Thanks for the warm welcome everyone!

Quote from: Ben Mason on October 27, 2015, 09:41:19 pm

Welcome David. Your website looks very nice and the project sounds very intriguing. Would you mind explaining a little bit about the governance architecture of IOTA please? How trust in the system established and maintained?

Thanks for the kinds words.
For sure, so in IOTA there is no mining and there are no fees, instead transactions are confirmed by very lightweight PoW which is established by an unique alloy of techniques whose combination gives an unprecedented result. If you have read the whitepaper you will get a better idea. The details are quite challenging to explain in layman terms.  But if you are an experienced programmer it will be easier to grasp. In short: Iota client doesn't need to order transactions, it doesn't need to track balances, it doesn't need to validate transactions most of time except lightning-fast verification of a PoW token.

If you have any specific technical questions we'll try to answer them as clear as possible

thanks for explaining. I have several question.

Who will do the pow work? If there is no mining, how can the node benifit from runing a pow node? Or it is not decentralised?

Basiclly, can you tell how many roles there and how they act and why they join.

excellent!

I also have a little shares of the Nxt DEX. I am glad to see bitshares DEX start to surpport some shares exchange.

great！

Quote from: Helikopterben on October 24, 2015, 08:37:51 am

I proposed exactly this earlier.  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19338.0.html  That may have been what you read.  I don't know if the blockchain itself could provide liquidity, but maybe it could work in some form... or perhaps even a worker proposal to provide liquidity services.  IMO liquidity is the missing link to boostrap internal markets.  Much more so than the debate over fees.

Yes I believe I saw it there!

Quote from: xiahui135 on October 24, 2015, 10:11:06 am

Rent USD will always lead to lack of USD. There will be no liquidity.
Burn is a good idea, but it is hard to control amount of USD. This will lead too much USD in the market and hard to realise pegging.

And people can just burn bts to get USD, and  no need to sell bts for USD. So how can you buy bts,.when nobody sell.

Even if it is too much bitUSD in the market with what I proposed they would only be able to be bought at feed price. And once bought, if the person wants to sell it, would probably do it above the feed for a small profit.

As for people burning BTS and get USD for themselves, that I do not agree. The concept of burning is to benefit the network. If that would happen people would just burn BTS, get USD and wouldn't short with a higher collateral of BTS.

My definition of burning assumes when you do, you get nothing in exchange other than reducing the supply of an asset. However with this you would do it and create bitUSD for the market. You wouldn't get the bitUSD for yourself. If you did you would not be burning unless you would burn 2 times what a bitUSD is worth of BTS.

Sorry. I do not understand the idea that burn for the network. If one can not get the USD  generated by one's burn, will there be decent abount of USD created by this burn?

High fees mean that BTS will not be used for certain high-volume, low-value transfers... aka: micro-payments.

To compare the difference between high-fees and low-fees simply compare the number of transfers on BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0.   We don't have enough data yet to do a meaningful comparison, but it would be a good start.

I would venture than 90% or more of the transfers are TO/FROM exchanges for amounts greater than $20 and thus less than 1% is going to fees from transfers.

The question isn't "what does it cost", but "what is the value provided". 

The fees are only high for non-lifetime members.   The fees are CHEAPER than BTC for lifetime members.   

So if someone has demand for over 625 transfers they can buy in "bulk" by getting a lifetime membership, which is what we want users to do.

This means the real argument is whether or not lowering the price for users who only do a few transfers will increase the number of users by enough to compensate for the losses from those who are OK with the fees.

Transferring connect people.  90% of transfers are form\to exchange are problem we have to solve. The team build the 2.0 system is to attract people to use it.

Also the fee is expensive for life-time members. 2 bts fee to place an order is expensive when we will place and cancel orders frequently.

I suggest lower the transfer\place and cancel order fee. The only limit is the system capacity. so a low fee like range form 0.001 bts to 100 bts is ok, according to the tx/s.

As the referral program, it is an excellent idea.  we can raise the order match fee to make up the low fee of transfer.   Like 0.05% fee for normal users, and life-time member accordingly is 0.01%.  Or 50 bts per success-match for normal users, and accordingly 10 bts per success-match for life time members.

Rent USD will always lead to lack of USD. There will be no liquidity.
Burn is a good idea, but it is hard to control amount of USD. This will lead too much USD in the market and hard to realise pegging.

And people can just burn bts to get USD, and  no need to sell bts for USD. So how can you buy bts,.when nobody sell.

there is not many users yet. So do not expect there will any ad revenue. Unless you advertise for other central exchange or other spam crypto.