136
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain Explorer and API Development
« on: March 09, 2016, 09:54:51 pm »
today the asset page shows for USD "low volume" but this is not correct, maybe something is not right.
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.
137
General Discussion / Re: UIA Fee? (SOLCERTS)
« on: March 08, 2016, 07:12:10 pm »
for placing orders you have to pay a fee to prevent spam.
if you chancel the order you will get most back, if your transaction is executed the network keeps the fees.
if you chancel the order you will get most back, if your transaction is executed the network keeps the fees.
138
General Discussion / Re: 234 BTS for issue/burn asset?!?!
« on: March 08, 2016, 06:06:13 pm »I made a new proposal https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.100 which will only make changes to asset_issue and asset_reserve operations (according to last BTS price). In contrast https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.99 makes changes to all fees according to newest BTS price.
Erm... you really took much care to define a process for changing fees where everyone's input is considered and can be discussed at length. I think that was exactly the right way to handle such things.
And now you're going to throw all of that out of the window because a single user complained about a single fee?
i think, this is just a point everybody missed. we missed it, the committee missed it and the community missed it, how this will impact services like metaexchange if we issue and burn our UIAs instantly and not creating in bulk.
so we are thankful, that the committee can react fast and you should just think bigger. What would you do if metaexchange would be poloniex and they are running their business on bitshares. You would just say "sorry, guys. You had your chance now live with it?".
issuing and burning assets are transfering assets from one person to another person, so the fees should be realivly the same.
we thanks for the fast reactions, so we have not the need to change our codebasis and in the future we hope to find this issues before they are happen.
139
General Discussion / Re: Interest for a Live Coding Session for the Python Libraries?
« on: March 08, 2016, 05:37:45 am »140
General Discussion / Re: 234 BTS for issue/burn asset?!?!
« on: March 07, 2016, 07:53:22 pm »@monsterer @Shentist
I would like to point out that we give almost a month to evaluate the fee schedule.
We repeatedly asked for community review and comments.
We repeatedly bumped the thread about the fee schedule.
Do not follow a discussion about fee that obviously could impact your business, above all when we make clear we needed review from the community and business partners, is a bit strange and not a good behaviour for your business itself, imo.
Anyway, we are already discussing about it, and I personally hope we would be able to push this change asap.
I personally like more the on-demand issue/burn scheme than the pre-issue one.
we had the same discussions a while ago, i think, and our community can not expect that everyone is following how everything is handled here.
i think this shows a potential risk, we need to consider more. I am not full aware which fees are connected to our business. and to expect a
proposal to lower fees to come out this way is ......, but as i said i would probably missed this point anyway.
So, i think the "issuing" assets should be in the same category as "transfering" something, then in reality it is the same.
which fees do we have to consider?
- transfer fees
- issuing fees
we use daily and with coded programs.
- creating and updaten assets , somedays
i do believe this covers every fee we have to consider?
141
General Discussion / Re: 234 BTS for issue/burn asset?!?!
« on: March 07, 2016, 06:06:34 pm »
i didn't followed the fee discussion at all, and i wouldn't realized that the issuing fees are a major part how our bridge is working.
as far as i know we are the only entity who is burning and issuing as you use the UIA market, but i dont get it why a normal transaction costs 0.01 cent and to issue something 100 times more.
i realized today what will be a bigger problem in the future. Do we really believe that someone like Poloniex can transit to bitshares, if they have no control of potential
risks? I think the answer is clear and i wish metaexchange would be a chinese whale and the committee would act faster.
So now we have to move and spend time to get more gox like.
to every user of the UIA markets of metaexchange i can only apologize, but we have to recode if this fees are remaining as they are!
cheers!
as far as i know we are the only entity who is burning and issuing as you use the UIA market, but i dont get it why a normal transaction costs 0.01 cent and to issue something 100 times more.
i realized today what will be a bigger problem in the future. Do we really believe that someone like Poloniex can transit to bitshares, if they have no control of potential
risks? I think the answer is clear and i wish metaexchange would be a chinese whale and the committee would act faster.
So now we have to move and spend time to get more gox like.
to every user of the UIA markets of metaexchange i can only apologize, but we have to recode if this fees are remaining as they are!
cheers!
142
General Discussion / Re: METAFEES next BUYBACK on Monday Feb. 1st 2016 8pm-9pm CET
« on: March 03, 2016, 08:20:56 pm »I didn't understand, sorry.i just did the next buyback http://cryptofresh.com/b/3169440
we bought 13.33 METAFEES for 0.32 BTC and will burn them the next days. The total supply for METAFEES will be going down from 6220 to 6206.67 METAFEES.
How did the supply drop to 5416 ??
tx for asking. we run an experiment with hedging on poloniex, but this is not needed anymore and we decided to go with our old model. So monsterer took his allocated METAFEES out of the pool.
he allocated originally everything in BTS and since the sell BTS dropped a lot in value, this is good for all remaining shareholders, because our liquidity pool increased thanks to ETHER a lot the last weeks.
i hope monsterer can chip in and can explain it in better english!
143
General Discussion / Re: METAFEES next BUYBACK on Monday Feb. 1st 2016 8pm-9pm CET
« on: March 03, 2016, 05:40:38 pm »i just did the next buyback http://cryptofresh.com/b/3169440
we bought 13.33 METAFEES for 0.32 BTC and will burn them the next days. The total supply for METAFEES will be going down from 6220 to 6206.67 METAFEES.
How did the supply drop to 5416 ??
tx for asking. we run an experiment with hedging on poloniex, but this is not needed anymore and we decided to go with our old model. So monsterer took his allocated METAFEES out of the pool.
he allocated originally everything in BTS and since the sell BTS dropped a lot in value, this is good for all remaining shareholders, because our liquidity pool increased thanks to ETHER a lot the last weeks.
144
General Discussion / Re: Interest for a Live Coding Session for the Python Libraries?
« on: March 01, 2016, 06:20:11 am »
is the time and date for this set?
145
General Discussion / Re: What is the procecedure to Request Fundings for a Project?
« on: February 29, 2016, 08:40:05 pm »I really appreciate to annyone who can give me a link or a guide about how to request approval and funds for a project on bitshares. (Stakeholder-Approved Project Funding)
Thanks
first - welcome!
the point Akado pointed are good starting points. If you want an example look into http://cryptofresh.com/
he works on the blockexplorer maybe 2-3 month and now he asked the first time for funding (first showing what he did and then asking for funding). https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21532.0.html
how his worker proposal is doing you see it here http://cryptofresh.com/workers
146
General Discussion / Re: METAFEES next BUYBACK on Monday Feb. 29 2016 8pm-9pm CET
« on: February 29, 2016, 08:02:09 pm »
the buyback just happend: https://cryptofresh.com/b/3973254
we bought 13.04 METAFEES for 0.29998 METAEX.BTC
As ever, we will burn them, the next days.
This time i will talk about the NAV (net asset value) of the METAFEES liquidity pool.
The allocation is not changing so we are holding still 50% BTC, 25% ETH, 20 % BTS and 5% NXT
With the huge ETH rising the last month you would get for 43 METAFEES : 1 Bitcoin. This NAV would be paid to the holders if we have to quit the business, so at the
moment all original buyers in Bitcoin are roughly 15% ahead.
Please be careful with the given numbers. You can assume how the pool is doing if you just look into the price correlations of the assets we are holding.
Have a nice next buyback
we bought 13.04 METAFEES for 0.29998 METAEX.BTC
As ever, we will burn them, the next days.
This time i will talk about the NAV (net asset value) of the METAFEES liquidity pool.
The allocation is not changing so we are holding still 50% BTC, 25% ETH, 20 % BTS and 5% NXT
With the huge ETH rising the last month you would get for 43 METAFEES : 1 Bitcoin. This NAV would be paid to the holders if we have to quit the business, so at the
moment all original buyers in Bitcoin are roughly 15% ahead.
Please be careful with the given numbers. You can assume how the pool is doing if you just look into the price correlations of the assets we are holding.
Have a nice next buyback
147
General Discussion / Re: [ANN][metaexchange] Get paid up to 1000 BTS / month for using our signature!
« on: February 29, 2016, 06:38:36 pm »
i just did the payment for the february, so thanks again for supporting us!
148
Technical Support / Re: Version BitShares 2.0.160217
« on: February 27, 2016, 06:55:56 pm »
after a lot of wild clicking it is working!
the amount is still wrong.
the amount is still wrong.
149
Technical Support / Re: Version BitShares 2.0.160217
« on: February 27, 2016, 06:07:31 pm »
it is synced and shows the wrong balances,
the trading tab is not useable, because not all assets are loading. so it is absolutly not usable at the moment.
the trading tab is not useable, because not all assets are loading. so it is absolutly not usable at the moment.
150
Technical Support / Re: Version BitShares 2.0.160217
« on: February 27, 2016, 05:33:32 pm »
no one has the same problem?
i can not use this wallets, and they are my mainwallets.
i can not use this wallets, and they are my mainwallets.
