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 - Customminer

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 37
76
General Discussion / Re: SMARTASSETS SCAMS
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:59:00 pm »
Another problem is how to engage witnesses or committee members in publishing prices. What if an asset owner is not a witness and all witnesses stop publishing price. In such case the asset becomes frozen.

Getting price feeds for private MPA from witnesses is difficult, I've found that even with multi price feed script coverage that some witnesses don't publish price feeds for Hz. I've managed to get approx 12 feeds, but 20+ would be preferable..

Another unobvious moment - the right of access to a change in the market commission - you can still establish it at 99%.

Haha! You mean making the market fee like 100%? What a wonderful idea! I'll add it to the main post.

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1369 There's UI changes coming which will at least notify users if this high a market fee is implemented.

77
Changed all the images today for improved distribution & image quality: https://whaleshares.io/bitshares/@customminer/check-out-the-recent-blockchain-activity-google-assistant-agent-image-updates

Don't wait any longer, give Blockchain Activity a try! :D

78
General Discussion / Re: SMARTASSETS SCAMS
« on: August 20, 2018, 07:26:06 pm »
you could transfer ownership of the MPA to null

So null is like noone's account? It looks like a regular bts user.
Sending anything to null is the same as burning/destroying the item - by transfering asset ownership to null you destroy the owner permissions/keys & nobody else is in control of any of the MPA settings from that point onwards.

79
General Discussion / Re: SMARTASSETS SCAMS
« on: August 20, 2018, 03:06:06 pm »
The Hz MPA has disabled several of the flags which remain active on the committee owned smartcoins - such as the "Issuer may transfer asset back to himself": http://cryptofresh.com/a/HERTZ I wish more MPAs were to follow suit in the future.

I do agree that you need to trust the asset owner to not remove the feed producers and cause global settlement, however I disagree that only the committee should be trusted because you could create a similar multi-party ownership of a private MPA with a group of community trusted entities or more drastically you could transfer ownership of the MPA to null which would finalize all settings permanently & prove full decentralization.

80
Did u make blocktivity?
No, I source the statistics for the 'Blockchain Activity' Google Assistant agent from blocktivity.info with the admin's permission on Telegram.

Check out the output of the blocktivity scraping script:
https://btsapi.grcnode.co.uk/current_blocktivity?api_key=123abc
https://github.com/BTS-CM/Bitshares-HUG-REST-API/blob/master/hug_script.py#L1135

81
I've made several updates recently which are awaiting Google's approval for public use, hopefully it'll draw more users in towards the blockchain activity reports.

I'll look to add "Where to spend" similar to "Where to trade", do we have a business directory for places which accept BTS?

Edit: New post: https://whaleshares.io/bitshares/@customminer/blockchain-activity-google-assistant-agent-updates

82
General Discussion / Re: Consider derailing feed price
« on: August 18, 2018, 11:42:44 am »
The Hz ABA oscillates 14% which produces predictable peak/trough phases - the effect of these peak/troughs on the market activity/behaviour could be observed for the relevant price feed premium effect you're talking about.

Initially the amplitude was set to 50%, reduced to 33% then finally set to 14% due to concerns of undesirable volatility/velocity, however there's been low market activity thus far - 14% may not be enough. There's been times where I've shorted the peak of Hz, only for BTS to change 30% the next day wiping out my upcoming benefits of shorting Hz (28% debt reduction), perhaps instead it'd be more attractive to account for the 30d BTS:USD (or BTS:CNY in your case) price volatility (via an ES query) to create a varying amplitude which may be more attractive (however I don't think you'd want a -+50% oscillation, right?)..

Would you consider applying a small oscillation to the price feed of the MPA in question? You could then create a second identical MPA with a 180' phase offset to mirror the oscillation of the primary MPA (or even 3 with 120' phase offset from one another).

If you're talking about MSSR & MCR values set in price feeds, then I've always just copied what the committee have configured & I'm unsure of the benefits/drawbacks of changing these values - it probably should be configured by the asset owner instead of the price feed publishers though, no? Plus these fields need better explanations om the docs like scenarios where it'd be configured high or low & effects that'd have on the MPA's operation.

83
The short term and quickest solution is already presented here, since it requires no blockchain update (change fees, collected fees used to create bitassets).

I would also agree to incentivize the creation of BitAssets, but I think in long-term it should be mostly user driven. Thus I could think of an additional feature when creating a margin position that allows dividends of some sort.

When the user creates a margin position, he can choose his collateral ratio. If the ratio is above some ratio, lets call it incentivize collateral ratio ICR, then additional features becomes visible:
User can lock his position for timespan X, where locking means:
  • the position can not be closed
  • the positions borrowed amount of bitAssets amount can not be reduced, only increased
  • the positions collateral can not be reduced below ICR, only increased
  • position becomes unlocked if ratio is less then the unlock incentivize collateral ratio UICR (set by commitee)
If position becomes locked, then the positions collateral in BTS receives Y% from the reserve pool (or some commitee account, eventually filled by fees?) every month the position is locked, where the Y% is only with reference to amount of BTS necessary to achieve ICR. Value Y% depends on the choice X of the user.

For example: ICR is 3.
  • User opens position to create 1000 bitUSD backed by 50000 BTS (assume 10 BTS/bitUSD price).
    The collateral ratio of this position is then 5, which is higher than ICR, and user chooses to lock for one month.
  • Bitshares says now he will get 0.1% paid every month for all BTS required to achieve ICR.
    To achieve ICR, he would need only 30000 BTS, so the incentive is 30000 * 0.1% = 30.
  • The positions collateral will be increased by 30 BTS taken from reserve pool every month. After the two months,
    the position unlocks itself automatically (but is  not closed) and the user has now 50060 BTS as collateral.

This approach would certainly need development on back- and frontend, but could be very interesting for hodlers.

BSIP 19 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0019.md) is highly related, however I disagree with only rewarding shorters - both shorters and asset holders aught to have a portion of market fees redistributed to them.

How would the reward be balanced between the shorter and holder though?

Holders aught to benefit from the 'coinage' of their held MPA, whilst the shorter aught to benefit from a higher collateral ratio.

Eligibility for fee redistribution should only trigger once the borrowed asset has been included in a fill order (perhaps only the backing asset to keep it simple?) so that we have cryptographic proof that it is publicly liquid instead of simply borrowed and transferred to a secondary account owned by the shorter. It would still be possible for someone to put up a huge sell/buy wall and sell/buy to themselves but by doing so they offer the public (bots included) the opportunity to eat into that public market liquidity, it could also boost the trading volume considerably.

I want to see the BTSX marketing of "x% on anything" come back - it was one of the major selling points for me that the broken FIAT banking sector offer 1% but I could get 5%+ on the blockchain - very powerful!

84
I really like the idea of a price-feed only key, it would make running many price feed scripts on VPS far more secure!

85
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Bitshares UI Renewal
« on: August 16, 2018, 01:26:54 pm »
Probably referring to e.g.

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1529

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1570

https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1634

The insult happened, could not find it now. It was more than simple discussion though.

You cant find it because worker manager/repository manager can delete, hide or even alter/edit comments.

It would actually appear to be here: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1529#issuecomment-398521094 (one of the quoted hyperlinks)

Not deleted. fake news === fake drama.

86


I previously wrote about adding Blocktivity functionality to the Bitshares HUG REST API (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/new-blocktivity-bitshares-hug-functionality). Armed with this new functionality, I created a Google Assistant agent to provide this information through a conversational interface to potentially billions of users worldwide.

The agent has now been published by Google & available on all devices which have google assistant support (not the lite version yet, nor watches, sorry). Check out Blockchain Activity on the Google Assistant agent directory. https://assistant.google.com/services/a/uid/0000003e08d8dba9

Try it out by simply saying "Ok Google, talk to blockchain activity" to a google assistant supported device.

Have any questions? Reply below!

Regards,
CM.

87
MSSR punishes shorters upon force settlement yeah? Why not increase it for failing to collateralize their shorts?

88
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Bitshares UI Renewal
« on: August 15, 2018, 08:46:54 am »
Sadly, I must agree with Kim becuase unlike customminer I am not in the inner circle, so my bug ID and bugfix contributions to the repo are derided, my bounties reduced, and I have been openly called a dick by the project manager here for simple discussion.

My words, my time, on github issues has been fully erased. Really, really unlike any other open source repo on earth.

Can you provide examples of your issues being fully erased? AFAIK it's impossible to outright delete issues - they can only be closed (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3081521/how-to-completely-remove-an-issue-from-github). I don't see any rejected/closed pull requests in the last few months neither?

What's your github username on the repo so that I can see what you're talking about?

89
I think this is a problem that price feed scripts should address, rather than proposing to somehow change from median(price feeds) to max(price feeds) within the bitshares core.

If price feed publisher's scripts are overly reliant on BTC:BTS prices then they should be upgraded to sample multiple exchanges, accounting for trading volume (flagging suspected centralized manipulation) and sampling from many more alternative trading pairs such as USDT, ETH, mutliple internal bitshares market references (feed|market)..

With Max, if a single price feed publisher publishes 1000000 (or some other very high feed) then it would cause global settlement, where as median price feed would have been more secure from such an outlier price feed.

90
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] Bitshares UI Renewal
« on: August 10, 2018, 10:12:58 am »
You just need to ask the community how they feel about the progress made thus far and you will quickly learn how disappointed people are. They are expecting UI/UX changes to be made that allow the wallet to be easier to use which will lead to greater adoption. Instead we get a bunch of resolved bugs, but very few design changes that offer a better user experience.

People really need to do more research on the contents of worker proposals then before they vote perhaps? Big new exchange redesigns and user studies are great, but maintenance of the current released codebase is highly important & it's not a task covered by either of the new Bitshares exchange redesign workers which push their own maintenance off to future worker proposals.

I know the reference wallet is supposed to present all features offered, but why not bring back a well designed "Easy" wallet version?

There is the 'basic' web view mode, and there are several android wallets with simple interfaces, if you don't think such work is out of scope of this worker proposal, then why not raise an issue on bitshares-ui requesting such a feature and perhaps offer to complete the bounty yourself?

I've recently discovered that they lacked designers and developers which explains why certain things fell off the table, but the lack of transparency only made our negative perception that much worse. Let's see what Startail and his team can do during the coming months.
I don't think it's fair to claim there's a lack of transparency - what do you specifically refer to? I find the operation of bitshares-ui repo maintenance by this worker proposal highly transparent & the workers easily contactable. If you go on the bitshares-ui github repo then you can see everything this worker is doing, check the issues, commits, branches, pull-requests and the project boards to see what's happening & if an issue you're interested in has no traction then voice such concerns in the issue.

Your exchange redesign concerns/criticisms would be most appropriately voiced in the following bitshares-ui exchange redesign github issue: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1477

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 37