good thing 

Quote from: Akado on November 23, 2015, 11:44:33 pm

Quote from: onceuponatime on November 23, 2015, 11:32:26 pm

Quote from: bytemaster on November 23, 2015, 11:21:56 pm

Quote from: tonyk on November 23, 2015, 11:07:29 pm

I really do not get 'the no lifetime fees' crowd.

What is up with you people? Someone making too much money, according to you?

If yes go pay it yourselves, or get up and organize it as a UIA funding that you can buy into...


PS
And keep in mind that I say that while I have only 3 prime suspects for this secret investor - CNX being one of those.

CNX is not one of them, nor is it CCEDK nor Bunker.   In other words, there is no slight of hand here, I just wanted to air the idea without involving them.  Would the mystery investor please speak up if you are ok discussing this publicly?

I approached Stan and Dan with the thought of my paying CNX $45,000 to get the Stealth work funded. This is a huge chunk of my lifetime savings, and it is a huge risk for me to be taking. However, I am in total harmony with Bytemaster's philosophy and goals as far as I understand them and want this project to succeed, and to succeed .

I find that a lot of community members are expecting others to do the work needed to get this project rolling for free or for less than market rates. And out and out jealousy rearing its ugly head in some comments today.

Guess it's a matter of knowing how much you want to get per transaction as lifetime royalties and make a worker proposal to see if it will get approved.

Only thing I dont know, as it was mentioned, is what if it comes someone else and does the same and improves stealth transactions? what percentage will they get? I don't know how this would be managed knowing BTS already has a commitment with onceuponatime (if this goes forward)

And I'm very impressed by the fact you're going in with your life savings... really. If this happens, I really hope you get rich. It's not every day someone places the money where their mouth is this way, I admire you for that.

I would say that this whole discussion has shown us how the market would like to proceed with new feature requests in general.  We just need to work out a flexible long-term solution. 

What we have learned is this:

1. Shareholders are much happier letting someone else profit from our future revenue stream than increasing sell pressure today.
2. Dilution is so hated, that users would rather give up the value of future revenue than keep that value and dilute.

Technically speaking, BTS is paying far more than $45,000 by adopting this proposal. It is paying the net-present-value of the future revenue stream generated by this feature. Onceuponatime has realized that $45,000 is a steal for that revenue stream if BTS is successful. 

So the question remains, how much does the value of BTS rise/fall by selling off this revenue stream for $45,000?  On the one hand it should increase due to removal of dilution and short-term sell pressure.  On the other hand it should fall due to the decrease in expected future revenues, on the other hand those future revenues would never have existed without the $45K investment.

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

My bet is that onceuponatime is right.

I would also strongly recommend that we open up this deal to "crowd fund" a UIA with a buyback plan. This way onceuponatime can diversify his risk and we can have an "equal opportunity" policy.  I don't want anyone accusing us of playing favorites.  By being equal opportunity we should auction it off.  Raise as much BTS as possible to fund it and then burn the rest.  This way the network gets a proper market-determined-price for this revenue stream.

Just some ideas.

it is a very good idea , onceuponatime offer fund, I support it 
but I do not agree with you said

So if Onceuponatime is right, BTS loses and he gains.  If he is wrong, BTS gets a new feature at a bargain basement price. 

I think I understood what you said ，  if onceuponatime  is right , I think he deserve more than he pay , and BTS holder do not lose anything , opposite , bts holder gain base transfer and user ,
and the more important is  BTS must been a platform that make people gain if he want to pay for developing   

I like this 

I  think there are many volunteer to support , at least in Chinese language,

Big mistake. This seems like a half-assed political solution. I like consensus and I'm glad that the committee role functioned well in reaching a decision, but I have a strong feeling this is a temporary solution and we're going to find in a few months that it's wasted precious time. 

I am NOT convinced that:
(1) the low-fee crowd will be happy enough, given that the fees remain higher than they want for them to spread BitShares' use, or that
(2) the system will be profitable enough to drive any real marketing, or that
(3) we are serious about attracting any meaningful trading business, given the fees there.

a profitable system is needed , but not now ,  it is in future ,  BTS have potential profitable capacity,  do you know Amazon? I think you must know ; this company had been loss for many year , but it had about 100~200 B US dollar  market value,
investor is not for current profitable  but for potential profitable,    it is so difficult to understand many fans of BTS want  BTS is profitable currently . I think the only reason  is lack business common sense.
we can increase the fee to 0.2$ when the TPS reach to  200,  it will been profitable , but not current , 
[/quote]

 

I would have suggested picking a side and giving one of these groups what it needs to add a ton more users. We even could have pleased two out of three. Instead, what we have is a compromise that does not give any of these groups the tools it needs to succeed. In a few months, we're going to have to change this again, and by then we might be really sorry we wasted this time.

Hey, what's done is done. Everyone should come together now and help promote BitShares.

Low-fee group, are you happy enough? If so, then get out there and bring us some users!

low fee is a not a sufficient condition to get more user,  just a requirement.

http://cryptofresh.com/fees
Lifetime member seems to be 8BTS for transfers ..

Fund asset pool is another operation though which is 0.4 BTS for LTMs and 2 BTS else

how many bts paid from asset pool per asset transfer ?   it is also 40BTS ?

Quote from: BTSdac on November 12, 2015, 01:19:09 pm

Quote from: xeroc on November 12, 2015, 10:42:07 am

http://cryptofresh.com/fees
Lifetime member seems to be 8BTS for transfers ..

Fund asset pool is another operation though which is 0.4 BTS for LTMs and 2 BTS else

xeroc ,do you know ,how to import wallet file to cli_wallet.exe ?

http://docs.bitshares.eu/migration/howto-importing-wallet.html#cli-wallet

---

I finally figure out the problem
I should first create a wallet

you have to put BTS into the asset's fee pool. You can only do this with the CLI-Wallet atm
There, do like this:

Quote

       fund_asset_fee_pool <fromaccount> <assetsymbol> <btsamount> true

thank you very much 
and other question
transfer fee is 40bts  now ?  if the asset creator is a lift-time member ?