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 - wallace

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15
16
抵押出的BITCNY在支撑整个BITCNY区的交易量,投机属性存在于任何事物,抵押出的bitcny不卖出去,都拿在手里,那抵押出的BITCNY还有什么意义? 还谈什么流通?卖的方式难道也有原罪? 也不允许?

而你已经扭曲了问题的本质,贴线抵押的多头自然会成为空头的猎物,这是不假,但是请清楚现在贴线抵押的多头基本都是原本抵押率在3的多头,惩罚一直存在,但不是以外盘恶意操控喂价的情况。

另外: 你如何判断出熊市真正通过BITCNY进场的人不多?做过统计?难道bitcny不能用来避险?货币的属性之一难道不是投机?

请你回答  喂价如何避免被外盘操控的问题?如果几个大交易所全部禁止BTS充提?如何来避免这种情况?

另外:我不清楚采用比较法到底碰到了谁的痛处? 内盘价格+手续费的喂价高,外盘空头自然可以来内盘砸价格,怎么?难道不愿意来?就只允许内盘的多头去给外盘的空头接盘子?

以前在3的随着价格下跌变成1.75被暴仓很常见,为什么不能被爆?这是free market,你必须要做好各种各样的准备

回到货币的属性上来,投机当然可以成为货币的一种附加属性,但你连最基本的交换属性和价值尺度都没有充分认可的前提下去谈投机,这是本末倒置 ;), 你想通过bitcny投机,那整个系统就要付出这样的代价

关于交易所控制喂价的问题,还是前面说的,原因在于外盘多头力量不足,或者说熊市当中多头力量匮乏,为什么要跟趋势作对呢

另外,不要以为我是空头,其实我也曾被爆的惨不忍睹,bts,bitcny的优点很明显,慢慢稳步发展就很好,原因在于虚拟币在整个世界中投机成分占据了99.9%,大众眼中看到的不是去中心化的货币,而是投机,什么是后那0.1%慢慢发展壮大了,bts就会发展壮大,我们已经从几年前的可能是0.001%到了现在的0.1%,为什么就不能再耐心等待呢?

17

不是多头力量不足,而是喂价压制限制了流动性,我手上有100万,市面上却提供不了100万bitCNY给我进入市场,流动性就像水源给与市场生命,把喂价交给外盘就是让内盘更容易被操控,谈何自然进化?

想明白一个问题,你需要100万bitcny的目的是什么?是想进内盘捡便宜筹码?还是想通过bitcny去买东西?

18
回到本质的问题上来了,那些贴现抵押的多头当然会变成空头的猎物,当生产出这么多只具备投机价值的bitcny之后,这就是惩罚

熊市阶段,真正通过bitcny进出场的人其实并不多,这是目前bitcny的唯一有效用途,现实就是,大多数bitcny都被拿来投机了,因为被拿来投机了,所以整个系统必须付出代价

19
这个问题其实从基金诞生的那一天起就已经注定了,现阶段没有人能够承受压力去做这个操盘手,我理解abit的意思,让巨蟹退出从长远来看对巨蟹自己反而是件好事,但目前没办法,自己放出来的魔鬼必须要自己想办法装回到瓶里去

20
外盘往下对敲价格的时候,谁去压制?因为在外盘没有跟空头对应力量的对手盘的存在或者说对手盘力量太弱,那问题来了,为什么多头的力量只能在内盘?

21
我们不能病急乱投医,目前看起来是内盘交易占主导,但原因恰恰是因为目前的喂价机制,如果采用内盘喂价后果是灾难性的,BTS和BITCNY,BITUSD都会变成一个符号,承兑生态会受到极大冲击进而导致我们引以为傲的锚定失效

目前大家总是说外盘价格不透明,被空头主导,那大家有没有想想具体什么原因呢,既然表面上看起来这么多人看好bts但为什么没能形成对空头的压制呢?我觉得原因很简单,那就是多头力量不足,这是一个现实存在的问题,我们为什么要去否定他呢?没有谁规定BTS必须上涨,也没有谁规定1.05必须是底,不要觉得空投容易获利,经历过牛市的我们都知道多头更容易获利,也许恰恰就是因为多头更容易获利导致目前的局面吧,要知道任何系统经过自然进化,正反力量都是会慢慢制衡的

虽然我也想不出什么更好的办法,但就这个问题来说,我认为不变才是最好的,并且我认为最近BTS的变化已经够多了,我们不是救世主,是时候让这个系统自己运行了

22
外盘也需要准备资金和专业的操盘手

23
BTS再继续这样下去,只有死路一条了,让老外们自己玩去吧

24
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 29, 2016, 02:35:16 pm »
as I already stated, in my view, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient, attractive and cheap platform

Uh huh, and who's gonna pay for that? So, if the POS system sells a 50 cent candy bar, it costs 1 BTS fine, but if the POS system sells a Ferarri, it should only charge 1 BTS for that too? How about a Navy Shipbuilder or Lightrail project? Think outside your firewalls, man.
 
Is nature flat? No. It's dynamic. We need to SCALE from micro to macro and everything in between.
 
I know not everyone agree with me, but one fact is that most users are at the same time shareholders, charge more means shareholders need to pay more.

Pay more, get more. Pay nothing and you get a LOT less. Understand?
Have you ever built a successful company in your life, or even one that managed to last for more than 5-10 years? Show us the flaws in BSIP10, please.
 
we need a balance to ensure the DAC can sustain itself

Good lord, you're all over the place.
Who's actually voting for you anyway? Be specific.

傻逼

25
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:52:19 pm »
If you are proposing to reduce fee to the level below what a transaction actually costs, you need to compensate the difference out of your pocket. This would be a nice promotion for bitshares.

what's the exact cost of 1 transfer? can you tell me exactly?
suppose we have 1tps volume, we'll support at least 864000(30*24*60*20) transactions per month
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/864000 = 0.000578703 USD = 0.15 BTS
2592000(30*24*60*60)
we have 25 witness, each witness need a vps cost 20USD/month
the cost is 25*20/2592000= 0.000019 USD = 0.05 BTS

I think alt means 1 block 1 transaction, not 1 min 1 transaction

26
I think I care about bitshares as seriously as you, but sorry I will not remove him, oppositely I plan to withdraw my bts from exchanges and support him as much as I can

27
General Discussion / Re: OBITS HODLERs, your money is in danger.
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:05:02 pm »
just a heads up to all OBITS hodlers, by voting for Bitcrab, you're actively helping killing off obits / revenue based models.


1.The core idea is, as a DAC, Bitshares' goal is not to make more network money, its task is to provide an advanced, convenient and attractive and cheap platform, meanwhile provide chance and tools for every player here to make money.

2.Keeping high transfer fee and meanwhile putting much fund on refining the fee structure is the wrong way, we should move to the right way -  go back to the global lowest tranfer fee scheme.

3.The referral program does not fit Bitshares, we need to eliminate its bad effect.



let me remind you that without referral income, OL makes little profit, effectively killing OBITS purpose.

Seriously, [member=23]bitcrab[/member] who the hell are you and why should I vote for a "person" with no name, no face, or way to come get your ass when you f*ck over everything I am working on?

calm down, man... nobody is wrong here, we just stick to what we think is right

28
General Discussion / Re: Radical ideas for liquidity
« on: January 28, 2016, 04:03:00 pm »
The dex is not a decentralized exchange without a functioning smartcoin. Trading UIAs is nice but can be done faster and cheaper on poloniex.
We are 4 months in to bts 2.0 and none of the smartcoins are liquid. Something big needs to change.
People keep saying we just need a bridge to smartcoins but nobody will provide that bridge without liquidity
Here are some radical ideas of how to increase liquidity.

- The committee or a worker proposal should use reserve pool funds to create smartcoins and sell them in to the market at feed price plus 10%
- Abandon all smartcoins except BitUSD to drive liquidity to it and then think about adding another smartcoin in a years time.
- Get all gateways to offer the same btcUIA instead of each having their own separate ones. Could be a multisig wallet controlled by committee.
- Get the reserve pool to pay for a bitcoin-BitBTC bridge with guaranteed 2-way liquidity
- Limit trading pairs in the GUI to just USD vs XXX
- Buy an existing exchange like poloniex and migrate its backend over to bitshares.
- Pay some altcoins that are struggling but have big communities to migrate their coins over to bitshares through proof of burn.

Loads of people are going to moan about these ideas but we need to prove a smartcoin works.
The trading volume of USD:BTC over the last 24hrs is actually zero as it is on most days.

 +5% +5%

after too many changes, have forgotten our original core product.

29
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:49:45 pm »

yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.

but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.

Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? [member=37127]JonnyBitcoin[/member] is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.

We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.

Wow, just wow.

I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?

I dont know about Jonny but OL is definitely working based on the current fee model and without it, has no incentive to work. Like other businesses that might want to join.

Plus 1 bts fee makes the network easily vulnerable to spam

as I know OL is an exchange based on bts chain, a industry level trade experiences and plenty of users and liquidity. the propaganda we made to the exchange is based on this. if only a refreral system can bring users that's not our orignial goal, just if, and I don't see the actual real users number support this. what we need is to attract users, current high fees prevent a lot of crypto people join into bts, don't tell me I'm wrong, I'm in chinese QQ group and a lot of users complain this. they have no incentive to promote our prodcut, I'm very disappointed about this, maybe you guys don't mind this, you think these people are only speculators, but I think these people just what currently we need.

30
General Discussion / Re: poll for the "1 BTS for transfer" proposal
« on: January 28, 2016, 03:32:27 pm »

yes, because currently I do think lowering the fees is the right way to lead bitshares to success.

but why and how? this hasn't been explained. Business decisions made on assumptions while we already have people working for us because of the referral system and current fee structure.

Is it really worth it send OpenLedger and POS away just because of an assumption? What about other people? [member=37127]JonnyBitcoin[/member] is working on his exchange, there are other projects that we might not be aware of.

We're just going to send them away, because of assumptions? No facts or proof? We're doing this when we've shown signs of growing? After just 2 months? What's happening is actually positive and you want to mess it all up just because of an assumption.

Wow, just wow.

I didn't get why lowering fees means send OL and jonny away?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 15