In my understanding of the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract it does not imply a requirement for arbitrary computations.

What good is a BTS "smart contract" if Bytemaster et al can step in at any point and change the rules as they see fit? I hope to see these formalized and documented in a way everyone can understand and trust the system will behave as they expect. I doubt there are more than 15 people on this forum who fully understand how the system works. There have been so many changes I lost track.

My analysis says it will go down to 0.000020 - 0.000025 first. But you never know.

As far as cup/handle goes - there have been plenty of failed cup/handles on the way down.

The real question is what features advertised on the web refresh are completed already in the graphene codebase? Even though the live net isn't released, if the code is completed and privately testable I don't think the assertions are such a stretch. They aren't in the wild yet, but do they already exist?

Even if they have the code 100% complete, I would take it with a grain of salt. The fact is it was developed in a vacuum. It is so easy to think you are God Almighty, when you live in a bubble. Furthermore if there is some fundamental security issue, the whole thing may need to be refactored anyways. Security through obscurity doesn't work.

The restrictive license is funny too. As if everyone and their mom, rushed to "steal" the current BTS code. There have been a lot more NXT clones than BTS clones. (In fact I can't think of a single clone of BTS that was listed on exchange anywhere, but I could be wrong)

Aren't BitAssets technically a financial smart contract?

Smart contract is an overloaded term, but to me it means that anyone can negotiate the terms and write their own rules in some script. e.g. Ethereum, Eris would satisfy that. So far BitAssets have not only been in full control of the devs, but aside from being hard coded and not customizable, the rules have been constantly changing. One minute you can short indefinitely, the next there is a 30 day window to cover, then there is interest rate, then there isn't, etc.

So until they have a proposal with clearly defined protocol, and an implementation that follows it and works flawlessly, I'm going to call this a wishful thinking.

Don't get me wrong BitAssets are better in my mind than NuBits, but could have been so much better.

The issue is BitMeister wants to invent everything and control everything. I would've liked to see BitAssets be freely defined by users in a way that people can compete as to which formula tracks an asset the best. All of these discussions could've been competing smart contracts, instead of the whole community waiting on one man to come up with the holy grail.

Just my 2 bits.

First of all, I know that a lot of you (me as well included) are here for the long run, so short term price is not a pressing concern in the sense that we're not waiting for a rise to dump our holding and make a quick profit. I'm hoarding and accumulating because I really believe in the long term success of the platform, economically and idealogically, even more since the announcement of Bitshares 2.0. At some point I wasn't totally convinced it could go mainstream, but now it's totally clear in my mind Bitshares will become real big at some point.

That being said, I'm still wondering why the price has dropped since the announcement? Other than "buy the rumor, sell the news" type of answer, is there a logical explanation to the current situation?

In 2014 at some point we had a marketcap of more than 60-70M$ with a real buggy client and not even half the features that will come up with 2.0.

Was it all only hype and speculation, or is it because Bitshares is seriously undervalued right now?

Part of it may be because the market hasn't realized yet the potential of Bitshares 2.0 and that all those close to the project are actually already fully invested?

I'd like to have the perspective of traders (and everybody else also) on the subject!

The announcement lacks a LOT of detail. So it's really a glorified wishlist. Not that it's a bad thing, but there are a lot of moving parts and a lot that could go wrong. It also lacks whitepapers and peer reviews / security analysis. That's just what I see as a risk, which perhaps is being priced in.

The other thing is that this project keeps changing things and is constantly course correcting, not that this is a bad thing, but it's hard to take it seriously. Would you trust holding $10M in BitUSD with it? I know I wouldn't just yet.

Isn't that Cryptonomex itself publishing a press release (for like $200)?

I mean it's great and all, but let's not fool ourselves here. Source is Cryptonomex Inc. not Yahoo, or any independent news media.

So is BTS 2.0 introducing more dilution? Current supply for BTS is 2.5B, I remember seeing something about 1.5B for development that vests.

Not only that but claiming that this is roughly $8M at current price level. I find this calculation a bit irresponsible as it assumes you can just print money without causing the price to go down. But that's OK, if stakeholders can vote on that distribution, i.e. they vote that the work done will increase the value more than the dilution for each project.

So, am I correct in assuming that how that 1.5B is distributed to projects is to be voted by the stakeholders? And can we get an official statement from the current dev team as to what their current stake and skin in the game is?

I hope the price continues going up so fast that bears in this thread cannot get back in.

Anger much? Price goes up, price goes down. What's new?