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 - George_Bitspark

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Compliance Work
« on: October 19, 2017, 02:38:15 am »
Pretty sure you know my position based on the lengthy Telegram discussion but here is my thoughts on this for the community who did not read through the hundreds of comments. A rigorous debate is essential for Bitshares to grow and improve.

1. This is a bad idea. No regulator cares about anything that a foundation for a blockchain (in their eyes some magical internet money people) has to say. A regulators' job is not to investigate the technicalities of a blockchain, thats irrelevant to their decisionmaking. What is relevant are businesses in their jurisdiction who would come under their regulatory oversight. Regulators engage with actual business on/off ramps into crypto, not the blockchains themselves which therefore means this worker is a non-starter to begin. Regulators regulate businesses.

2. This is a BTS shareholder subsidy for businesses. It is not the job of BTS shareholders to subsidise the costs of some business who elect to operate in a regulated exchange in their jurisdiction. Why not subside gateways in Russia? Thailand? Colombia? Each jurisdiction has different regulation and the only person that can speak to them about opening a regulated entity is the entity itself. The onus is on the business/gateway to seek regulatory permission, not the blockchain holders themselves.

3. This has no real objectives. If a random company called Bittrex USA decides to delist Bitshares thats a decision for them, why again must BTS holders subsidise decisions of a company? Its irrelevant if the reasoning is because of regulatory uncertainty,  maybe Bittrex shouldnt be in USA, its not my problem or anyone elses they find it hard to do business there. The objectives around 'responding to regulators' is also fairly vague, I can tell you that regulators in asia are not even going to return the emails of a blockchain foundation nor care about what they have to say because it's irrelevant to their decisionmaking. Telling them Bitshares is not a security because of X and Y is also not useful, its the gateway that is regulated not the blockchain, so even if they agree with you it wont impact any decisions. A gateway accepts fiat? Ok they're regulated and need license X, whatever blockchains they're using doesnt matter.

4. People would really get behind a worker for marketing if someone is willing to step up and do that 'on behalf of bitshares' but a regulatory representation is an entirely different thing, especially from a few people who are unknown to the community.

Random Discussion / Bitspark is launching Zephyr rewards token soon
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:47:46 am »
Just wanted to throw the question out there, has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience? Bitspark is about to launch the rewards token. 

URL link:

General Discussion / Zephyr token is coming soon in less than 3hours
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:43:43 am »
Bitspark is about to launch the rewards token and we want to know has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience?

URL link:

Bitspark [closed] / Zephyr token is launching soon
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:36:29 am »
Just wanted to throw the question out there, has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience? We at Bitspark are about to launch the rewards token. 

URL link:

We recently announced our Bounty campaign. Please have a look here ( ZEPH on offer to participants.


Welcome to the conclusion to our 3 part series on our switch to Bitshares for remittances culminating in the launch of our reward token Zephyr. The idea is simple, offer people a monetary incentive to join our remittance network and undertake economically beneficial actions in the network with a percentage of fees going toward buying back tokens on the DEX. There are some further subtle layers to this but we think this is the ideal way to accelerate our reach into new markets and grow the overall user base for Bitshares pegged assets.

Feel free to let us know your thoughts and feedback and we look forward to the next stage with the Bitshares community. Some important media announcements coming out in the next few weeks stay tuned!

This would be very useful as currently the only way to do this is with a third party Bot- BTSbots is also closed source. Having this done onchain would be good for liquidity providers who, when the bid is higher than the settlement price, short something into existence and sell for a profit then need to buy it back (feed price originally paid ideally) to close the position.

General Discussion / Re: Bitspark Switching to Bitshares for Remittances
« on: August 10, 2017, 03:26:49 pm »
This means there is one less hurdle for liquidity in new markets and there is also a natural incentive to create more liquidity- if there is a rising demand for a fiat pegged cryptocurrency then it will be trading higher than its real price so you can make money in creating (locking up BTS collateral) and selling it to the market.

This is not that easy. By issuing bitAssets backed by BTS collateral, you expose yourself to BTS price volatility. This process needs some smart management.

P.S. A number of very good points are made in the article.  +5%

Our intention is that we wont be shorting them into existence ourselves due to this risk but being the constant buyer in the market for traders who do. Our first obligation is the safe custody of our customers money. Over time we will be able to accumulate enough of the smartcoins to fully switch over our services from BTC and our existing liquidity providers to using only bitassets on the DEX. We will be expanding upon some of the specifics in the coming weeks in follow up posts.

General Discussion / Bitspark Switching to Bitshares for Remittances
« on: August 10, 2017, 04:24:00 am »
Hi all!

We have some big news today, we at Bitspark ( will be switching to Bitshares in future for our remittances, starting with our recent deal with the UN ( ) in Tajikistan.

Heres why we came to this conclusion:

General Discussion / Re: Bit20 - The cryptocurrency index fund
« on: July 27, 2017, 05:09:46 am »
Great thanks for the summary Wackou and EstefanTT, indeed more implementations of the price feed script should be something brought up with other witnesses for other assets aswell.

General Discussion / Re: Bit20 - The cryptocurrency index fund
« on: July 22, 2017, 02:07:26 pm »
Thanks for the investigation Wackou, so am I correct in saying that if the price feed had more witnesses for this asset and if the price feed is an average of witness feeds, this can help reduce black swans in future? Although such a sharp divergence in feed pricing likely still would black swan the asset even with twice the amount of witnesses correct?

I have a few questions, just trying to understand this more clearly. So in buying this asset it will redeem at date X 1:1 with the tether you hold elsewhere? Who will determine you own tether and that it has defaulted? Is this a UIA? It will only redeem the amount of USDTETHERDEFAULT that you buy, correct? So how will it cover Tether which you hold which has defaulted because amount of Tether will always be > this asset? Thanks!

Technical Support / Re: !!! Stupid Questions Thread !!!
« on: March 04, 2017, 09:54:49 am »
What are 'Seed nodes' ? Are these like bitcoin nodes in that they just route transactions around the network?

General Discussion / Re: Pegged Cryptocurrencies for Remittances
« on: January 30, 2017, 06:14:11 am »
Thanks for the great explainer [member=38721]GChicken[/member], I now have a much better understanding of the process! On another note about smartcoins and user issued assets, it seems that some Smartcoins (bitUSD, bitCNY) have no counterparty risk as the collateral is held as BTS in a smart contract, whereas others like OPEN.BTC do- I need to trust and send Bitcoin to Openledger who I hope will then grant me one OPEN.BTC. Is there BTS collateral held for these assets aswell, pegged to the price feed of BTC or it solely based on the fact that I need to trust the issuer? E.g. if Openledger disappeared oneday could I still liquidate my OPEN.BTC for 100% of its face value in BTS.

On another note, how does the Bitshares client determine what pairs should be displayed, I see I can trade directly some Smartcoin pairs e.g. bitUSD:bitCNY however others not, assume this is based on volume? Thanks!

General Discussion / Re: Pegged Cryptocurrencies for Remittances
« on: January 30, 2017, 03:09:08 am »
Thanks for the feedback everyone, very interesting. Indeed so it looks like a chicken and egg situation regarding liquidity as it normally is. I have a few more questions:

[member=11456]svk[/member] mentioned around 100k btUSD in total supply, I assume that as bitUSD is bought on exchanges, and liquidity is removed from the orderbook that the price of a bitUSD may rise above 1:1 and therefore provide an incentive for traders to add more liquidity to bitUSD, essentially as it approaches 100k, the supply will increase is the idea? But for bitUSD supply to increase, it also means increased adoption of BTS as collateral so actually it is BTS liquidity and price that is impacted the most in that situation?

[member=43221]JianJolly[/member] indeed the gateways into and out of the crypto world are essential, for remittance companies this is what they do, so the question is more about how those remittance companies manage these cryptotokens and who they offload the token to at the end of the day to settle their balance.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5