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 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 75
211
General Discussion / Re: Shapeshift API into Bitshares Wallet?
« on: January 31, 2015, 04:10:23 pm »
Quote from: graffenwalder on January 31, 2015, 03:53:23 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 31, 2015, 02:55:01 pm
Quote from: valzav on January 31, 2015, 02:43:54 pm
I had the same idea. I don't see any technical obstacles preventing us to do that.

Then lets do it ASAP.

With shapeshift API in the wallets it means you can get bitUSD directly from coinbase, and can spend bitUSD directly with every bitpay/coinbase merchant.

It's especially important for mobile wallets since right now theres nothing you can actually use a mobile wallet for since there's nowhere to spend bitusd, but if we put shapeshift API in it and enable it to scan QR codes for btc address + amount and send that to shapeshift and do the shift automatically, then suddenly bitshares mobile wallets are like a decentralized mobile coinbase wallet!
The op wanted a way to easily convert one asset into another inside the BTS wallet.
It shouldn't be to hard to implement straight sell orders into BTS to realise this.

I don't think it neccesary to implement the shapshift api into our wallets.

It might be usefull for the mobile wallets.

But for the normal wallet shapshift has already a way to buy anything with bitusd, you could buy with Bitcoin:
https://www.shapeshift.io/lens.html

Simplicity is key though. People might not even know shapeshift exists when they get the bitshares wallet.

If we put it straight in the wallet its gonna be extremely easy to use because people wont even know they are using shapeshift. It can also be extended in the future to other bridges, such as the meta-exchange bridge and the dan notestein bridge/gateway that's coming. If they use the same API framework itll be really easy to get a big market going with lots of competition and thus great service.

The only long term concern is that we would need some sort of warning system, so if enough people report that a bridge has stopped processing orders but doesnt return them, then they are cut off from the wallets to ensure people dont lose their money.

212
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Nxt Voting System
« on: January 31, 2015, 03:01:22 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on January 31, 2015, 12:33:54 am
Quote from: Rune on January 30, 2015, 11:17:12 pm
One vote per account with minimum vote balance... NXT continues to astound me.

And that feature is trivial with the Object Graph that we have built and will deploy soon.

It was meant as sarcasm. It's a completely useless feature because its so stupidly easy to game. You get no useful extra information from doing it compared to just doing a normal stake vote. NXT seems to have an endless supply of these features that just make no sense at all and seems like they were made without any rational thought.

213
General Discussion / Re: Shapeshift API into Bitshares Wallet?
« on: January 31, 2015, 02:55:01 pm »
Quote from: valzav on January 31, 2015, 02:43:54 pm
I had the same idea. I don't see any technical obstacles preventing us to do that.

Then lets do it ASAP.

With shapeshift API in the wallets it means you can get bitUSD directly from coinbase, and can spend bitUSD directly with every bitpay/coinbase merchant.

It's especially important for mobile wallets since right now theres nothing you can actually use a mobile wallet for since there's nowhere to spend bitusd, but if we put shapeshift API in it and enable it to scan QR codes for btc address + amount and send that to shapeshift and do the shift automatically, then suddenly bitshares mobile wallets are like a decentralized mobile coinbase wallet!

214
General Discussion / Re: [FYI] Nxt Voting System
« on: January 30, 2015, 11:17:12 pm »
One vote per account with minimum vote balance... NXT continues to astound me.

215
General Discussion / Re: [Provocative] BitUSD Isn't Worth The Trouble
« on: January 30, 2015, 09:54:28 pm »
So as I understand it the point is basically that bitUSD shouldn't be worth 1 USD because it cannot be spent in shops for 1 USD value (Of course that's not how it actually works. The value of BitUSD is determined by markets such as the bitshares decentralized exchange or https://bter.com/trade/btc_bitusd).

Interestingly this is coming exactly on the same day as shapeshift has integrated bitUSD. So now even his flawed point is moot. You can now spend bitUSD anywhere you can spend bitcoin, at a 1:1 value with real USD (minus shapeshift spread), just by installing a chrome plugin. So... Yeah.

Also this is a really nice quote. This guy is definitely really nice and intelligent.
Quote
BitsharesX is so complicated, and undergoes so many design-mutations, and even ownership-changes (where PTS and BTS were separate, merged, re-separated, and then re-merged with multiple other projects) that it is essentially a waste of time for any intelligent person to take a serious look at the project’s bizarre, modularity-defying design (new/untested algorithms for, if you can believe it, ALL of the following: blockchain-consensus, order-matching, margin calls, feed-reporting, BitAsset-trader-incentives).

Have you guys noticed that people who really hate bitshares will insist on continuing to call it BitSharesX because they know it pisses us off?

216
General Discussion / Re: javascript wallet login process
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:33:38 pm »
jcalfee are you going to host a web wallet yourself based on this tech? Whats the ETA quarter?

Also do you know if yunbi are going to base their web wallet off your work?

217
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Please consider voting down blackwavelabs
« on: January 29, 2015, 05:44:36 pm »
Good work. Lets stay vigilant!

218
General Discussion / Re: Bitcoin - Ethereum-Ripple
« on: January 29, 2015, 02:55:51 pm »
We literally don't even have a website they can visit for information at the moment. Don't get pissed at other people, our publicity sucks because our marketing sucks. We're working to improve it and the new website will hopefully change things and make people start taking us seriously.

219
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:11:29 pm »
Quote from: Chronos on January 28, 2015, 08:45:48 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 28, 2015, 08:42:43 pm
Also saying that bitassets are repackaged bitshares is totally true (it's the entire point).
Makes sense, but anyway, we're a bit off topic. Here's my question again:

Quote from: Chronos on January 28, 2015, 07:48:48 pm
Does this change increase, or decrease, the risk to "normal folks" holding BitUSD, who don't want to mess with suddenly receiving BTS in their wallet instead of BitUSD?

By making it easier to cover I'd say this decreases long term risk.

220
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 08:42:43 pm »
Quote from: Chronos on January 28, 2015, 08:07:56 pm
Quote from: speedy on January 28, 2015, 07:59:09 pm
Quote from: Chronos on January 28, 2015, 07:48:48 pm
Critics say that BitUSD is only repackaged exposure to BTS. Does this change increase, or decrease, the risk to "normal folks" holding BitUSD, who don't want to mess with suddenly receiving BTS in their wallet instead of BitUSD?

You are overstating the likelihood of this happening. Check this out: http://bitsharesblocks.com/assets/market

BitUSD is still 229% collaterlized.
I'm not overstating anything, because I'm not stating anything.  I'm asking a question.  ;D

Well, I guess I'm stating that critics say this. Here's some evidence. https://discuss.nubits.com/t/bitshares-black-swan-event-analysis-by-dan-larimer/1279/2

Quote from: a critic
when there is widespread realization that every Bitasset is just repackaged Bitshares

They are not critics, they're competitors. Everything they write regarding market pegged assets will be with the singular goal of pumping their idiotic scheme. They will not be able to ever look at market pegged assets objectively, just like we will never be able to accept any part of the fractional reserve bs they've got going as something that could ever be relied on.

Also saying that bitassets are repackaged bitshares is totally true (it's the entire point). But it's also like saying the US dollar is repackaged US government. NuBits of course takes the crown as it is repackaged nothing with a paycoin style "floor" that is upheld by centralized anonymous counterparties.

221
General Discussion / Re: User Issued Asset Market Fees
« on: January 28, 2015, 06:48:32 pm »
Quote from: vikram on January 28, 2015, 06:34:32 pm
Quote from: Rune on January 28, 2015, 04:38:50 pm
Focus on getting trading engine into the light client instead.

This is a sizeable project and not on any roadmap before 1.0.

I know, but that should be the next primary objective (after blockchain is feature complete in the medium) that all possible resources should be focused on. I assume it won't require a hard fork either so it's something that can only add value.

Glad to hear the light wallet is working! Hope we can test it soon! :D

222
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 05:12:51 pm »
Quote from: jshow5555 on January 28, 2015, 05:02:12 pm
Can anybody link to where this 'cover with collateral' feature was suggested to be coming at all, let alone before 1.0?

Thanks.

Well if it comes in the medium term it is by definition before 1.0, since that will be the first stable release without new hard forks for an extended period of time. If we want to get exchange integration, then we need to end our hard forks and need to get stability - that's what they are waiting for.

223
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:48:27 pm »
Okay I keep thinking this over and have to admit that it is a good feature and necessary to have implemented by 1.0.

I'm struggling with the recent delays and I seriously hope this will be the last new feature to get in before all resources are put on improving stability and usability. Ethereum is coming in less than 2 months.

224
General Discussion / Re: User Issued Asset Market Fees
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:38:50 pm »
This is another feature that will hurt our market cap.

First of all there is no chance of getting an already established exchange to become a fiat gateway within the next 6 months. That would only happen if bitshares were to explode in value and gain attention from everyone, in that case they'll do it with or without these kind of fees. Also since this means that stability is further delayed it serves to reduce the chance of bitshares exploding in value and thus actually reduces the expected amount of fiat gateways.

Secondly it doesn't make sense economically in the long term. Gateways add value by being on and off ramps, the trading and order matching is done by bitshares. They can and will eventually equilibrate at increasing on and off ramp fees to make up for their lost trading fees, but of course gateways will never be able to be as profitable as bitcoin exchanges because we've eaten a part of their market, and there's no way we can change that reality.

This is a neat feature but it should not have high priority.

It should under no circumstances delay 1.0 and should not be introduced as a hard fork during what is supposed to be a stable period.

Focus on getting trading engine into the light client instead.

225
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:24:17 pm »
The developers who are working on these things should be working on the light, mobile and web wallets instead so that they work flawlessly and have trading engine functionality. Innovation and new features are fun, but if bitshares dies due to never getting a working product out, there'll be nothing to innovative on and make new features for.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 75

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 24 queries.