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 - Empirical1.2

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92
16
Unclickable clickbait. Welcome to the future!  8)

I clicked it anyway. Here's the contents.

Thanks  :D

Quote
In conclusion I would like to point that all these features as good as might seem, are very dangerous. The BitShares community should focus on more practical stuff, especially in the following :

Rate limited fees, Autobridging, Maker/Taker, Negative Fees, Smartcoin Park rates, Bond Market, MetaTrader Integration, Trading Bots. All these would add a lot of potential and value to BitShares, they don’t have any hidden dangers for the BitShares platform and their cost is relatively low. At current rates they could be done in 1 year.

I'd rather focus a lot on those features too. I don't know enough about Stealth/Privacy solutions to comment so I have to take it from others I trust on the forum that Stealth has a lot of issues. The complete openness of BTS is an issue though (especially in the BTS 2.0 transition, a lot of people had used their forum names for their accounts not realising everybody would be able to openly view their balances.) So even some level of privacy could be a positive.

Quote
Finally I wanted to add a side note on sidechains. Honestly that would be even worse than adding stealth. Doom scenario for sidechains : Bitcoins worth 2M USD are held by the Bitshares Blockchain.

All witnesses collude to steal all coins or all witnesses are hacked and have no control, 2. Someone takes control over big proxies or stakes and votes witnesses his/her own (Hacking proxies or exchanges) 3. Big proxies/holders/exchanges collude to steal funds
Bytemaster said that it wouldn’t make sense for someone do so. But did he consider the fact that BitShares are a lot less liquid that Bitcoin? Even if Bitshares were worth 20M USD the fact that they are illiquid makes them worth a lot less than they actually are.

I agree, I don't like the idea of witnesses controlling millions in Bitcoin either,

Quote
What?  You're trusting your coins to the owner of a single exchange company with no supervision by other independent cosigners?  Really?

They're trusting registered & highly regulated companies in countries with relatively strong & effective legal systems. Their owners are also making millions of dollars and so have a financial incentive to keep making money and not go to jail.

DPOS currently has neither the same legal fallback & delegates who make only a few hundred bucks a month. While the delegates ability to damage and profit from harming BTS is limited. They could get full value from other blockchain tokens.

By increasing the incentive for delegates to misbehave and therefore the trust required in them you increase the fragility of BTS. Blockchain competition is also reducing fees to near zero so the value centre of BTS is BTS collateralised SmartCoins, UIA tokens not collateralised with BTS are much less attractive, see MaidSafe, Synereo & Agoras, collectively worth >$50 million on an Omni blockchain worth <$1.4 million...

So I don't see the value in there myself. For me the way to make BTS useful and popular now & massively grow the value of BTS is by focusing on market maker & yield subsidies to create useful liquidity & demand around the peg so that bridges can convert fairly close to 1-1.

17
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@tarantulaz/why-i-think-stealth-backups-and-sidechains-shouldnt-be-added-in-bitshares
 

I don't do clickbait. Could you copy and paste the content?

18
Technical Support / Re: depressing...
« on: June 08, 2016, 03:42:01 pm »
Just because the bitshares network gets popular and is useful... doesn't mean the bitshares token will get any more valuable.

Holding the token doesn't do anything except give you voting rights.  Plus the network is operating at a huge loss right now because of witness pay and worker proposals.  Until fee's are brought back into the fold and the network becomes profitable, there's not really a point to holding the token.  In fact many of the projects using the BTS exchange for their UIA's accept funding outside of the DEX and distribute their token after they receive actual bitcoin or cash... this means there is literally no reason to buy bts to enter the ecosystem.

Once the merger is over, the downward pressure on price will be much less.

If BTS backed SmartCoins grow in popularity as a product they will create net BTS demand for many years to come and as a result increase the value of BTS. As the product matures, the SmartCoin market can then be monetized via trading fees.   

However the primary business model for BTS continues to be SmartCoins imo but they do require BTS to introduce liquidity subsidies and continue to make the DEX as user friendly as possible. (I'm also in favour of Yield subsidies for the period of time SmartCoin growth outpaces it.)

If demand for Smartcoins (Backed by BTS) grow over time then demand for BTS will grow with it until such time as the SmartCoin market reaches maturity. (Possibly many years in the future.) At that stage you would monetize your customer base through transaction fees in order to generate a return for shareholders like a more a traditional business. (As well as sell them other related products and services on BTS.)



Another business model on BTS is also a pure DEX model with trading fees for a range of user issued assets. While less lucrative imo, with CEX's like Coinbase valued at >$500 million there's also some potential there by growing that market to become the leading DEX & monetizing that customer base.

(We also don't need to add trading fees for the DEX model immediately either, user numbers increasing will increase the value of BTS because the market will price in their future monetization value provided they believe it's credible we can charge and still retain them in the future.)

19
General Discussion / Re: Waves
« on: June 08, 2016, 03:25:33 pm »
Charles Hoskinson not happy with Waves team: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1434851.0

Gotta love it!  ;)

So now Charles Hoskinson has been unhappy with the Bitshares, Ethereum, and Waves teams.  Am I missing any?  Probably.

The common factor in all your failed relationships is you.

I've not always been positive about Charles but I did suggest LSK should approach him.

LSK/Max should perhaps approach Charles Hoskinson at that conference, he was a founder of BTS, played a significant role in Ethereum and I think is somehow involved in the tech behind Waves but not endorsing it/involved. So if there's something he's working on that could be applied to/help LSK that could be a valuable association.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1346646.msg14989721#msg14989721

I see they've announced that he will be a senior advisor to LSK

https://blog.lisk.io/lisk-adds-charles-hoskinson-steven-nerayoff-as-senior-advisors-to-facilitate-product-development-5a2260613699#.a5yv55sg3

Given Max's inexperience, I think Charles & Steven in an advisory role will be extremely valuable as will their contacts & experience in the industry.

20
Technical Support / Re: depressing...
« on: June 08, 2016, 03:00:34 pm »
I think you could see BTS start to do very well again by November once the expensive merger/vesting period comes to an end.

Tweak some SmartCoin parameters, add the liquidity subsidies some in the community have been working on and possibly also a yield promotion. Ideally margin trading too. And you have a very low inflation, powerful DEX with popular and liquid BTS backed SmartCoins which I think will be the driving force behind BTS growth and bootstrapping the DEX for a range of other products and services.

Thank you Bytemaster for finalizing a roadmap...

step 1: implement zero fees
step 2: subsidize liquidity
step 3: implement margin trading and simplify initial visible smartcoin markets to:

bitUSD/BTS
bitGOLD/BTS
bitGOLD/bitUSD


 +5% Sounds good

21
So my question is, does a comprehensive and up to date video like this exist?  If not, why not?
Ironically, you have to vote to make it happen.  :P

Which is a real problem.  More than it being a ironic situation, it's a real sick situation.

These are key elements of the Bitshares system, and part of the launch, these needed to be already prepared before letting this system into the wild.

You don't build a system, and hope that people will figure out how to use it. 


A good place to start would be a simple 'how to' voting graphic like the one I've seen one of the delegates make for LSK (to promote himself) I'm not sure we have one for BTS.




22
is it possible to add some economic incentive for voting?  for example is it possible to give voters some reward when the voted witness generate a new block? even a little reward can encourage voting.

LISK has profit sharing delegates.

Right now +-30% of LSK is on Polo. It will be interesting if over time, profit sharing delegates act as a sufficient incentive and if shareholders are informed enough to strike a balance between delegate types and combinations thereof.

dPoS will continue to be broken as long as there is no incentive to vote or penalty for not voting. At this point, I think the only way to fix it is by providing a penalty if you don't vote every so often, then your stake should be confiscated by the blockchain and burned. Kind of off topic from OP.. my bad.

So, to avoid penalty or earn incentives,  former non-voters would just vote randomly without thinking.
"Too lazy to vote, too lazy to think about a coerced vote."

Result: there are now a bunch of random votes blocking new decisions and making it hard for dedicated thinkers to respond quickly when issues do arise.  Therefore the project wanders adrift at sea without a rudder.

How would that do anything but harm?

BTS shareholders (or shareholders in any company) have made a capital investment in the future of that company.

Unlike centralized companies that require a vote as little as once per year, A decentralized company requires shareholders to engage in frequent voting which requires additional 'work'  & as Bytemaster correctly states in his latest blog imo...

Quote
Many people vote once and then forget to change their vote or they vote for a proxy and then forget to follow up. The usual end result is that it becomes difficult to vote out incumbents or vote in new individuals. The presence of voter apathy is a sign that incentives are not properly aligned in the system.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/01/04/The-Benefits-of-Proof-of-Work/

By incentivising voting and penalising non voting you are aligning incentives so that the small BTS shareholders are now paid for the additional 'work' and as they are BTS shareholders who have made a capital commitment to the success of the project, it is likely the majority of votes will not be random but considered.

Imo, either the majority of small BTS shareholders will vote responsibly if given an incentive & if not, then it means BTS is the most insecure blockchain on the planet and can be attacked with 0.05% of BTS.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20724.msg267990.html#msg267990

23
Soooooooo how about that Bitshares thing huh? :)

WHAT do YOU want?

Privacy.

Ordinary people using it as an online banking system.

Traders using it for forex, speculation.

Savers using BitETFs and Smartcoins to store wealth.

I want to be able to store wealth privately on the blockchain, to trade, save, invest, speculate, to do with my hard earned money what I please.

I want to be able to pay online using BitUSD.
I want to be able to send 500 BitUSD to a friend who needs a break instantly, across the world.

I want to use the dishonest, corrupt, extorting banking system as little as I have to.
I'll take ownership of my finances.

Fantastic.. now on a scale from 1 - 5, because I counted 5 things there, what order of importance do you think those things should be introduced? 1 being MOST important, and 5 being least.

This seems like a pretty good short term roadmap...

Thank you Bytemaster for finalizing a roadmap...

step 1: implement zero fees
step 2: subsidize liquidity
step 3: implement margin trading and simplify initial visible smartcoin markets to:

bitUSD/BTS
bitGOLD/BTS
bitGOLD/bitUSD


 +5% Sounds good

24

Given there's only circa $20k buy support for STEEM down to a zero valuation, how much could someone like rgcrypto who has apparently earned $20k STEEM USD realistically convert to BTC over a day/week/month if conditions resembling the current market exist on Jul 5th or whenever they become redeemable?

It is unreasonable to assume that current conditions will persist. Steemit.com's user base is growing exponentially. And with that comes great potential.

I can see user numbers increasing while the rewards appear generous, however I don't believe that will necessarily translate into increased market demand for Steem.

Also relatively little Steem has been up for sale to date, I imagine after July 4th there will be people looking to redeem their SBD, so even if there's some kind of self-balancing mechanism, demand may actually decrease closer to that date as traders anticipate a potential increase in supply for sale.

Whichever outcome, I imagine people will only be able to redeem their SBD at a trickle, which could disincentivize users and even upset some who thought they had earned a lot of SBD they would be able to redeem reasonably swiftly.   

So my personal opinion is that there isn't really a good case for shareholders to invest in Steem and I think it could run into user issues as well. Obviously we'll have to see it how it all plays out at the time.

Here is a quote from a Bytemaster srticle on steemit.com entitled "Why people will buy STEEM". I suggest that you might find the article enlightening.

"The primary reason people buy Bitcoin is because it is a cryptocurrency with a large base of people who know about it and are willing to transact in it. The secondary reason is it has a large amount of liquidity. Steem has the potential to build a much larger user base than Bitcoin and provides financial incentives for liquidity. This combination means that Steem could become a better known currency than Bitcoin and thus become easier to transact in than Bitcoin. If market participants perceive this possibility they will buy."
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/why-people-will-buy-steem

Other points covered in the article include:
Social Value
Demand for Influence and Transactions
Advertising Demand
Monetary Use

As you mentioned/quoted previously, Steem deliberately went against all the crypto-currency communities cultural regulations,

Quote

Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch

...You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross...

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

Which is fine, but as a result of intentionally violating every one of the cultural regulations around how to launch a crypto-currency, I think it's unlikely to become widely popular and supported as a crypto-currency in it's own right.



25

Given there's only circa $20k buy support for STEEM down to a zero valuation, how much could someone like rgcrypto who has apparently earned $20k STEEM USD realistically convert to BTC over a day/week/month if conditions resembling the current market exist on Jul 5th or whenever they become redeemable?

It is unreasonable to assume that current conditions will persist. Steemit.com's user base is growing exponentially. And with that comes great potential.

I can see user numbers increasing while the rewards appear generous, however I don't believe that will necessarily translate into increased market demand for Steem.

Also relatively little Steem has been up for sale to date, I imagine after July 4th there will be people looking to redeem their SBD, so even if there's some kind of self-balancing mechanism, demand may actually decrease closer to that date as traders anticipate a potential increase in supply for sale.

Whichever outcome, I imagine people will only be able to redeem their SBD at a trickle, which could disincentivize users and even upset some who thought they had earned a lot of SBD they would be able to redeem reasonably swiftly.   

So my personal opinion is that there isn't really a good case for shareholders to invest in Steem and I think it could run into user issues as well. Obviously we'll have to see it how it all plays out at the time.

26
It is unreasonable to assume that current conditions will persist. Steemit.com's user base is growing exponentially. And with that comes great potential. From a Steemit post:

Imagine Apple and McDonalds buying Steem Power

"Where Steem comes in, is in the area of journalism and media. With ad-blocking on the rise and advertisers no longer willing to do expensive advertising campaigns, a model of media underpinned with a blockchain might be the answer. I can imagine Apple and McDonalds and other buying Steem Power to upvote any viral story that made their brands look good. I can see political parties doing the same, ditto pressure groups. Imagine the money that could be made at election time - in fact I think we should contact the Dems and GOP and ask them if they want to vote stuff up!

Steemit could be a new way of monetizing content - instead of the reader having to put up with ads, the advertiser simply purchases Steem Power and sets a bot to upvote any post that mentions their brand."

Thanks for making an interesting argument. I would disagree though.

While regular content is frequently influenced in that manner on the mainstream media primarily due to concentration of media ownership and lack of choice, social media users generally avoid platforms they feel lack media integrity.

Quote
Media integrity

Media integrity refers to the ability of a media outlet to serve the public interest and democratic process, making it resilient to institutional corruption within the media system, economy of influence, conflicting dependence and political clientelism. Such a situation enables excessive instrumentalisation of the media for particular political interests, which is subverting democratic role of the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

A good example of this is Digg, a Reddit-esque platform that went from a $200 million valuation in 2008 to being sold for $500 000 in 2012 as users believed the content was overly influenced by advertisers as opposed to users https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22561.msg293583.html#msg293583

27

I am working on the Website and currently thinking about the right design structure plus a way how to fund the front end developer. I first want to be 100% sure to get a voter in, because i don´t want to waste 160€ for a empty worker. I do not have spear funds fur such a deal. So before we think about a big rebranding, let us use what we have so far. Refaine our core values and talk to our core target group.


You should have posted this to STEEM.

And for the morons who think that the Steemit posters will lose value of their bitUSD (STEEM backed crypto dollars are the same thing) relative to USD as they go to cash it out on July 5th,  I have to laugh and realize that not even some of the BitShares faithful know that the concept of:

"the  value of 1 bitUSD can always be sold for $1 USD" is true

But for these people who are afraid that the value of bitUSD will fall relative to USD I will do you the favor and do your homework for you:

On July 5th the value of STEEMPOWER will fall as the STEEM backed dollars are pulled out of the system.  Sorry but the concept of smartcoins has been around now for years and when you act like it does not exist, it kind of makes me feel like a genius and realize that if the BitShares locals still have not learned what the heck a "smartcoin" is then...... (do the math)(early adopt much?)

How is the value of the bitUSD (SBD) going to hold it's value during this predictable exodous?  By barring the doors of the STEEMPOWER holders (and taking their money and giving it to the curators). 

Duh.. "smartcoins"  hello.  STEEM is a simplified fork of BitShares not a more complex one (no shorting/margin calls etc).  Wake up class, life is passing you by.

ELI5:

STEEM - It's just a BitShares fundraiser

As far as branding goes.  Let's keep the "BitShares" brand of smartcoins, but since our DEX is so kick ass performancewise, I do believe that we should start calling it:

"The DEX"

It is after all the first and only place that I know of where you can create and trade smartcoins (those things that many around here still fail to admit the existance of!)

Where is the best discussion of how the STEEMIT dollars work without the long/short mechanism?

The Steem Dollar is an amalgamation of stable coin mechanisms.  It's influenced by Vitalik Buterin's seignorage shares and other seignorage based stable coins. Other than seignorage, the token is supported by automatic distribution at a set rate, the holder's ability to use the blockchain to convert to Steem, price feeds and a target % of market cap. The blockchain has self-balancing seignorage mechanisms to make sure SD stays at a target % of market capitalization. To improve price feeds and liquidity, there is trading that occurs to support the peg that can happen off-chain or on-chain, however, one of the important facilitators of SD is the subsidized blockchain-based market between Steem and Steem Dollars.

Given there's only circa $20k buy support for STEEM down to a zero valuation, how much could someone like rgcrypto who has apparently earned $20k STEEM USD realistically convert to BTC over a day/week/month if conditions resembling the current market exist on Jul 5th or whenever they become redeemable?

28
And for the morons who think that the Steemit posters will lose value of their bitUSD (STEEM backed crypto dollars are the same thing) relative to USD as they go to cash it out on July 5th,  I have to laugh and realize that not even some of the BitShares faithful know that the concept of:

"the  value of 1 bitUSD can always be sold for $1 USD" is true

But for these people who are afraid that the value of bitUSD will fall relative to USD I will do you the favor and do your homework for you:

On July 5th the value of STEEMPOWER will fall as the STEEM backed dollars are pulled out of the system.  Sorry but the concept of smartcoins has been around now for years and when you act like it does not exist, it kind of makes me feel like a genius and realize that if the BitShares locals still have not learned what the heck a "smartcoin" is then...... (do the math)(early adopt much?)

How is the value of the bitUSD (SBD) going to hold it's value during this predictable exodous?  By barring the doors of the STEEMPOWER holders (and taking their money and giving it to the curators). 

I haven't looked into STEEM that much but it's true I fail to grasp how you're paying people thousands of dollars for content that's not even worth a few $ to even a revenue earning social media site.

I think in the case of Smartcoins you can't redeem 1 BitUSD for 1 USD if there's no demand for the $1 worth of BTS you receive in exchange.

In the case of STEEM, I think someone mentioned rgcrypto earned 20k STEEM USD. 

If he cashed that out and wanted to convert to say BTC surely that would involve selling 20k USD worth of STEEM onto the market? Given that there's barely  $20k buy support for STEEM in total... How can even that 1 person cash out without driving the value of a DAC supposedly worth $30 million based on total supply to zero and in the process giving him a few cents on the dollar?

29
He has no longer any significant stake in BTS.
Is this proven or just rumored?

BM sold several millions of BTS back in March and also transferred 6M BTS to onceuponatime as a compensation for failing to deliver STEALTH - this is visible on cryptofresh.

It's true that BM sold off some significant portion of his BTS holdings prior to formally announcing his departure to Steemit, but I guess it's been obvious for some time that he was dumping shares (with BitShares being so transparent, moves by whales are usually noticed within hours and BM's accounts were closely watched).

Dan has to pay his bills Jakub - he sold his personal holdings. Cryptonomex (the company) and Stan personally still own plenty of bitshares.The money Dan paid me for STEALTH was a very appreciated gesture of goodwill since the project couldn't be completed safely within the given timeframe in a way that I would get the income from it I was expecting. That would have been disastrous because I was expecting that income to fund other BitShares projects (which I have been working on while you were (somewhere?) on hiatus from BitShares activity (not answering Committee enquiries etc and leaving people in the lurch).

He sold his personal shares, which many others still here bitching have done long ago. And this HAD TO BE DONE in order partially to end the stalemate here at BitShares of those unwilling to pay workers. How was he supposed to hold a team together?

And how can you be so blind as to not see that a good deal of development money will go into the hands of BitShares project developers who simply take the trouble to post their projects and their progress on steemit.com? Or do you begrudge this workaround to get funding to the likes of KenCode and Fuzzy? (and others). Have you not noticed how well Cryptoctpus (known as rgcrypto here on this forum) has done on steemit.com? He has earned over $20,000 in just two weeks (after beating his head against the wall trying to online market BitShares earlier). I am pretty damn sure that he will be bringing his newfound funds and experience back to BitShares in the future (as will all the rest of us taking advantage of Dan's newly created opportunity).

Posting negativity here in this forum does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to add value to BitShares - but hey, it is helping to keep share prices down and I have been buying up bitshares on the cheap continuously for weeks. Thank you (I guess).

give me a break .
He has earned over $20,000 in just two weeks .

Really , that sounds real to you ? You really believe that when he take out the money , it will worth 20,000 ??????
It's just the same with BTS dilution , but worse . It's just paper money . Once people gets it and start to sell it , its price will drop dramatically .

Yeah I was wondering that too. Is that money guaranteed and available immediately or is it just some gimmick?

Like are they relying on the 40 BTC total Steem buy support or is there already real cash set aside?

30
3. There is one huge challenge ahead of us: addressing the decision making and governance issue, with the additional difficulty of cultural splits. After all the experiments we've had with DPOS and worker proposals, it looks to me that without someone taking on the role of a community leader there is little chance for much progress. We can stay stagnant for a couple of months but eventually the competition will catch on and our technological advantage will be gone. Ideally, someone like abit or xeroc will need to step up: combining a strong commitment to BitShares, technical expertise and a good relationship with most of the community. We as a community should encourage this to happen and be very generous in terms of financial rewards: it's a tough role which should be rewarded accordingly. We can dream about decentralization, but I'm not aware of a business project that has succeeded without a clear leadership. For me, decentralization means that we can survive when a leader is gone, but still we cannot move forward without having one.

Perhaps a list would be good that we could ultimately poll.

I think it should be a well paid position, possibly more of a manager than a pure developer as good interaction, acumen and a pretty thick skin (for the frequent critics like me) are required. If I recall a lot of developers prefer that level of separation as well.

BitCrab could be good, he seems to have a lot of Chinese support, is already running a business on BTS and the measured way in which he's handling a proposed BitCNY change I think shows his community respect and interaction skills are very strong https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22416.0.html

KenCode possibly. I think he's managing a team doing BTS related work. I haven't followed their progress lately but I seem to recall them getting quite a lot done quickly on a tight budget.

Ronny is a machine so he could be good, given he's already focusing on OL presumably with adequate incentives it might be best to bring in someone else.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 92