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 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64
331
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Freebieservers.com is here
« 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.

332
Technical Support / Re: "inactivity tax" question
« on: March 08, 2015, 07:56:15 pm »
This was discussed, but does not currently exist and there are no current plans to ever implement it as far as I know.

There are a lot of drawbacks to the idea, but if I remember correctly the main benefit was being able to have a rolling year of blockchain data and throw away anything older than that to trim storage requirements.  Also removing uncertainty about the real supply when some funds are effectively burned because their private keys have been destroyed.

Anyway, the idea is dead.

333
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Remove yunbi delegates
« on: March 08, 2015, 02:31:59 pm »
Quote from: cass on March 08, 2015, 01:42:09 pm
I begin to think, we should be more patient, cause personally believe yunbi is bringing much more value to our ecosystem then consumes due their delegate pays!

my 2 bitUSD!
Certainly they're bringing value, but they're an exchange: attracting traders is their business whether we pay them to or not.

Delegate pay should be reserved for paying people to do things that are otherwise not in their best interest, but are in ours.

334
General Discussion / Re: Trouble Registering Account
« on: March 08, 2015, 01:19:45 am »
I'm away from my computer right now, but I think once you've registered "b" you should be able to register "a.b" with whatever settings you like, including setting it as a delegate.

335
General Discussion / Re: Trouble Registering Account
« on: March 08, 2015, 12:24:09 am »
The period character designates child accounts.  So to register "a.b" you have to be the owner of the "b" account already.

This allows you to have multiple accounts for special purposes that are all publicly attached to the same identity.

336
General Discussion / Re: ABRA combined with Bitassets and it Is the end for banks forever!
« on: March 07, 2015, 12:08:57 am »
Quote from: delulo on March 06, 2015, 11:57:48 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 06, 2015, 11:44:55 pm
Quote from: delulo on March 06, 2015, 11:39:56 pm
Wouldn't BitUSD / BitAssets beat Abra with the following model: I buy BitUSD at a gateway/teller for USD, then exchange those on the Bitshares DEX for BitPeso, then send BitPeso to my cousin in Mexiko who can sell his BitPeso for Peso.
This involves less less counterparty risk. With Abra tellers could do fractional reserve banking or run away with customer money. Not so with the Bitshares model because you BUY BitUSD from an exchange and SELL it to him instead of having an IOU pushed around on the Abra network. And with Bitshares you dont have to cash out at a gateway because finally stores might accept BitUSD too ;)

Yes.  I think this is a significant improvement on what I see of the ABRA model.  Is anyone in contact with the ABRA people?  Making it powered by BitShares would certainly save them a lot of trouble.  :P
I am exited about this because it would provide tremendous benefits to millions of people with little addition to the existing Bitshares infrastructure.
Let's brainstorm a bit about what is needed to make this work (at best all in one app):
- A reputation system for tellers/gateways. Would Bitshares DNS/reputation system be worth waiting for?
- Mobile wallet
- What else???

I am pretty sure Bytemaster has tought about all this already :) He definitely mentioned a few times that he would like to see a localbitcoins for Bitshares. 

Also paging Matt608 and his Latino crew. They must have thought about this :)

This is an exciting and very valuable use case, but it's also a pretty basic one, and one that I think has been intended from very early on.  The biggest technical requirement is an easy to use mobile wallet.  Reputation management would be handy, but people buy things from each other all the time and just manage reputation the old fashioned way...

337
General Discussion / Re: ABRA combined with Bitassets and it Is the end for banks forever!
« on: March 06, 2015, 11:44:55 pm »
Quote from: delulo on March 06, 2015, 11:39:56 pm
Wouldn't BitUSD / BitAssets beat Abra with the following model: I buy BitUSD at a gateway/teller for USD, then exchange those on the Bitshares DEX for BitPeso, then send BitPeso to my cousin in Mexiko who can sell his BitPeso for Peso.
This involves less less counterparty risk. With Abra tellers could do fractional reserve banking or run away with customer money. Not so with the Bitshares model because you BUY BitUSD from an exchange and SELL it to him instead of having an IOU pushed around on the Abra network. And with Bitshares you dont have to cash out at a gateway because finally stores might accept BitUSD too ;)

Yes.  I think this is a significant improvement on what I see of the ABRA model.  Is anyone in contact with the ABRA people?  Making it powered by BitShares would certainly save them a lot of trouble.  :P

338
General Discussion / Re: ABRA combined with Bitassets and it Is the end for banks forever!
« on: March 06, 2015, 11:23:36 pm »
Quote from: clayop on March 06, 2015, 09:41:07 pm
Quote from: Troglodactyl on March 06, 2015, 09:32:04 pm
That requires trust between the two gateways, and the sender trusting both of them.

Using bitAssets for remittance the only trust needed is that the gateway not cheat you while you're physically standing there face to face.

In this case, liquidity will be the problem. You cannot send $10k to Canada because there is only $76 amount of CAD on BTS network. So gateway to gateway is preferred in spite of trust needed.

I think if there was sufficient demand for it the supply of bitCAD would increase to meet that demand.  I think small gateways like the localbitcoins or ABRA teller model would be best served by trading direct to market pegged assets with a fee/spread, because they're unlikely to have sufficient reputation to run a trusted UIA, and also unlikely to have partners at the destination.  Major fiat exchanges like Coinbase would be better served by issuing a gateway UIA for CoinbaseUSD and such.

339
General Discussion / Re: ABRA combined with Bitassets and it Is the end for banks forever!
« on: March 06, 2015, 09:32:04 pm »
That requires trust between the two gateways, and the sender trusting both of them.

Using bitAssets for remittance the only trust needed is that the gateway not cheat you while you're physically standing there face to face.

340
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Needs You... To Vote!
« on: March 05, 2015, 01:52:29 am »
I think I'm too short to vote.  :P

341
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Persistent interest rate competition in shorting
« on: February 28, 2015, 07:05:29 pm »
Quote from: Bitcoinfan on February 28, 2015, 06:11:07 pm
I proposed this same idea a while back.  It is not viable right now because you are deincentizing shorters (when there are so little) from providing liquidity and collateralization in the markets. If this rule was in place, nobody would want to short, or would hesitate to do so, drying up possibility of growing the volume of bitassets.  I think for now it is more complexity that we don't want to fiddle with. 

But seeing as you have an eye on this as well, we should take this up in the future when the overall market cap is healthier. 


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14217.msg185174#msg185174

Thanks!  I think the greatest risk is negated by only allowing such takeovers when the BTS/BitAsset feed is below the entry point (I would add at least the interest due as a margin to this).  This way the initial shorter is guaranteed not to take a loss because someone else took over his short position; the only risk due to such takeovers is failing to profit as much as he could have if he'd offered a more competitive interest rate.

Complexity is a very serious drawback, and likely this will be superfluous once the markets are more active.  The problem now is that there are lulls when there is very little competition.

342
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Persistent interest rate competition in shorting
« on: February 28, 2015, 04:41:17 pm »
*bump*

343
Random Discussion / Re: How do you prove a person is who they claim to be?
« on: February 28, 2015, 04:20:48 pm »
Most of the time you don't really care who a person is, as long as they're the same person who built the reputation you're looking at.  Biometrics (examined in person) can be useful for uniquely identifying a person, but they're terrible for automated security: they can be copied, and once copied they can't be changed.

In general, uniqueness is less important than reputation, so getting someone to build and use a reputation using a unique key pair solves a lot of problems.  If uniqueness is a requirement, trusted (possibly several redundant) verifiers should be able to check biometrics in person and sign off linking a hash of biometric results to the public key.

344
General Discussion / Re: FCC-Net Neutrality.
« on: February 28, 2015, 04:23:55 am »
Quote from: luckybit on February 28, 2015, 04:14:20 am
Quote from: merivercap on February 28, 2015, 02:58:55 am
I haven't followed this closely, but anytime the government gets more power that is not a good thing.  The Internet is one of the biggest threats to government control, propaganda and power so naturally governments want to find a way to control it and it wouldn't surprise me at all that Net Neutrality is just part of a broader agenda to do that.  What shocks me is how one-sided the debate has been.  Next thing you know we'll have the Digital Currency Freedom Act that will protect people from hackers, scammers, child porn, and terrorists with a 50% tax on DACs and new coins so they can create a new Department of Internet Security and a new Internet czar.  ::) Anyways... I'll go back to Bitshares and more positive thoughts now.... :)

The US government created the Internet and Tor. Yes the same government that hates the Internet created it. Yes the same government that hates Tor created Tor. Yes the same government that fears freedom helped to create the freedom it fears. It's always been like this in America.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/f-c-c-moves-to-free-up-community-broadband-services/?_r=0

Indeed.  The tricky part of that is figuring out when it's incompetence, when it's a honeypot, and when it's the balance of power actually still working somewhat.

345
General Discussion / Re: Light Wallet Beta Release
« on: February 27, 2015, 08:17:44 pm »
Name suggestion:

BitShares Tendril

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 64

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 23 queries.