You are missing the point.

Anyway, we both express our opinion on that matter, we should stop the argumentation before it becomes completely out of subject and unproductive.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

You're arguing with a robot.  Why bother?

Quote from: OldMan on July 15, 2016, 05:56:16 am

Are there any liquidity bots that a non-technical user like myself could run? Doesn't even need to make a profit, just not lose value.

And by non-technical I mean type in the the amount of BTS, choose the market and click go.

Click stop and the BTS go back into your account.

If providing liquidity was this simple I'll bet a lot of folks, including myself, would provide a lot of liquidity to bootstap the markets.

The problem is, it is not that simple. And risk of loss is very high in volatile markets.

If there was a liquidity pool that interested parties could throw funds into, then non-technical people could easily participate.  As for market risk, this would be mitigated if we offered liquidity rewards that the pool (or any liquidity provider for that matter) could earn.  Such risk could be further mitigated (and therefore more funds attracted to participate in the pool) if we used some of the burn worker funds to pay interest to anyone participating in the pool.  We should really try something like this.  Now is the time.

Hi @svk.  Thanks for all of the improvements you've made to the wallet pretty recently.  There's one thing I've been meaning to point out, though.  The first image below is what a new person visiting OpenLedger for the first time sees when they land in the wallet.  I don't think that's the best first impression of the wallet.  The second image below is what they see if they click on the home button (OL icon).  I don't think that's the best second impression of the wallet.  Maybe we can create a new default page that includes the featured markets and some other basic introductory/welcome message, including a link to create a new account.  I think that would make a far better impression to new users.

---

Quote from: Brekyrself on July 13, 2016, 09:23:04 pm

Quote from: Chuckone on July 13, 2016, 07:07:59 pm

What I don't understand is how come almost 20% of market cap of BTS get traded in 24h and the price don't seem to move that much? Are there that many people that are only waiting for the price to rise to dump their BTS? It really looks similar to the other pumps that were stopped right from the beginning by dumpers


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

Do you believe the volume is organic trading and not bots or 3rd party exchange nonsense?

Looks like it's all organic, and largely driven by BTC38. They trade millions of BTS at a time like it's nothing lol.

Substantial volume on Polo, too.  163M BTS traded in last 24 hours.  I think we're under accumulation.  And bid support growing.  I think big moves are about to occur.

Quote from: bitcrab on July 10, 2016, 05:30:13 am

Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on July 10, 2016, 02:08:08 am

Quote from: bitcrab on July 09, 2016, 12:06:05 pm

Quote from: Akado on July 06, 2016, 11:09:08 am

Quote from: prebuffo on July 05, 2016, 03:01:51 pm

Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?

 Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?

@bitcrab

before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...

going ahead,  bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.

Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?

We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.

in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.

actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.

now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.

is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in  the same period.

So there are few things here.

You are saying that because of market support there is a reason for shorters to be creating bitCNY.

Following that you then said that the 1% offset reduced the worry of shorters.

So can you explain what the worry was that shorters had if there was already the market support as you described for bitCNY?

That's really not what he said.  What he said was that people wanted to short bitCNY but were concerned about being forced settled.  He also said the increase in bitCNY supply since adjusting the offset was not due to market movement considering bitUSD did not experience the same increase in supply during the same period.  I think he makes a compelling case, and perhaps we should consider the same adjustment for bitUSD (or even all BitAssets).
   

Thanks for the detailed explanation @liangran2012.

I would like to support this, however I don't see the direct benefit from "another exchange" where you can trade BTS.
If there was a bitCNY:RippleCNY (bitUSD:RippleUSD) gateway, THAT would change things significantly and I am willing to approve a worker to support initial liquidity!
I would even go as far and asking the committee to provide you with actual bitCNY (committee going short) - but this needs to be discussed with the committee in detail when we get there.

If we were to do this, it really should be part of a larger plan to create liquidity on a number of key trading pairs, mostly (but not only) on the DEX.  We have businesses that really need this now more than ever.  Yet no one is really pushing for any serious action, including those businesses that need it the most (i.e. OpenLedger and Bitshares-Munich).  One would think these businesses would be working closely with the committee and the community to come up with a serious, coordinated plan.  But that doesn't seem to be happening.  I don't get it.

Quote from: xeroc on June 28, 2016, 05:13:43 am

Quote from: pc on June 27, 2016, 09:31:57 pm

Yes... until the committee decides that they're not. Like they did with bitCNY.

don't be unfair to the committee, please. It has been voted for by shareholders.

I don't mean to be unfair.

Fact is, the committee alone has the power to make such changes. With the power comes responsibility.

Quote from: yvv on June 28, 2016, 01:18:53 pm

Quote from: xeroc on June 28, 2016, 05:13:43 am

Settlement of CNY has been moved from 100% to 99%.

It is still backed by BTS collateral. Just one parameter was tweaked. I don't see a problem here.

Well... suppose you had a number of DGX tokens that are redeemable for 1 ounce of solid gold. Some day digix.io comes along and says "Oh, btw, from now on your tokens will be redeemable for 0.99 ounces of solid gold."
Would you also call that "just a parameter tweaked"?

It's like adding a transaction fee.  Or in our case maybe it was more like shifting a fee from one party to another.  Of course some will not like that, but it's not the end of the world.  I don't see any reason to make such a big deal and continuously carry on about it.  Especially since periodic tweaks are needed...and the community decided on this.  Can't you accept that and give it a rest already?

Well, I can't say I agree on the POS acronym, I never would have thought of using those words for POS. If a logo is done right though, you really don't even need words to describe it. Let the logo be the brand.
 
Anyway, not sure if that is an American thing, or it's just that there are a lot of acronyms for every little thing now.. hell I just learned what tldr meant just a couple of months ago. cli about 6 months ago. lulz about a year ago. We had terms quite a bit different in my hayday like sysop, sysadmin, 9600, haha, dos prompt, quackintosh, and screw you hippie.

@kenCode, I'm taking the time to provide this feedback because I own like 10% of OPENPOS and a boatload of BTS.  I care about the success of this project, and you're about to do something that will undermine a lot of the awesome work you've been doing.  Please don't do that.

POS as an acronym  for "point of sale" is retail industry jargon.  The general public is NOT familiar with it.  Instead, the general public associates other things with POS.  "Piece of shit" is at the top of the list and is nothing new.  Also, the cryptro world thinks of POS as an acronym for "Proof of Stake".  So you're just causing further confusion on that front, and basically missing the mark all around.

You don't have a lot of chances to get this right.  So for pete's sake, please don't put your head in the sand and make the mistake of using POS for anything consumer facing.  If you do, you will end up wondering why it gets no traction (or a lot less than it should). 
   
For something consumer facing, why not come up with a name that uses the word "pay"?  It's short and concise, and can't be mistaken for anything else under the sun.  Check out some of the designs below.  A couple of them use "Bloc" instead of "Block" since BlocPay is more unique than BlockPay and has more domains available.  Please, I hope you head in a direction like this. 

P.S. Even spelled out, the term "point of sale" doesn't mean much to (and won't resonate with) the general public, and doesn't look particularly good on a logo.  Again, the word "pay" is the way to go for something consumer facing.