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 - Bhuz

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 32
136
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 12:21:19 pm »


Quote from: jakub on February 09, 2016, 12:07:50 pm
Quote from: Bhuz on February 09, 2016, 06:31:38 am
Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)

@Bhuz , it's you who want to change the exiting rules, not lil_jay890.
So logically it's up to you to prove that "lower transfer fee could bring much more people in the whole system" and give us an estimate of the magnitude of this change.

We've had this discussion for 3 months now, but the fact is none of you has brought a single piece of evidence supporting your assumptions.
We are going in circles.

I agree that the current level of the transfer fee is quite arbitrary, there was not much research done when it was set initially by BM.

But whatever it is, it gives some sort of badly needed stability to the business environment. This stability is not sacred but it's very important and if we want to dismantle this stability, we need to have a good reason for that. If the reason is your "gut feeling", then this is not a good reason for many people and you get a lot of resistance.

On the other hand, asking you to come up with a "good" reason is a tall order. That's why I've been trying like mad to come up with a solution that will allow you to test your gut feeling predictions on your own customers, while other businesses can continue to enjoy the current stability. This thread is my latest attempt.

The point here, in this thread, is that lil_jay890 is using transfer fee to calculate trading revenue.

He is saying that a change in transfer fee will affect a business based on a trading platform with a userbase focused on heavy traders.

This is just non sense and illogical.

Stick to the discussion here.

137
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Annual Membership price determined by the registrar
« on: February 09, 2016, 11:04:14 am »
from abit:
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.

from you:
Yes, that's a very good summary.



from me:
Is it correct that the shareholders/network/committee would end up setting the basic/lower_limit fee, and each registrars would *add* another fee *on top of the basic one*?

from you:
That's correct.

138
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Annual Membership price determined by the registrar
« on: February 09, 2016, 10:46:40 am »
Again, the specifications are different from the thread conclusion.

139
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 09, 2016, 06:31:38 am »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 09, 2016, 04:41:26 am
Quote from: clayop on February 09, 2016, 04:19:56 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 09, 2016, 04:13:39 am
Quote from: clayop on February 09, 2016, 03:36:11 am
Quote from: Akado on February 09, 2016, 02:38:38 am
6000 fixed or not, the point is, with one model you get to pay MT4 24x faster while at the same time providing MT4 users way lower fees than they're used to (I'm not sure about this part because I believe most would be crypto traders used to low fees maybe). I think that was his point.

I see. But according to economics 101, demand is determined by price. So 24x is not a realistic number. If we have 1000 BTS fee, he cannot recoup the cost 30x faster.
The point is, you cannot judge which fee is "killing referral" or which other is not. It also depends with demand and your business model.

You are assuming that the supply and demand is linear.  It's not.  Those same traders don't care if they are paying $0.0035 or $0.10.  Demand is inelastic and logarithmic between these prices and probably up to $1.00.  This is hopefully in your econ 101 text book as well.

The real world isn't a linear supply and demand chart... those charts were designed to help students get an idea of how S/D works.
I'm wondering how can you confidently say that numbers. Why up to $1? Why don't care $0.1? Any reasons or just your intuition?

Based on 10 years of real world trading experience and a comparison of commissions charged be several brokers.   A trader isn't going to choose a 1 cent platform vs a 50 cent on price alone.  It's a nonfactor at those price points.  The only thing that will matter at sub $1.00 fees is ease of use, features and security.

Remember these guys are trading thousands of dollars in each trade... 1 dollar is miniscule in their P/L

Could you explain me why you expect heavy and specialized traders to do *transfers* on a platform heavy focused on *trading* like MT4?

Could you explain me why are you using the "transfer fee* to calculate revenue generated from *trading*?

Could you explain why the registrars of MT4 would care about and look for revenue from *transfers* if they are promoting an advanced platform for *trading*?

Do you know that currently the revenue from transfers fee is only a tiny portion of the whole network revenue? And openledger is not as much focused as MT4 on trading, so I would expect even less revenue from people registering through MT4. (transfer wise)

Could you explain me how the hell guys managing thousands of dollars per trade would end up doing only 6 trades a day?

Could you explain why in your opinion, is not feasible that a lower *transfer* fee could bring much more people in the whole system, generating traction and more liquidity, giving a reason to real traders to start using the platform? (that from their point of view it means trading, not transfering)

IMO you should realize that MT4 registrar should focus on temp their users to upgrade to LTM and not expect traders to do transfers around just because.

MT4 should offers advanced trading features to LTM only to tempt traders to upgrade, as our Dex should.

IMO all your logic on mixing up transfers and trades make no sense at all.

140
General Discussion / Re: [poll] bug found Should the committee use the committee-trade account to trade
« on: February 08, 2016, 11:00:05 pm »
Let's use the poll result.

It is a yes, use the committee-trade

141
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 10:56:35 pm »
Quote from: Thom on February 08, 2016, 10:04:29 pm
BM's proposal was to eliminate only TRANSFER fees, and similar low revenue producing fees like updating account info.
Let's just say that bm idea is about giving the ability to the network to not charge fee and still be spam resistant.


Quote
What sounded like the aforementioned politician was the omission of where funds come from to pay expenses
Same source of now maybe? The fact that the network could operate even without any fee does not mean we would remove them all.


Quote
Would the remaining fees need to be raised?
This depends on some factors we can not easily foresee, but in general this question could be asked already in the current fee implementation.


Quote
Which fees could be eliminated and which must remain?
Looking at all the network fee is quite easy to find some fees that could be easily removed, others that instead should definitely remain to guarantee revenue, and others that could bring some heated discussion in the community.

Still, these decisions would be on shareholders. It is not about the implementation of the new fee system.

ps: I made some example in my post on the first page.


Quote
The analysis to determine how zero-cost transfer fees could be accomplished without increasing dilution and covering expenses must be done, and until I see those numbers I am very bearish on this.
Those numbers are already out there, in some other post of some other thread.
AFAIR the revenue from transfer fee is only a tiny part of the overall revenue (coming from account_upgrade)

142
General Discussion / Re: Why there is so little trading volume on the DEX
« on: February 08, 2016, 10:04:04 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 09:52:05 pm
Bottom line: There is still a fairly reasonable risk that the referral program is either removed or altered in the future.  This would have large effects on implementing mt4 in hopes of using the referral program to generate income.

For both alter or remove the referral program there would be need the shareholders approval.
Both in the case of a committee proposal trying to change some parameters, or for a deeper action involving an hardfork.

So, even if something happens on the referral program, in the end is all due to shareholders voting.
Please stop give the impression that the committee members could change things just because.

143
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 08:48:40 pm »
Quote from: yvv on February 08, 2016, 08:41:43 pm
No fee is nice. Who will pay to witnesses? Should these bastards work for free?

I invite you to read my post in the first page of this thread.

 tldr: having the ability to set some fee to 0, doesn't mean we have to to actually set *all* the fees to 0 and lose all the revenue for the network

144
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 07:05:49 pm »
Quote from: clayop on February 08, 2016, 06:25:02 pm
Q1. How can we measure the network capacity?

Q2. When network is actively used and I own a small portion of BTS, how much I have to pay to transfer or order creation?

1) ATM there is a cap on 100 tps. That could probably be considered the network capacity atm.

2) In theory you are always allowed to use your allocated "bandwidth". Even if everyone is using all their allowed cut, you would still be able to use your own, since it is kind of "reserved" for you.

You should also consider that it would be very difficult that all the shareholders will be using the network as much as they can, in the exactly same time.

Moreover there are algorithms that could give you* priority over others**

*you as user asking for a low-normal usage of the network
**others as users using all the bandwidth they can use
(maybe depending on coindays earned)


Anyway, if we want to allow an user to allocate more than what he have right on (based on his % bts owning), we should charge a fee for it. The amount of that fee would be decided exactly as all the current fees are (shareholders/committee)

145
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Annual Membership price determined by the registrar
« on: February 08, 2016, 06:49:56 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 08, 2016, 06:10:27 pm
To align the network's interests with the registrar's interests, I propose to make the network's income proportional to the registrar's income from AM sales (the network gets a 20% cut).

The resolution of the thread you mention is different from what you are saying now.

You changed a very important and fundamental part of it that was discussed and not accepted.

Quote from: jakub on February 06, 2016, 08:59:12 am
Quote from: abit on February 06, 2016, 08:13:15 am
So is this the conclusion?
* committee can set a bottom for LTM/AM and whatever short period memberships, which is paid to network
* we'll still have a built-in referral program, any registrars can set their own % of cut on top of basic network fee, they can set their own % of cut to referrers.
* no vesting on cash-backs.

I'll support it.

Yes, that's a very good summary.

146
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 04:22:50 pm »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on February 08, 2016, 03:47:05 pm
So if we get rid of fees and remove the ability for the blockchain to make money... How are we going to pay the witness's to sign blocks once we run out of bts in the reserve pool??

Look at my post. "What this means" section if you do not want to read it all.
TLDR: the new fee system do not force no one to remove *all* fees. The new system would just give the *ability* to decide *if* and *which* fee we do not want. Without the risk of spam attacks.
This does not necessarily mean remove revenue income for the network.

Quote from: Bhuz on February 08, 2016, 11:14:40 am
Quote from: bitcrab on February 08, 2016, 04:37:14 am
anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?

As you already know, with the current fee system, we have to charge a fee on any operation just to prevent possible spam attacks.

We have several operations that really do not represent, for their nature, a revenue for the network; just to list some: call_order_update, account_update, asset_publish_feed, proposal_ops, witness_update and others.

Among these operations, there are a couple that are already preventing some business to move on bts. I am referring to metaexchange, that fairly stated that having to handle order_create and order_cancel operations fee for their costumers, is a no-go.


What Bytemaster come up with on last mumle?

Basically a new fee system that would allow us to really decide *which* operation should have a fee and which don't, *without* the risk of exposing the network to a spam attack.

From mumble:
Quote
"Could you imagine a scenario where the blockchain have no fees at all, instead all the accounts were rate limited proportional to their balance?"

"As far as viewing your bts as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So if someone own 1% of bts, he can consume 1% of the network capacity."

"Think of it in another way: imagine everyone is doing time-share on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain space when they want to do a transaction, and with this method no one would be able to flood the network because they can only consume their allowed allocation of the bandwidth."


What this means?

-We could limit ourselves to remove the fee *only* on operations that do not represent a revenue income for the network, allowing business like metaexchange to easily move their backend on bts platform. All of this without the risk of being attacked by spammers and without losing the ability of the network to be profitable.

-We could push ourselves a bit forward, allowing LTM to have discounts on some operation and actually 0 fee on others. This would allow the network to remain profitable meantime being marketed as *free* for some aspects.
(e.g. profit stream from: trading, account_create, account_upgrade, asset_create, ltm restricted features like bond market etc. plus: marketing bts as the first(?!) blockchain allowing free transfer)

-We could remove *all* fees, being marketed as a totally free blockchain, losing all kind of revenue stream

Fact is: it would give us lot more freedom from fees point of view.
Edit: and could also allow new business to arise, eg. microtransactions, maybe chat on the blockchain...


IMO. In general it is a very nice idea.
I would really like to see the community discussing it seriously.
There are for sure some sensitive points that need to be addressed tho.



147
General Discussion / Re: Will this community be surpporting BM's "zero fee" proposal to get micropayment?
« on: February 08, 2016, 11:14:40 am »
Quote from: bitcrab on February 08, 2016, 04:37:14 am
anyone can explain what "zero fee" proposal really mean?

As you already know, with the current fee system, we have to charge a fee on any operation just to prevent possible spam attacks.

We have several operations that really do not represent, for their nature, a revenue for the network; just to list some: call_order_update, account_update, asset_publish_feed, proposal_ops, witness_update and others.

Among these operations, there are a couple that are already preventing some business to move on bts. I am referring to metaexchange, that fairly stated that having to handle order_create and order_cancel operations fee for their costumers, is a no-go.


What Bytemaster come up with on last mumle?

Basically a new fee system that would allow us to really decide *which* operation should have a fee and which don't, *without* the risk of exposing the network to a spam attack.

From mumble:
Quote
"Could you imagine a scenario where the blockchain have no fees at all, instead all the accounts were rate limited proportional to their balance?"

"As far as viewing your bts as owning a percentage of the available network capacity. So if someone own 1% of bts, he can consume 1% of the network capacity."

"Think of it in another way: imagine everyone is doing time-share on the blockchain space and everyone who owns shares can consume some of the blockchain space when they want to do a transaction, and with this method no one would be able to flood the network because they can only consume their allowed allocation of the bandwidth."


What this means?

-We could limit ourselves to remove the fee *only* on operations that do not represent a revenue income for the network, allowing business like metaexchange to easily move their backend on bts platform. All of this without the risk of being attacked by spammers and without losing the ability of the network to be profitable.

-We could push ourselves a bit forward, allowing LTM to have discounts on some operation and actually 0 fee on others. This would allow the network to remain profitable meantime being marketed as *free* for some aspects.
(e.g. profit stream from: trading, account_create, account_upgrade, asset_create, ltm restricted features like bond market etc. plus: marketing bts as the first(?!) blockchain allowing free transfer)

-We could remove *all* fees, being marketed as a totally free blockchain, losing all kind of revenue stream

Fact is: it would give us lot more freedom from fees point of view.
Edit: and could also allow new business to arise, eg. microtransactions, maybe chat on the blockchain...


IMO. In general it is a very nice idea.
I would really like to see the community discussing it seriously.
There are for sure some sensitive points that need to be addressed tho.


148
General Discussion / Re: Happy New Year to all our Chinese cousins!
« on: February 08, 2016, 09:25:55 am »
Happy new year!

149
Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: February 07, 2016, 03:45:30 pm »
Quote from: MrJeans on February 07, 2016, 03:03:09 pm
Quote from: xeroc on February 07, 2016, 10:48:03 am
Quote from: MrJeans on February 05, 2016, 11:30:15 pm
Hi there,
I am trying to export wallet files for importing into openledger.
I looking to import a .dat protoshares wallet/angelshares wallet into 0.9.3c and then export the .json file as instructed below:
http://docs.bitshares.org/bitshares/migration/howto-exporting-wallet.html

I am using Ubuntu (used it before and worked fine). I am downloading the 0.9.3c from https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-0.x/releases
for some reason when selecting 'file' and then 'import' the browser is unable to 'see' the .dat files.

What might I be doing wrong. Any help here would be super awesome. Thanks!
The wallet dat files are handled differently. Sorry for not atating it clearly.

You need to do this:
- create an account in bts0.9.3c (no need to "register" it)
- go into the account details ...
- import key ...
- pick your wallet.dat file an passphrase
you should now see your funds and can export your wallet for bts2
Thanks for getting back to me.
created an account in 0.9.3c, imported an AGS wallet.dat file and entered the password.
It said the keys were successfully imported.

I then exported a .json wallet.
But when trying to import the wallet to openledger it gave me the following error "Please use a BTS 1.0 wallet_export_keys file instead"
I downloaded 0.9.3c from here https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-0.x/releases/download/bts%2F0.9.3c/bitsharesGUI-0.9.3c-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
I'm pretty sure thats the latest 0.9 version, so not sure whats going on.
Thanks for your help Xeroc  :)

Have you exported the wallet with the console?

If you used the export function in the menu, please try to use the console command instead.

150
General Discussion / Re: Things I don't like about the committee
« on: February 07, 2016, 01:05:17 pm »
Quote from: jakub on February 07, 2016, 12:49:05 pm
He presented his "idea" badly and without the slightest attempt to offer logical justification (apart from "lower fees = more users") and without the slightest attempt to take into consideration the interests of businesses other than those similar to his own.

(1)
So, if one person present his personal idea without too much "hard work" in finding rational and logical justification and only with the purpose to start a public discussion about it on the forum, it is bad and he deserves what bitcrab got.

(2)
At the same time, if one or more person try to pulicly share an idea and present it with in-depth analysis and rational and logical argumentations (from their pov ofc), it is also bad because they put too hard work in it and should have shared the general idea first: point (1)

I am totally lost here.

Quote from: jakub on February 07, 2016, 12:49:05 pm
bitcrab is a businessman, not a solution seeker interested in finding good incentive structures.
That's why he got a response like this - for pushing his interests above the interests of the whole system.

Do you even know about his business?!
Bitcrab do not gain nothing from a lower transfer fee from the point of view of his business.

Maybe you did not realize that bitcrab is also one of the biggest proxy from chinese community.

The transfer fee debate is coming from a big part of our community, not from a man running his business

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 32

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 23 queries.