91
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 09:48:03 pm »is it even possible to pay for it? if i place an order with my account how would you pay with your account?
Fee pool.
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.
Fee pool.
92
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 08:22:48 pm »I'm really confused by your response.. these are the current fees related to the markets:
http://cryptofresh.com/fees
Limit order create 10 BTS 2 BTS
Limit order cancel FREE FREE
Call order update 1 BTS 0.2 BTS
Fill order FREE FREE
What is it exactly you are swallowing costs in? Everything is sub-pennies.
I can't charge users for creating an order, or updating their orders, so that cost I will have to swallow... I thought it was cancels that cost a small fee and refunded creates, my bad.
93
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 06:02:41 pm »@monsterer I haven't seen you respond to the prospect of 1bts or 0.5bts fee. Can you explain why this would be unworkable?
It's not unworkable, no - it would just mean we'd need to move the cost into the order fill percentage, maintain our fee pools for our assets and swallow the cost of the cancels.
94
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Metaexchange fee sharing!
« on: January 18, 2016, 12:25:35 pm »A little of topic.
Is there a way to get ETH from Poloniex to METAEX.ETH direct?
Poloniex does not have a data field.
Unfortunately not. I'd like to make this simpler in the future.
95
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 18, 2016, 08:14:48 am »Many good suggestionsBut I want to remind that the devs now has very limited resources so we'd better to utilize existing functions.
@monsterer is it impossible to charge 0.5~1 BTS for users per filled order?
@clayop afik it's not the the fee being charged on filled orders. It's the fee to place the initial order is what's the issue, hence severely limiting the functions that Monsterer (or any potential integrating exchange) is up against. @monsterer feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
That's correct.
96
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 10:41:36 pm »I can see where @monsterer is coming from and trying to move more activity into the DeX and he's right. If any exchanges considering moving their books onto the DeX then this will be a continuous stumbling block. Let me throw out a hypothetical question... Would it make sense to create an account id for exchanges only, that pays a higher account creation fee and once opened the exchange wallet then pays a fair, reoccurring fee (every 28 days or so) in lieu of DeX order fees?
Monsterer, do you think you'd consider this a fair trade off for Metaexchange and possibly any other interested exchanges? @devs, could this be easily implemented?
It might be good for that case, but it does not solve the problem which fees were designed to solve in the first place: spam. You need some way to prevent spam transactions, which is why I suggested users be forced to submit a PoW in lieu of a fee.
97
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:37:44 pm »Even if no changes in the trading fee, metaexchange will have got benefits already if migrate to DEX, won't it?
With current mode, user send fund to metaexchange, then metaexchange send fund back to user, total cost is 30BTS*2.
If migrated to DEX, user place an order and get it filled with a cost of 10BTS*2. If metaexchange pays it, the cost is still lower than current one. If metaexchange doesn't pay it, the cost on user is also less.
This is true, but I was considering what it would need to take it to the next level - full centralised exchange performance, rapid order placement and fill, basically all the advances of a centralised exchange but transparently using the bitshares blockchain, such that the user would see what looked like a normal, centralised exchange and be completely unaware it was running on bitshares.
98
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 07:20:45 pm »Proposal from @clayop:
Anyway I want to listen your opinions on lowering order creation fee and charging fees on MPAs
My comments:
I think it makes a lot of sense .. keep the constant fee to prevent spam and get fee from filles orders as percentage ..
Then .. after maker we have the option to redirect a percentage of those profits to those that provide liqudity ..
And the percentage could be kept below that of other exchanges .. new selling point wouls then be .. cheapest exchange .. and safest .. and decentralized
Could be good for liquidity ..
@monsterer: would that be fine foe you?
In order to decentralise metaexchange on the bitshares chain, I would need 0 fees (except for order fill). That's the only real way, otherwise I would have to pay all the transaction fees from metaexchange's profits, which could be exploited quite easily.
99
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 06:02:33 pm »i do not care how the fees are paid. so, i dont know if this is really a problem, or do we just feel this is a problem.
how does other feel about it? did anyone talk with traders about it?
The thing is, you know already that your order is getting placed on a DEX, so you don't mind. If an exchange comes and wants to decentralise their business, their existing users will not be happy having to suddenly pay a fee to place/cancel an order when they didn't have to previously.
100
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:59:35 pm »Do you know about the MAKER proposal to pay a fraction of market fees to those that make a market? I think it is called BSIP#6
Yes, I do. This doesn't address the problem for users placing / cancelling an order on the DEX compared to the cost free nature of a centralised exchange.
101
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:56:15 pm »so for placing orders we would need a kind of POW to prefend spaming.
but how would this works if i just place my order and then close my wallet?
The PoW required must be solved before the transaction can be sent - the difficulty can be low enough that this takes under a second on a laptop.
102
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:43:20 pm »IMHO, the dex is just one of the products .. may be not even the one with the most utility ..
transfering bitusd on a real-time crypto platfoem is another product and i dont think it should be handed over for free .. and certainly not for providing a POW hash ..
I understand. However, I just wanted to write out my thought process here to give you an idea of what must also be going through the minds of other exchange developers when they start to think seriously about decentralisation.
103
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:34:27 pm »Something similar to bitmessage ..
But how would BTS ever be profitable then? We end up having a token that you can only use as collateral and has no other benefits .. am i missing something?
IMHO, being able to trade on a decentralized exchange is worth a small fee for transfers/orders etc .. but I can understand the issue people are having with it
Filled order fees would compensate for the lack of other fees - the DEX is the selling point after all.
104
General Discussion / Re: Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:29:10 pm »whats a PoW submitted by the sender ?
Proof Of Work
105
General Discussion / Fees are a real problem for the DEX
« on: January 17, 2016, 05:23:27 pm »
I was just musing over possible directions to take metaexchange in the future, one of them was to move most of metaexchange functionality onto the DEX (order matching, market making etc), such that the user would then have the convenience and speed of using a centralised exchange (confirmation times are a PITA for users, and the METAEX.IOUS are basically instant), while at the same time having at least some of the security of a decentralised service.
The only real hitch to this idea is the transaction fees for transferring funds, placing and cancelling orders. It would be totally impossible to explain to users of metaexchange why they need to pay a transaction fee (of any kind) to place, or cancel an order. The fact that canceling refunds the cost of placing the order is not enough to make this frictionless.
I actually found myself discounting bitshares as a way to achieve decentralisation of metaexchange, and pondering forking the entire blockchain to remove the fees, but that is ridiculous.
IMO, it would be great if we could just remove all fixed size fees and replace them with a PoW submitted by the sender, which will eliminate spam while making transactions zero fee (except order fills, that is an acceptable fee for any exchange).
The only real hitch to this idea is the transaction fees for transferring funds, placing and cancelling orders. It would be totally impossible to explain to users of metaexchange why they need to pay a transaction fee (of any kind) to place, or cancel an order. The fact that canceling refunds the cost of placing the order is not enough to make this frictionless.
I actually found myself discounting bitshares as a way to achieve decentralisation of metaexchange, and pondering forking the entire blockchain to remove the fees, but that is ridiculous.
IMO, it would be great if we could just remove all fixed size fees and replace them with a PoW submitted by the sender, which will eliminate spam while making transactions zero fee (except order fills, that is an acceptable fee for any exchange).
