I'm quite sure that there is no need for outside trading of BTS.

The price discovery process will work just fine even if it's exclusively on our blockchain. There will be lots of market pairs: BTS <-> smartcoins, BTS <-> cryptocurrency-UIAs and BTS <-> fiat-UIAs. When all these have good liquidity, we can be pretty sure that price of BTS is accurate for price feeds.

Cool!

Can you make a post on your blog about this? It's better to spread link in the social media to the official blog rather than to a forum thread like this.

Btw, I noticed on Cybertalks forum a thread about this, but can't open it. I'll just get an error message: "Sorry, we couldn't load that topic, possibly due to a connection problem. Please try again. If the problem persists, let us know."

Are we going to change the Bitshares version number to 2.1 when Rate Limited Free Transactions feature is implemented? I've been trying to ask it for a while but nobody has answered. If we are going to to a proper marketing campaign, we need to know this as soon as possible so that everybody has enough time to make plans and get ready.

I highly recommend that Bitshares changes the version number. This new feature will be a major change on how the system works and we really should let the world know about it. Changing the version number is easy way of signaling that Bitshares is evolving so it's a good foundation for the marketing campaign.

And a second question for Bytemaster and also for the whole community... Is "Rate Limited Free Transactions" the best or even a good name for the feature? In Bytemaster's original blog post the rate limiting of transactions was important piece of the system, but abit's implementation is more like "subsidized transactions" kind of system, where users are given credits that they can use to pay for transactions. After the credits are used, there is no limits for use of Bitshares – users just have to pay normal fees for transactions just like they do now. I have a feeling that talking about "rate limitations" will be very confusing for newbies.

Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on March 07, 2016, 05:11:37 pm

Quote from: Rune on March 07, 2016, 04:53:10 pm

I would recommend against this. I actually proposed something similar myself more than a year ago, but I have since then learned a lot more about economics.

what about economics makes you recommend against this experiment? i'm personally about indifferent on this hypothesis, but usually ere on the side of experimentation.

This is in essence a bet against the market by a public agent. I don't think it can possibly be profitable in the long run.

I'm also just speculating, macroeconomics are  mostly guesswork. I don't think there's anything wrong with experimenting but I wouldn't do that on the main bitshares blockchain.

I see this more like a kickstart project than a longterm solution. I'm also quite sure that this wouldn't be profitable in the long run, but this might be a good way to get liquid markets kickstarted. Although I'm still inclined to think that best way to pay yield is to pay it only for smartcoins that are in the orderbook.

Great to see that you all are getting interested in this!

But first things first: Are we going to do the 2.1 campaign or not?

If yes, we should know that as soon as possible so everybody can start to make their marketing plans.

If no, we need to think what's the best way to market individual features and/or the whole Bitshares system and should we do some other kind of campaign.

In any case, we need a word from developers as soon as possible. Devs are the people who decide the version number. Every day that you withhold the information is one day less for marketing campaign preparations.

$200 000!



Edit: Also in Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BitShares/comments/49bgzh/new_record_24hour_volume_over_200_000/

Quote from: Samupaha on March 06, 2016, 05:49:27 am

Quote from: CryptoPrometheus on March 05, 2016, 05:14:54 pm

This thread is to discuss the possibility of derivative assets such as USD, CNY and GOLD backed by Real BTC, ETH, DOGE, LTC, etc. in a way that is completely decentralized.

How would we go about this?

This has never been done before, as far as I know. It could end up bringing more awareness to our amazing innovation - bitAssets - that IMO has received far too little attention to date.

Are there any other benefits besides awareness? I think that BTS is best asset to back smartcoins. If sidechain-BTC is used, there is no additional benefit, but there is always some risk from reliability of sidechain implementation. BTS doesn't have that kind of risk.

Good question. I'm not sure I agree that BTS is less risky, since failure for both would require some sort of collusion. What's the difference between the committee colluding to influence the bitAsset issuing account vs. colluding to control the BTC multi-sig account? The risk profile seems very similar to me.

Adding the sidechain-multisig adds always one potential point-of-failure. Unless it brings significant benefits, I'm skeptical if it's worth of doing.

Thom, my comment was about smartcoins backed by sideBTC.  That's what the OP was talking about, or at least that's how I understood it. But I do agree that sideBTC itself is worth doing, I just prefer to use it as it is, not as backing currency for derivatives.

Quote

So there is a need for new feature for asset: it's value should be able to go negative.

It does not matter if there is a minus sign in front of the value, or it is written in a separate "liability" column. When you issued a token, it has to be reflected in your account budget. This is your debt.

Yeah, but how to do this in a user-friendly way?

Localmoney/timebank/etc systems are not going to be able serve large crowds, but they can work in a small groups where most of the people know each other. I don't see a big market there for Bitshares, but it would be nice to have those people onboard too, especially if it doesn't require much customization.