Quote from: xeroc on September 27, 2014, 05:08:07 pm

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9333.msg121407#msg121407

He asked a question that could show you that gold is only volatile in terms of $ value .. not in terms of bitGLD value .. he wanted to point you towards the right direction such that you can figure it out your self .. don't take anything tony says personally .. (I made that error too)

Then I pointed out that gold is highly volatile in BUYING POWER, not just in terms of $ value.  That is a fact.  Go look it up if you don't know that already.  His response to that was to imply that I was an idiot, say he was "done with" me, and leave the conversation:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9333.msg121447#msg121447

Someone who engages in ad hominem attacks and ends conversations whenever the FACTS don't agree with his ideology is an idiot.

Fussyhands,

The statement: "the buying power of gold is highly volatile" is a subjective statement rather than a "FACT". When you use words like "highly" "extremely" you are making a subjective judgment and these statements must be considered in context.  In the context of the discussion taking place about altcoin cryptocurrencies I think it is fair to say that the buying power you can expect from gold is significantly less volatile and more predictable than the buying power you can expect from most altcoins.  Rather than present the statement as incontrovertible fact, perhaps if you explained more specifically what "highly volatile" means to you there would be opportunity for agreement.

Quote from: Agent86 on September 26, 2014, 06:59:27 pm

Quote from: Empirical1.1 on September 26, 2014, 06:13:12 pm

There are probably less than 100 forum members not on the main team that understand BitShares & BTSX well and take the time to engage on the forum and explain it to others. There are much less than that (20?) who also have a decent background in markets and trading. Those people are forum gems for BTSX in particular imo.

Unfortunately I'm not part of the second group but Tonyk is & he's one of the very few people that takes the time to help others. I often see him sending people BTSX to register & helping in the stupid question thread https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8390.0
Including assisting me & I wanted to tip him but he asked me to send it to Xeroc for the community development program. Even taking into account that he sometimes comes across as abrasive/sarcastic/arrogant, I would easily put him in the top 10 most valuable BitShares forum members myself. It would be a great loss if this thread discouraged one of the few BitAsset knowledgeable, active and helpful people on the forum.

Tony passed up a tip to ask that I get a tip.  I think tony knows a lot and is funny.  I like his sarcasm even when it is directed at me.
(example https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9115.msg118283#msg118283)

It's no fun if people can't get into it every now and again.  There will be some new users that like a forum where people don't hold back.

are you coming to Vegas, A86. Would love to meet you in person.

Yea, I'll make it.  I haven't got my flight yet but I'll get there, look forward to meeting you.

Quote from: Agent86 on September 26, 2014, 12:43:33 pm

I'm well aware of the importance of network effects.  I think you underestimate how broken Bitcoin is.  Bitcoin would have to change in very big fundamental ways to stay competitive and I don't see it.  It's kind of like arguing that VHS tapes won't be replaced because they have the network effect.  I also think you underestimate how much more far reaching this tech is than "finding one coin to rule them all to replace Bitcoin."

Bitcoin is pulling further and further away from the competition everyday.  The gap of usefulness and adoption is not closing.  Bitcoin is increasing its usefulness faster than any altcoin, simply due to network effects.  Adoption is driven by usefullness.  BitsharesX is not useful because it has virtually no adoption.  Technology can increase usefulness only to a limited degree.

Does Bitcoin have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  Well it is becoming more dominant and more competitive compared to altcoins every day, despite its glacial technological evolution.  Usefulness drives adoption, not technology.

If Bitcoin is increasing in usefulness so much faster than any other altcoin, why will it have to change in fundamental ways to stay competitive?  It's competitive superiority is increasing, not decreasing.

(I think BitsharesX might have a chance, toppling Bitcoin is a long shot, not a sure thing.)

Ok, I think I may have overestimated how much time you have spent researching.  I think we can agree to disagree.  I also never said BTSX toppling Bitcoin is a sure thing.

I've read most of the wiki and watched a couple videos.  Everybody who is new to BitShares X seems to find it confusing.  It's not just me.  These things aren't clearly spelled out on the wiki as far as I could see.

fussyhands, firstly welcome!  I think you are asking the right questions.  I think the questions you are asking are important and not easily found in the wiki (the wiki is far from perfect).

In regard to your concerns...  First BTSX isn't just a little better than Bitcoin; it's orders of magnitude and solves fatal flaws.  Bitcoin can't stay at the top given the competition.  As far as being diluted, if you bought into BTC very early than you will have been diluted a lot by all the mining over the years but would have still made a killing.

As a community, we are all invested in BTSX and/or PTS.  We are working hard to make our investments pay off.  My advice is to stay informed.  There is no substitute for due diligence and in the long run shareholders of a DAC will be responsible for their own success.  Don't expect any 100% guarantees without doing your homework, staying informed, and advocating for yourself and fellow stakeholders.  Also find out how you can contribute and what you bring to the table because I believe more and more these systems are being tweaked so that contribution can be recognized and rewarded.

Yes, basically you can match your short order after you have bought up all the bitUSD that people want to sell below the peg price, in which case you have defeated your goal of going short and have certainly not driven the price of bitUSD down.

Quote from: toast on September 24, 2014, 04:02:09 pm

Quote from: fussyhands on September 24, 2014, 03:58:32 pm

How much collateral is required when shorting an asset?  100%?

Does a 10 second update mean that the asset would have to appreciate 100% in less than 10 seconds for there to be an uncovered loss?

It seems like that would virtually never happen for any widely traded asset.

The biggest risk seems like if the price drifts far enough away from the real asset to shake people's confidence.  So if BitUSD gradually drifts down to 80% value of USD, then who would go long?  At that point, people might start to think it's going to zero, and that will be a self fulfilling expectation.

It seems like some kind of instability in the system, or perceived risk could cause the initial wedge between the Bit price and the real price, and once that wedge is established, and people see the price diverging from the real price, they will no longer trust the market to correct to the value of the real asset.  Once they don't believe the market will correct, then they won't take long positions which will make it impossible for the market to correct.

You need 200% collateral.

So to short you need 100% MORE than the current value of the asset (i.e. 200% total).  So unless the asset appreciates more than 100% in 10 seconds there will not be any uncovered losses, right?

Quote from: toast on September 24, 2014, 04:02:09 pm

If the price starts falling that is an opportunity for shorts to cover at a profit. There is implicit demand for the bitassets in the form of the backing collateral - if nobody wants to hold BitUSD then there won't be any bitUSD because it will all have been taken out of circulation.

If the price starts falling, that is an opportunity for shorts to cover at a profit.  But suppose the shorts think the price is going to zero.  They won't want to cover at a profit at 80% because they think the market is going to collapse and they can make a much bigger profit at 0%.

Meanwhile, the people who are long have a choice.  They can exit their position at 80%, taking a 20% loss compared to the real asset, or they can hold and hope the market corrects.  If some people exit at 80% that will drive the price further down as they absorb the short sellers looking to cover.  This price decline will further erode confidence.  Now those who are long face the same choice they did a moment ago, but now can only exit at an amount lower than 80%.  A few more given in and close their positions, thinking things don't look good.  The price sinks further.  Finally you have a classic run on the bank where all the long holders have given up on the market correcting the price, and are just trying to get out with some percentage.  What am I missing?

Also, it seems like a well funded short seller could manufacture the initial price differential by simply offering to sell as much of the BitAsset at 80% the price of the real asset as long holders can absorb.  Eventually the longs will run out of buying power/enthusiasm.  Then the price will sit at 80%, people will start to realize the market is not correcting, and the panic selling I described above will start.  What am I missing?

You are missing a couple things…. The BitUSD holders have a lot of leverage in the "negotiation."  It is much more likely that they can hold out for a fair price from the shorts than that the shorts can hold out until BitUSD holders give it away for no reason.  This is in part because bitUSD is liquid and the shorts are stuck (until they cover they can't get their bitshares and they can't sell them.)  There's no reason for bitUSD holders to sell for nothing… Myself and many others would take it off their hands before they do so; why give it away when the shorts have to buy it back sometime to get their money, they also may be forced to buy it back at a fair price due to a margin call.  The smart shorts will pick up cheap bitUSD as a good chance to cover and try to re-short rather than futilely hoping it goes to zero, and the ones hoping it crashes will just miss the best opportunities they will get to cover at good price.

You are also missing that shorts can't short at 80%.  We use a decentralized price feed to prevent any new shorts from executing at below the real USD/BTSX exchange rate.

I'm not sure what you're saying - are you launching a competing DNS DAC, or just pinging for interest, or what?

My view is that it would be in the best interest of people involved in BitShares if a separate and competing DAC was launched.  Whether or not I have the ability to get this to happen, I really have no idea; it would depend on my ability to get support and partnership for it.

The reason I think that it would be best to launch it as a separate additional DAC is because you have already committed to a specific distribution and methods/limits on any dilution.  My opinion is that this may well leave your DAC DOA.  I have a ton of respect for your work and it is nothing against you in any way shape or form and I would love your support for this strategy.  I think there are advantages to launching something that is above and beyond anything people have expected and something that isn't subject to any baggage or commitments; a DAC that has taken no money from people and made no promises, one that has more flexibility to make any hard decisions needed.

Quote from: Agent86 on September 20, 2014, 06:29:42 pm

I don't see the current TITAN username system as a raging success:
-There have been a lot of spoof accounts created
-A number of people have been hurt by mistakenly sending funds to an incorrect name
-New user confusion with the "chicken and egg" name registration deal
-Issues with scanning the blockchain, missing info etc.
-Greater barriers and less focus on: Cold storage, offline transaction signing and watch only wallets.
   (I think these things are very important and there should be more effort in this regard)

...Regarding your last two points, again this has nothing to do with your proposal, but I do agree that they are important issues to solve...

Yes, of the issues I mentioned, I'm really only trying to solve #1 & #2 with my proposal.

The other issues I'm pointing out wouldn't be such issues if we considered TITAN an advanced feature instead of the only way to use the system.