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.
This also had a major impact on getting bitcoin's network effect going early on. (Satoshi Dice!)
In fact gambling accounted for up to 50% of all Bitcoin transactions all the way up to the middle of last year. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
You must have a very skewed definition of ponzi.
A certain % of people like to gamble, crypto gives the option to do it with a very small house edge so it's extremely popular.
My reference was to the very recent explosion of ponzi 'gambling' going on in BTC. Dozens popped up in the last month after one giant one made off with thousands in BTC. Sure there is the standard gambling.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
You don't burn the ship you are on until you have the other seaworthy.
Keep bitcoin alive until bitshares can transition.
My concern is this will ultimately be spun badly. We've easily tied an identity to an account that wished to remain private and our devs have assisted in the process because they made a personal judgement that it was justified & because others could have done the same easily.
A win for perceived justice but a defeat for personal privacy is rarely a net gain from a crypto perspective.
To the laymen it's hard to ever promote TITAN as being a bit more private than Bitcoin when detractors can pull this example out of the bag.
From what I've heard from the other Chinese .
1、Victim posted the amount .
2、Chinese remembered the guy bragged about how he bought a lot of BTS these days , and posted a screen grab with it . They go look at it , it's the exact same amount right down to the points .
3、Chinese already know who that guy was before this incident .
Increasing BitAssets in circulation and having daily turnover ticking over is important.
I'd definitely like to explore any ideas that help kickstart BitAssets.
Also I didn't want to subsidise yield but if BitAssets aren't gaining traction I would consider it.
No subsidizing yield! 1x addition in BitAsset circulation does not necessarily lead to 3x addition to the BTS market cap. People could either put their money into BTS or BitAssets and the effect to BTS market cap should be similar. BitAssets are there for people who want to be exposed to the underlying asset's price and nothing more. We shouldn't have to incentivize them to hold it.If a delegate put $2000 towards BitGold yield a month for 3 months we'd probably get a $100 000 BitGold CAP this week. So 3 delegates for 3 months as a promotion for BitBTC, BitSilver and BitGold & you'd have 5 BitAssets in the top 100 on CMC. (It can be justified if it's just a promotion to launch a BitAsset.)
Now if your argument is increasing the BitAsset supply numbers as free advertising on CMC, that is a different story. But I still do not support BTS dilution subsidizing that. Instead people holding large amounts of BTS should just short to themselves in markets where the BitAsset sell orders are not below (in BTS/BitAsset price) the price feed and there are virtually no short sell orders at the price feed. Their exposure to BTS remains the same, they can cover their short at any time, and all they need to do is keep track of the price to not get margin called and to cover their short (and ideally reopen a new short) before 30 days.
It is still "fake" numbers, but hey, it's advertising...
There is no need to subsidize yield. The only thing that is needed is massive buy/sell walls to provide liquidity.
Nubits didnt waste money subsidizing yield, they just put up huge walls, and they got tons of volume from people looking to hedge BTC positions into fiat.
In isolation this news should make BTS rise vs. dollar, fall vs. BTC
I think this already happened over the past few days.
Don't know if it's finished though.
Yeah it could continue, especially if other altcoins get good news.
Looks good. Thanks for keeping us updated.He said: "I don't mean by that that it will necessarily at any stage be compulsory to vote in that way, but I think that the notion that, if it can be established as secure and reliable people should have the option to vote online, will gain ground more and more and more."
He said the 2020 poll "could be the first election in which people have the opportunity... to vote online".
The Digital Democracy Commission also envisages public participation in Commons' debates via an internet forum.
