331
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: MUSE Price Discussion
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:04:47 pm »
Maybe all the MUSE that I bought at .15 BTS will eventually save my BTS investment.
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.
332
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: December 08, 2015, 07:03:40 pm »I'm about ready for an announcement.
They only announce things when they are ready to dump BTS on us again.
333
Openledger / Re: October start-up OpenLedger just doubled it's profits!
« on: December 04, 2015, 04:26:48 am »
OpenLedger looks like its saving bitshares.
Thats way more referrals than we ever managed to get in 0.9.x
Thats way more referrals than we ever managed to get in 0.9.x
334
General Discussion / Re: Obit (s) for Bitshares ...when the name says it all
« on: December 03, 2015, 11:58:54 pm »I wait for Ander to start shit-posting on the forum; this is a clear buy signal.How interesting. Ander is my contrarian signal as well.
When Ander starts making happy rah-rah post on the forum, it's time to bail baby!
Wait... what if Ander used himself as a contrarian signal? *mind blown*
You guys havent realized that I started intentionally posting the opposite of what I'm doing yet, since you guys started using me as a contrarian signal?
335
General Discussion / Re: (Poll) Should Sharedropping Projects have to Pay tx fees for the Sharedrop?
« on: December 03, 2015, 06:32:47 pm »
We should make it free to sharedrop if we want to get any sharedrops.
336
General Discussion / Re: Incentivising Liquidity
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:27:03 pm »Correct.1. Place orders that sit on the books for at least X minutes if they get filled instantly (less than X min) we will assume you are trading against yourself to "MINE" "MAKER_SHARES".
Then the optimal strategy is to wait X+n minutes and then trade with yourself?
337
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:08:28 pm »We are not so sure about this any more. @roadscape did some analysis of the code:I ask for correct this parameter to 2% before reenable setltementQuotegenerally all percent figures in graphene are based on this:@bytemaster
#define GRAPHENE_100_PERCENT 10000
so if the max_force_settlement_vol is 2,000 that would suggest 20%
also I see this:
#define GRAPHENE_DEFAULT_FORCE_SETTLEMENT_MAX_VOLUME (20* GRAPHENE_1_PERCENT)
because if we enable settlement with parameter 20%, it's enough to attrack an attack.
the commitee don't agree me without your command @bytemaster
please give an input
It was always supposed to be 2% in the first place not 20% There is a lot less opportunity to abuse the system if you an only force cover 2% of it a day.
338
General Discussion / Re: Committee proposal to re-enable force settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:06:48 pm »
This is good news.
Regarding the force settle, does it occur at the feed with no penalty at all? I think that if there was even a small penalty, like 1%, then it would make it a lot harder for people to profit via forced settlement by controlling the BTS price. The small penalty would swing it back into the bitAsset shorts favor in the long term.
But it seems the plan is that you can force settle a bitCNY at 1.00 CNY, and that shorts will want more than 1.00 CNY in order to create one, to protect themselves. That is, we have a price floor on bitAssets, but the price can rise some above the floor.
I guess its just really important for people to not short bitAssets unless they are getting a a bit of a premium, to protect themselves from this.
Regarding the force settle, does it occur at the feed with no penalty at all? I think that if there was even a small penalty, like 1%, then it would make it a lot harder for people to profit via forced settlement by controlling the BTS price. The small penalty would swing it back into the bitAsset shorts favor in the long term.
But it seems the plan is that you can force settle a bitCNY at 1.00 CNY, and that shorts will want more than 1.00 CNY in order to create one, to protect themselves. That is, we have a price floor on bitAssets, but the price can rise some above the floor.
I guess its just really important for people to not short bitAssets unless they are getting a a bit of a premium, to protect themselves from this.
339
General Discussion / Re: Idea for hyper profitability: shareholder responsibilities
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:04:35 pm »
Forcing people to do something is not a good idea.
Incentivise people instead. (And not 'you had better do this with your BTS or youll lose it', which is back to forcing people).
It looks like the blockchain has been profitable since 2.0 launch:
http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
However, I note that this is due to a huge jump due to over 2M BTS in fees on Nov 22. What the heck happened on Nov 22 that caused that?
Incentivise people instead. (And not 'you had better do this with your BTS or youll lose it', which is back to forcing people).
It looks like the blockchain has been profitable since 2.0 launch:
http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
However, I note that this is due to a huge jump due to over 2M BTS in fees on Nov 22. What the heck happened on Nov 22 that caused that?
340
General Discussion / Re: Liquidity Proposal
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:52:42 pm »Good aim!
Wrong person getting the bill!
Let the gateways get their act together [and combine funds if need be] to foot the bill for what is a service they should provide in the first place.
I agree.
However, if no gateways are going to step up and pony up the funds, then I would support this worker proposal because:
1) We really need to supply liquidity from a centralized source to kickstart the bitasset markets.
and
2) The created BTS wouldnt be going to someone who could dump it on the markets and suppress the price, but would be held by a pool to provide liquidity. Its possible that it could lose BTS and as a result let those BTS into hands of traers who could sell them, but it might also turn a profit by gaining the spread on trades, and as a result actually be able to burn BTS>
But I would rather have a gateway provide the funds as tony said.
341
General Discussion / Re: Liquidity has a Price -> Adding Maker / Taker
« on: December 01, 2015, 09:46:34 pm »
This sounds to me like yet another overly complicated solution which will end up having a flaw and get exploited by someone, causing others to lose money.
If only we had a bunch of funds and could have a community fund that kickstarted the liquidity on major bitassets by providing buy and sell walls, like Nubits (which actually works!) This wouldnt need to be the final solution, but it qould kickstart liquidity enough for traders to get established in the markets, and then once enough traders were providing liquidity, it wouldnt be needed anymore.
If only we had a bunch of funds and could have a community fund that kickstarted the liquidity on major bitassets by providing buy and sell walls, like Nubits (which actually works!) This wouldnt need to be the final solution, but it qould kickstart liquidity enough for traders to get established in the markets, and then once enough traders were providing liquidity, it wouldnt be needed anymore.
342
General Discussion / Re: The CLAMS insanity
« on: November 30, 2015, 06:04:10 pm »
It went from .001 to .003 in about 30 minutes. The second half of it was entirely people getting liquidated, poloniex froze up for a while and it nearly wiped out the entire order book. Then it was wildly swinging up and down after that.
343
General Discussion / The CLAMS insanity
« on: November 29, 2015, 08:32:52 pm »
looooool!
Margin calls + illiquid altcoins = hilarious.
Margin calls + illiquid altcoins = hilarious.
344
General Discussion / Re: Price of BitShares on Dec 25th?
« on: November 29, 2015, 07:15:59 pm »Heh, did you hear about Nushares going up?
Sunny must have forgotten to mention it.
I guess it's time to dump my zero day NuShares.
Thanks for the tip!
Youre welcome. Please sell into my buy orders.
345
General Discussion / Re: Price of BitShares on Dec 25th?
« on: November 29, 2015, 06:48:32 pm »Well, we're going to be somewhere between "a lump of coal" and 1250 it appears.
Until everyone finds out about the BIG DECEMBER NEWS.
So whats the big december news?
Is it:
1) Bitcoin goes back to $1000, resulting in BTS to 300 sat.
2) NSR passes BTS in market cap, while continuing to increase in satoshi price.
3) Feed prices are removed from all smartcoins, not just bitCNY, resulting in every one of them becoming unusable.
or 4) All of the above
5) Ander Continues Public Display of Butthurt.
Yep.
Heh, did you hear about Nushares going up? I'm making money on it. Gonna hold some too for when it goes to 8000 sat.
