Quote from: NewMine on December 09, 2014, 12:58:06 am

Wtf is this?  Bringing a female into the forums will do absolutely squat. If she is planning on helping MethodX team,that's fine. If this is a feeler to get her her own delegate, whether 3 or 100% I will not support that based on just because she is a "female". 

Constantly looking off camera, drinking on camera and the "grab ass" clips at the end scream professional. /s  Not to mention the contrived Bitcoin/BitShares interest for over a year, yet she is just getting involved through a guy hat has been here for a couple months.

I hope you don't treat all new volunteers with such a friendly welcome.  It's great to see new faces joining the movement, let's see what's produced before we start raising pitchforks.

Don't worry, newmine is just your standard everyday grouch. He pops in to the forum to post something negative every now and then, but if you don't take him too seriously you'll find he's usually pretty easy to put up with.

Welcome, Stacey. Honestly, most of us are happy to see a new face around here.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

I mentioned in the dry run thread but this place is appropriate.

Since you are using the BTS toolkit to make your DPoS PTS, you should honour the social consensus and award at least 10% to AGS. If you don't you are starting off by breaking it itself and setting an example.

This would be inconsistent with the idea that this is an upgrade to PTS. DPOS PTS is not a new DAC.

Or at least that's the story I expect the DPOS people to adhere to.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: speedy on December 07, 2014, 07:25:02 pm

Quote from: sparkles on December 07, 2014, 07:02:09 pm

It comes from shorts who borrowed the BitAsset into existence and it comes from transaction fees on that asset.

I still find this explanation of interest confusing, and I doubt its helpful for beginners.

I prefer this simpler explanation: shorts are super bullish on BTS, so they are willing to pay interest to whoever takes the opposite side of their trade, which bribes/incentives them not to dump their shares.

Thank you for replying.

So, primarily its from Shorts and some transaction fees. How high are these fees associated with Bitshares? Fractions i would assume.

The bitUSD transaction fee was about half a cent, last time I checked.

In the long run, the lion's share of interest will probably come from the interest paid by shorts. Source: my intuition.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: Shentist on December 06, 2014, 11:58:35 pm

it is not like - you could eat your own cake! in theory i assume you could make money if the short interest you pay is smaller as the yield you get. but the yield looks not so much in the moment to me. so, not much to gain.

Yes, like you say it depends on whether the yield you receive is more than the interest you pay. IMO it might have been cleaner to have the short pay the long directly (with yield) and have that expire when the short covers, then you truly gain nothing from this.

You talk like you see a problem with a simultaneous long/short. In my view, this hurts nobody. The only possible downside is that it artificially inflates the market cap of the asset, but maybe that's not a downside.

Disclaimer: I routinely short to myself when I can do so at a zero interest rate.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Does yield on a bitAsset purchase come from the interest paid by the short on the other side of the trade - and therefore stop being paid when that short covers?

The interest is paid when the short covers, and it just gets put into the pool that all other bitAsset fees go into.

First, I checked the accounts, and it says "micah" was registered on July 23, and "micah118" was registered on December 5. Do either of those dates make sense?

Second, don't get attached to the public keys. You're never supposed to use them after you register an account, so don't worry if they change. If you're used to bitcoin, this will feel confusing at first - but just remember that your account name is all you need to know.

Third, backups will not work the way you expect them to. You'd think that if you back up your account, and then restore from a backup, that everything will be fine and you won't have anything to worry about. Sadly, restoring from a backup is more trouble than just importing it. So in the future, once we get all this cleared away, avoid importing your backups unless something has gone really wrong.

Ok, now a question:
1. you said you tried to withdraw funds from Bter. Which account did you withdraw to? Did you withdraw to an account name, or to a key?

Quote from: Markus on December 05, 2014, 06:45:41 am

There was a single margin order of roughly 700k BitUSD about one day from expiry.

Thanks Markus. By this do you mean a margin call on shorts? Or something else?
I thought if a short is being covered, then it is a reduction in supply unless it is covered into new short positions, in which case the supply is unchanged. So I'm still not sure why there was a jump in supply.

The spike happened because of what I said earlier: the owner of the short covered it manually by buying 700k bitUSD, increasing the supply, then covering his month-old short, reducing the supply. It was probably not a margin call.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: biophil on December 04, 2014, 12:00:14 am

Quote from: toast on December 03, 2014, 10:20:23 pm

Quote from: arhag on December 03, 2014, 10:12:28 pm

Quote from: toast on December 03, 2014, 09:30:19 pm

Remember BM thinks backwards so actually it is

max(feed_price, ask_price)

And apparently the code is written in this backwards way! Thanks for the clarification. It took me half a minute after reading Markus's post to realize the code didn't have a huge bug.

It just doesn't make sense. It is one thing to say the price of BTS is X BitUSD. But saying the price of BTS is Y BitOil (in other words, the price of 1 BTS is Y barrels of light sweet crude oil) is just weird.

Not to mention that every single UIA market is "asset per dollar"... Apparently it was more logical to make USD the last reserved asset to maximize number of "correct" market orientations in backwards-land than it was to have a normal orientation and order assets by importance (BTS > USD > BTC > all later assets)

I know how design decisions go; you don't always think them through as well as you should, and then they're set in stone. But how BM ever thought this would be better is a complete mystery to me. This is probably the best evidence we have that "bytemaster is only human."

Well it happened because I coded everything as if the BitAsset were USD so that I could THINK in terms of USD and thus eliminate bugs caused by getting the order backwards all the time.  I picked a standard I could reason in and stuck with it. 

As far as the order of the assets I knew there was no "right way" and that we would have to let the user pick how they wanted to view it in the GUI.

Yeah, I get it. I'm not really complaining. Making choices like that is just part of the design process, and since you were the guy with the vision, you got to make the choices.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2