I'd like to critique the centralization of this "gateway / UIA" model with BTS. OL is very separate and distinct from BitShares itself, and this needs to be made clear to BTS investors. We, as a whole, are becoming far too reliant on OL / Obits and some of the other upcoming gateways being "layered" on the DEX. Without some marketing changes by BTS positioning these are distinct from BTS, if one of these "gateway exchanges" were to collapse, the BTS reputation would be irrevocably damaged.
.
.

There is already a "BTC" tab in the Dex using BitBTC, so clearly I'm not the only one thinking this.  Let's ask Gateways to also support BitBTC (and perhaps BitETH) as a "base" pair (tab on UI) instead of UIAs, in addition to the Core BTS Dex, which already does this.

Totally agree. Bitshares should be as fully P2P as possible. Waves uses IOUs, which maintain third party risk. With SmartCoins the user gains in security, by eliminating the risk of third parties, the gateway wins by offering a better and safer product than the competition and Bitshares gains in liquidity. If this idea is not supported, we are crazy.

Quote from: moinyoin on September 02, 2017, 12:10:02 am

Quote from: erizo on September 01, 2017, 09:48:01 pm

IOTA is a new currency without mining that uses a kind of graph, called Tangle, without blockchain. It is taking a considerable volume and is practically no more negotiated than in Bitfinex. Would it be a good idea to create OPEN.IOTA and bitIOTA to take advantage of that volume in the DEX?

it's new, untested, unreviewed, centralized (coordinator), not official white paper (other than general tangle paper with many issues) at this point. no incentive to run full nodes despite what they say, no real protection against spam, not a secure coin to add in any capacity to a gateway that wants to be solvent.

While I agree IOTA has a long way to go until it truly matures, I'm not sure what you mean by untested.  Removing the coordinator will be a big milestone and there is good reason to reserve some skepticism about things until that's complete but the network is live and functioning and has survived numerous attacks so far as I understand it.  Also since the cost to send each transaction is processing two other transactions there isn't really such a thing as "spam" since every transaction serves it's function to speed up the network.  Beyond all that, are there extra security concerns inherent with IOTA?

If OPEN.IOTA doesn't share the challenges the exchanges have in implementing the token then it sounds like OPEN.IOTA might be a great idea.  Not sure why people would shy away from storing wealth in IOTA in the context of crypto currencies, it's market cap at $1.5B in the top 10 (over 7x larger than Bitshares if that says anything) shows there are plenty out there comfortable storing value there.

I also have doubts about IOTA. For now IOTA needs a dictator, and dictators often delay the date of his departure. However it is a currency with a lot of volume and difficult to implement in the exchanges: a good opportunity to increase the DEX liquidity.

Great! can someone give me an example of a call to api to make a payment in bitusd?

Yes I know. sidechains is useful for transfers between blockchains, but not between fiat and blockchain, at least until the banks have our money in blockchains.

Yes, Atomic Swaps would allow to transfer BTC to Bitshares DEX bitBTC without third party UIAs. It would be great progress, but there is still the problem on the FIAT side. My proposal is to use gateways but with P2P exchanges, not with third parties.

I think openledger is a trustworthy company... they also get a nice little revenue from bitshares and would face years of unpleasantry and criminal investigations if they ever tried to run away with the money. I just doubt Ronnie and the gang would do that. lol. They seem hardworking enough already.

It is important to note that openledger and any gateway is not safe in the same way as bitshares or bitshares-derived tokens.

I'm sure that company works well, and does a great job, but an IOU is not as secure as a bitshares-derived tokens. If we were convinced otherwise, there would be no Bitshares smartcoins. For the same reason an exchange P2P would also be more reliable, and the logical solution for the blockchain era, the era of the end of the middleman.

bisq is nothing more but a simple, decentralized order book. find a dev and implement escrow, and we got everything needed for this on bitshares.

The great Achilles' heel of the cryptocoins ecosystem has always been the exchange centralized by FIAT. If no one except Bisq (or Coinffeine, but no longer exists, I think) has made a successful P2P, it means that the implications are not so simple at all. The advantages are obvious, the similarity of concept with the operation of the cryptocoins is total (the elimination of third parties)

But, if it is so simple, why has it not been launched, in Bitshares?