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 - renkcub

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
Why did this worker never get approved? Was the proposal flawed in some way?

seems like committee is meeting here, but i am curious, is there a regular meeting by committee to discuss and review proposals and future of bitshares?

Also why has this proposal not been approved for so long?

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares State of the Network Report
« on: October 16, 2017, 01:30:53 am »
Thank you!
Another idea is total Week over Week (or day over day) volume for the Bitshares Dex in USD for ALL assets, then divided by smartcoins and UIA. This doesn't currently exist anywhere.

I differ with you in that I believe the only reason BitBTC has not been very successful (volume) thus far has been due to lack of first mover advantage against Open.BTC, marketing, and thus, any incentive to make a market or add liquidity to that market.

Agree. So why do not we make the DEX directly exchange BTC for BitBTC? can be done with Atomic Swaps or very easily with my proposal.

Have you made a detailed proposal? Or is this still in the idea stage?

By the way, BitBTC/BTS is #4 dex market today, on minimal volume. Let's support this pair, people. Run your bots on it so we can get more momentum!

How's progress?

Interesting point by you on creating SmartCoins. Are they identical to "real" Committee-issued Smartcoins, in this case?

Not necessarily, but they can be made identical, i. e. with identical flags + permissions etc.. You can also create them and assign ownership to the committee.

Very interesting. I wonder if there are any examples of successful SmartCoins that are "user created" but eventually transitioned to being "official"? In any case, I'd rather see any SmartCoins be launched officially as they probably have a better chance of success that way..

General Discussion / Re: btsbots wallet release v0.0.1
« on: October 12, 2017, 06:27:33 am »
Any news here?

With improved DEX you would think there would be so more intrest in tje bot.

Volumes are still up. Are people using other bots now besides BTS Bots? I'd like to know the best options to add Dex liquidity now. is a fantastic solution right now.
Doesn't seem to have had any update for months... needed some fixes and improvements last I used it.


But that's a completely different business model, with a whole bunch of additional risks (on the side of the gateway owner). I perfectly understand that they do not offer such a service.

This business model may be actually not that risky as it seems. Gateway don't need to keep 100% BTC reserve in this case, just enough to satisfy daily withdrawal volume. When users deposit BTC, gateway would buy bitBTC on DEX, if the offer exists, or issue in other case. Risk of margin call would not be a problem for them, because they would keep BTC and bitBTC reserves, and if BTS price falls, they would sell a fraction of their reserves and add to collateral. When users withdraw their bitBTC, gateway would settle its debt. They don't offer such a service because they think that everybody should be happy with their IOU, and they don't need to bother to improve their service, but evidently many people are not happy with the current business model.

This man gets it.  +5%

bitBTC is not a successful example.
BTC is not as stable as CNY/USD, so borrowing or holding bitBTC means much more risk  than doing the same to bitCNY/bitUSD, and BTC itself is a blockchain token, no enough necessity to create other token to peg it.
OpenLedger is good, but what they do is far from enough, as a gateway, they should do much more market making work to their UIA but they do not, that's why I am preparing another gateway, the name is GDEX.
one key point for BTS to grow is the demand for smart coins grow, which means there should be many assets in DEX for traders to trade. in other words, we need to make DEX an exchange with liquidity and depth similar to central exchange.
surely if we can realize side chain or some other cross-chain way to move tokens from otherchains to BTS, we may not need most of the UIA, but now in my view we still need to rely on UIA to make DEX to grow.
the other key point for BTS is to be listed in more central exchanges, we need more volume for BTS, we need BTS price to grow, only then it's possible for smartcoin supply to grow and attract more people to accept it.
for example, as China banned cryptocurrency exchange, now it's not  easy for people to buy tokens with CNY, some exchanges outside China are considering to open bitCNY markets, their main concern is that bitCNY supply is too low.
that's also what I am trying to do: make BTS be listed in more exchanges and create a gateway to make DEX have much more trading volume.

Thanks for your great post.

First, I completely disagree with your bolded comment. I keep hearing that crypto is "too volatile" for SmartCoins, but what everyone seems to be missing is that this is completely the opposite, since BTS itself moves with these "volatile assets" - the end result being that USD is actually more volatile against BTS, our collateral, making you more likely to suffer margin calls being a BitUSD issuer than BitBTC (same goes for BitETH, etc...)

Proof that BTS is more volatile against USD/Fiat than BTC/Alts based on 6 month low and high, for a crypto vs fiat pair:


3/12/2017 - .00000289 low
6/12/2017 - .00016511 high

57.13x move


3/12/2017 - .00337205
6/12/2017 - .48908884

145.04x move --- you would have been a lot better off issuing BitBTC than BitUSD!

Next, I agree with pretty much everything else you said, and especially agree with the italicized section - that is one of the topreasons why I am encouraging moving from UIA --> SmartCoins (besides security, user experience, and BTS reputation). If the liquidity is better on SmartCoins - and someone wants to trade and get assets cheaper (by issuing more) - they will be FORCED to buy MORE BTS and support the network by further drive up the price to both issue and collateralize SmartCoins. Essentially, more FOCUS on SmartCoin use = Higher BTS Market Cap = More SmartCoins can be made = More BTS Market Cap --- it's a self-fulfilling hypothesis that has already helped BTS this year with the success of BitCNY. Essentially this model forces you to have a sizable BTS position (although you can simply buy your SmartCoins at market if you don't want to collateralize).

I differ with you in that I believe the only reason BitBTC has not been very successful (volume) thus far has been due to lack of first mover advantage against Open.BTC, marketing, and thus, any incentive to make a market or add liquidity to that market.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. HOW would you exchange BTC for bitBTC or trade BTC for bitUSD without a centralized gateway? I thought that's exactly what you're proposing to get rid of.

True, my suggestion doesn't eliminate all centralization.

But it does eliminate 99% of it.

Isn't it still better to only have to "trust" a gateway long enough for an instant deposit/withdraw (or, just trade/settle to BTS and skip the Gateway) instead of leaving "alts" on a centralized Gateway indefinitely? Plus, there are more decentralized solutions for converting things coming out - atomic swap, sidechain(?), or something like the 0x OTC ERC20 tool.

Gateway still makes money, as they can charge for this conversion.

For me, it would be well worth paying OL a small fee to convert my BitBTC to real BTC rather than holding and withdrawing Open.BTC as real BTC "for free". That's the point here.

Along these lines, see Ronny's project "", which somewhat matches my vision of a way to "cash out" SmartCoins.

Also, you didn't give any reasons why SmartCoins are not effective for Altcoins.
Oh, they would be as effective as they are for BTC/USD/CNY. I just don't see a use for altcoins at all.
Providing feeds for additional coin means additional work for the witnesses, so we should only add SmartCoins if there's a benefit to be expected. I don't expect significant volume from altcoins, and therefore no benefit either.

Not sure if you're aware of it, but *anyone* can create SmartCoins. No need to lobby for this - if you want them, just go ahead and create them.

I don't understand your argument here at all.

OL/Ronny has proved there is a significant market for alts on the Dex. Worldwide, besides Dex, over 50%+ of ALL crypto trading volume was Alts. If you don't think there is a market for alts on the dex, but people are going to line up for BitSilver and BitGold, then I frankly find that nonsensical :o But, you did give yourself away as a maximalist  ;)

Interesting point by you on creating SmartCoins. Are they identical to "real" Committee-issued Smartcoins, in this case? In any case, my specialty is liquidity, making markets, not creating SmartCoins.

Thanks for the discussion.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares State of the Network Report
« on: October 11, 2017, 09:35:51 pm »
it would be cool if you posted a chart of total BTS holders.

General Discussion / Re: Staking BTS
« on: October 10, 2017, 04:28:17 pm »
See "Witnesses"

Openledger / Re: Why Can't US Citizens US Open Ledger?
« on: October 10, 2017, 03:46:56 pm »

Another good reason to move to a SmartCoin instead of UIA based model.,25083.0.html

Please support by adding liquidity to BitBTC pair.

See this post about Trezor "Password" support. Effectively protect your bitshares account in this way.,25043.msg311272.html#msg311272

it's the same as any other password manager. it does not protect your keys, which is the point of trezor integration

Can't wait for proper trezor...

A SmartCoin is not the same as its underlying counterpart. If you have actual bitcoins in your BTC wallet and want to exchange them for USD, the bitBTC/bitUSD market is useless to you.

SmartCoins are useful for traders (because they're derivatives), and they could be useful to merchants/users for transferring value (at least in the case of FIAT derivatives). The latter is unlikely to happen for altcoins.

I'm not understanding your argument. First of all, I disagree, and believe the BitBTC / BitUSD has no downsides currently (besides liquidity) for anyone looking to speculate between the value of BTC and USD, even with actual bitcoins (you would simply need to exchange those bitcoins for BitBTC first on the Dex, then trade for BitUSD. Or,  even better, trade for BitUSD directly, although this doesn't seem to currently be offered anywhere).

Also, you didn't give any reasons why SmartCoins are not effective for Altcoins. Personally, I totally disagree with you, and even believe the reverse is true - that SmartCoins would be MORE effective for Altcoins than Fiat, Gold, etc., in small part because their value is correlated to BTS (less volatile against the collateral), and largely because  "instant send gateways" would be easier to support by companies like OL for crypto than Fiat (less regulatory requirements and no traditional banking required). Merchants could eventually also alternatively simply support payment in Smartcoins, if BTS became dominant enough.

Additionally, they would have all the usual benefits over UIA including no "exchange black swan", less fees, decentralized...

Not trying to criticize. Just honestly trying to understand and get people onboard to this idea. If we don't go this way, I see much less value in BTS long term. Why leave Crypto off the BitShares current number one value add (Dex)?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10