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 - paliboy

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12
General Discussion / Re: BitSharesX Leveraged Instruments
« on: April 12, 2017, 06:30:47 am »
This thread is old but the author of this thread is right, traders need leverage to make profits, if you want mass adoption in the DEX you'll need to attract clients. Offering them liquidity and leverage are two things that bitshares lack of.
IMO the problem is that if you loose money with a broker account, you will have to pay. If the leverage is an BitShares algorithm,  the failure will be at expense of BitShares.

You are right but, if done correctly, there shouldn't be many defaults. Could the reserve pool serve as an insurance for these defaults? There is a part of Deribit's newsletter from 27 March:

Insurance Fund reduction to 25BTC

Because of the changes we expect to see less bankruptcies. Therefor we decided the insurance fund will be reduced 25 BTC. In case the insurance fund will be depleted, we will replenish the fund with an amount to be decided in the future.

Currently there are various traders with positions in Options that expire in June. For any positions in June Options created before the 31th of March, we will keep an additional 75 BTC of insurance reserved, as most of those positions got opened assuming a 100 BTC insurance fund.

We will always strive for not having to socialize any losses. During the 8 months that Deribit has been operating, we never have socialized any losses among our users. Deribit had only 4 BTC worth of bankruptcies sofar, that got assumed by our insurance fund. With a lower insurance fund of 25 BTC, Deribit will still be motivated to manage the risk on the platform in such way that traders will not go bankrupt.


50% - network
20% - referral
20% - bitAsset interest
10% - LTM dividend

I would support something like this.

It might be easier to get consensus in smaller steps. Maybe just get consensus on 50% for network and 50% referrals first.


This issue is easy to resolve. Let CCEDK and other current LTM owners have their 80%, but stop selling new LTM, because this does not make any sense.

I agree that this is one option. What do you mean by "stop selling"? Remove it completely? At the beginning we could make it absurdly expensive.

Also, Bitshares used to pay an interest rate of return and had $1M+ bitUSD in circulation.  Now we pay no such interest and have just $100k bitUSD in circulation.  Is this just a coincidence?

According to, the current supply is 550,155 USD. Is this number wrong?

@ccedk  are you going to support following proposals?

15 committee proposals created to update the forcesettlement parameters of below smartcoins:

smartcoins      proposal
EUR              1.10.1712
JPY              1.10.1714
GBP      1.10.1715
AUD      1.10.1716
CAD      1.10.1717
CHF      1.10.1718
SEK              1.10.1719
MXN      1.10.1720
NZD      1.10.1721
SGD      1.10.1722
HKD      1.10.1723
NOK      1.10.1724
KRW      1.10.1725
TRY              1.10.1726
RUB      1.10.1727

all the committee members, please approve the above 15 proposals.

memory for the steps to create such proposal:

Code: [Select]

return 17

add_operation_to_builder_transaction 17 [12,{"fee": {"amount":100000000, "asset_id": "1.3.0"}, "issuer": "1.2.0", "asset_to_update":"1.3.110", "new_options": { "feed_lifetime_sec": 86400,"minimum_feeds": 7,"force_settlement_delay_sec": 86400, "force_settlement_offset_percent": 100,"maximum_force_settlement_volume": 50, "short_backing_asset": "1.3.0","extensions": []}, "extensions":[]}]

propose_builder_transaction2 17 bitcrab "2017-04-27T04:00:00" 3600 true

the above 15 fiats are listed in the top20 trading volumes in FOREX, however, INR from India, BRL from Brasil, ZAR from South Africa are not created yet in Bitshares, these 3 fiats are from 3 BRICS countries and are also listed in top20.

For those who don't know, you can see these proposals using Cryptofresh, e.g. on for RUB

@bitcrab the Cryptofresh link for NOK doesn't work, any idea why?

Not that I'm paranoid or anything, you know I'm the tinfoil guy, but is there another 2FA app out there besides the google authenticator? An open source app that does not rely on SMS messages? Maybe even one that does not require internet access?

If you want to solve mobile client side, the alternative could be There are also open source alternatives for server-side.

@ccedk_pro what about posting your messages to just a single thread?

General Discussion / What will happen to finished workers?
« on: December 21, 2016, 10:15:10 am »
Hi, there are multiple workers that will expire on 31 Dec 2016 which brings few questions.

  • There are few workers that have no unclaimed pay, e.g. burn-100k-3. My expectation would be that they just disappear, is that correct?
  • What does the number in parentheses mean? Was this amount already removed from reserve fund?
  • There are few refund workers, e.g. refund-100k-3 with unclaimed pay. Will this amout go automatically to reserve fund or does somebody do something with these BitShares? Will we see sharp increase in reserve fund on Jan 1?
  • There are few burn workers, e.g. burn-100k-2 with unclaimed pay. Will this be automatically burned? Is there any difference from refund workers on blockchain, there is none in wallet UI, except of its name which I guess is whatever string you want.
  • Can creator of a worker cancel existing worker? E.g. there is Fund to pay dividend which hasn't been voted in and expires in 2032. Is there a way to clean up the list of workers?
  • Why do people vote for refund400k with expiration in 2035 instead of one expiring in 1 or 2 years?

General Discussion / Re: cryptofresh not working?
« on: December 14, 2016, 06:07:17 am »
cryptofresh is intermittent and the owner @roadscape is totally unreachable. We should really have someone propose creating a new explorer with a worker. I would throw my vote behind that 100%.

fortunately we do have an alternate explorer:

What about adding missing features to wallet instead of creating a brand new explorer?

General Discussion / Re: Obits
« on: December 14, 2016, 06:03:51 am »
Sharedrops can have tax consequences that a buyback will avoid.

Plus maybe not all obits holders want bts or open.btc. Doing a buybacks is simpler and cleaner than sharedropping an entirely different investment on obits holders.

Plus there are a lot of non-active accounts that own OBITS because they received them after registration - see e.g. sunny88.

Openledger / Re: OpenLedger Market Censoring
« on: November 17, 2016, 09:22:21 am »
Omitting "OPEN" in front of asset name is a really bad practice since other assets with same names exist in same client. It is awfully  confusing. If Openledger wants to make their client exclusive for trading their assets, they should make it clear and disallow other assets.

The last few days the "open" was there, now today its gone again. I'm trading BTC for BTC...really confusing

General Discussion / Re: BitShare X unclaimed genesis stake
« on: November 04, 2016, 09:43:13 am »
Hi,  how many BTS are unclaimed now? Can I find it somewhere (OpenLedger/CryptoFresh)?

I love buyback & burn! But I suggest place buyback order at a little higher than the highest bid price not just simply buy up!

 +5% I agree that this should be added as fourth option

General Discussion / Re: Cryptofresh API
« on: September 03, 2016, 07:11:08 pm »
@roadscape, if you don't work on Cryptofresh anymore, would you be willing to open-source it?

General Discussion / Re: BTS Wallet?
« on: August 31, 2016, 12:05:12 pm »
In Poloniex, you simply send it to a name you registered on OpenLedger (displayed in top-right corner).

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proposal: Add XMR Smartcoin
« on: August 30, 2016, 01:50:12 pm »
  • Who will buy it?
  • Who will sell it?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12