Quote from: OldMan on March 25, 2015, 04:18:14 am

Anyone find it slightly odd that the top 10-15 coins crashed substantially and simultaneously, with one notable exception?

I've noticed, increasingly and only circumstantially, that there are times when all coins get hit and one gets pumped.

No evidence or data to back that, just an old trader that gets twigged every now and again looking at CMC.

Could be some Wall Street algos moving in?

What's going on at coinmarketcap's bitUSD quote? It's crazy.  Might be causing slide in BTS market cap,   http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/bitusd/

Where are they getting their price feed?   I bought a little bit of bitUSD at bter to try and correct the coinmarketcap feed.  Didn't work.

   Who are the owners of coinmarketcap.com?  Could someone be manipulating to buy up cheap BTS?

I mean, with ALL the good news lately, it makes no sense the dropping marketcap (accept for the bitUSD nonsense quotes).

Aether.
http://getaether.net
 
That is a decentralized forum app. It's new, simplistic, but I imagine it could be expanded quite a bit to look more like Discourse or something (Maidsafe.org uses Discourse).

same thing as a bitusd etc lol

Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 12, 2015, 01:02:57 pm

Quote from: DataSecurityNode on March 12, 2015, 12:30:28 pm

Quote from: speedy on March 12, 2015, 12:20:03 pm

Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 12, 2015, 12:13:15 pm

This is great, but can you defend the "zero counterparty risk" claim?  My understanding is that counterparty risk using metaexchange would be dramatically lower than other exchanges, but not zero.

The risk is non-zero for the short time it takes for 1 BTC confirmation, i.e. 10 minutes. After that you are in control of your funds again.

I think if you considered the odds of that happening at the exact same time as your transaction.. it would probably work out to something like 0.05% risk.. which if you eliminate the decimal points actually is zero. I haven't done the math.. maybe someone could.. but I think that does deserve the claim. There is nothing on the internet and I mean NOTHING that can claim absolute zero.

I think this is correct.  So the profit potential for MetaExchange (or a liquidity provider) betraying the customers is their average volume multiplied by the time it would take people to hear they were unreliable and cease deposits.  In normal operation this profit potential should be very low compared to the potential profit of operating honestly, so risk should be very low.  However, the greater the number of separate liquidity providers involved sharing the same reputation, the more this could break down, because smaller liquidity providers have less stake in preserving MetaExchanges reputation.  When you use MetaExchange, is there a way to know which liquidity provider you're trusting, or are you just trusting MetaExchange as a whole?  Are liquidity provider operations monitored by the main site so they'll stop having business referred if they stop payouts?

I think this announcement answers some of your question.. they are openly telling you who the liquidity provider is.. in other assets they have done similar where they have announced who is providing the liquidity to what asset. So I think the model is to be transparent in that. It's too early for multiple liquidity providers I think.. at a later stage that could be addressed and I think after some time of operations any issues will make themselves known to help determine the best coarse on handling that... let them learn to walk before they run basically.

...

Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 08, 2015, 08:21:17 pm

I think there are several distinct aspects here that are getting muddled:

Freebieservers.com has a network and an audience that can be leveraged to advertise our products.  It may very well make sense for us to use delegates to pay them to do this.

Apart from this, Freebieservers.com has business needs for which the use of our products (or a competitors) could be very beneficial.  I think if they look into it further, they'll find that working with us is in their best interest because our product is superior.  Deciding to integrate and use BitShares based on direct delegate sponsored subsidies I think would be shortsighted; they should use the most efficient system available to them with long term sustainability in mind.  This relationship should be mutually beneficial without any delegate positions, because BitShares offers both uniquely useful products and more efficient scaling than its competitors.

Like mentioned in the proposal, the delegate pay is an open door for the community to leverage our user reach and promote themselves.  The integration will not be a result of subsidies. Any product related decisions are made over time post due analysis of what the tech brings to the table and how it affects our end users.