Don't be impossible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You can move to 06:20 in this video to see details about Bitshares Me:
http://vimeo.com/user24356268/review/87448377/66716b27fa

Can someone tell me where the video is?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Markus on February 26, 2014, 11:29:32 am

Quote from: bytemaster on February 26, 2014, 08:06:33 am

Quote from: gulu on February 26, 2014, 08:03:50 am

As depicted in the whitepaper, BitUSD will be destroyed over time due to fees. That means there exists excess XTS backing BitUSD. The theory states that if the backing XTS is more than the original amount, BitUSD will trade with a premium over USD, effectively paying dividend to the BitUSD holder. This also serves as the motivation to hold BitUSD.

Here is the concern. We need a channel to connect the excess XTS to the existing BitUSD, in order for the market to perceive that a BitUSD indeed is more valuable than a USD. In other words, the excess XTS will somehow need to be cashed out. Otherwise, if it stays within the system for ever, then it only provide more security for holding BitUSD against short squeeze. Other than that, it is no more than a notion, and as a results BitUSD price stays with USD, which voids the motivation for holding BitUSD.

Something could be done here, but I am not sure what.

Is that still true that transaction fees can be payed in BitAssets which then will be destroyed?

I thought, that if an account wants to perform a transaction and does not have enough BTSX to pay for the fee, then an amount of BitAsset will be automatically sold on the market to obtain those BTSX for the fee?

If really BitAssets are destroyed, won't this cause an undesirable overhang of short positions long term?

I think we need to clear up some terminology here and make a distinction between 'transaction fees' and 'market fees'.   

A Transaction Fee is assessed based upon the size of your transaction and is always paid in BTS. 
A Market Fee is assessed to anyone who bids higher than the highest bid or lower than the lowest ask.  These fees are assessed in their native unit.

BitUSD that is destroyed is no different than someone choosing to hold BitUSD forever at any price.  It means that not all short positions can fully unwind and serves to give real backing to BitUSD as shorts must compete for the BitUSD that is actually on the market.   In the event that the market wants to completely unwind all short positions, then the holders of BitUSD will profit nicely. 

How the market responds to this characteristic would be no different than someone who loses their private key to their BitUSD.   It will not matter.  It is also a kind of insurance against blowout of margin of short positions by preemtively taking some BitUSD out of circulation, having extreme events do the opposite may balance out.

Either way this is all an experiment and we shall see what happens.

Ok, I now get why BitUSD price would be higher even without a channel. Then I am concerned that the liabilities on the short side can never be paid off completely, no matter what price, as there does not exist enough long position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As depicted in the whitepaper, BitUSD will be destroyed over time due to fees. That means there exists excess XTS backing BitUSD. The theory states that if the backing XTS is more than the original amount, BitUSD will trade with a premium over USD, effectively paying dividend to the BitUSD holder. This also serves as the motivation to hold BitUSD.

Here is the concern. We need a channel to connect the excess XTS to the existing BitUSD, in order for the market to perceive that a BitUSD indeed is more valuable than a USD. In other words, the excess XTS will somehow need to be cashed out. Otherwise, if it stays within the system for ever, then it only provide more security for holding BitUSD against short squeeze. Other than that, it is no more than a notion, and as a results BitUSD price stays with USD, which voids the motivation for holding BitUSD.

Quote from: gulu on February 24, 2014, 05:29:14 am

I registered my found ID with MAC client. Now I use the windows to see if it's indeed registered. And I see the points, which suggests it is.

I used same ID and same brainwallet phrase, but got a different public ID. Exact same input, different public ID. Can someone tell why? Or it is the way is.

No, they should be the same.
The probable reasons:
1. ID IS character sensitive, WHEN you create your key pair. Because the private key is the hash of all you inputed.
2. The order of name, middle name, family name. It's very probable to take it wrong for Asian people. I myself once took it wrong, for example.

Basically, if you can't regenerate your key pair from memory only, you need to make a new pair of keys and redo the registration.

Thanks a lot. That's my thoughts too. But I took a photo of the input information. Can't be wrong. Yeah, I need to play around, I guess.

Then BTS only needs to be on one chain?  Why would parallel chains need their own currency?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It may have been answered elsewhere. My question is who owns the BTS allocated to the PTS that were sent for AGS exchange, assuming not all PTS are spent before BTS launch.  Is it invictus? Or do these PTS receive BTS at all?

I believe that is the Vietnamese flag, not Chinese.