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 - Rune

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75
106
General Discussion / Re: Looks like market pegged assets are being completely overhauled
« on: February 12, 2015, 07:03:43 pm »
Quote from: Ander on February 12, 2015, 06:44:46 pm
Quote from: arhag on February 12, 2015, 06:37:16 pm

Let me put it in another way. Let's say there was zero BitUSD supply, then some amount of BitUSD was shorted into existence and sold to some people, but then immediately afterward they all decided they wanted to sell their BitUSD (just under the price feed) and no one else wanted to buy BitUSD. Under the current system the BitUSD supply would unwind back down to zero in at most 30 days. Under the new proposed system, there is no such guarantee.

I agree that it is important that holders of a bitasset are guaranteed the ability to convert it back into BTS, at a price very near the feed, within 30 days.  If the new system wouldnt allow this, it needs to be added.

I think even at our current very low DEX volume this won't be necessary. As long as a bitasset is used for trade of any kind it should be possible to exchange it to BTS due to market expectations becoming a self fulfilling promise. If you want to exchange your bitasset to BTS quickly than you can just overpay and your order will be matched quickly.

107
General Discussion / Re: Looks like market pegged assets are being completely overhauled
« on: February 12, 2015, 06:34:13 pm »
Quote from: Chronos on February 12, 2015, 06:13:05 pm
Quote from: arhag on February 12, 2015, 05:48:22 pm
This proposed change deeply concerns me. I am not convinced this won't break the peg. Specifically, it seems there is no longer any guarantee that you can sell your BitUSD at the price feed within 30 days, since new shorts can always be created that undercut you.
New shorts can always be created that undercut you? Please extrapolate on this idea.

EDIT: Ah, the holder of the expiring short can issue a new asset to themselves, and close their old short with it, and you never get the chance to sell your at BitUSD at feed price to that person? Am I on track?

I think this can also be done now any time there are no active short orders, which you can't expect to have if markets are at equilibrium. Ultimately I think this change reflects the economic reality better.

108
General Discussion / Re: Looks like market pegged assets are being completely overhauled
« on: February 12, 2015, 05:37:38 pm »
Quote from: graffenwalder on February 12, 2015, 05:36:18 pm
so if you wanted to short, you now have to sell your bitasset first, before a profit can be made?

Yep, you can sell the bitasset that you have issued, Then you're going to owe that bitasset to the blockchain and will be forced to buy it back at the feed price within 30 days, so if the price of BTS has increased over the 30 days you will have made a profit.

109
General Discussion / Re: Looks like market pegged assets are being completely overhauled
« on: February 12, 2015, 05:31:40 pm »
Quote from: NewMine on February 12, 2015, 05:19:42 pm
WTF?  Shouldn't this be done on a new chain share dropping at a snapshot or some shit. This is going to kill BTS with a major change like this.

It's not really that big of a change, bitassets will still be the same before and after, but markets will be more flexible and have higher liquidity since there will no longer be restrictions on short selling at the feed.

Yield might still stay due to the income from market fees, though I think ultimately all fees have to go to BTS to keep the system long term sustainable. One of the issues with yield is that in the current system if there are no active short orders competing on interest then any person with BTS can short to himself and then harvest the yield for free, ensuring that yield will always be kept low. So the entire concept of yield might not really be feasible anyway.

110
General Discussion / Re: Looks like market pegged assets are being completely overhauled
« on: February 12, 2015, 05:24:03 pm »
Quote from: fluxer555 on February 12, 2015, 05:18:39 pm
I believe this is still in suggestion phase. I think your claims are too strong without more developer input.

Could be, I don't know how the chain of command actually works. I just assumed that if an issue was opened this way by bytemaster it's basically what is planned to be done. Theoretical made a document that describes some of the issues with the current market engine: https://github.com/theoreticalbts/bitshares/blob/market_refactor/docs/market-engine-0.8.0.md

I like this proposed change so i think its a good idea to get it implemented. It's less complex so it might help with getting a useable product out sooner.

111
General Discussion / Proposed market pegged asset overhaul
« on: February 12, 2015, 05:12:07 pm »
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1375

So it seems like the developers had some discussions about the market pegged assets and the market engine since it had become too complex and buggy, and decided that it needs to be completely revamped.

The new system proposed here will remove shorting, remove interest rate on bitassets (possibly removing yield altogether), and remove relative orders (which were apparently too problematic to implement). New market pegged assets are created by "issuing" them, creating them while locking up 3x their value as collateral in BTS. This is basically like shorting to yourself at the feed price at 0% interest rate in the current system. Once you've issued a market pegged asset you can then sell it on the open market for BTS to get leveraged exposure to BTS, just like before.

It sucks we are seeing changes like this at this point, but on the other hand this new system really is a lot more elegant and will probably allow the market to function a lot more smoothly. I suspect the issuing mechanism can also be used for the prediction markets.

112
General Discussion / Re: New Wallet is Coming Along Nicely 0.6.1
« on: February 12, 2015, 04:15:19 pm »
Quote from: mf-tzo on February 12, 2015, 03:09:49 pm
When is the light wallet estimated to lunch? I thought it would have been launched on Monday

Yep... There should be better communication on this stuff.

113
General Discussion / Re: new exchange for BTS soft launch
« on: February 12, 2015, 02:34:42 pm »
So this website creates the commands necessary to use the BTSBOTS exchange, by autopopulating the transfer with the information needed. I think you should expand beyond bitassets, and also do bitcoin and litecoin bridge into bitassets. Easy onramping is what we really need, however this will also be incredibly useful for instant trading in the light wallet.

114
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum has a wikipedia page and we don't
« on: February 12, 2015, 01:14:07 pm »
Quote
The platform has received attention in Wired,[17][18] The Globe and Mail,[19] SiliconANGLE,[20] Yahoo News,[21] Medium.com[22] Al Jazeera,[23] Forbes,[24] The Telegraph[25] and the Keiser Report.[26]

115
General Discussion / Re: New Wallet is Coming Along Nicely 0.6.1
« on: February 12, 2015, 01:08:25 pm »
okay just opened it again today and somehow its back to taking 10 minutes to start up. Guess we just have to wait for trading in the light wallet before we can appeal to users of low end computers.

116
Technical Support / Re: v0.6.1 -- Blocks stuck syncing
« on: February 11, 2015, 11:28:50 pm »
before you resync can you go to advanced and find the console, then type 'getinfo' in the console and note the last block, then wait 1 minute and type 'getinfo' again and see if the block changed? Some times the stuck on a block issue is just a GUI issue and the blocks are actually still syncing behind the scene.

117
General Discussion / Re: Will Darkcoin pass Bitshares today or tomorrow?
« on: February 11, 2015, 09:50:49 pm »
Wow, its still going strong. Still dont think it has a chance of passing bitshares but this is an impressive run.

118
General Discussion / Re: Simple Binary Prediction Market Discussion
« on: February 11, 2015, 08:11:08 pm »
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on February 11, 2015, 06:46:49 pm
Quote from: toast on February 11, 2015, 04:13:26 pm
Prediction markets are extremely important and we will regret not being the first

We will regret it, or would regret it? Any chance BTS can still move into prediction markets timely?

We've already gone all in on bitassets. Doing prediction markets wouldn't just be a matter of developing it, more importantly it would require strong marketing to get a large enough userbase to make the markets active. There's no chance we will gain anything from rushing into prediction markets at this point. It's better to focus on our core product and make it useable through web and light wallets. Once we have a network effect from the advantages that bitassets give then we can begin exploring other fancy features (though I think it would be better to work on integrating the Ethereum Virtual Machine and then build the prediction markets through scripting rather than hardcoding them into the blockchain).

119
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Yunbi exchange TWO 100% developer delegates proposal: d1.yunbi ; d2.yunbi
« on: February 11, 2015, 08:06:11 pm »
tradebts is a bitcny bridge, not a gateway. A gateway is an entity that issues IOU's on the blockchain, like first pioneered by ripple. Someone who does instant trade of bitCNY or bitUSD from fiat or btc is called a bridge.

120
General Discussion / Re: Will Darkcoin pass Bitshares today or tomorrow?
« on: February 11, 2015, 07:44:17 pm »
Quote from: Akado on February 11, 2015, 07:36:22 pm
Still, doesn't Shadow have better technology anonymity wise? Or at least, that's what I heard.

Shadow is in a completely different league. They have something that actually approaches true anonymity, like zerocoin (but without the counterparty risk drawback). Problem is their blockchain gets super bloated and I think you need to do proof of work to send an anonymous transaction.

It's the shadow tech bitshares should copy when we one day want to implement anonymity, far out in the future.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 75

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 24 queries.