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 - Ander

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 234
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 04, 2016, 10:09:55 pm »
anything below $40 mil market cap doesn't even worth discussing it i think..
Talking  about small pump from 0.000009 to 0.00001 and vice versa are insignificant and I think harm bts price..I think we should revisit this thread only when we are x5 of current price..Otherwise people from outside the community see that we think this is a pump and they just dump..
We should start having a bit higher expectations than that people...

The small rise from 09 - 1 was in relation to expectations of a much bigger rise coming next week...

we could be shortly added to Microsoft Azure BAAS....

On 7th December Microsoft Azure announced they were adding Ripple.  Over next 4 days, XRP increased 75% in value.
On 15th December  Microsoft Azure announced they were adding Factom. Over next 6 days FCT increased 680% in value.
On 4th January Microsoft Azure announced they were adding Emercoin. Over next 6 days  EMC increased 367% in value.

It won't have an impact as big, it's not something new now, people might have got used to cryptos getting on Azure

It would be good to not look like the only crypto project that cant manage to get onto Azure.

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 04, 2016, 10:09:20 pm »
Isnt monero just another alt coin?

But seriously now:

Completely new code base from Bitcoin.  Not a copy coin like LTC, Doge, etc.

Devs have added over 275000 lines of code from the original codebase Monero was forked from.  Active, large dev team, 100% community funded.

Based on cryptonote.  Completely different algorithm from bitcoin, so it serves as a good alternative in case of a catastrophic failure in bitcoin.  Well tested cryptography with lots of academic research, cryptonote has been around for a couple decades now.   

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 04, 2016, 09:57:05 pm »
Isnt monero just another alt coin?

Isnt bitshares just another alt coin?

Isnt ethereum just another alt coin?

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 04, 2016, 07:28:29 pm »

DASH is just mixing.  Its not really any more private than a bitcoin mixer.

Monero ring signatures offer far more fungibility/privacy than DASH, especially once the ring confidential transactions feature is finished later this year.

Also DASH had an instamine and is heavily owned by one entity.  The distribution of Monero was very fair, in fact, its probably the fairest distribution of any proof of work altcoin in the top 20 of CMC. 

Also there is this:

Quite a number of prominant bitcoin names have said good things about the cryptography in Monero and bad things about Dash.

For these reasons I think Monero has a lot more potential than Dash. 
Further, when I see Dash at 2-3x the price of Monero, and I see that the trading volume of Monero is much greater than that of Dash, I believe there is a severe market inefficiency.  Monero should probably be 3x the price of Dash, not the other way around. 

One interesting thing about DASH is that the masternode system is actually pretty similar to Bitshares DPoS.  This polarizes people into two camps: the people who only think PoW is secure, and those who like systems such as Dash masternodes, Bitshares, PoS variants, etc.

I figure that by holding Bitshares I have the proof of stake variant part of my portfolio covered, and for the sake of diversification I had better hold a solid proof of work coin, in case the peopel who say proof of work is the only way and every PoS variant is flawed are actually correct.  So for that reason also I prefer Monero over Dash, because it is much more different from Bitshares and thus helps me to better diversify.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 04, 2016, 12:43:30 am »
Werneo that chart looks like what I think Monero is going to do. :P

But yeah, I agree that BTS looks like it should go up too.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 03, 2016, 09:26:03 pm »
It would be the most bitshares thing ever if it got added to azure and the fell in price...

That would be very bitshares.

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 03, 2016, 09:25:29 pm »
I know youre joking, but as far as coins that are trying to be currency go, Monero basically has the best distribution of all of them.  Its no premine or fastmine, with a long term emission schedule and a ~1% a year tail emission to keep it from ever becoming deflationary.

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:58:46 pm »
Still not too late to buy.

But of course, now its risky in the short term.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:44:07 pm »
Azure should be a top target.  Its the difference between Bitshares looking legitimate to the crypto world, and it looking like a scam.

I think Azure may be nearly in the bag thanks to Fox.

his upcoming blog post highlighting BitShares.

Which to me says BTS is being added to Azure and it could be announced shortly.

(By the way thanks for your explanation the other day on Polo cascading margin calls/forced liquidations I was able to buy the sharp dump on ETH today at the low and sell on the rebound realising that's what it probably was.)

If BTS gets in Azure, it should go to al least 20-30M market cap imo.  People would finally think it has potential again.

Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: March 03, 2016, 07:05:50 pm »
Finally. :)

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 03, 2016, 06:20:45 pm »
Basically every crypto project (not currency) type coin needs to get on Azure, or it will seem like it is a scam that businesses do not want to touch. 

Given that business adoption is the main target of Bitshares (its too complicated for average people), basically Azure should be a top target.  Its the difference between Bitshares looking legitimate to the crypto world, and it looking like a scam.

But our dev team doesnt seem to have a clue how to get businesses to adopt Bitshares.

General Discussion / Re: Trustless, Decentralized Bond Market Draft
« on: February 29, 2016, 10:46:46 pm »
In Polo, it seems that if you have at least the maintenance collateral amount you're safe unless the price moves against you, in this model it seems you can be margin called based on orders moving around/being removed from the book. Is it the same on polo, if not could this put of borrowers off or not really in your opinion?

Imo we should replicate the polo system as much as possible, as it is proven to work.  (In a year, there has not been a black swan big enough to cause a failure, even with some wild swings in prices). 

In the polo system, lets say that you go long BTS, to the maximum allowed 40% margin requirement.  (2.5x
long).  Polo doesnt actually check against the last price that the coin was traded at to see if your margin is okay, it checks against the buy orders that are on the books.  So if the last price of a trade was 900 sats, but there is no buy orders down until 850 sats, it actually looks at the 850 sats to calculate your margin.  And if that 850 sat buy order is not big enough to cover your position (your long is more BTS), then it will look down the order book further until it gets to the point where it sees how you can cover all of your position. 

The amount of BTC you could get by market selling your position onto the books is how much poloniex actually considers your position to be worth.

From what I understand of bytemasters proposed system, it works the same.

Lets say that the person with the buy wall at 850 sats in our example cancelled his order.  Now, polo recalculates how much you could sell your BTS for. Lets say that the 850 wall was a big wall and you were relying on its existence.  Without it, poloniex sees that you would have to dump all the way down to 400 sats in a liquidation!   It recalculates your margin and determines that you are below the 20% liquidation level and are no longer safe. Therefore it autoliquidates your position, and crashes the price to 400 sats.

So the removal of an order from the books on polo can trigger forced liquidations.  Bitshares would need to do the same thing.  Its necessary in order to protect lenders.

I might suggest that for robustness sake, that if this scenario occurs that what Bitshares should do is to not allow the order to be cancelled but instead to liquidate the position into it, when the person tried to cancel the order.  Essentially, when the buy wall owner submits the order to cancel to the blockchain, the blockchain responds 'oh no, if you pull that order then it will cause forced liquidations.  Therefore you cannot pull the order, and the forced liquidations are happening now instead'. 

What will happen as a result of this is that people are going to put in big buywalls, and others are goign to take margin positions in front of them, and then the buywall placers are going to pull their walls in order to get cheap (whatever theyre buying).  This happens on polo.  Its what happened when Bitshares crashed after the 2.0 release, the price would start to drop, a whale would remove a buy order, and it would trigger liquidations.

But there isnt any way to avoid this if we want to protect lenders, and imo we NEED to protect lenders.  Lending needs to be safe.  The margin traders take all the risk.  After all, everyone knows margin trading is risky.

General Discussion / Re: Trustless, Decentralized Bond Market Draft
« on: February 29, 2016, 09:56:23 pm »

A margin call can happen for any of the following reasons:
1. If canceling an open order would result in insufficient orders on the books to buy back the debt with the collateral, then a margin call is executed first, then the order is canceled (if it wasn’t used as part of the margin call).
2. If filling an order would result in insufficient orders on the books to satisfy all debt at the SWAN PRICE, then the margin call is executed first.

This is important to protect lenders, so I think these are good ideas.

When a margin call liquidation occurs, it will often trigger a cascade, and will be very computationally intensive.  When this happens on poloniex, for example, the site freezes up for a few seconds or maybe even longer, while it executes liquidations. (The results can be crazy.  For example, recently CLAMS had a rally that went from .001 to .002 in a day, and when it broke above .002 it triggered a cascade of liquidations that took it from .002 to .003, a 50% increase, in an instant, while poloniex was frozen executing the liquidatons.

How is the bitshares blockchain going to handle to computation intensity of this algorithm, while attempting to maintain 3 second block times?  3 seconds may not be enough for a witness to calculate the required liquidation cascade and then broadcast the block.    Given the importance of what takes place in that block, it seems very important that it not result in a fork or orphaned block.  Do we have plans to handle these issues?

Finally, I'm very glad to see progress finally being made on this. :)  Thanks to everyone working on Bitshares.

General Discussion / Re: Trustless, Decentralized Bond Market Draft
« on: February 29, 2016, 09:48:52 pm »
Calling this a bond market is misleading...  It doesn't have any of the charactertics of a bond.

There's no call date and no coupon.  Also the collateralization of this doesn't fit the description of a traditional bond market.

To properly do a bond market, there needs to be some sort of reputation system in place so that investors can evaluate risk.  Lending to an anonymous person you no nothing about is a non-starter.

Its the margin trading lending market. :)  And its what Bitshares needs in place in order to be able to both allow margin trading inside bitshares, and award yield to savers.

General Discussion / Re: Trustless, Decentralized Bond Market Draft
« on: February 29, 2016, 09:47:15 pm »
The challenge is to create a bond market where lenders can earn interest while being 100% protected against default by the borrowers. This means that at all times the blockchain must be able to cover all loans on the market.

Why 100% default protection to lenders? why not mimic traditional bond markets where lenders assume risk for payment? Interest income should come from bearing risk IMO, a necessary condition for circumspection and functioning markets.

Because we want people to actually use the system and lend. 

By the way, this system appears to me to be copying Poloniex's system really well, which is a good thing.  Poloniex has been doing such lending for around a year now and hasnt yet has a single instance of screwing over the lenders and not being able to repay them, due to the robustness of their algorithm.

Bitshares copying that algorithm is what we should be aiming for.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 234