I'm happy that the 10% rule is over, yet there has to be some incentive to short. 1% would have been nice.

Now we have close to 400 bitSILVER, 57000 bitUSD and 22 bitBTC waiting in cover orders. That doesn't seem good to me.

Okay, if it's a design decision and not a bug that's good news to me, but could you please enlighten me ? Since the price is over the price feed, there is more collateral than required, so that's not the problem, and I don't get what is.

Now that we don't have the 10% that enabled to short with profit to expired orders, we have big expired short orders waiting to be covered in most bitAssets. 50000 bitUSD, 14 bitBTC, 56 bitSILVER... the only peg that holds is bitCNY.

What will happen ? Won't that uncovered big volume produce a huge sell pressure at some point ?

Shouldn't we try to do something about that ? Like coordinating some shorting efforts on specific bitAssets ?

Alert from Gentso.

Quote from: Gentso1 on May 02, 2015, 09:34:13 pm

Quote from: kenCode on May 02, 2015, 09:05:14 pm

Quote from: Gentso1 on May 02, 2015, 08:55:02 pm

http://gun-school-bonita-ken-silver-scam.com/
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2vqhsr/dont_give_ukencode_any_of_your_money/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6J14umqpWU0
Same Ken?

My guess is that those posts are from Keith. I talk about him quite a bit in my bio. He was my competitor a couple years ago, and good buddies with the local left-wing media:
http://kenCode.de/bio
 
It's easy for someone to call someone else a scammer. Especially when my business buried his business.
 
I certainly hope my actions here at BitShares have shown you what kind of person I am, however.

So just to be clear your stance is that it's lies? Does that include the news reports as well?

The video seems to show you. https://youtu.be/f191hnL4snU

Well, that's a hell of a lot to bear. I wish you good luck to earn your trust - you lost mine, at least for the moment. Even though you clearly are giving your energy for BitShares right now, it also seems that you did scam people in the past. Even if it's all lies - but there is a lot to respond to... your adversary spent an awesome amount of time putting that together -, it would tarnish the reputation of BitShares if you become an "official" PR director.

Quote from: bytemaster on May 01, 2015, 03:36:04 pm

Quote from: xeroc ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on May 01, 2015, 03:26:13 pm

Quote from: NewMine on May 01, 2015, 03:06:14 pm

Quote from: pgbit on April 30, 2015, 08:24:53 am

Quote from: maqifrnswa on April 26, 2015, 11:20:47 pm

Quote from: pgbit on April 26, 2015, 10:01:05 pm

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?

what happens with bitUSD that are unaccessable due to lost keys?

Same thing that happens to BitUSD that are held by someone as savings for ever.  It requires someone to be short forever and will ultimately push up the price of BitUSD above $1 if there is no-one willing to short

BTA1.0 and 3.0 should be able to use the same price feed because they peg to the same asset (e.g USD).

I have concern that having old and new BTA running together will weaken the confidence that people want to accept BTA. As the BTA 1.0 isn't working well, who knows if BTA 3.0 is working well or not?
If we have confidence that both BTA 1.0 and BTA 3.0 can peg to 1 USD eventually, why not we convert BTA1.0 to BTA3.0 to keep things simple.

I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.
Finding a fair way to convert current shorts into 3.0 shorts (and probably ask the community to vote about it) is all we need. Is it possible ?

Mail sent. And I'm more than willing to do more of those !
Thanks for coordinating it

nice...so in the meantime until this gets fixed I can't rollover my short positions and if this gets fixed on Tuesday, in the meantime I will get margin call in all my orders..excellent!

Yes... That's why we need that BTS whales short at the price feed. But they won't put them at risk. They don't care about the unfairness. And then they wonder why the price goes down...

It's a bug that we are waiting to be fixed:

Sell the feed price down on the only 2 BitShares exchanges on the planet and cause a margin call that locks up the market so shorts can't be rolled over (to themselves).  This creates panic in the expiring shorts who then buy my exorbitantly high priced BitUSD.

Here's a tip (roll over your short a few days before expiration just in case the market locks up over your expiration period).  That way you have bitUSD to cover (or sell exorbitantly in the meantime).

Happy trading!

Can't wait for the training wheels to come off and the 2x collateral to be lowered!

We will have the lowest collateral requirements for a blockchain based trading crypto-coin in the world!

I'm an expert in rolling over my shorts now, I've never been margin called also I kept shorting for a while now (all the way down, woohoo - and obviously I lost almost everything of my investment).

But I don't know if I want to call the behavior a "bug". Obviously the margin call covering 10% above is a feature, maybe a bad one, but it's not a bug. Maybe the rule "first the margin call must be covered before new shorts can happen" is voluntary. I just want to know precisely how it all works.