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 - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 64
301
Don't we have plugins for some of this already?

Yes, and as a merchant I can use meta to exchange to other bitassets or btc if I wish

but this make bts usefull all merchants that already use GoUrl i think

Perhaps they'll give us free votes for integration for the fact that they won't actually have to do all the integration work themselves?

302
... We should be triggering black swan events in devshares too to see how they're handled (seeing as that event could happen to any bts backed security in either direction).
Couldnt you set up a bitAsset in DevShares with a much lower collateral requirement so that this is guaranteed to be tested? Arhag made a number of sugestions around what to do in this situation.

For code testing, though not economic testing, it could also be interesting to create some DVS MPAs with oscillating feeds calculated as a function of the block number, like sin(blockNumber)+1.001 or something.  This would let people play with the market engine and try to break things, but obviously since it's not a real MPA it would be useless for any sort of economic testing.

Would anyone actually use such a thing if it was available on DevShares?

303
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 0.8.0 Feedback
« on: March 28, 2015, 08:26:47 pm »
For some reason 0.8.0 is running extremely slow for me now especially the NOTE and other UIA markets.  It's not crashing but seems very unstable. 

I'm running 16GB RAM so its not a memory issue but acts similar.  Any ideas?

Which UI version are you on?  I suggest removing UI updates from the file menu.  You can get them back just as easily, so it's worth a try.

I'm on 0.8.1, but it seemed like the 0.8.1-a update had a few some issues.

304
Technical Support / Re: Missing BitAssets in v0.8
« on: March 28, 2015, 08:52:23 am »
Also try "wallet_account_balance account_name" in the console (account name in the top right, advanced, console tab) to see whether your balance is reported correctly there.  That will help narrow down whether it's a sync or wallet issue or a gui issue.

305
A single tier implementation is a great way to test the waters.

I think the $20 fee was perhaps just a round number - some calcs might be helpful in determining a number with an attractive ROI.

If, and I say if, the single tier program is successful and the PR is not a nightmare, a multi-tier system could be floated.

Or perhaps the single tier and 1.0/gateways gets BTS over the hump and we don't mess with it further.

Bottom line is that BTS needs marketing badly and this is a great way to leverage to the BTS tech to market itself.

I think introducing this single tier built into the first mobile wallet would be best.  I think it would be best not to clutter the core protocol with it, both for PR and future flexibility.

306
Muse/SoundDAC / Re: NOTE Price discussion
« on: March 27, 2015, 11:44:55 pm »
Well, I'm glad to have received most my notes. I'm hoping to get a few from BTER, but we'll see. 8)

Now, if only the .8,.8.1 clients were more stable. It's crashing for me more than bitshares ever has. :-\

But that's what you get. Rome wasn't built in a day, not even a Mcdonald's hamburger is.

What OS are you on, and how/when is it crashing?

307
Is anyone else worried that before BitShares becomes profitable, Ethereum might just copy BitAssets completely? Of course they would need the surrounding infrastructure to make it usable such as a tradeable web wallet, but they do have a much larger developer base.

Is anyone worried that before Ethereum becomes profitable, BitShares might copy any innovation it provides completely?

308

I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.

Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5.  Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development.  I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account.  The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.

This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.

I dont mind this option... Its a lot safer but a lot less powerful for a bunch of reasons.   But I am confused by this term "legitimate users"  What is a legitimate bitUSD user if it is not someone who holds bitUSD. Earns interest on bitUSD. Receives his income in bitUSD. Purchasers products with bitUSD, and trades in and out of bitUSD for fiat with his network of fellow bitUSD holders?   I don't think it gets any more legitimate than that.

An interesting mental exercise.  Imagine John Q Public clones bitshares and builds bitsharesMLM. He honors 100% bitshares holders so you have the same stake. He has a built in marketing system as described in the OP and limits the number of 100% delegates to 5 as that is ample to support the tech requirements of the chain.  which chain are you more excited about?

Exactly, by legitimate users I meant not just signups that are recorded and forgotten, but people who actually use BitAssets and the network and thus occasionally generate fees for the network and their referrer.

Ok so you mean the $20 signup fee?  Wasn't that needed for the multi-tier plan?  I think a signup fee would be a difficult sell.   Why not just have the transaction fee system without the $20 up front. 

I think purchase transaction volume will be a lot lower.  5 transactions per day is too high.  Paypal users avg 26 transactions per year so at 1 penny it's 26 cents per year and over 20 yrs that's $5.20.  Taking 60% of that is around $3 without taking into consideration time value of money.  The incentive is not that great, but at least it's something. 


20$ sign up fee or some variation of that is needed for all plans multi-tier or not.   It is optional. You only pay it if you want to earn commissions. Otherwise normal process 0.5 bts for non commission earning TITAN account.

You are correct. The numbers are weak. Thanks for the Paypal stat. I wouldn't bother signing up for this, even though I intend to do the work anyway for ideological reasons.  Hardly motivational for people to treat it as a business opportunity.

My plan wouldn't require an initial fee, because there's nothing to be gained trying to scam it since it doesn't modify the existing network fee system.  It can be dodged of course, but given how many people haven't dropped their fee from the default 0.5 to 0.1 I bet a lot of new users wouldn't dodge it; fees are still very low.

309
General Discussion / Re: Blockchain scalability
« on: March 27, 2015, 12:04:29 pm »
My understanding is that there's likely room for significant optimization of the sync process also, it just hasn't made it to the top of the priority list yet.

Last time I redownloaded and processed the chain, I think it took about an hour, certainly not days.

BitShares is designed to be much more scalable than other blockchain systems, and was designed with this in mind from the beginning.  Obviously if a blockchain system is to truly compete with the major centralized payment processors, light wallet architecture is essential, since many people can't handle duplicating the processing of the entire world's transactions on their PCs, much less on their phones.

See this also:
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/12/Decentralization-Scalability-and-Fault-Tolerance-of-Bitcoin/

310
Don't we have plugins for some of this already?

311
I would suggest a simplified and softened version with no protocol level enforcement.

Currently the minimum fee is 0.1 BTS and the default is 0.5.  Some of the light wallets are already boosting this fee slightly to pay for their development.  I suggest that some wallets could support defaulting to add an additional 0.1-0.5 BTS fee for every transaction, payed to the account that payed the registration fee for that wallet installations first account.  The idea here is that our grassroots marketers introduce people to BitShares, set up their wallets and register them, and receive transaction fees until the new user either stops using the network or changes the default settings.

This way there's no controversial protocol level enforcement pushed by the network as a whole, and marketers are incentivized to get legitimate users, because they're only rewarded if the user transacts.

312
General Discussion / Re: Great news for our decentralized exchange?
« on: March 26, 2015, 02:36:31 am »
"All individuals are now free to participate but can only invest up to 10% of their net worth."

"Stock offerings open to crowdfunding will still need to be "qualified" by the SEC"

"Online equity platforms will still need to be registered with the SEC as "broker-dealers," which means they will be regulated financial institutions"

http://mashable.com/2015/03/25/equity-crowdfunding-sec-vote/

Still, this should allow a great deal more flexibility for centralized startups wishing to issue securities as UIAs powered by BitShares.

313
Also someone just registered at least one additional "noteissuer" account, so be on the lookout for fake notes being issued and sold.

314
General Discussion / Bad data at coinmarketcap and bitsharesblocks
« on: March 25, 2015, 06:17:59 am »
Both cmc and bitsharesblocks seem to have badly distorted data for bitUSD currently.  If you go to the actual exchanges and markets directly, you'll see that the peg is holding fine, despite these sites reporting it as currently 15% off.

315
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Developer delegate: dev.bitsharesblocks
« on: March 25, 2015, 05:17:22 am »
It looks like the market data on bitsharesblocks is wrong.  The peg seems to be holding fine, but bitsharesblocks reports that a BitUSD is at $0.85...

Also it looks like coinmarketcap may be copying this error.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 64