I think bitusd will been accepted by seller like taobao.com and amazon in the future .if each DAC have its bitusd, there are music-bitusd and btsx-bitusd in market. what bitusd the seller should accept, if the seller accept all bitusd, they must mark the price of goods by different bitusd. it is very inconvenience.

If the peg is working well then for a merchant point of view it does not matter where the bitUSD is coming from as long as the value is 1 USD.

But what is most likely to happen is this :

Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

For example, you may have account on both of Music and BTSX, you could top up your Music account with BitUSD by freezing your BTSX account with equal amount BitUSD, and the you could do it in reverse by destroying BitUSD on Music and release equal amount BitUSD on BTSX. It will require additional confirmation time and common Delegates but I think the cross chains trading between Music and BTSX with Music's BitUSD and BTSX's BitUSD will require these conditions too.

Cross chains trading does't require common delegates. What you propose is a Etherum stile solution, you'll need common delegates for every DAC out there.

 If we can issue bitUSD only in BTSX that wold be great. I think there is a big technical challenge to do it properly.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

Quote from: oco101 on September 10, 2014, 06:11:15 pm

Quote from: arhag on September 10, 2014, 05:14:03 pm

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).

The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.

Makes a lot of  sense !!  The marketing department will need to switch  in high gear to defend the fundamentals of bitAsset,   first we will need to have strong, solid and steady  bitAssets market going already with different DAC. That's why DNS and Music are very important in the ecosystem this will confirm that the whole idea of bitAssets and DAC is working as is supposed too. If all this happens then you can talk about financial revolution. Yes we are almost  there  we can smell it but let's be careful please, let's not screw this thing with trivialities. 

Ok the conclusion is we need bitUSD issued on Bitshare Music AND DNs that is the most elegant solution, then we can cross chain trade all we want

 

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Assuming the founders, devs, and corporation are the same people, the current allocation means that as long as that group retains levels of public support rivaling the United States Congress, they'll effectively have full control of the network.  If the "decentralized network" core is intended to be more than a marketing gimmick, I'd allocate more Notes to either the pre-sale or to PTS/AGS.  As long as PeerTracks is doing its job well and has public support, elected delegates should pass most of the profits on to them anyway, without having to rely on appointed delegates.

To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:

1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com

2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.

3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains.

4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.

5. If every Bitshares DAC has its own "BitUSD" will increase the complexity of its system, which brings unnecessary risk and mislead the development direction from the realy core fucntion.

I believe it's much better if we make all BitUSD fungible from BTSX only.

I think it should be still viable for atomic cross chain trading, maybe it will "lose" some operation efficiency compare to the two or more "BitUSD" scenario, but it do make sense from big picture.

Even if it's not viable or low efficiency base on typic atomic cross chain trading tech, but could we think about something like the concept of Bitcoin "sidechain"?

We need to evaluate the pros/cons of all options in details.

I don't really worry about someone just forks BTSX w/ additional functions(or just completely same) if we do not cooperate w/ them. They have no chance to beat BTSX since the real market peg needs time and resouce to grow up the system and BTSX is much mature than any latecomers. We could offer them options, use BTSX's "BitUSD" by atomic cross chain trading or sidechain, or no cooperation/support from BTSX.

In short, I do think the BTS community should take it very seriously before any real implementation.

Thanks.

I agree on all points the only place that bitUSD are issued should be BitshareX, there should't be another place. If not bitUSD will be exposed to all kinds of dangers. Not sure if you have atomic cross chain  trading why you still need a market inside peertraks. ? I'm waiting on full details tough it is not clear right now

Look at how much more Nxt is capable of and it has a larger community, point being, BTSX is currently overvalued. 

That sounds like a very profound analyses ......... ohh wait NXT is much more capable because of this brilliant new idea called CoinoUSD ? .. yup that proves how much more capable is you right. Larger community?  now that is based on what exactly ?  How big Bitshare X community is do you know ? How big NXT community is ?? 

I thinks both Bitshare and NXT are working in the same space and have different approaches witch is good for all crypto in general, the technologies differences have been discussed at length many time over.  Sorry but your arguments are not convincing. We'll see and yes the price will go up and down but you know what ? That's good because with every up and down movement, there's money to be made trading inside the BitshareX, more trading the better the peg will work . But there is a danger that the price will not swing as much as you think it would ... but you right who knows. One think is for sure, in the long run the only way is up here we both agree

So is it possible to transfer BitUSD bought from BTSX market to Bitshares Music blockchain? Or are they totally separated but just only use the same name?

Yes this will possible it is called Cross chain trading . Because  bitUSD are fungible it does't matter in what blockchain they are "minted"

see Cob complet answer here :

Look at it this way.

BitUSD is not really a "thing" or a coin, it's 1 USD worth of BTSX. So when you are trading around a BitUSD, you are actually trading around 1 US dollar's worth of purchasing power of crypto... something. On the BitSharesX platform, 1 BitUSD is 1 US dollar's worth of BTSX.

On the BitShares Music Blockchain, the unit is the Note. So if you want to trade 1 BitUSD, you are really trading 1 US dollar's worth of Notes. Which takes the form of a BitUSD.

They both look like a digital US dollar, only if you open it up, one is collateralized by BTSX then other is collateralized by Notes.

I could get a loan at a bank, for 10k USD. They might ask for collateral. I could offer up my Honda Civic.
My friend could go to the bank and also ask for a 10k USD loan. He could offer up his VW Jetta as collateral. We both would have a 10 000 USD loan, but his is back a one type of car, mine is backed by another.

Not the best analogy but I hope it helps haha.

Also yes, Cross chain trading will be an eventual feature in the bitshares space. Bytemaster said so in another thread.