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 - monsterer

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 125
16
I still don't understand either. Better tag him if you want him to chip in @monsterer

I burned an allocation which was used for a different market maker model which never came to fruition.

17
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 26, 2016, 02:34:01 pm »
I don't know if this been thoroughly discussed, so write it here. What if an exchange for example BTC38 act this way?

* create an IOU, for example BTC38.BTS, issue say 37 billion of IOU to a self owned account, for example btc38-market-watcher
* btc38-market-watcher set up a sell wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:1, so anyone can convert her BTS to BTC38.BTS at 1:1
* btc38-market-watcher set up a buy wall in DEX's BTC38.BTS:BTS market at 1:0.9999 with all the BTS it bought from the same market, so anyone can convert her BTC38.BTS to BTS at nearly 1:1

So each outstanding BTC38.BTS is backed by one BTS on the buy wall

* BTC38 create another account for deposit/withdraw, for example btc38-d-w-account
* anyone can transfer her BTC38.BTS to btc38-d-w-account, as a deposit method, then the amount transferred will be shown in the user's personal inventory on BTC38's website.
* same way, users can withdraw from btc38
* users can trade BTC38.BTS on the central exchange

Yes, this works - good job with the reasoning, I thought it was impossible outright... What a lot of effort for the exchange to go to, though? And imagine trying to telegraph that to users!

18
General Discussion / Re: STEALTH Status Update
« on: February 26, 2016, 09:31:57 am »
Awesome work, can't wait to try stealth mode! Tried Dash a few days ago, but the wallet was pretty mediocre, and the "darksend mixing" didn't complete even after 30 hours... Hopefully this is better :)

Thanks and congrats to onceuponatime for STEALTH as well  +5%

Remember this implementation contains no mixing.

19
General Discussion / Re: Poloniex Deposit
« on: February 24, 2016, 03:30:10 pm »
Has anyone else figured out a good spot to park ETH other than Poloniex? I would like to diversify out of the exchange a bit.

Trade ETH on bitshares if you like: https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.ETH/ETH

20
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 2.0.160216 Released
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:24:22 pm »
I know I ask this every time, but how can I confirm I'm running the latest version? The info command doesn't tell me...

about

Perfect, thanks :)

21
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 2.0.160216 Released
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:12:43 pm »
I know I ask this every time, but how can I confirm I'm running the latest version? The info command doesn't tell me...

22
git submodule update --init --recursive
???

Thanks, that fixed it.

God knows why I needed that - perhaps because I was pulling latest from bitshares, but not recursively?

23
Got a linking error trying to build witness_node in Release:

Code: [Select]
Linking CXX executable embed_genesis
../chain/libgraphene_chain.a(types.cpp.o): In function `graphene::chain::extended_public_key_type::operator fc::ecc::extended_public_key() const':
types.cpp:(.text+0x595): undefined reference to `fc::ecc::extended_public_key::deserialize(fc::array<char, 78ul> const&)'
../chain/libgraphene_chain.a(types.cpp.o): In function `graphene::chain::extended_private_key_type::operator fc::ecc::extended_private_key() const':
types.cpp:(.text+0x9f5): undefined reference to `fc::ecc::extended_private_key::deserialize(fc::array<char, 78ul> const&)'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [libraries/egenesis/embed_genesis] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/egenesis/CMakeFiles/embed_genesis.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

24
Technical Support / Re: No such file or directory: "hardfork.d"
« on: February 23, 2016, 08:49:29 am »
Thanks, that sorted it :)

25
Technical Support / Re: No such file or directory: "hardfork.d"
« on: February 22, 2016, 12:50:25 pm »
Wipe the bitshares2 folder and reclone the repo.

I have local changes to the API I needed which never got merged into the github, though... Any other advice I could try?

26
Technical Support / No such file or directory: "hardfork.d"
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:04:23 am »
I'm getting a compile error trying to build from the head of bitshares-2.:

Code: [Select]
[ 56%] Built target cat-parts
Scanning dependencies of target build_hardfork_hpp
boost::filesystem::directory_iterator::construct: No such file or directory: "hardfork.d"
make[2]: *** [libraries/chain/CMakeFiles/build_hardfork_hpp] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libraries/chain/CMakeFiles/build_hardfork_hpp.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2

The directory is there, so I'm not sure what its complaining about. I'm building Release.

27
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:10:02 pm »
I agree AJ. It seems like circular reasoning to me. Who or what factors determine how many BTS it takes to equal 1 BitUSD?

How is that established when the chain is launched? How is the peg maintained?

Exactly the same way it happened for BTS - as long as the DEX has IOU tokens for BTC, ETH, whatever, you can have internal arbitrage which will give value to the new BTS.

I suppose that suggests that the initial markets for the new BTS will require IOU tokens because otherwise, exactly what do you price BTS in? It can't be bitUSD because without anything on the books, there is no valuation.

28
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 21, 2016, 01:42:34 pm »
BM ever said in a post that "taker pay maker" will actually add an invisible but existed spread to the market, if the payment is high, everybody will try to be the maker, result in high and tight bid/ask walls but little volume. What is said in this thread is to encourage maker but not punish taker, so better liquidity.

Only true if you increase the trade fee, I'm saying just divert part of the existing fee.

29
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 21, 2016, 01:07:18 pm »
Why can't the taker just pay the maker directly some portion of the fees? That pretty much prevents the system being gamble, while incentivising liquidity.

30
@tonyk I really like your idea but I don't think a competing fork with almost identical sounding features will be well received by the crypto community - they won't understand it. I suggested before going after a clearly different feature set (targeting mt4) and I still think that will be much better received.

If you move forward with your plan as is, it will fragment the bitshares community which is a lose lose situation for everybody.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 125