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 - lil_jay890

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
1081
Everyone is praying that a 1.0 release is going to reverse a crumbling bitshares share price... ask yourself, what happens if the price doesn't lift after the release?  Most likely the 1.0 release is already baked into the price... Markets are discounting mechanisms

1082
Very sad to see that not even one delegate would like to respond. I hope they are as active as when they are asking for votes...

When a working client comes out, I will gladly do it.  It takes hours of wrestling with the client to do anything at all.
Just get an SSD, they're not that expensive.. Unless you're happy to just use the light client you'll probably be unsatisfied for a long time..

My wallet works fine with a standard HDD... It's like 5 years old too

1083
nope , 3 months ago , it was BM himself said gambling in super-dac would be a "political incorrect" idea .

The sudden latching onto this by BM shows me he is realizing we are in a desperate situation. The merger happened after he figured out that BTSX was in trouble and it gave a temporary lifeline. Now he sees gambling as a way to prop it up.

BTC is about to take a massive dive. If as expected it pulls down BTS with it it means the whole system would collapse on itself as dilution have to be increased to fund the developers. All the while BM would be preaching the BitShares 'philosophy' with the BitAssets gather dust.

In China , gamble is public enemy No.1 of every family .
People worry their kids and spouses to gamble away all their savings .
If a mother found out his teenage son spent 100USD on a gambling game easily , she will contact the major media and expose the game provider .  Where his son deposit their money , exchanges , gateways , whatever , BTS would turned into a monster in a matter days .
The police would have to act on the complaint .

Anyway , I guess not only China . This thing is controlled in the US as well .

Especially in the Bitcoin dive , it's too risky to risk the only fiat portal we could afford in 6 months .

I still remembers the debit card fiasco . Wanting something doesn't make it true , hard work and serious product will get us out of the jam . Hell , if this had been done in the past months instead of thinking about all those unrealistic plans , we could have stable mobile wallet using in Africa by now with billions of potential BitUSD and BitCNY demands .  Our guy in Africa is still waiting a stable protocol and mobile wallet , I have to calm him down and stall him to use our product . (this guy is serious , contact with richest Chinese in Africa )

Why not grab those we can afford right in front of our eyes instead wasting time chasing dreams ?

I find it ironic that you say gambling is public enemy #1 in china, yet the investment in crypto currencies that we are trying to push is one of the riskiest investments one could make. And if gambling is viewed so horribly in china, why is Macau the biggest gambling center on the planet?

1084
General Discussion / Re: Can MaidSafe Decentralize the Internet?
« on: February 02, 2015, 12:31:22 pm »
The blog is a good thing and is not suppose to be a tool for converting current alt coin holders. It's an encyclopedia of topics that could likely be used to help explain most questions NEW investors may have. Running everything through a "group think" filter is a bad idea and leads to vanilla and non thought provoking ideas. Plus he says it's his blog and thoughts and it doesn't necessarily represent bitshares as a whole.

1085
Random Discussion / Re: Why aren't there many women in crypto?
« on: January 31, 2015, 11:06:36 pm »
What are your thoughts?





I think the reason there aren't many women in crypto land is because they simply don't care.  It seems like many women are usually more interested in fashion and gossip. Plus, if the woman is pretty she will have hordes of men trying to give her everything she wants in hopes of 'winning her.' So there is no incentive for her to create and build things that will make her rich, powerful or admired. Men are already doing that.

Sexist stereotyping probably isn't going to help...

Well then why aren't there many women in this space?

I recently read an article on psychology today talking about stereotypes. The author was basically saying that there is an element of truth to stereotypes and that that is why they even exist in the first place. Trust me I'd like to believe that stereotypes hold no truth but maybe that author was right.

i.e. Black men are deadbeat dads

Basically you are saying women have no drive to be great and they only care about looking pretty and gossiping... and all they need to do is find a man to woo her.

This isn't the 1960's anymore.  I don't know how women are viewed where you are from, but this is not the way they are treated in modern culture.  Here's a list of women CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.

CEO   Company   2014 Fortune 500 ranking
Mary Barra   General Motors   7
Meg Whitman[2]   Hewlett-Packard   17
Virginia Rometty[3]   IBM   23
Patricia A. Woertz[4]   Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)   27
Indra K. Nooyi[5]   PepsiCo, Inc.   43
Marillyn Hewson[6]   Lockheed Martin   59
Safra A. Catz[7]   Oracle   82
Ellen J. Kullman[8]   DuPont   86
Irene B. Rosenfeld[9]   Mondelēz International   89
Phebe Novakovic   General Dynamics   99
Carol Meyrowitz   The TJX Companies, Inc.   108
Lynn Good[10]   Duke Energy   123
Ursula M. Burns[11]   Xerox Corporation   137
Sheri S. McCoy[12]   Avon Products Inc.   234
Deanna M. Mulligan   Guardian Life Insurance Company of America   245
Kimberly S. Bowers   CST Brands   266
Debra L. Reed   Sempra Energy   267
Barbara Rentler   Ross Stores   277
Denise M. Morrison[13]   Campbell Soup   315
Susan M. Cameron   Reynolds American   329
Heather Bresch[14]   Mylan   377
Ilene S. Gordon   Ingredion   412
Jacqueline C. Hinman   CH2M Hill   437
Kathleen M. Mazzarella   Graybar Electric   449
Lisa Su[15]   Advanced Micro Devices   474
Gracia C. Martore[16]   Gannett   481

Lets also not forget all the women in politics like:
Angela Merkel
Hillary Clinton
Dilma Roussef
Park Geun-Hye
Micelle Bachelet

There are currently women in crypto as well and more women will come when adoption becomes greater. Right now crypto has been mostly adopted by a libertarian mindset.  Libertarians are 94% white, 68% are men and 62% are under 50.  Look a lot like what crypto demographics might be??  When crypto can cater to a larger group of political ideals, the adoption will grow.

1086
Random Discussion / Re: Why aren't there many women in crypto?
« on: January 31, 2015, 10:34:31 pm »
What are your thoughts?





I think the reason there aren't many women in crypto land is because they simply don't care.  It seems like many women are usually more interested in fashion and gossip. Plus, if the woman is pretty she will have hordes of men trying to give her everything she wants in hopes of 'winning her.' So there is no incentive for her to create and build things that will make her rich, powerful or admired. Men are already doing that.

Sexist stereotyping probably isn't going to help...

1087
Oh god, the game/bingo thing is a terrible idea.
I don't want that thing on my wallet, because I'll probably end up playing, even if I don't want to. Promoting addictive behaviors is bad.

Is it me, or did the focus changed from "we'll give freedom to everybody" to "making BitShares fun". We don't need anything else than 1) a focus on marketing BitAssets 2) a good user experience for the wallet.

Now I'm pissed off

Go play bingo... it's a stress reliever

1088
General Discussion / Re: Changes to Cover Rules - Eliminate 5% fee
« on: January 28, 2015, 04:04:50 pm »
We don't need these changes anytime soon. We need to focus on stability, shareholders have already been promised that there would be no more new blockchain features for another 6 months after 1.0.

This is useful in the long term but absolutely should not be considered any sort of priority when the full node barely works and there's no light wallet.

New UIA system and relative orders are needed. Any other new blockchain features in the medium term are going to damage our market cap.

Disagree.  We need the ability to cover short positions with the already locked up collateral before a 1.0 release.  The current method of covering a short is not functional for the investors and traders we are trying to target and will most likely be our initial adopters.

1089
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 27, 2015, 08:18:52 pm »
"immediate" margin call needs to be added to bitshares in order to make this realistic to trade.  I have been trading for over 10 years and I can gaurantee you we won't see adoption with the way the rules are currently laid out for covering shorts.  We are literally being trapped in positions until the 30 day holding period expires or our collateral drops below 1.5x or 2x... I don't remember which one it is.

What if I have 100,000 bts and wan't to take a short position at 100bts/usd and risk up to 110bts/usd?  In real life trading a trader will position his trade size so that a loss = 1% to 5% of his account, so I would risk say 2,500 bts (2.5%).  That would mean my position size would be short 250 bitUSD. Collateral would be 75,000 bts for this position.  I would still have 25,000 bts left over in my account.  Lets say the price moves in my favor... Great, my bts is worth more and I can buy 250 bitUSD on the open market and cover my short and have a few bts left over.  But now lets say the price moves against me and I wan't to cover my position at 110bts/usd... BUMMER! my bts is only worth 227.27 bitUSD and I can't buy enough to cover the short.  I'm screwed until I get a margin call and my losses have most likely exploded past my stop out point.

This destroys all possibility of practical risk management.  The risk is asymmetric to the downside.  I can't stress enough how badly this needs to be fixed.  Just look at the nightmare that the swiss franc caused a few weeks ago.  It bankrupted many people and many exchanges all because they were unable to get out of their positions.

I'm gonna repeat myself... but you can open 3 short positions each with 25,000 BTS collateral instead of one big short with 75,000 collateral.

I know you can do that, but it costs 3x the transaction fees and takes more time for something that should be able to be done in 1 step.  Goofy workarounds are not going to draw in traders or other people to use this exchange...  Wait until new investors short their first assets and get pummeled because of this.  They will runaway from bts without a second thought.

I mean seriously, if we are going to be promoting ourselves as a decentralized exchange we need to get basic orders figured out.  And this needs to be done before 1.0 is released.

I got bitshares the interview with FXstreet a month ago, and I know what traders and investors need to see in a platform...

1090
General Discussion / Re: ShapeShift useful for bitUSD?
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:23:28 pm »
Just a quick update but the launch date is looking like monday 1/26.
LOL.
The fact is,Nope...
Who was it on the mumble a few weeks ago that said shapeshift integration was a "done deal"??

1091
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:21:38 am »
Bytemaster, can you please explain why this was implemented like this?

Because collateral is not "moveable" and would require a new type of buy order... "buy with collateral, and relative buy with collateral"  these orders would be added to our existing 3x3 matrix of potential order matching which would make a 5x3 grid of potential parings.   Not to mention the fact that while orders are in this state I would still have to consider them for margin calls. 

So for the sake of simplicity I decided to separate concerns *AND* because it creates an implicit requirement for extra collateral.   

One thing I could do is trigger an "immediate" margin call by raising the call price to the current feed price.  This would immediately cover your full order and I could even have it bypass the 5% fee in this case.

"immediate" margin call needs to be added to bitshares in order to make this realistic to trade.  I have been trading for over 10 years and I can gaurantee you we won't see adoption with the way the rules are currently laid out for covering shorts.  We are literally being trapped in positions until the 30 day holding period expires or our collateral drops below 1.5x or 2x... I don't remember which one it is.

What if I have 100,000 bts and wan't to take a short position at 100bts/usd and risk up to 110bts/usd?  In real life trading a trader will position his trade size so that a loss = 1% to 5% of his account, so I would risk say 2,500 bts (2.5%).  That would mean my position size would be short 250 bitUSD.  Collateral would be 75,000 bts for this position.  I would still have 25,000 bts left over in my account.  Lets say the price moves in my favor... Great, my bts is worth more and I can buy 250 bitUSD on the open market and cover my short and have a few bts left over.  But now lets say the price moves against me and I wan't to cover my position at 110bts/usd... BUMMER! my bts is only worth 227.27 bitUSD and I can't buy enough to cover the short.  I'm screwed until I get a margin call and my losses have most likely exploded past my stop out point.

This destroys all possibility of practical risk management.  The risk is asymmetric to the downside.  I can't stress enough how badly this needs to be fixed.  Just look at the nightmare that the swiss franc caused a few weeks ago.  It bankrupted many people and many exchanges all because they were unable to get out of their positions.

1092
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 26, 2015, 05:15:51 pm »
So I short 1000 bitUSD at say 100bts/usd
I have 300,000 bts tied up in collateral (3x) in order to open the short position

If the price stays the same and I wan't to cover say 5 days later, I need to come up with another 100,000 bts to buy back 1000 bitUSD?  Then I have to use that newly purchased 1000 bitUSD to cover my short and unlock my 300,000 bts already in collateral?

1093
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:44:33 pm »
Hitting "cover" should execute the exact same process as a margin call.  It should use the bts locked up in collateral to buy the bitUSD back.  It should buy at the price feed.

No exchange makes you buy back short positions with money that was not locked up in the original collateral.

1094
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:10:27 pm »
Ok but say you shorted with your whole stash of bts, Why can't the market take the bitUSD it needs off the top at the market rate before it gives you your locked up shares back.

This is a very important question.  The covering process should buy back bitUSD at market price...  We shouldn't have to go out and buy bitUSD in a separate order just to cover our open shorts
And what do you tell people that have bitUSD in their wallet complaining about the client BUYing bitUSD instead of using the own ones (hint: the blockchain does not know how many bitUSD you already have) ..

So if we have all our bts tied up in collateral and want to cover our shorts we can't?  We just have to wait until the 30 days expire?  If this is true it is beyond dumb...  No one will ever trade on this platform and I now understand why the market cap of bitassets has been falling

1095
General Discussion / Re: a question about shorting
« on: January 26, 2015, 02:45:06 pm »
Ok but say you shorted with your whole stash of bts, Why can't the market take the bitUSD it needs off the top at the market rate before it gives you your locked up shares back.

This is a very important question.  The covering process should buy back bitUSD at market price...  We shouldn't have to go out and buy bitUSD in a separate order just to cover our open shorts

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80