To get a 1st-hand perspective of what our recent NuBits-bashing is like, go over to the Nxt forum and try to start a discussion on BitShares. The mindless tribalistic hatred you will experience is something we should be very careful not to dish out to our competitors.

Well-thought-out criticism is great, but whatever we do, we should never act like the Nxt folks.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 14, 2015, 03:02:23 pm

I wouldn't interrupt the market at all but the 30 day requirement is maybe too quick, 90 days might be better.

Although 90 day shorts would be great, for the shorters. This is a very temporary problem.

I think then there will be another thread in the not to distant future, screaming shame there are not enough BitUSD buy orders.

This. When BTS(X) first launched, people were distraught because nobody was buying BitUSD. Why they didn't see this coming, I'll never know. When the system is young, times like this will be routine. Why would you expect there to be BitUSD buyers when BTS is pumping? Why would you expect there to be BitUSD sellers when BTS is tanking? These are the hurdles we have to accept with a free-market system like this.

Not very sophisticated, but I use Digital Currency Widget on Android. It displays "last" prices from many different exchanges for a lot of coins.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: biophil on January 13, 2015, 02:31:54 pm

Serious question: is leased forging in Nxt equivalent to Delegated signing in DPOS? With the obvious difference being that Nxt essentially allows 13% of all blocks to be signed by a single delegate.

You can let other accounts forge on your behalf, this is called leased forging.

Thanks, but I already know what leased forging is; I was just trying to fit it together in my mind with DPOS.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: biophil on January 13, 2015, 02:40:49 pm

Quote from: btswildpig on January 13, 2015, 02:04:08 pm

The NBT price on CCEDK once down to 0.6 USD , because the BTC-NBT trading bot malfunctioned and the owner decided to pull it off for a while .

Although the price at Bter was normal at that time , but the news travels fast .

NBT-BTC brought them huge volume these days , but now we can see the risk .....

How much volume was traded at the low price? Was it an actual panic or just a fat-finger?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Don't know , they just pulled the buy wall , and next thing people know , price go down .
The volume is not the point , because this shows that BTC-NBT trading volume while looks attractive , but contains huge risks would break their 1USD promise some day .

You're right, for the sake of public perception, the volume is not the point. Volume only matters if you're trying to assess what actually happened. If we want to assess the NuBits peg, we need to take into account how much people actually sold. The fact that the volume was very very low at the low price is actually very important information, since it means people understood what was going wrong and didn't panic-sell at 60 cents.

Don't forget this; read the chart at November 5, 2014: https://bter.com/trade/BITUSD_USD
BitUSD was once sold at a price of 0.61 USD. What?? Doesn't that mean the peg broke?? No, of course not, because less than $20 was transacted at that price.

The NBT price on CCEDK once down to 0.6 USD , because the BTC-NBT trading bot malfunctioned and the owner decided to pull it off for a while .

Although the price at Bter was normal at that time , but the news travels fast .

NBT-BTC brought them huge volume these days , but now we can see the risk .....

How much volume was traded at the low price? Was it an actual panic or just a fat-finger?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Serious question: is leased forging in Nxt equivalent to Delegated signing in DPOS? With the obvious difference being that Nxt essentially allows 13% of all blocks to be signed by a single delegate.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Perfect; thanks!

One more nuance I'm curious about, as I was writing a bit of description finally and comparing to NXT, which I gave an unfairly hard time because I found assets without a programmatic value to be bullshit. But NXT can support assets which are backed too (although I don't believe it has anything to match the dynamic value / collateral system of the BitAssets). But what I was wondering is if the reverse is true as well: just from a glance at bitsharesblocks, I see that there are a bunch of user-created assets as well. Are these necessarily backed by anything, or can they do the sort of vague "uh, this is a share in a project I'm creating; trust me" thing too? As was pointed out to me by NXT supporters, the support for something like that existing doesn't necessarily mean something bad...I just find it an interesting thing to compare, and personally, won't go near anything like that. :-)

Right, we have two classes of assets in BTS: we call them MPA (market-pegged assets) and UIA (user-issued assets). MPA are the cool ones like BitUSD. UIA are exactly analogous to assets issued on Nxt's Asset Exchange, or to assets issued in Counterparty. At the moment, there isn't any way to "back" UIA with anything but trust.

I'm guessing when you talk about Nxt's "backed" assets you're talking about their new "monetary system." We don't have anything like that in BTS, and frankly I'm glad because I doubt it will ever be very useful. Time will tell.