Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on October 09, 2018, 07:03:01 am

Quote from: Thom on October 09, 2018, 04:10:07 am

I intended to, and tried using a BROWNIE.PTS instead of a WLS since I didn't have one. I couldn't locate a market on the DEX for WLS to get one either.

How / where to get the 1 WLS required to register a new account?

whaleshares/bts market

whaleshare/bts market in DEX (remove the `s`)
https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/market/BTS_WHALESHARE

Trying to locate it in light wallet.

I went to Exchange-> Find markets-> put 'WLS' in as asset name, but no data. Then I used WHALESHARE as the name and now I see the data and several other names for whale assets.

Thanks abit.

Quote from: bitcrab on October 07, 2018, 01:45:22 pm

Quote from: abit on October 07, 2018, 10:53:41 am

Define "hurt"? Debt positions are attached with responsibilities, we can't deny it.

<exactly Abit - Thom comment>

when the debt position is in sufficient collateral, a smartcoin holder can forcibly buy the collateral, this is definitely hurting.

Define "sufficient collateral"? Almost all the time all debt positions have more collateral than debt, from this perspective, they should never be "hurt" in terms of margin calls or forced settlements? Apparently this is not our rule.

Agreed, don't see the hurt either. Not sure why you say "Apparently this is not our rule."

If you mean 175% is sufficient, I disagree. 175% perhaps is sufficient sometimes, however, when a smartcoin is oversupplied, IMHO that means 175% is NOT sufficient; when under-supplied, I'd say 175% is too high.

So, if we adjust MCR dynamically and keep feed price unchanged, for debt position holders, it's not always "safe" to keep their positions if they have only 175% collateral ratio or even 200%.

Also exactly right.

This what is called "responsibility" of debt position owners according to the initial design of BTS

Maintaining & balancing the collateral ratio in relation to the market volatility and risk tolerance of the investor, THAT is the responsibility inherent in the design.  Thus it is up to each investor what level of risk of being margin s/he is willing to take. EACH trader is in full control of the level of risk they will take.

You do raise a valid point tho when you say there is little capital to increase collateral with in a bear trend. I agree, but that's not an argument against the need to maintain at least 100% collateral at all times to stay truly "safe". Safety is a myth in a highly volatile market. I also believe it's a bad practice to subsidize poor trades, unless you want more of them.

Quote from: Thom on October 02, 2018, 04:04:00 pm

BitShares has been around and around trying to come up with a SmartCoin algorithm that strikes that balance but I fear due to differences in economic principles there will always be a strong tension by one camp or another to change the rules to their advantage. Remember, before the promise of redeem-ability through forced settlement people were creating sock puppet accounts and draining the reserve pool. That problem is no more.

Interesting, I wasn't here back then. Why did people have to make sock accounts to get their collateral back? Were SmartCoins backed by the reserve pool?

It was dubbed "yield harvesting". I just couldn't think of the name for it.

We can say the promises were made by BM. Then BM left. We have to make our own decisions.

It wasn't ONLY BM, we ALL were there, it was a community consensus we all (including you) have been living with for at least 3 years, so it is totally inappropriate to blame the redeem-ability or collateral requirements on BM alone.

According to the analysis I made earlier in this thread (please read), some of the promises were too heavy, we're unable to keep all of them. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want the 10M bitUSD in your wallet be fully backed, but in case when BTS market cap dropped to below 10M, they're simply unable to be fully backed if you, as a holder, do nothing other than hold.

Changing strategy is hard, but when it's needed, we have to do so, otherwise there is no future. I'm well aware of the risks.

I am not sure you do understand the risks. If you do, you're willing to risk others funds in this haphazardly conducted experiment. I do agree if both bears and bulls are promised they can't loose it's a problem. However to some degree that is indeed the situation. One or the other is going to complain there is no balance or it is skewed and needs to be "adjusted". I agree with you in your last sentence, except "they're simply unable to be fully backed if you, as a holder, do nothing other than hold." People that use leverage to trade with are used to the broken, under collateralized mainstream system and thus object to BitShares policies. Sorry, when you come to BitShares it's different for reasons, mostly the safety of funds, and you must maintain your collateral or you will be margin called. We don't need any changes that weaken investors collateral or allows fractional reserves, incentivizes accumulation of debt or skews the market via collusion or manipulation.

If course if a leveraged trader refuses to manage his collateral, well, should know the risks and not do that. It's the trader's responsibility to know the rules of the platform / game. If s/he fails to do so and the market accelerates its downward trend, the loss is on his/her back. It's not proper to blame the ecosystem for not being a mainstream institution. It wasn't intended or designed to be the same. Why can't people understand that? Do they want to repeat the mistakes all over again anew?

Witnesses are paid positions, meant to contribute. Witnesses (read: including you) are the nearest to price data because they produce price feeds, and data is all over there, just need some time/efforts to collect them and summarize and show them to people who asks. Keep asking others to report the result/findings IMHO is not very good behavior.

Why is asking not good behavior? Why is providing a coherent report / summary being avoided so much? Why (as Thul3 comprehensively asked) are the BSIP42 advocates using such coercion and force to change the ecosystem rather than playing by the consensus rules OR make a solid case why they need to be changed that is persuasive enough to gain the consensus sought? Could it possibly be b/c our principles are not aligned? I have to ask, since you said nothing to me about them. Principles are important, do you disagree with that?

If want the process to be more methodical and systematic, please propose the methods and see whether others will follow or convince them. There is a 30+page thread (and other threads) in Chinese forum shows how the algorithm is evolving: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.0 , a translator would help.

Actually some "findings" were posted, perhaps not in your favorite format:
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26966.msg322398#msg322398
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27170.msg322352#msg322352
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.msg322288#msg322288
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322834#msg322834

Yes, a translator would help. The language barrier is tough for most of us. However, it isn't the place for BSIP42 opponents to fix the BSIP, it's for the authors of it to make their case with facts and data, and make sure that info is made available widely. The links you provided don't do that IMO. It's far from the data and analysis a financial system needs to make a quality engineering decision. The billions of funds invested deserve much better.

About redeem-ability:

I already acknowledged if inappropriate promises are made to 2 contrary positions it's a problem. You have a different take on how to resolve it than I do. You want promise A to be forgotten and I want promise B to be forgotten or reduced. Both of us want more liquidity, we're just not sure how to get it without upsetting someone.

I also think it's quite interesting that there is almost no talk about why things are the way they are now, no consideration of history. Your reference to BM wasn't analysis to facts to say why his reasoning was [all] wrong, you just used him as a scape goat. I'm not saying he was right, but you didn't show where his reasoning is wrong. WHY is an extremely important question. You may be annoyed by it, but it is essential to have the freedom to ask it and explore alternatives.

If there is indeed an "impossible trinity" of promises to community, it needs to be fixed. The question is which leg of the trinity needs to go? Why not add a 4th leg (as discussed at BitFest to publish an additional adjustment value to apply to market feeds)? We all know how unstable 3 legged chairs are.

I advocate for a position that provides the best balance between bears and bulls. I favor Austrian economic principles over the debt based Keynsian model that uses oligarchs to centrally "manage" an economy which has over a century of demonstrating how poorly that model works to help people live freely.

@Jerry, how about the both of us come to a compromise in that we allow the witnesses
to decide how to go forward and whether or not they want to run BSIP42 on bitUSD, or
not. I think, as a proxy, we shouldn't threaten them with the removal of our votes
just because they support(or not support) a BSIP that actually gives the freedom of
choice to them (the witnesses). With that said, I will retract my statement of removing
votes from BSIP2-bitUSD witnesses and would like to keep rational and
constructive discussion like this one going.

There doesn't seem to be a very "fair" perspective on both sides.

The entire design of SmartCoins is at stake here, so we need to get this right. There are aspects of the design that favor one group over another, mainly it favors those going long over shorters. I can certainly understand why traders and those shorting the market want to alter the design, so it gives them an advantage! No mystery there.

I also recognize there is no liquidity without shorters to create the botAssets, so some type of true balance is needed to be discovered.

I will always oppose changes that allow collateral to drop below 100% which risks the collateral of those who maintain it, and which encourages debt building. Debt is what is destroying the world but unfortunately there are too many irresponsible people who think *they* won't get burned when the collapse finally arrives. There are willing to allow their positions to become under collateralized. Too many want a subsidy to from the public trough to pay their fees and don't care about the long term state of the trough and whether it will be there tomorrow.

Verbaltech2 was one of the first "casualties" as Bitcrab and Abit removed their votes in support of my witness when I questioned them about BSIP42. Better than force witnesses to conform to an experimental algorithm would be to ask them to stop feeding the [CNY] price during the experimentation if they are uncertain about the best way to proceed. That would be a less dictatorial, heavy handed way to encourage consensus rather than divide the community.

I like how you phrased your position change xeroc, and appealed to the eastern community not to penalize witnesses and coerce them into supporting BSIP42 prior to seeing info about what was learned from CNY experimentation (not just end result of better peg but how the BSIP42 algorithm achieves that; what tradeoffs were made? (Don't just say, "here use this it works", instead respect us a peers and persuade us with facts and data, don't threaten us when we ask questions or want to understand). Abit says he's not so great at ELI5, but the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. It's sad to see how quickly people take to voilence when they can't use words effectively.

Xeroc said that as a counter position to proxies pulling their votes for witnesses that want to see the evidence before they alter what they've been doing for the last 3 years.

The nature of SmartCoins is what is at issue here. We need to define a balance between safety and liquidity. It is difficult b/c we don't have a consensus on economic principles. Many don't see the risks involved with debt. Many don't believe they need any collateral b/c they have  an overly high view of their trading skills and they see it as wasted capital tied up, not as what makes the financial system stable and safe for all.

BitShares has been around and around trying to come up with a SmartCoin algorithm that strikes that balance but I fear due to differences in economic principles there will always be a strong tension by one camp or another to change the rules to their advantage. Remember, before the promise of redeem-ability through forced settlement people were creating sock puppet accounts and draining the reserve pool. That problem is no more.

The principle of sufficient collateral is one of the major characteristics of BitShares SmartCoins that separate them from over-leveraged mainstream financial derivative products. You can't have a house of cards debt bubble if your bets are backed by adequate collateral. Reducing collateral requirements may appease shorters and improve liquidity, but at the expense of ecosystem and investor safety.

I call BS on this as well. Seems the proxies are in full control and aren't interested in what community or witnesses have to say.

They aren't listening to us Thul3

@abit: How typical of those with claims and shallow evidence to avoid dealing with the substance of a matter and use excuses like "I don't have time". Yet you have time to write me a DM and lengthy posts here to attack my abilities. Sounds rather hypocritical of you.

Your assessment of my attitude concerning the importance of price feeds and timeliness of security patches is wrong, totally. It is merely your emotional response to someone that doesn't bow down to you or disagrees with you. You couldn't have demonstrated that any better than you did when you took it upon yourself to ban me from the witness channel.

And I guess I'm wasting my time with you as well, if you insist on focusing on one and only one aspect of witness duties and trying to make a claim an occasional mistake is adequate evidence I am not a capable witness. You have to do much better to discredit 3+ years as a witness that has run at least 4 nodes since graphene was launched. If you are so concerned about the quality of witnesses why don't you help set standards so their skills can be assessed objectively? You don't b/c that isn't what you're really concerned about, despite all your claims towards others. No, it's very clear you only care about feeds of CNY, not about metrics to objectively measure things, not about decentralization of nodes, not about documentation to improve adoption, not about feed frequency, not about tools like RoelandP's Witness Log that displays objective feed data for all witnesses. You have a very narrow focus which would be just fine if you didn't try to force others to conform to it to the exclusion of other important things.

I do understand very well the importance of price feeds, but apparently you, the author of bsip42 do not and are thus willing to foist it upon this ecosystem without any guidelines or clear, measurable objectives or timeframes to achieve them. None of the questions Thul3 or I asked about reports, timeframe to completion etc have been addressed. Why not? Some of them should have been in the bsip.

All that you've shown everyone with your posts here is how quickly you jump to conclusions, how dictatorial and demanding you are and how you fail to be as concerned about the well being of the BitShares ecosystem as you should be as a core dev. I sure hope the other devs are in the habit of doing code reviews to keep you in check, as your attitude is really scary, and not conducive to an open project where all ideas should be encouraged not censored as you did.

I gather from reading Telegram that the devs at the Bitfest conference have discussed Bsip42 and have come up with another approach that preserves the former market feed price but adds a new adjustment or "premium" value (bsip42's PID feedback) which can easily be applied to the market feed to obtain the bsip42 target price. Sounds like a much safer approach that minimizes potential disruption to BitShares. Not surprisingly you don't think it's worth it, despite the flexibility and safety it affords. More evidence you are apparently not concerned with keeping the ecosystem a free market for all but are all to willing to change it to support your own agenda.

I am able to see the important things when clearly posted in the proper places and with the proper info. Your terse "pinned" messages don't always identify the purpose, or even provide a vague hint about why a patch or release is necessary - emergency - security - other. You are just not consistent with the info you do provide and then you want to blame others if they don't jump to your command. That's hogwash.