bitBTC should not trade at parity with any other flavor of BTC because of the downside risk of shorting/creating bitBTC.  bitBTC should theoretically always command a premium over these gateway assets.  The correct model is Price=(1+R)+/-spread where R=risk premium and is >0

There was a thread that was already discussing but I searched and searched and can't find it so sorry for starting another one.

There is a lot of talk about how to support the price of BTS on outside exchanges, volume within the DEX, and many ideas about how to increase liquidity - mainly revolving around fees and how to attract day-traders to extract fees from them while still making them feel welcome.

The problems with using UIA as on-ramp gateways into the DEX (currently) is that those UIA are not fungible with bitBTC. As BM stated in today's mumble, given enough liquidity, UIA representing bitBTC will become fungible due to arbitration - this is true but only once bitBTC is available enough to fill those markets - currently it is waaaaay too rare.

People are discussing buying BTS on margin on poloniex over in the speculation board - if you want to support BTS.... short BTC - make bitBTC within the DEX.

This is the same net long position ( ), fees stay in our ecosystem ( ), and it works toward solving one of our biggest problems ( ).  Once more bitBTC is out there (we need TONS) it will find its way onto the order books of bitBTC:openBTC and bitBTC:BTS and bitBTC:metaBTC etc etc.  We need all these books filled and don't need traders to do it - we need the underlying asset to exist or it's impossible. Day traders won't be creating bitAssets anyway, they will be buying and selling once already out there so they can cover their positions easily when they want to exit.  All the day traders in the world are not going to materialize the bitBTC we need to make the markets function properly.

Right now the current price of 1bitBTC:BTS is 115600 while tradeBTC:BTS is 62500, this is ridiculous.  If you want to use your BTS to support the ecosystem, don't leverage it out for the chance of pumping a value on an external exchange with the risk that a whale is going to come along, clean you out, force you to call, you loose your BTS and the price gets hammered even further down - just make some fresh bitBTC within the exchange, or bitOIL, or bitANYTHING.

A "Best Exchange Poll" already effectively exists and it constantly updated: just look at volume.  People trade at their preferred exchange and "vote" with their dollars and satoshis.

Here's my stupid question, there are 2 parts, the first is essentially a basic unix question
part1:
Is there a way to run the current light client on Linux/Ubuntu without fully installing/embedding it into my system? 
With various QT wallets I prefer to just call the bin files directly rather than installing .deb files with dpkg.  Is this actually even any different or could I just move the binary file from /usr/bin to somewhere else and have it work the same after building?
part2:
As a work around till I figured this out I have been running the web-wallet locally (so I don't have to constantly call JavaScript from a server somewhere) downloaded from https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2-ui/releases but it is released very infrequently and there have been many changes to the UI lately.  Is this release going to be maintained going forward or is the assumption that people are just going to be using the light wallet?
Thanks

I think as long as you still control the private keys, sending funds to the corresponding public key should be fine. Public keys are derived from the private key. (they should be, that's how it work in bitcoin). But to be be safe you could always make a new account and send funds there then you can send them back to yourself once you are up and running on 2.0

EDIT: I am talking about send funds to the key (BTS...) not to the account

Quote from: mindphlux on October 19, 2015, 07:48:00 am

The wallet is NOT stored on the server, you cannot be compromised when the server gets hacked. You should delete the keys in the browser local storage though, when you do not intend to use this web wallet again.

EDIT: Only when the server publishes malicious code, and you continue to use this web wallet, you're in danger.

that's my point ... if the hosted server get compromised then we are in danger... As I understand  it only if we login after the compromise.... (if we don't login anymore after the compromise we are safe)
Theoretical could the owners of openledger.info collect all private keys right now and use them in future when our market cap is big enough?(assuming it is "compromise" from the beginning? ) Using openledger and their hosted wallet means we 100% trust the openledger owners? Right?

I don;t think that's how the security concern works.  All keys are stored locally on your computer and never get relayed over the network connection. 
When you visit the host site, it tells your computer to run this small program: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-2-ui/releases
The security concern is if the hosting site were to change the JavaScript code it feeds you when you visit the site to a different script, you would then run that program instead of the web-wallet you thought you were going to; that could then be some malicious key grabber but you could always just read the code every-time you access the site.
 if you download the program (web-wallet) directly, you just just run it from your computer and there is no longer a concern as you no longer run a script of the web-server.  There is little advantage to this over the standard light wallet though IMO.
The other connection involved the the web socket that supplies the blockchain state - you could store this locally as well by running a witness, although this should not have any access to any part of your accounts/keys and simply relays the blockchain from a remote witness node.
There is no way for the wallet host to be "collecting keys" unless it is currently written in the JavaScript (which I admittedly have not read).

Disclaimer:  I don't necessarily know what I am talking about but this is how I understand it to work.

Edit: sorry, I missed "compromised from the beginning" so yeah you have the right idea but you dont have to trust them 100%, you can just read the code they are feeding you

I understand your confusion.  The original terms and conditions stated that normal (non-membership) accounts could create additional accounts without the benefit of siphoning the new accounts tx fees - as it turns out this was false.  The purpose of exporting keys in this case was to circumvent this change; I was trying to make a new account using the faucet since only premium/member accounts could create new accounts then import the newly generated account into my original wallet.  I DO NOT recommend this as the process corrupted my entire wallet.  Personally, I ended up just buying the premium membership.

What is the process for getting 80% of your fees back for members?
I got the lifetime membership and then paid a bunch of fees for random things but continue to pay 100% of the fees.
As I understand it one would still pay the full fee but get a portion distributed periodically - how does that work in practice?