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 - donkeypong

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 156
Please be thoughtful about it and don't spam everyone with the giveaways. Back in an earlier incarnation of BitShares, I was on the Nullstreet marketing team with methodx and others when we tried a bitGOLD giveaway spree on a couple of /r/ subs one morning. Nearly every one of us got shadowbanned from Reddit. And we were being nice about it.

Follow My Vote / Re: Google Submits Patent Application For Online Voting
« on: February 20, 2016, 03:28:29 am »
Matter of time before somebody does this. It will probably be one of the big boys, which will lend the project some trust and credibility.

Great initiative on suggesting this (or at least exploring the idea). I think we should do something to jumpstart liquidity, and having a yield has always made sense to me. That was supposed to be a part of BitShares before being sacrificed. As for the numbers, I'll let those who are smarter than me take a look at your suggestion. If it is sound, then thumbs up from me.

General Discussion / Re: OPENBAZAAR
« on: February 19, 2016, 01:09:33 am »
I'd love to see that.

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 19, 2016, 01:07:14 am »

I hope someone decides to fork the project, sharedrop on the BTS chain, implement this idea and focus on stabilizing what we already have. Looking at the tech we already have, I don't see why that second chain can't be successful and still compliment BTS efforts.

I'm with you there, mostly. I'd rather see it happen within our current scheme. Why can't another token be used for this 'experiment' instead of BTS? But if all we see is inertia, then maybe somebody should fork it. See what works best. Let the market decide and may the best chain win. 

General Discussion / Re: 5000+ BTS prize for best poster of Liquidity Event
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:22:44 pm »
Your banners are awesome. Liquidity Event sounds really nerdy, though. Couldn't we come up with a more marketable name for it if it's intended to be marketed?

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 18, 2016, 10:21:05 pm »
So just use another token rather than BTS. What about dexSHARES?

Is anything going to be done with tonyk's suggestion or is this just an intellectual exercise?

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 15, 2016, 03:43:13 am »
Yes, please try it on a test network. Call it dexSHARES or something to distinguish it. bitSHARES is nice, but it is spelled and sounds the same.

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 13, 2016, 06:06:17 am »

We are giving up our right to transfer BTS for the privilege of having liquidity for SmartCoins.
It's a trade-off.
Which do you prefer: transferability of BTS or liquidity for bitUSD?
For me, the choice is quite obvious. I prefer liquidity.

BTS has not been that successful as a currency. We don't need it to be one. BTS will be stronger if it has only one purpose: serving as shares for the DEX. Why do we have bitUSD and other assets? Those should be the currencies while BTS will back their value.

General Discussion / Re: Roger Ver Bonus Hangout: (SILVERTICKET Entry Fee)
« on: February 12, 2016, 05:30:36 pm »
That's a great catch, Fuzzy. While I don't count myself as one of Roger's fans, big kudos to him for being open-minded and coming on the show. We're all on the same team.

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 06:32:50 pm »
I still don't get it. ... bitshares reputation would be even further in the toilet. 

The only way I see this going well is to create a completely separate chain, like others have suggested.  Whether it is ever possible to merge the two together again remains to be seen.  It may be that both chains run indefinitely and the better chain wins.

Why not create another chain or token for this? A couple of people have posed this question in the thread, but I have not seen any answers (from people who understand the whole ball of wax better than I do). It seems like a discussion worth having.

If we had a new chain or token, a great name would be....DEXshares!

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 05:39:05 pm »
Trying to force liquidity into the internal exchange doesn't solve the root of the problem that is people need a reason to use and trade on the dex in the first place.  Note:  I'm also not sure exactly how you can prevent someone from trading BTS externally on an exchange or peer-to-peer and I'm not so sure that's desirable in the first place.  All two people need to exchange are wallets and a centralized exchange can always have a wallet as they do currently right?

I had the same thought too initially that the idea is 'forcing liquidity into the DEX' and restricting the trading of bts.  As I dived deeper into the concept, I realised it is not so.

The idea is really about changing the crypto-currency model into a true share-based model.  Shares are now based on the value of the co-op and tradable within the internal DEX.  To get into the co-op, you buy bitasset with fiat and get out of the co-op, you sell your bitasset for fiat.  So there is really NO restriction in movement in and out.

When bts shares are only tradeable in the DEX, it will not flow into the outside centralised exchanges.  And for those bts tokens out there before the model switch, they need to retain their values.  IMO, one idea is to have these tokens exchanged to bitassets before they can get into the co-op.  I believe more brainstorming on the idea is needed.

I think it's more about perspective and the language about it being a share-based model that is appealing, but fundamentally we can already be considered that and whether trading happens inside or outside doesn't change the nature of the system fundamentally.   I think the notion of trades only happening in this isolated DEX chamber and the concentrated liquidity that is perceived to come with it sounds appealing to people, but again the root of the issue is that people have to want to use the platform in the first place and businesses still need to create a value proposition for consumers.  Even if desirable and if centralized exchanges that trade BTS pose a big problem (and I don't agree with this notion), I'm curious to know about the implementation of this isolated DEX chamber and how BTS can only be traded within it and not outside.  From one perspective we already have an isolated DEX chamber that people can only exchange bitAssets/UIAs or any tokens for BTS.   The key difference is that somehow trades are restricted on the outside which I'm curious to know how that would work.   

I think the perspective is not about restricting movement or tradability of bts (you term it 'isolated chamber') because the movement in and out of the bts network (co-op) remains free via say bitUSD/bitCNY.   That is, there remains a free movement in and out.

Rather the focus is on bitUSD/bitCNY becoming the main gateway into the network.  External exchanges will be trading bitUSD/bitCNY instead of bts.  One of the problems with bitUSD now is that bitUSD users tend to hog their bitUSD holdings.  The new model means users need to convert their bitUSD for bts to use any operation.  With the shift to bitUSD/bitCNY being the main gateway, the trading of bitUSD/bitCNY would go up because of the increase in demand.  The profit opportunities for trading bitUSD and bitCNY would go up too, attracting more shorters ie producers of new bitUSD/bitCNY.  Once the bitUSD peg holds well because of the increased liquidity, confidence of bitUSD set in and we can expect a cycle of even more liquidity.

Bear in mind that there are now dividends giving out to the users and these dividends are based on real transaction fees earned (and not dilutions).  This is an added value proposition.

And of course, as your rightly pointed out, ultimately the other value parts of the network (on/off ramp, FBA, STEALTH, Prediction Market, Bond etc) continue to be the main pulling force to attract users.

Exactly. BTS would become shares. To be honest, crypto has not evolved the way that some of us thought it would and BTS has never gained any real traction as a currency. Its value has been that it represents the BitShares system. And with this change, we would finally make an explicit choice that BTS is shares, not currency.

But we still could have crypto-tentacles out there in the form of these assets. Gateway drugs.

Implementing this change would not suddenly attract a ton of new people to the exchange, but it would make BTS a pure share token and it would force all trading of that share token to occur internally. Because of the purety of BTS value and the absence of all these drags on it, BTS would become an amazing investment and trading tool.

General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 11, 2016, 06:43:17 am »
Fascinating suggestion and discussion. Couldn't this be tested in the DEX with some other coin or asset besides BTS? If the plan was greenlighted, then would it make the most sense to use BTS or to create a new currency to replace BTS? I'm just wondering about all the BTS that is out there, having to recall that, but I guess that replacing it would be no better a PR move than eventually telling people their off-DEX BTS was valueless. The transition would create plenty of friction, but the longterm view would point to quite a lot more freedom for BitShares.

Openledger / Re: Forbes: Microsoft partner Emercoin joins OpenLedger
« on: February 08, 2016, 06:41:02 pm »
Welcome aboard, guys.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 156