Having tried some psychedelics it sometimes happens that people get glimpses of the ego-less state, but then most people quickly fall down again once the effect of the drug wears out. Scientifically the drug pushes activation away from the so-called "default-mode network" which is associated with sense of self and ruminating thoughts revolving around that self. Removed from that DMN, an energy-draining black hole, the activation spreads to the higher cognitive functions of the outer brain and reality is seen without the filter of our ego, our personal lawyer that confabulates all kinds of things to fit a personal narrative and bias.

Some of the spiritual traditions have been warning about the ego, and ego-ism, in this sense, that the DMN gets too much energy and can spiral into destructive, internal loops and depression. However aside from catching glimpses of a state with no ego and ruminating thoughts, the only real way to fight it is to fully understand how it works, and not just intellectually, but using our own awareness to catch the ego in action.

This is called the "direct path" in buddhism, and it goes by way of asking "Who am I?" and being aware as consciousness turns inwardly; one can also ask similar questions, such as "What is here?" or "Where does each thought come from? Where does it go?" or "What feels the feelings?" and other such meditative questions that if we pursue diligently with awareness, honestly and truthfully, we can gradually begin to understand how the mechanisms of defense, fear, jealousy, and embarrassment work in ourselves.

The more we look within to be aware of these things directly from our own experience, we can see how thoughts come, where they come from and perhaps some of the underlying motivations for those thoughts. Then rationality really becomes a matter of deep understanding instead of arguments coming out of nowhere to justify an illusory ego that binds to a given idea or cause out of fear for lack of identity or desire to be something.

 +5%

Humility is much in deficiency.

202
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 10, 2016, 03:08:07 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 01:12:26 pm
I've used the word "rebranding" in this sense: the process of changing a product's purpose or target market .

Use a word loosely may cause confusion and misunderstanding.  If I may ask that you use the word 'repurpose/market retarget' to avoid potential misunderstanding.

Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 01:12:26 pm
If AM/LTM is no longer an attractive choice for non-advanced user, for me that's a substantial change in AM/LTM purpose and target market.

While there is a fee schedule proposed, there is much to be discussed about the structures and incentives of AM and LTM.  We will need input from the referrers.

Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 01:12:26 pm
Quote from: cube on February 06, 2016, 11:11:13 am
I am not xeroc and I cannot know his intent.  But in general, each individual has a preference for a communication channel to achieve a specific purpose.  It could be different channels for different purposes.  Whether it is for a real-time discussion, co-ordination or organisation, I think we should let the individual decide what is most suitable for their own needs.
My assumption is that most of your communication stems from the fact that you differ in opinions and try to convince each other. For me, this part of the process belongs to the forum and you should be exposed to full public scrutiny while arguing your cases. All other communication can be wherever you want.

I know that as a proxy I could access your communication if I wanted.
But I also want the best minds on our forum to be able to comment on your arguments, as it often happens that other people expose things I could have missed myself.

Much of the conversations are about clearing doubts,  gathering different POVs, and getting a deeper understanding of the concerns and points raised in the forum.  These conversations are usually real-time and require near immediate responses.  The telegram or similar instant messaging tool is needed for such purposes.  Anything else is just too slow and inefficient.

Once a proposal from the committee is ready, it is posted to the forum for users' comments, feedbacks and new ideas.

203
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: jakub - better execution / implementation / communication of BM's ideas
« on: February 10, 2016, 01:04:58 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 10, 2016, 12:09:43 pm
I no longer believe logical thinking prevails in this community and I have the impression that bad decisions regarding the referral program are being made, so I'll be much less active here from now on.
I would be willing to defend logic here, provided logical thinking is valued. Sadly, for me BitShares is drifting away from logic.

If you wish to remove your votes from this proxy, this is a good time to do so.

You have been presenting your side of the story well in response to the fee discussion.  xeroc has made a proposal (the fee schedule) in response to the on-going discussion and his proposal has received feedback from commitee members.  This is the beginning of a feedback-review-fine-tuning process detailed in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21342.msg277418.html#msg277418, a process which you have accepted to be 'a fine plan'.  Do let the process take its course from begin to end. Please bear in mind this period is Chinese New Year, a long holiday for the Chinese community and so they are slower or are not responding to the proposal post yet.

Your valuable comments and feedbacks have been and are needed for a robust and comprehensive discussion, without which we will end up with an idea-lacking one-sided story.  You should therefore continue this effort to help shape and grow bitshares into a significant force.

I urge you to reconsider your decision.  I urge you to continue contributing your bright ideas and insightful knowledge to bitshares.

204
General Discussion / INPUT NEEDED from Shareholders and Proxies: Potential Security Bug found
« on: February 10, 2016, 12:04:45 pm »
The  committee is about to transfer the bitassets collected by the fee pool to a separate account called committee-trade to sell them for bts. 

However, we met a potential security bug and require your input to a poll here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21348.msg277523.html#msg277523

A summary of the points:

"This bug does not increase the risk of having these funds stolen while they are being traded.  This would require that of bhuz, bitcube, abit, xeroc, and myself three of us colluded together to steal these funds."

"It does however

1) increase the chance that the account can be stolen. 
2) It effectively removes the ability of the committee to add or remove active authorizations (ie other committee members) to the account.  This instead needs to be done by the existing active authorities until this bug is fixed. "

ps: I am posting a new thread here because of a low turn out so far.  Please let us know your view soon.

205
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 10, 2016, 11:07:44 am »
Quote from: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 06:27:00 am

Well my view on this should be pretty clear by now... I think.

Why the hell should I have any opinion if the charity existing only for sponsoring, each and all of 'the true and only''s financial needs, has fees or not?

In other words until I see the following accounts' funds:
angel, dan, trust, bytemaster, for-dana, stan, angel, localhost

at 80% as collateral... be it at 5x or 7x collateral ratio...

I will perceive any of his actions as money grabs / ideas to get more money.

You are suggesting that BM may have a tendency to recommend more new features/changes in order to gain from worker proposals for those features/changes.  Being a salesperon, one might want to sell you his product (whether you need it or not) and being a worker, one might want to find more work to do.  It does present a possibility of a conflict of interest.

However, even though a salesperson may try to sell you his product, you, as the consumer, have a choice to buy it or not.  And you would need to know if you indeed need the product, how much the product cost and whether it is worth the price tag.   How would you evaluate it?


Quote from: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 06:27:00 am

When his money are not where his mouth is... why the hell should I have opinion on his personal charity foundation.

PS
I think he got it close to being 'dangerously'  correct in his proof of work blog post...the only part left out to fill the puzzle were the most dangerous speculators of all...'the speculative workers'. Speculators who, beside the other effects, control the company in such a way, so it constantly needs them to do more  work speculation.

Because BM and the devs are working hard on bts each day. And because there are many others in the community, who like you, are passionate about bitshares.  Only working together can we make it a success.

206
General Discussion / Re: [poll] bug found Should the committee use the committee-trade account to trade
« on: February 10, 2016, 10:43:03 am »
bump.

To all shareholders, proxies:

Your input is needed.

207
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 10, 2016, 06:10:19 am »
Quote from: clemahieu on February 10, 2016, 05:05:06 am
The main disadvantage of no fees is to people previously receiving fees.  People have proposed a game theory idea that if someone shorted investment in the system they could work to destroy it in order to reap a larger gain.  I largely discount this idea though because someone could short a PoW network and equally work to destroy it.

Could you elaborate more on how the shorting can be done and what are the gains one can get out of it?  How expensive it is to carry out such a shorting move?

208
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 10, 2016, 05:08:02 am »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 10, 2016, 03:35:13 am

There is no extra cost for brokers to do larger trades today... that's why you don't see fee's associated with doing large trade sizes.  In bts there is also nothing different between trading 5bts vs 50,000,000bts.  The work required is the same.  Attempting to charge exorbitant fees for large transactions will be seen as a tax and it will drive traders away.  Their needs to be a ceiling on trading fee's if % based fees are implemented.  I have said before though that traders do not care if the fee is 1 cent or 1 dollar, that amount is minuscule and won't effect demand.  The problem arises when the fees start approach the triple digit mark for large trades and the double digit mark for smaller ones.

To Cubes question:  I could put a trade on in forex for 100 lots ($10,000 per lot = $1million) and not be charged any commision.  I would pay a decent amount for the spread (probably around $3000), but still no fee or maybe a very small commission.  I could also do this with only $50K as collateral, but lending is a story for another day.

Long story short:  Percentage based fee's may be helpful for low volume traders, but they are the death of the liquidity providers we desperately need.  A fee cap is absolutely essential.

I see you are referring to forex trading while I was talking about stock trading.

It makes sense for forex traders who typically trade more than $100,000 USD, not to mind a 1USD fee.  1USD for a 100K trade is after all a 0.001% fee.  I do not think they would not mind a 1USD fee if the trade is say $10.

I think it is important that we identify which market bts should go after - the forex trading market, the stock market or the crypto-trading market.  These markets have different attributes and fee structures.

209
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:36:12 am »
Quote from: Akado on February 10, 2016, 02:17:40 am
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on February 10, 2016, 02:09:16 am
Quote from: EstefanTT on February 09, 2016, 08:43:48 pm
I can't wait to read somewhere on the net in the next weeks/month our first article explaining how we manage to make the first real time blockchain free of transaction fees ... it will change our (greedy) image A LOT and

maybe you will win back the spirited support of some currently disgusted community members

If @tonyk is satisfied, we can all be sure it's clearly a good idea :P

Zero-Fee (rate limited) is a cool exciting idea!

I am all for free lunches.   Who would not like free lunches?  I have seen the advantages of it being stated.  I would like to see the disadvantages (if any) being discussed too.  And what is the cost for implementing it.  I like to have tonky's view on it too.


210
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 10, 2016, 02:26:08 am »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 09, 2016, 07:18:42 pm
I can assure you forex, stock, option, futures traders do take fee's seriously... but only if the fee's are exorbant.

They will not care if a fee is 1 cent or $1.  What they will care about is when they see they could execute a $100,000 trade on ETrade and pay $7 in commissions, but then try to do that same trade in bitshares and pay $100.  Then imagine if people start using leverage with bond market... multiply their costs by 10.

If you are going to do the %based fee's, there needs to be a ceiling involved.  My back of the napkin sweetspot would be %based fee's up to $20... $20 is half the price that many ECN brokers charge to do larger forex orders.

Is that what ETrade charge for a $100K trade?  Wow, that is low. 

I know stock exchanges' brokers go by a percentage of trade for commission.  The percent can go lower if the volume gets high enough.  There is no commission cap that I know of.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 94

Page created in 0.198 seconds with 23 queries.