If you know there is someone who will *never* sell (lost USD keys), there is a minimum BTS valuation below which both bitasset and BTS valuation instantly drop to almost 0. Right? At some point buying BTS is buying debt, or something. I can't get my own version of bitshares into a state where BTS is worth $50 and there are $1m bitUSD and then ask you to accept that bitUSD.

That might be an low probability edge case, but doesn't the same assumption require us to assume that "most" of the bitUSD holders would sell their bitUSD if they had the chance to sell it for 2 USD in a different form? What about 1.1 USD?

edit: How this relates to the title is, if we assume that a bitasset holder knows his risk of catastrophic loss is higher the higher his "free" return is, I intuitively find it much easier to believe the system is in an "equilibrium" state.

I also think this means the short price restriction has to be above $1, or maybe have a > $1 instead of an >= $1 somewhere...

http://discuss.nubits.com/t/my-economic-analysis-of-the-nubits-system/712

This claims he has a justification why bitUSD is supposed to trade below parity in this document. Anyone care to read through it and prepare a response for when he corrects it?

* Multi-sig discretionary spending (tips and bounties) for development
* Multi-sig discretionary spending (tips and bounties) for public-facing media of any kind
* A delegate for cass
* Another web GUI dev (maybe we should pull svk)
* Signup faucet   (done! vote for "bitcube")
* Security auditor

Will collect and sort requests by popularity in OP.

I think this would really help people understand how to make long-term valuations for BTS. We pursue things that help us burn BTS so that we can eventually start getting paid for owning stake in a profitable autonomous system.

The mechanics of the dividend are not important except that it should be in bitUSD or bitGOLD.

When was the first time it was described? When was the first time we had a working system with these assets?

build this:  https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/tree/ce5e49e5f6cf13df9f409979900addb161892350

test funds:  https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/blob/ce5e49e5f6cf13df9f409979900addb161892350/dev-test-keys.txt
tests:
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/blob/ce5e49e5f6cf13df9f409979900addb161892350/tests/acceptance_tests/features/multisig.feature
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/blob/ce5e49e5f6cf13df9f409979900addb161892350/tests/acceptance_tests/features/cold_storage.feature

multisig usage:
>>> wallet_multisig_deposit 100 XTS 2 [addr1, addr2, addr3]
balance_id = >>> wallet_multisig_get_balance_id 2 [addr1, addr2, addr3]
builder = >>> wallet_multisig_withdraw_start id withdraw_addr
builder' = >>>wallet_builder_add_signature builder true    // etc
cold storage usage:
addr = >>> wallet_address_create my-acct
>>> wallet_transfer_asset_to_address 100 XTS from-acct addr
builder = >>> wallet_withdraw_from_address 99 XTS addr to-acct
>>> wallet_builder_add_signature builder true  // "true" to broadcast


Someone posted this in the ethereum subreddit, I don't know the source.
http://i.imgur.com/mh7b0Vy.png

It is interesting that about half of these describe BTS itself while half describe dapps on BTS. Here you see the difference between a DAC and a Dapp (one owns its blockchain and the other doesn't). Those differences are potential competitive advantages in those specific areas.