We will see the free drop of PTS because of your delay and undefined period of time.

We are seeing the drop of PTS because it no longer contains the value of BTS, because there is market consensus that BTS is valuable. I am dumbfounded that this is surprising to people.

Quote from: toast on February 27, 2014, 02:14:27 pm

Quote

If we renamed BitUSD to BitCENT (with everything else unchanged, just the name), would it start tracking the price of a cent instead?

If anything works at all, then yes.

I am not sure if your answer is sarcastic or not. Do you really think it only depends on the name and nothing else?

If you created a BitAsset called BitAOEUI, what would it track?

Try to answer this question: Is there any difference between a $1 bill and a $100 bill besides the number written on it?

Cryptsy seems to have replaced the name of Protoshares with Bitshares, don't know if that means anything.


Am I understanding this correctly, while most will have to wait to claim their new bitshares until a wallet import tool etc. are ready, but people who have PTS on BTER will be able to immediately start trading bitshares on March 1?

To clarify:

Maybe you're getting information somewhere else, but the article at https://bter.com/article/177 does not say that you can start trading bitshares on March 1. It says that PTS trading resumes after the trading halt. If Bter allowed Bitshare trading pre-launch, that would essentially turn them into a futures exchange. That would be cool, but unless Bter's pockets are deeper than I think they are, it would be a monumentally risky move.

If i focus on talking about reasons to hold, i'll never stop talking but get little done. I want to get some things done then talk a bit, then rush back to more development. The fall of PTS is not a good thing for Invictus. 

Fair enough.

By the way, I thought of a way you could have honored the 10% social consensus while avoiding the risk of a sell-off at the beginning: simply write PTS and AGS holders into the genesis block and make their NRS unspendable for a certain length of time. You could even unlock their NRS a little at a time; maybe as a fraction of the miners' block reward. Then PTS and AGS holders are all happy since they've been invited to the party, and you're happy because they can't sell everything off all at once. In fact, this creates a particularly interesting incentive for PTS/AGS holders to contribute value to your venture, because they know that they can't sell until some time in the future. Thus, they want the value of NRS at that future time to be as high as possible.

Just something to chew on, but I realize it's probably too late now. Now I'll quit distracting you. Thanks for your time!

Quote from: biophil on February 26, 2014, 07:53:21 pm

I think the questions we're curious about (that nobody is answering directly) are:

1. Right now (not at some future date), can I import a PTS private key and claim NRS? I.e., am I currently entitled to some NRS?
2. If the answer to question (1) is "yes," then how do I import said PTS private key?

Thanks.

me too, i'm curious, when you have said NRS, what will you do with them?

I'll keep them safe and sound in my wallet as long as I believe that the NIG offers me more value for holding them than I'd get for selling them...

See, I can be vague and evasive too 

I'm really not trying to be rude, but here's my take on this whole NIG thing so far: your fears that PTS holders will sell their NRS at their first opportunity are justified by the fact that you're not inspiring confidence in us!

You seem to be a respected, hard-working, sincere member of the community, so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you seem to be missing the fact that PTS holders are the least likely to dump shares in a promising venture; we are the buy-and-holders of the crypto community who believe in things like the long-term value of DACs. If PTS holders dump your shares, it's because your business plan is this vague "hey we're going to launch stuff and there will be investment options" thing. Make us a real value proposition, and you won't have anything to worry about!

Now, having ranted a bit, I will say that NRS has clearly made progress over the past few weeks (exhibit 1: there's a windows qt that I don't have to compile from source!), and your business plan document does say something about how the NIG is structured...

So, here's my direct answer to your question: I won't participate in any market landslides by selling my NRS. That is, I might sell them, but only after the value has skyrocketed or after I've given up hope that there will ever be any value.

Quote from: biophil on February 25, 2014, 10:51:11 pm

Sorry if this is obvious and somehow I missed it... But I think I've gathered that it's possible to import a PTS private key and claim NRS from the latest snapshot.

Is this true?

If so, is it easy to do?

My definition of easy:
1) download windows wallet.
2) muck around in debug.
3) be NRS owner.

Hopefully other people are confused like me 

My NRS addy: 9h9hHA4hqhzDkeq6VQQoScbtUCuxP4cPbt (I think? I'm using the windows qt that someone posted earlier)

is that the one you got after importing your PTS private key?

No, I haven't tried importing a private key. That's just the address that the windows qt gave me.

I thought of an argument against having too few different BitAssets in one BTSX chain. What do you think?

Having many markets (for example many different fiat currencies) helps establishing a price for BTSX if only one of these markets experiences short squeezes/attacks. Many traders will take advantage of for example BitUSD/BitAUD ratio deviating from USD/AUD ratio if BitUSD is under attack. This will help catch the rogue market as many of these traders will be (quick acting) robots. Also having the arbitrage opportunity within the chain is good for reaction speed.
In this scenario the sum of the size of all markets within a chain is the important parameter, not so much the size of an individual market.

If you have few (in the extreme just one) markets you don't know if what is happening is an attack on a BitAsset or a general downturn in BTSX value. Traders might sit back and watch at first. Arbitrage here is only possible using cross-chain-boundary markets (USD/BTSX, BitUSD/USD, …) slowing down reaction time.

I think this is an excellent argument for having exactly 3 BitAssets. I'm still of the opinion that having too many assets could lead to unforeseen stability problems, but having exactly 3 BitAssets means we can always know a reliable market-attack-resistant value for XTS. Under normal operation, all 3 markets will agree on the value of XTS (relative to the prices of the real-world assets the BitAssets are mirroring). But if one market is attacked, the 2 remaining markets will still agree on the value of XTS. So it will be obvious which market is undergoing malicious transients. All assuming that simultaneously attacking 2 markets is expensive and/or difficult, thus very unusual.

I'm not sure what practical value there is in this, because the protocol itself wouldn't be able to determine what "2 markets agree on the value of XTS" means; the protocol isn't looking at external price feeds. But it would at least be nice for us looking on from the outside to be able to say "hey! what's going on over there in BitBTC!" without wondering if XTS just collapsed.