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 - Digital Lucifer

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19
General Discussion / Re: New BSIP:GS protection via core code
« on: July 21, 2019, 08:43:05 pm »
Agree on that "manipulation" part from Abit.

And lets clear it up once and for all.

We have "bad debt" situation. In real life, if i wanna lend someone cash he needs to provide security (car, house, depends on the cash). If he fails to return the debt per agreement, he loses his security and debt is "cleared".

Why it's such a problem here to recreate same event ?

Simplified definition by me:
MANIPULATION would be something done for personal/selfish/unfair interests of individual or certain group, while here it would be MANAGEMENT for the safety of entire population.

You can all google up both terms for better and more refined definition, but facts are facts.

Lets do simple test:

- Block producers are being manipulated in order to keep their job ->> Block producers are being managed in order to keep their job.
- CNY market is manipulated by Chinese. ->> CNY market is managed by Chinese.
- Price feeds are manipulated by BTS Holders through block producers. ->> Price feeds are managed through block producers by BTS Holders.

Back to point from Abit:


This is not science anymore, it's turning into bullshit and endless drama.

Bad debts are the problem, core needs mechanics to deal with them more efficiently.

Remove the bad debts and we will get liquidity back to bitUSD as well.

End of discussion from my perspective.


Phase 1 (Exchanges): Trade and order book data
[Mandatory by June 14, 2019]
To start, the following data will become mandatory for all exchanges, broadening the span of data users can infer on the site:

Live trading data: Ongoing live trade data provided via API (example)
Live order book data: Ongoing order book data provided via API (example)
These data points will enable analyses to determine measures such as liquidity, order book depth, spreads, and other meaningful measures. With these additional data points, users will be better able to contextualize the pricing and volume being reported on the site and API.

Any exchange that does not provide this mandatory data to us via a new or updated summary endpoint will be excluded from all price and adjusted volume calculations on the site.

There is a 45-day grace period for all exchanges to send this new endpoint to us, and changes will go into effect on June 14, 2019.

Phase 2 (Exchanges): Enhanced data and metrics
For phase 2, we are planning to grow the types of data available for analysis and enable filtering to allow deeper analyses and views into the exchanges’ operations.

Exchange hot/cold wallet addresses: Proof of Solvency/Reserves/Liabilities, or at least indicative numbers to enable users to determine solvency of selected exchange
Live market-pair trading status (example “status” field): More granular trading data at the market-pair level for further analysis
Live wallet status (example “can_deposit” and “can_withdraw” fields): Summary status of all possible deposits and withdrawals across currencies
Historical trade data (example): All time-stamped historical trades for tracking, and in some cases, compliance
While these are not finalized yet, DATA partners have pledged to observe and fulfill these new conditions if they are required.

Phase 3 (Exchanges & Crypto projects): Self-reported information
To give every project on the site a chance to demonstrate the effort it has put into promoting accountability and transparency, we will be introducing self-reporting channels for projects to provide additional information.

We stress that these are purely voluntary reporting, and every field is optional.
The level to which each project self-reports the data will be factored into its ranking. This is in line with DATA’s intent to incentivize greater levels of disclosure and transparency without the need for censorship or arbitrary judgment calls.
Projects already listed on CoinMarketCap that do not self-report additional information will continue to be listed without prejudice.
These are the fields that will be introduced, for cryptocurrencies and exchanges respectively (subject to changes/additions):

For cryptocurrencies:

Platform (e.g. Ethereum, Stellar, Neo)
Consensus Algorithm
Team information
LinkedIn URLs, team page
Investor information
Supply schedule (with block explorer links and reserve addresses)
Github/Developer Activity
Traction/Progress updates/Partnerships/MVP/Independent media coverage
Community/Social initiatives
Project team
Company registration – Business registration proof online
User base breakdown (by geography)
History of Rebrands
History of Swaps
Major project milestones/news (e.g. halvenings, swaps, announcements)
Community/conference events
Available jobs at the project
For exchanges:

Launch Date
Tagging (e.g. centralized / DEX / derivatives, fiat on/off-ramps, trading incentives)
API documentation
Summary API endpoint
Account Termination/Freezing policies
Exchange should support direct links to specific market pairs without the need to log-in
CMC ID mapping (to minimize confusion arising from projects sharing identical tickers)
Team/Backers information
LinkedIn URLs, team page
Traction/Progress updates/Partnerships/MVP/Independent media coverage
Global page rank/traffic
Community/Social initiatives
Registered business address
Company registration – Business registration proof online
User base breakdown (by geography)
Cybersecurity measures
Fiat on/off-ramps (please specify the fiat pairs)
Fee structure
Trading Incentives (e.g. transaction mining, zero fees)
KYC (None | Optional/Tiered | Mandatory)
OTC/Derivatives (e.g. Options, Futures, CFD, Leverage/Margin)
History of Rebrands
Major project milestones/news (e.g. halvenings, swaps, announcements)
Community/conference events
Available jobs at the project

What's update on this ? Have we sent all requirements (i can see CMC ok)

General Discussion / LJK424 HAS BEEN BANNED!
« on: July 15, 2019, 08:46:05 am »
User Ljk424,

received 7 days BAN from posting for his very un-ethical and very non-professional behavior around ecosystem.

If any Admin/Moderator have objections, please state reason for BAN removal before you do so, ill be monitoring logs.

I'm available by PM here or Telegram.

Appreciate if we craft basic rules on posting that will not include insults, fud and crazy talk that is completely unreasonable. Keep in mind we are not only one reading these topics.

On behalf of all reasonable BTS holders and fellow colleagues,


P.S. Latest example of behavior just 20 minutes after a very fair warning to not do so.

You've been warned over 10 times in past 60 days and as from it now,

You are having 7 days BAN until you sort out yourself or get basic manners somehow.

Daniel Schwarz (liondani) has been PMed as well.

they are devils

No verbal attacking, please.

First warning has been issued.

Trigger the price of the black swan
= Black Swan Price * MSSR
= 0.039625‬ * 1.02

As long as the feed is lower than 0.0404175, there is no Feed Global Protection for BitUSD

liondani, verbaltech2, delegate-1.lafona, xn-delegate, abc123, xman, fox, roelandp, in.abit

No need to unvote 9 witnesses, leaving 12 active since we can facepalm Halt of the chain.

Instead, follow the example:

Abitmore, Roelandp, Ryan and Thom got notification by PM in Telegram from me. Please, reach out to others from the list directly to be helpful.


BEOS / Re: [WTS] 100,000 BOES @ 0.25$
« on: July 13, 2019, 06:15:29 am »
I agree, when xeroc’s supply runs out I will sell my 100k @ $.25/beos to keep this healthy market going...
will use xeroc as my escrow if buyers agree.

Escrow is now available even in UI so they'll have to agree anyway :)

Just, guys I believe BEOS is actively being traded on markets as 0.1 BTS / 1 BEOS so your prices are way off the market one.


General Discussion / Re: why not borrowing?
« on: June 30, 2019, 04:33:15 pm »
BitShares is no different from any other exchange in the sense that it needs to incentivise liquidity providers if it wants to succeed.

I agree with your point about rewarding liquidity providers, but we need to look at WHO does that. BitShares IS NOT an exchange. There is a dex  built for it, yes. But BitShares is not an exchange or even a dex. BitShares is a blockchain.

In other terms, gateways are here to offer such stuff :) We cant incentive someone for asset we are literally borrowing to existence. Its already 0% interest fee on it, so... no logic unless its UIA backed by gateway who can provide incentive through custom fee structure.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Core Team Worker Funding Status
« on: June 27, 2019, 06:55:47 pm »
I am pleased to announce that the Core Team Worker has fully funded its 2019 budget in bitCNY value due to the increased valuation of the BTS token. I am reaching out to proxies and community members to suspend their votes for this WP to allow other valuable initiatives to receive funding. The Core Team will continue its development efforts from the accumulated budget holdings in escrow with the BitShares Blockchain Foundation (should BTS valuation drop I may request lifting the vote suspension to fund the original intent).

Ryan R. Fox
Development Coordinator

Many thanks for all of your hard work and proper management of Core worker and its funding.

@biophil - don't believe your worker will be an issue to have votes/funding, it's pretty much important contribution/collaboration for the ecosystem :)

I have looked into the introduction of this meeting, it seems pretty good, therefore I would like to see the presence of BitShares on this conference.

As for the budget, it's up to voters. Maybe you can create three proposals, and see which one get the highest votes in the end.

We need more activities and media exposures for BitShares.

Create just one proposal and push it, I don't see reason for delays. I suggest you start it fast if you wanna make that down-payment, and if you wanna get votes.

Many thanks for detailed specifics of the project/worker and payments Alex.


Denis B: "Hi!  I apologize for not answering for so long. At the moment we are preparing a version for mobile and tablets, as well as a dark version.  After that, everyone will be able to try the new Bitshares interface on the mainnet and offer their improvements / suggestions :) wait for the news next week!"

Well done! :D When nobody see it coming... I like it :D

Good luck and chee®s!

And P2P Lending is not so unknown to Authorities btw:

So, let's do it properly and introduce really big boom to the world without any risk to the future of BitShares.

To clarify, the "bombastic" was really rather meant as "fantastic" .. just a little more .. the desired meaning got lost in translation.

Secondly, I do share some of DL's concerns but also don't see why this should become an issue for either BBF, or MOVE insitute. None of them technically "operate" the BitShares blockchain (and fact, it's unclear who really does). Similar to how the UI should IMHO be blocked to US IPs, the feature for lending should also be blocked from IPs of countries that prohibit lending. That at least should be clear to anyone hosting a frontend that allows using that particular feature of bitshares - but again, this is new territory from legal point of view and we simply don't know what regulators and law enforcement will think.
To me, it is quite easy to logically claim neither the owner of, nor of has anything to do with the offers of the bitshares blockchain (which runs entirely independent). It's like laming Mozilla for providing software to browse the dark net. Not their fault, really.
It is different though for those that "host" a wallet/ui. At least I can see problems come up to them for providing an "entrance".

Ultimately, we need to distinguish service offerings of from services offered by the BitShares Blockchain.
Also, the owner of has not sole authority over the BitShares Blockchain and couldn't even prevent them from doing things that might disagree with, like offering a lending market. Something similar could be said about CFDs which are to my knowledge prohibited in the U.S. too.

(not a lawyer)

My apologies if I did, but I never meant to disturb freedom of BitShares blockchain as a tech, but we are talking finance and sticking BitShares BSIP next to it, so yeah, some limitations according to some laws have to be included in this, just for BitShares to avoid problems from legal aspect and to be clear that decentralized is not lawless. It's just way of how the tech works. On the other hand, not seeing happy businesses promoting/pushing things without proper due diligence on it. I don't expect core dev to run into the legalities over code he is writing, but I do expect that we do. Authorities are pulling knots tighter and tighter and even CEXes are complying without question. Poking the bears with ignorance of our own will not end well for anyone, that's a fact.

On the other hand, we don't represent or decide what will happen on the BitShares blockchain (you are 100% right), but we are both (BBF and Move Institute) publicly available to the authorities to be reached (at least questioned on topic BitShares). I don't see how they can reach anyone else on blockchain unless specific phone/address/registration number is on the website - more twist of my own towards that frontend concern that we are bearing as owner of, hence the clear Titles on contact page for both BBF and Move.

And to repeat one more time, completely supporting such improvement to the core, just done properly and not rushed with like BSIP42 ending up as a drama. We have 0 experience in Margin Lending, 0 experience how it works on the BLOCKCHAIN and we experienced it on CEXes with KYC regulation and liquidity, so it's not really a good metric to compare with having in mind current activities on the chain or our legal status (no legal owner, no company, no legal definition - as you said even regulators can't classify us, but still can prosecute us and sometimes they don't even need a reason and we've seen it with our own eyes even around here).

P.S. If anyone have any problem with my attitude around here, let's be clear on one thing. We've got domain in March 2018 (long before any workers or funding by blockchain happened). If we were to fuck things up, could ride up on a horse with CNX, do a proper hostile take-over and pull all the products away as to privately hosted/owned and just because bitshares has no owner, nobody could do fuck about it, apart from forking off to something different than BitShares (all the exchanges and websites are having listed that domain). Was pulling my teeth and BORROWING money around with no interest to push it through, to make it legit through non-profit partner, to build it to something more and to survive all the craziness that I've personally gotten from it. So, if you wanna pick your finger at me and dive into discussion, keep in mind my history, amount of time and resources that I've involved in BitShares exclusively and legality around it and then stop right there, because I'm here no enemy for the future of the blockchain or any of my associates are. I'm not centralizing things, I'm trying to legalize things on the front-end so we don't poke the bear and be the one who remains truly decentralized, but LEGIT in the industry for the long-term.

Hi all,

BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" is getting closer and there remains a few key points to address. One is important and warrants a thorough discussion is about how to determine 'the price' of the asset being lent relative to the collateral held and market price of the collateral vs the lent asset.

Firstly a lender defines the markets in which he is willing for the borrower to use his lent asset. Therefore the lender assumes risk and takes responsibility for the liquidity, pricing and legitimacy of those markets. The risk for the lender is he may not get back the amount lent in the case of a catastrophic collapse in price of the the lent asset vs the asset the borrower buys. Discussion on margin call mechanics aside (which I think was covered well in Github) the main point for community input now is on 'the price'- what is it, where is referenced to and the best method for insuring a robust pricing for these margin loans.

A price is required for many of the key operations required for BSIP70. You need a price to determine the collateral ratio of the borrowers collateral vs the the size of the loan. You need to monitor the price for a margin call event and you need to execute a limit order in the case of a margin call at some price in order buy back enough of the loan to repay the lender. An accurate price is needed in all these cases, we will call this a 'reference price'. Lets examine how similar lending and margin markets have existed on other platforms:

Bitfinex: Bitfinex has the most similar proposed margin trading and lending system to BSIP70. Bitfinex choose what markets can be used for lending so they limit the issue of exposure to illiquid markets. The Bitfinex price they use for the loans is based on the 'Last price' in that market. That means that the last executed trade represents the pricing of that asset pair. This is a simple and direct method of determining the price.

Bitmex: Bitmex, while not employing the same P2P CFD style of margin trading as BSIP70 still needs a price for their margin mechanisms. Bitmex use an external price feed of the bitcoin price relative to their self selected set of coins they list. They use multiple datapoints to ensure the robustness of their pricing feed based off the prices of several exchanges.

Other solutions: Perhaps a Middle price could be used which is = ((highest bid + lowest ask) / 2). However we would need to carefully think of the implications of this and how to game it. I have some initial thoughts but open to ideas here.

I think the best solution is just to use the last price for that particular market pairing, yes it is open to someone dumping price and forcing margin calls but the lender takes that into consideration when he allows his asset to be traded on that market knowing the risk is that he might not receive  what he lent in return. A conservative lender might only be willing to lend to high volume and liquidity markets to limit his risk of a giant margin call killing the last price. Also, even if this were the case, if I knew there was a market with a high chance of this happen this is an excellent opportunity for market makers. If there was alot of margin calls on one market I as a market maker would place bids 10% below market price knowing ill be able to scoop up cheap coins in the event of the margincall and sell them on another exchange for a price 10% higher using a cross exchange arb like via DEXbot.

What are the best methods in order to establish a reference price that is robust that you would like to see? Did I miss any potential implementations?

Logic/Concept - Support.

 3 things I might add/define better to this above, before it goes to reality:

1) Markets with no liquidity are a big no-no. Currently only liquid market on the entire blockchain seems to by BTS:BitCNY if we are to compare liquidity with Bitfinex, Bitmex or even Poloniex and take them as fine working example (they do provide these services for quite a while without problems).
2) For UIA price should still be determined by 3rd source and witnesses should be doing minimum 2 feeds for that contract. Marketplace gives Lender opportunity to rig the debt over the period of time since amount of return is in the same contract not related to any pair of it. If for example open.USDT or Spark.HKD, by 2 fiat sources against contracts used for lending.
3) bitshares-core software should determine on its base level of asset are markets liquid enough or not, not the Lender. e.g. bsip70_enable_marketminimum_volume = 500,000.00000 BTS

Anything else would be potential manipulation.


1. Firstly its up to the lender to set the markets you want to lend to, Bitshares is decentralised and everyone should be free to lend to whatever they want its not up to someone to decide what people can and cant do, in this case the lender assumes the risk if they allow a borrower to take their money.

Secondly "Liquidity" is only important when referenced to how much you are loaning. For example if the market cap of a particular coin is $10000 and you are loaning $1, just because the market cap is not high relative to Bitcoin, the fact you are lending a small amount does not present any high risk to that market and because the market cap is low it can actually be difficult to find lenders/traders willing to engage in that market. So I dont see this as a concern TBH.

2. Not sure what you mean here but lets address additional price feeds. If we require additional price feeds there are a few concerns:

A ) Whos going to provide them and for what coins?
B ) This is additional computational burden on the network and we dont have a large number of witnesses as it is
C ) Whos feed is correct? Will we use median values for a number of witnesses? Then we will also need to design new voting principles for price feeders for lending.
D ) Last but most importantly it limits who and what you can lend and trade. If there is no price feed its no longer possible to margin on that market. People should be free to lend some small cap coin for some other small cap coin without being dictated to what they can and cant do because a small set of 10 random people in the world dont want to provide feeds for their coin. This massively limits this BSIP to probably only 0.001% of Bitshares markets. We want to make this BSIP for anyone to be able to get leverage and earn a return on anything.

3. Volume is not a good indicator and easily faked. Also, for UIA markets one can easily trade 1 BTS for 1S**TCOIN @ price of $100000. Then execute 2 trades daily in order to get a volume of $200000 which magically enables them go margin on whatever. Whereas maybe there is a small cap coin with a real market but is below some artificial threshold which is honest, but is not able to get margin access because its not above some arbitrary value. Also it should not be up to core or some individuals to determine what you can trade or not. Also for UIA/UIA makets there is no BTS reference so not possible to get a BTS volume as benchmark even if there was it would not be representative of real BTS because UIA/UIA are easily faked whereas BTS/UIA actually requires someone to pay real value to exchange them.

1. BitShares is a brand and technology that has LEGAL reponsibility in the real world. Regarding blockchain, BBF, regarding Move Institute. If Authorities are to knock someone's doors for BitShares, that would be first 2 to knock on. You ? Just a 3rd party company utilizing free and decentralized BitShares blockchain platform without written agreement that you bare no responsibility towards actions that you're doing on BitShares blockchain. For a Money Remittance business, you're far off the grid with your comments if you want real main-stream.

In some countries you know that Lending is against the law ? Shall we disable API access to those countries just so anyone can become a Lender and start making profits from the blockchain without any concern on the consequences that may happen ? "Decentralized" you can look up in dictionary, same as you did for "bombastic" and come back here to tell me what decentralized has to do with lawless.

A) Concern who will do price feed ? Up to the lender who was interest on return to employee more witnesses and even pay them privately for price feed if needed.
B) Nothing computational is happening, apart from regular price feed added to another token through a 3rd party independent script between blockchain and 3rd party (as now).
C) If you wanna Lend Spark.HKD and re-claim it in real HKD at your offices, wouldn't be fair at local currency/exchange (fiat) to be borrowed ?
D) Yes, ofcourse it is, otherwise everybody would be having bad debts and everything would go to shit, how here that in real world. Limits are nothing bad IMO. (look what BSIP42 did with no limits)


Creating a volume and price feed combined would be exactly too hard to maintain and Lender would not be diving it into it, if he is not up for a real business. Borrower would not dive inside to unstable/unknown conditions.

Such markets/assets should be always and only issued with multi-sig on committee, otherwise we will move in from gray to very black area of crypto industry.


P.S. I said, support fully just in terms that lending should have limits by the blockchain not by the lender. If you think that's not fair, then you're far from decentralized. Lender dictating rules is very centralized process with no legal process or responsibility to it. Better to compute and calculate rather than trust, hence we are still looking for trustless gateways/solutions.

Quick update:

I am currently in discussions with the University of Nicosia to potentially accept BTS / bitAssets as tuition fee payment for their courses if we partner up join the IFF.

Can you please create again post on what are all the benefits (by points) for these 200,000.00 USD potential worker ? (What does include, because its not just Decentralized event anymore)


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19