Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - biophil

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 59
256
General Discussion / Re: Check Your Allocation - Episode II: Check It Again
« on: November 19, 2014, 03:58:31 pm »
Quote from: toast on November 18, 2014, 09:50:59 pm
Quote from: biophil on November 18, 2014, 09:39:12 pm
Quote from: toast on November 18, 2014, 07:49:42 pm
Quote from: liondani on November 18, 2014, 07:15:31 pm
Quote from: toast on November 17, 2014, 04:48:54 pm
If anyone still has problems, please post:
1) The address, and what you expect
2) What you actually see

That's good for the advanced members... they will see the problems
and they will be resolved because they mention them here... What about the newbies or investors they don't have time to come on the forum to see these posts?
Is it possible that some of them don't get the expected allocation? It will harm us if  they find out to late that they don't received what they expected... Am I missing something?

That's why the advanced members check. We can't check every individual balance. If something affects only users who don't bother checking, that's bad luck. What am I supposed to do? Re-validate it again using yet another source?

Toast, can you tell us, or link us to, a page that tells us what we should expect given what kinds of balances? I'd be delighted to tell you what I expect to see in my allocation, but I have no idea what it should be. I'm talking mostly about the allocation that's for people who had non-genesis balances at the time of Bytemaster's market-crashing announcement.

For that allocation I'm not giving numbers because it'll just make you feel bad because it's not much. Also it was never promised before deciding to give the bonus so there is no "correct" amount - the call for how much to give vs normal balances and exchange unclaimed balances was made manually.

Help me help you, toast. If you don't give us numbers, we can't tell you what we expect to see. It's as simple as that! Are you telling me there are no numbers because the allocation was made inconsistently? Are you telling me you won't give numbers because it's hard to give numbers? Don't worry about my feelings - I'm a grown-ass man.

Until you give us numbers, all I can tell you is this:
 What I expected to see: some positive number.
What I actually see: zero.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


257
General Discussion / Re: Rollover short position
« on: November 19, 2014, 03:46:45 pm »
Quote from: Markus on November 19, 2014, 07:23:28 am
… and when it's done with the 5% fee will be distributed as interest to the remaining holders of BitUSD, right?
5% of 750 000 is how much exactly? :)

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that no 5% fee is charged for 30-day expiry covers. The 5% fee is only for margin calls when the short's collateral is running out.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


258
General Discussion / Re: Economic analysis of short interest vs. unrestricted short pricing
« on: November 19, 2014, 03:42:41 pm »
I look forward to said future post.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


259
General Discussion / Re: Check Your Allocation - Episode II: Check It Again
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:39:12 pm »
Quote from: toast on November 18, 2014, 07:49:42 pm
Quote from: liondani on November 18, 2014, 07:15:31 pm
Quote from: toast on November 17, 2014, 04:48:54 pm
If anyone still has problems, please post:
1) The address, and what you expect
2) What you actually see

That's good for the advanced members... they will see the problems
and they will be resolved because they mention them here... What about the newbies or investors they don't have time to come on the forum to see these posts?
Is it possible that some of them don't get the expected allocation? It will harm us if  they find out to late that they don't received what they expected... Am I missing something?

That's why the advanced members check. We can't check every individual balance. If something affects only users who don't bother checking, that's bad luck. What am I supposed to do? Re-validate it again using yet another source?

Toast, can you tell us, or link us to, a page that tells us what we should expect given what kinds of balances? I'd be delighted to tell you what I expect to see in my allocation, but I have no idea what it should be. I'm talking mostly about the allocation that's for people who had non-genesis balances at the time of Bytemaster's market-crashing announcement.

260
General Discussion / Re: How can BTS do better than MMC?
« on: November 18, 2014, 03:31:57 pm »
Quote from: bitmeat on November 17, 2014, 07:46:34 am
The 101 delegates setup reminds me of the 5 paid positions in MemoryCoin. We all know that failed miserably. I want to see if there are any lessons to be learned in that exercise.

Now, I know there is a good team in place for BTS, so perhaps the failure was entirely due to the team in MMC. FreeTrade seemed to aim for low hanging fruit incremental changes, while Bytemaster aims for innovation.

For example voting, even though was much harder in MMC, I think people were voting quite a lot more than currently in BTS. If anything I think voting could be further simplified. Would be nice if delegates could post links to their proposals and a place to track progress so they can be held accountable (or voted out if they don't perform)

Anyone care to comment with observation of MMC and any lessons that could be extracted from it and apply to BTS?

I was somewhat involved in MMC in its brief heyday. We never had more than about 10% of total stake voting; I'm pretty sire BTS has more than that.

Another huge design failure in MMC was its unbelievably aggressive inflation: I think its mining schedule had it fully mined in just 1 year. This meant that officers had a severe uphill battle to fight to try to make the coin maintain value.

MMC officers were paid a small fixed fraction of the block reward, so their salaries were only a small part of the overall inflation, and were forced to decrease over time as the block reward decreased.

So one of the biggest improvements that BTS made over MMC is that the inflation is dramatically more efficient.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


261
General Discussion / Re: Rollover short position
« on: November 18, 2014, 03:19:32 pm »
Quote from: bytemaster on November 18, 2014, 02:49:14 pm
No matter what you do your short position will be closed and will have to be entered again.  You can probably place a low interest rate and have it matched when the large order is covered in a week.   The very high interest rates are for very small quantities.

I wouldn't count on that large cover doing anything in the market, unless you know something I don't (always a good possibility!). I've been operating on the assumption that that order arose when someone purchased their own short. Otherwise it seems highly unlikely that $0.75M in matching shorts and asks appeared on the order book at exactly the same time. :)

If my assumption is correct, the owner of that order will almost certainly cover it manually rather than taking a big loss on the auto-cover.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


262
General Discussion / Re: Unwinding a BitAsset Market durring all stages of a life cycle.
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:06:11 am »
Quote from: tonyk2 on November 15, 2014, 02:41:20 am
This is a great theoretical discussion. My opinion? This is a minor issue, aka just put in place some kind of solution.

Speaking of dead markets, I have a story and a question (personal preference - my question answered without a need do read 100K lines of code. code that can change tomorrow)

So the story first. I added a collateral to one of my short positions today, obviously my aim was to increase the call price ( for BM and A86 benefit - I/this means the price stated as BTS/BitAsset). Funny enough said price went down instead of up... very amusing experience....

The question is:
Is there still a 10% safety net... i.e. if my cover is triggered at 25,000 BTS/bitBTC is there an upper bond of the price my cover will be filled.  And if yes how is this calculated. Thanks.

I've been watching margin calls closely, and I've never seen one execute above (in BTS/asset) the price feed. This is just from my observations; I'd also like to have clarification on this from BM.

263
General Discussion / Re: Is now the best time to buy BTS? Would you take out a loan to do it?
« on: November 15, 2014, 08:42:42 pm »
I'm in this cognitive dissonance place where I actually think that if I took out a loan to buy BTS (or similarly, drew down my savings to buy BTS), I'd make money. However, I'm too risk-averse to actually go out and do it.

264
General Discussion / Re: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?
« on: November 15, 2014, 05:15:33 am »
That one is a dainty appetizer compared with a couple days later...

265
General Discussion / Re: NXT have a solution to the crowd funding regulation problem
« on: November 14, 2014, 07:32:18 pm »
Quote from: monsterer on November 14, 2014, 03:30:08 pm
Quote from: Agent86 on November 14, 2014, 03:18:16 pm
this sounds like an "assurance contract."   This type of contract has some use for money raising.  Basically if you don't get enough money to do what you were trying to do the money is returned, sort of like a kickstarter campaign that doesn't reach the goal or maybe like groupon.  I don't think it get's around any regulation.  If the goal is met and you sell something that is viewed as a security than you still sold a security.  This isn't like the self funding DAC concept as far as I can tell.

I understand the key point is that when doing an IPO, you are selling something which represents a portion of the value of your company. Before you sell it, you own it. Afterwards the buyer does. In this scheme, you never owned the token representing the proportion of value in the first place.

I see what you're saying. I don't think that's the main regulatory problem (though I am not a lawyer either). The main problem with asset IPOs is that you're ultimately selling shares in something and making a claim that your actions will in some way make those shares valuable. I think that's essentially what makes a security a security.

You're saying that because the blockchain acts as an intermediary between the issuer and the investor, that we can wave our hands and claim that the new shares that are issued are magically not securities. I'd be very surprised if a regulatory body sees it this way. Stan and CO love to pretend that saying something differently makes it different, but if I were the SEC, I'd say "if it smells like a security and there's someone we can nail for it, we'll send out letters."

But, of course, my surprise would be accompanied by an extraordinarily wide grin. :)

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


266
General Discussion / Re: Wallet_Check_Sharedrop
« on: November 14, 2014, 03:01:37 pm »
Quote from: skyscraperfarms on November 14, 2014, 12:29:39 am
Quote from: ripplexiaoshan on November 13, 2014, 09:38:21 pm
Did you import your PTS wallet.dat into BTS wallet before running this command?

Back in July. Do I need to do it again?

Won't that vest my shares at a fraction of what they're worth? I feel like we need a better explanation for the vesting shares and how to and how to avoid accidentally redeeming shares early.

No, that's not how it works. You get to claim them as they mature; you can never lose any by redeeming early. On day one you get 1/730 of the total, on day 2 you get the next 1/730 of the total, and so on.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

267
General Discussion / Re: NXT have a solution to the crowd funding regulation problem
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:59:22 pm »
Oh, and my actual question: how does this solve the regulation problem? My view is that the regulation problem is that we're trying to issue a security; escrowing the funds we raise doesn't magically make it "not a security." Or did I misinterpret your point?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


268
General Discussion / Re: NXT have a solution to the crowd funding regulation problem
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:56:14 pm »
I've always thought the Nxt MS was a gimmick made obsolete by the asset exchange. Why don't they incorporate those features into the asset exchange instead of creating the monetary system?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


269
General Discussion / Re: Rand Paul Coin wants to use DPoS
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:51:03 pm »
Quote from: Gentso1 on November 14, 2014, 02:32:19 pm
Cryptsy?

Why is anyone here using Cryptsy after they didn't honor the pts/btsx snapshot and kept it for them selves.


Trusting a exchange that burned the community in the past is shame on you.

They all ready fooled you once.

You are unkind! Cryptsy is the only exchange that trades RonPaulCoin. We had no choice.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


270
General Discussion / Re: What if BitAsset holders refuse to sell?
« on: November 14, 2014, 02:29:41 pm »
Quote from: speedy on November 14, 2014, 12:06:21 pm
Sorry if this is an old conversation:

Right now the BitBTC market is thin - no one is shorting or selling any BitBTC. You could theorize that anyone who currently does hold BitBTC is short-term bearish on BTS.

So ive been contemplating what if someone does have a largish amount of BitBTC right now and refuses to sell it? If BTS were then to drop by 50% there is no one who is selling BitBTC which can be used to cover short positions. To someone new to BitShares, it seems to be a matter of blind faith that the lead developers wont dump and crash it 50% causing a blowout in the BitBTC peg.

The BitUSD market is less vulnerable because its volume is large.

Another point is that as the BTS price decreases, the incentive to sell bitBTC increases. If BTS drops 50%, someone holding bitBTC could sell it for a 2x profit. The higher that profit goes, the fewer people are just going to hodl.

But the cool thing is that it doesn't actually matter if the hodlers sell, since we could just short sell! If BTS drops 50% tomorrow, I'd be more than happy to short bitBTC, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

The funny thing is that bitBTC has consistently been a "better" peg than bitUSD in the sense that it pretty much never trades at a discount to real BTC. Of course it doesn't have the liquidity of bitUSD, but the buy wall is almost always below the feed price and the sell wall is almost always above it. Contrast this with bitUSD, where the sell wall is absolutely never above the feed price.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 59

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 23 queries.