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.
the charges in magicwallet is vary, depending on the price of bts, bitcny come from collateralize bts, if bts price go down, then there will be less people willing to be the gateway, thus the price of converting fiat into bitcny will include a high fee (sometimes 1-2%), but when bts price is going up, like recently, the fee of fiat-bitcny could be very low (because people are feel more safe to collateralize their bts for bitcny and become a gateway), and could even be negative (yes, meaning 100 yuan could convert to like 105 bitcny)
Quotemaking decentralized gateway (according to vote results) seems inexpedient
Chinese don't think so. Their magicwallet seem to be quite popular way of depositing funds into bitshares. (So popular, that they decided to screw up bitCNY to make up for disbalance between deposits/withdrawals)
If you guys have any other ideas, please let me know. Thanks again.
Well, if a decentralized gateway is inconvenient as a result of the number of signers, why not use one already built? I am referring to requesting a collaboration with the Bisq multi-sign decentralized exchange, an APP that allows the exchange of Alts and also FIAT to BTC.
If that exchange implemented the FIAT BTC pair and / or the FIAT BitUSD pair, a decentralized gateway would already be built, but truly 100% decentralized.
In Bisq you can request the addition of new cryptocurrencies and the trading is made of wallet to wallet, in this case that of Bitshares.
I think there would be no competition problem, each exchange has its ecological niche (in Bisq 99% is the, pair BTC / FIAT) and the collaboration would only generate positive synergies for each one.
It is not necessary to invent the wheel each time, the solution can be in the collaboration between exchanges with sister projects.
Imagine the possibility of having a decentralized BitUSD and BTS entry from FIAT.
Where is a DEX without third party risk?
Better DEXs are coming soon (months, not years). The whole point of a DEX is to eliminate third party risks. Bitshares' DEX has IOU risks (Open Ledger's BTC, LTC, etc.) and/or systematic risks (Smartcoins). Plus, both of those assets have far less utility than the real assets.The DEX of bitshares is the closest thing to that conceptYou've got to consider the future if you are speculating in cryptos. To judge things as they exist now is too short sided.and may be among the first to use Atomic Swaps if Open Ledger performs the promised developments, then our DEX could exploit the potential of BitUSD very well, without others taking advantage of that."may be" is not good enough. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen ASAP before another USD derivative gains network effect in this market.Tether does not have any reliability. There is no real support and it can be stolen http://news.8btc.com/30-million-usdt-hacked-might-favor-bitusd-of-bitsharesTether 24hr volume: 632,797,000
bitusd 24hr volume: 1,329,530
The reason why you and I hate Tether is irrelevant. Look at the scoreboard which reflects reality. Since Tether's inception, it has schooled bitusd in use and adoption. People don't care that it is centralized and could collapse any moment. All they care about is that it has a high amount of liquidity, and that it is closely pegged to the USD.
https://crypto-bridge.org/
Calim they solve the counterparty risk by implementing decentralized gateway to bitshares DEX !?
Is't it the same as idea 4:
Creation of Trustless (Decentralized) BTC gateway for DEX.
What do you think?
I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.
This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.
Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.
For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC
I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?
If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?
If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.
We are talking about a trustless or near trustless BTC gateway (sidechains.) We are not talking about a UIA gateway like OPEN.BTC
I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.
This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.
Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.
For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC
If it is possible to use BTC (via the trustless gateway) as collateral for smartcoins, BitShares will provide a trustless way to enter a leveraged long BTC position. You can simply borrow bitUSD against BTC and sell the borrowed bitUSD for more BTC. You have entered a leveraged long BTC position, while providing additional bitUSD supply. I imagine demand for that would be huge, which would drastically improve liquidity for all smartcoins.
I agree, this would be a great improvement for bitshares. Volatile collateral is a weak point of MPA. BTC is as volatile as BTS, but they are not completely correlated, so if we could chose which coin to deposit in collateral, that would greatly reduce the risk of shorting.
Number four. Number four, number four, number four.
Having a decentralized btc gateway would make bitshares utterly unique (though it is already), and position it against poloniex, etc. Though challenging, I have long thought this to be possible and desirable.
Why?
Real bitcoins... Not pegged bitcoins... Real bitcoins... Via the bitshares dex.
So I vote three times for number four.
You have the same, but more direct, with Atomic Swaps.
Bitcoin on chain allows for one thing that atomic swaps can't deliver. It gives us the possibility to use real BTC as collateral for smartcoins. That has two advatages: 1) Reduced risk for black swan events 2) Higher liquidity as currently only traders who want to go long BTS relative to the smartcoin will create smartcoin supply. When we have BTC on chain everyone who wants to go long BTC relative to the smartcoin can do so and deliver additional liquidity to smartcoin markets. Which is huge IMO, as there should be a lot more people willing to go long BTC opposed to long BTS.
Why not add BEOS (Bitshares on EOS) option to the poll?
Seems this option has some support in the community.
See "BEOS - Alternative proposal for Bitshares 3.0"
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@slavix/beos-bitshares-on-eos-alternative-proposal-for-bitshares-3-0
