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 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 234
General Discussion / Re: NuShares price discussion
« on: November 20, 2015, 12:41:19 am »
The NSR buyback just bought into my sell orders and gave me profits on all the NSR I bought this week.

So beautiful.

Cant wait for next week.


Historically with VOTE, Secret Sauce, 'What is a New User Worth?', Merger and a few other things, I get immediately concerned when I see posts signalling the current focus might not fit BM's vision/mission because it often precedes, my way or the highway, type direction changes.

Yep, 300 sat BTS incoming.

Soon the answer to this will be that we are here to watch NSR pass BTS market cap. :P

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Stealth Transfers Worker Proposal
« on: November 20, 2015, 12:22:34 am »
How about we go back to bitshares 0.9 where we had TITAN and didnt have to pay $45k for privacy features?

Oh by the way, if if the worker proposal passed you wouldnt get $45k out of it.  Try to sell tens of millions more BTS and you'll probably get less than half that because the price will be down under 500 sats.

You know whats doing great?  Nushares.
The are profitable and buying back 20-40btc of NSR per week, which bitshares devs want to get tens of millions of BTS for features that already existed in 1.0 that they took away, so they can dump them and crash the price even more.  Lol!

Of course Bitshares has way more potential than these, I would never disagree with that.

But its worth throwing a small amount of funds at them because their market caps are very low.
Burst is worth less than 100k in total even after having gone up some the past several days.  For what could be the first coin to ever do an ACCT with Bitcoin, thats cheap.  Even if ACCTs dont end up being more than a curiosity, the publicity is generates from doing that would probably bring the price up a lot. 

Just put in .1 btc or something thats basically no risk and see what happens.  The market cap is so low that you can actually get a decent amount for that.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: November 16, 2015, 12:57:06 am »
I just ate some losses and balanced my holdings a bit more towards bitcoin.

This almost certainly means BTC price is about the fall, resulting in BTS/BTC price going up. You heard it here first.

I bought some burst.  No regrets. :)

An additional note:

Quoting CIYAM:
"Although it is a little more tricky on the BTC side, assuming that some software is written to take care of the script and multi-sig address, then it will be entirely possible to exchange BTC for any ATC (such as BURST or QORA) without the need of any 3rd party (although you'd still need to find somewhere to match an order)."

Needing to find someone to match an order....
Do I see a need for OpenLedger here?

OpenLedger could potentially match these BTC to Qora/Burst orders and execute them directly on the blockchain. 


This could let you trade directly between BTC, Burst, and Qora on the blockchains.  It works differently than an asset on the Bitshares exchange would, in that you would be trading the underlying coins, rather than derivatives.   

Qora is proof of stake, no inflation.
Burst is proof of capacity, which is an interesting alternative mining algorithm which doesnt burn tons of energy like bitcoin and is based on hard drive storage space.   It is still in an inflationary phase, but it had been beaten down to extremely low levels prior to this news.

I bought 1 BTC in each yesterday when I saw this. 

General Discussion / Re: Is it a good time to take short on BitUSD ?
« on: November 13, 2015, 12:56:47 am »
Whatever you do it will be wrong and you'll lose BTS. 
But it doesnt matter because they arent worth anything anyway.

General Discussion / Re: BitShares TL;DR. Explain in one line
« on: November 11, 2015, 09:57:23 pm »
I wouldnt really say that bitcoin is not ethical, but I would say that it wastes energy and is bad for the environment, which Bitshares fixes.  It has a low transactions per second capacity, which Bitshares fixes.

Bitshares is a decentralized exchange.

General Discussion / Re: Blockchain parameters
« on: November 11, 2015, 06:44:03 pm »


$8-$9 mil if i remember correctly and namecoin was $10-$11 mil.

It briefly peaked at that amount when it hit 450 sats, but it was actually around 200 prior to the merger announcement which was about 3-4M.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 11, 2015, 03:20:15 am »
I'd also like to see a proposal for bond market / margin trading, which should be linked imo, with the bond market providing the lending for the margin trading, like at polo.
And also prediction markets. :)

Then these proposals could form the roadmap for all the things bitshares needs now.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 09:18:59 pm »
Alright, regarding #2, it looks like the problem is that assets are not covered under the change? 

I think adding a small %age fee like centralized exchanges use, for BTS trades, is a great step forward.

Could we also implement this for assets?  Is there a technical reason why we cannot do this, or another reason?

Centralized exchanges had a 0.2% trading fee on the BTC side of the trad,e but also a 0.2% fee on the altcoin side.  Doesnt it make sense to emulate this and do the same for our markets, for BTS fees and asset fees?  And then apply the referral program to these percentage fees on asset trades as well?

Currently there are no percentage fees, so adding them for BTS trades is a step forward.  But wouldnt adding them for both BTS trades AND for asset trades be TWO steps forward?  If this is a harder change, I think it would still be worth paying more for, unless for some reason it is incredibly hard or impossible.

Lets emulate poloniex/bitfinex/etc.  0.2% fee for both BTS trades and asset trades.  0.1 BTS flat fee on trades because we have to have something to prevent spam, but this is low enough to not annoy anyone.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 09:10:29 pm »
I know that proposal #1 has been retracted now, but I still want to argue in favor of a 0.1 BTS fee for cancelled orders.

I feel that a 0.1 BTS fee is enough to dissuade attacks.  Yes, its not as much of a disincentive as 1 cent or more would be, but it is enough, while also being small enough that I wouldnt really think about it at all while trading, and I doubt most others would either.

If an attacker wanted to completely flood us at 0.1 BTS per transaction, then to fill up our 1000 TPS capacity would cost 100 BTS a second, or 360000 BTS per hour, or more than 8M bts per day.  I would love a scenario where 8M bts a day was being burned, at that rate every BTS in existence would be burned in like 8 months.  8M bts a day would go through the entire poloniex sell side orderbook in 4-5 days. 

Thats enough of a spam disincentive imo. 

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Worker Proposal Review
« on: November 10, 2015, 09:05:17 pm »
We have retracted #1.

To those in this thread that says the community always just rubber stamps everything, this is evidence that we dont just rubber stamp everything.

Are there any issues with any of the other proposals that we need to discuss more? 
Things definitely seem to go best when we have a dialogue between devs and community and everyone works to refine and improve each others ideas.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ... 234