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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 234
196
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: February 26, 2016, 07:19:45 pm »
I put several BTC into it.

just speculation or do you see more in it?

i am intersted if they can really attract developers, because they are using javascript and node js....

It has the possibility to become Bitshares + Ethereum.  Thats worth a shot at investing in, even if it ends up failing. 

197
So... no one is going to consider BM'S very valid concern that essentially this proposal creates a "walled garden" in between Bitshares and the rest of the crypto currency community?


It would completely kill Bitshares imo.  We need bitshares to take advantage of the gateways to the outside world provided by other crypto, not shut them off.


Tonyk's idea was actually a trick to try to get us to destroy bitshares, maybe so he can buy back in at 10% of the price and then try to get the change reverted or something.

198
When compared to the high cost BTS shareholders are paying in other areas that they can't recoup, create direct selling pressure & isn't likely to increase product demand, I think this is very lucrative to at least attempt on a trial basis

Just because its not as big of a mistake as the merger dilution doesn't make it good.

199

Do you think DASH Masternodes or PPC minting rewards are anti-free market? Most POS alts these days offer various rewards which can be mitigated by holders if they engage in the network positive behaviour the reward is attempting to incentivize.

Well, DASH specifically is a scam. :P 

Regarding most PoS coins providing interest to forgers, this has a purpose of encouraging people to support the network. 
But BTS is DPoS so it doesnt need that.


This proposed inflation would encourage people to hold equal long and short positions in the DEX simultaneously in order to avoid dilution.  That doesnt sound like making bitAssets useful, it sounds like forcing BTS holders to take on risk and needlessly manage some positions just in order to not lose value.

200
I think this is a terrible idea that does nothing but steal value from BTS bulls (people who hold BTS), and give it to BTS bears (people who hold bitUSD instead of BTS). 

This will not achieve the goals you want of encouraging bitasset adoption, rather it will reduce the incentive to hold BTS, reduce the value of BTS, take money away from bulls and give it to bears.

You can still maintain your current BTS position by yield harvesting. Being long BitUSD and short BitUSD at the same time.

So it doesn't take any value from BTS holders provided they yield harvest. However this would remove BTS from the centralized exchanges and make most shareholders owners of BitAssets while still maintaining their current overall BTS positons. 

(Provided total BitAssets in circulation < 1/2 of BTS market capitalization, then directing funds to yield can be mitigated by yield harvesting as far as I understand.)


So you are forced to take a bunch of margin positions that are opposite each other in order to avoid having your money stolen from you? 

How is that the free market?    What happens if the price moves a bunch in one direction and one of your positions gets margin called, then it moves back where it started?

Build real utility that makes people want to use bitAssets, rather than introducing a tyrannical rule system that forces them to. 

If you implement this, the people you are trying to force to buy bitAssets will not buy bitAssets, they will sell all their BTS and leave the project.

201
General Discussion / Re: How blind people use BitShares ?
« on: February 24, 2016, 10:26:07 pm »
Make you should think about how to make it usable to regular people before you think about this. :P

202
Well, if you agree your OP wasn't clear about the source of dilution why not go back and edit it?

Also, BM & Stan explained why they thought "yield harvesting" doesn't work, but in all of this discussion I don't see a strong case made for why their take is wrong. If anyone could explain that clearly and concisely or point to such an explanation that would be great.

If it was just a topic I would but I'm personally not a fan of changing anything in a poll, once people have started voting on principle.

We've yet to hear BM & Stan's take on this but personally I think they were right that yield harvesting was a negative in 1.0 because of the way yield was derived (from shorts hoping to incentivize longs) I'm hoping they will see the merits of this approach in 2.0

In 1.0, I believe BM was right that yield harvesting was bad, because shorts would offer yield to entice longs which went into a large pool but then BTS shareholders would yield harvest, thereby reducing the average yield and discouraging genuine longs.

In this example where we send dilution to the yield, yield harvesting is a great thing because it means shareholders aren't diluted as long as they yield harvest. However it acts as a behaviour incentive to get BTS holders to remove their BTS from the centralized exchanges (which is a big positive) and support Smartcoins.

There is nothing different between this proposal and that one.  This proposal is still taking money from bitasset shorts and giving it to longs.  This resulted in no one wanting to create bitassets.

203
I think this is a terrible idea that does nothing but steal value from BTS bulls (people who hold BTS), and give it to BTS bears (people who hold bitUSD instead of BTS). 

This will not achieve the goals you want of encouraging bitasset adoption, rather it will reduce the incentive to hold BTS, reduce the value of BTS, take money away from bulls and give it to bears.

In addition, it goes against the free market principles that Bitshares claims to believe in.



What we need is to create a bond/margin trading market, and then allow people to loan BTS/bitAssets to others for margin trading purposes, like you can do at poloniex.  Then rather than the yield being a theft from one party to another, it is deriving from legitimate use and its rate is set by the free market.  This would increase the value and usefulness and liquidity of BTS and nitAssets, rather than reduce it.

204
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: February 24, 2016, 09:01:11 pm »
I put several BTC into it.

205
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 24, 2016, 08:37:07 pm »

Really wish we could go with Tony's proposal and block the sending of BTS, forcing everyone to trade on the DEX.

I think BTS would instantly go to 0 and stay there forever if we did that.

206
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 23, 2016, 07:00:20 pm »
localhost sent 5,000,000 BTS to poloniexwallet
4 hours ago

Literally every time I see these posts it reminds me of a major flaw of bitshares and makes me want to sell it.

But go ahead you guys, keep posting this every time anyone with a decent amount of BTS sends soem to poloniex.

207
Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: February 20, 2016, 12:04:12 am »
This Monero ride is pretty wild, I must say.  But going up over time it seems.

as it should, IMO. i'd personally love to see Monero widely adopted as the dominant version of digital cash for payments, BTC as reserve currency, Ethereum for a range of automated business functions, and BTS for p2p asset exchange. that's my vision of an ideal crypto-utopia...

Me too except XMR instead of BTC.  I'd prefer to see BTC die because it is flawed beta tech, and all the people who buried their head in the sand and refused to look at all the other crypto technology do not deserve to win. :D

208
Random Discussion / Re: Monero
« on: February 19, 2016, 11:31:26 pm »
This Monero ride is pretty wild, I must say.  But going up over time it seems.

209
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: February 19, 2016, 05:44:34 am »
the shares are insanely undervalued given the sophistication and utility of the platform. There are some businesses that see that utility - hence my purchase of OpenPOS. The platform doesn't need to be all things to all people to succeed just enough things to enough businesses.

Wow thank you Riverhead!! +5% +5% +5% :D :D :D


Let's also not forget Metaexchange, Blocktrades.us, Bunkershares, Sharebits, OpenLedger, Transwire, and I'm sure a bunch I don't know yet. These people are not going to walk away because a whale flounced.

I wish there were even more businesses that this, but at least its a start.  The way I see it, businesses are the primary customers of BTS.  We will never get mass adoption by normal users, or at least not for a long time, in some future where cryptos in general achieve adoption, but we can achieve adoption by businesses, who will get their users using BTS without even knowing it.

Its sad that the Banx guys never did anything with BTS 2.0, and apparently turned out to be the scam that some were accusing them of being.  If they were legit, then BTS 2.0 could have been the way for them to prove their legitimacy.  Their delay in upgrading to it probably means they are a scam and were using BTS as a way to keep things going for a few more months.

No scam here Ander - we are currently working on the move to BTS 2.0 as we speak ;)

Well, I hope that does indeed happen. 

210
General Discussion / Re: Poloniex Deposit
« on: February 18, 2016, 11:43:47 pm »
So it looks to me like as soon as they cleared up the deposit issues and people could send BTS there again, that it dumped.  Lol.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 234