Quote from: Agent86 on October 31, 2014, 08:37:29 pm

Quote from: Riverhead on October 31, 2014, 08:23:41 pm

Don't you work there now?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I gave notice to leave my employer a while back.  It wasn't the kind of thing I can abandon with no notice and do quickly.  I'm planning to head to VA in a week or so.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority about liking the name BTSX, which is good because it isn't staying   So no worries!

Hah! Not worried. Just thought it was weird you posting this thread like an outsider but your post explains why that is the case.


Congrats on getting hired .

Thanks, I kinda wish I could have been in VA earlier and maybe impact how changes were made and communicated.   Probably I'm just nervous to watch the last weeks play out right after I quit my job.  I know everything was discussed a lot and I didn't follow the discussions close enough but the changes still feel a bit rushed to me.  Plus it personally impacts how I would fit into things with I3 so I have to figure that out too. 

Although I'm still figuring out how the new vision affects everything, I do see advantages to getting behind one BitShares chain, dropping the "X" and the potential to emerge stronger and more united.

Quote from: Agent86 on October 31, 2014, 05:30:26 pm

I liked the branding of BitShares X as a bank and exchange.  I think just calling it "BitShares" is too generic and not descriptive enough of its function.  I still believe that one blockchain won't be all things to all people.

The bitshares blockchain is simply a protocol standard. Its meant to be generic. What is not meant to be generic are the companies that leverage that protocol for their operation. These are all front ends to the bitshares backend. Each of these companies will have their own website and marketing strategy.

The bitshares blockchain is not just a "protocol standard."   It is now a specific blockchain with a specific distribution with specific stakeholders.  I hope we could get a bunch of companies to add value to our blockchain by using it as their backend and get this one chain to take on a generic all encompassing role doing all sorts of different functions, but this feels like the "one chain to rule them all" strategy that we've argued against in the past and may have drawbacks.

Quote from: Agent86 on October 31, 2014, 05:30:26 pm

Trying desperately to make things "simple" to appeal to "investors" who apparently can't otherwise follow what we are doing is unnecessary in my opinion.

You seem to forget that the "rebranding" makes things simple for consumers. Aside from consolidating the value proposition of bitshares into one medium, it also consolidates and bolsters the currency markets, which facilitate the use of this technology. It is more of a logistical necessity than simply a marketing ploy.

I think the "rebranding" is a separate thing from BM choosing to focus on one chain and one group of stakeholders.  I agree that promoting a bunch of competing bitUSD is not helpful and I've said the same to BM.  I also think it is understandable for BM to pick one project.

In any case I just persoanlly liked the name BitShares X but I don't expect to change things at this point.  The BTSX name didn't seem confusing to me and now I might get confused when someone says bitshares if they are talking about the new superDAC or if they are talking more broadly.

I usually agree with you on the KISS principle .. but with BitShares we have a movement that is no longer "just about money" ..
It's not just a bank, not just an exchange, it comes with plenty of features .. all distributed and without counterparty risk ..

I'd love to come up with an analogy from history to compare this with ... but something like this has never happend before!

Disclaimer: Yes, I am excited about the superDAC!

I am also really excited about BitShares and the technology.  And I would be very happy to be proven wrong that we can make the rebranded BTS be the blockchain that "does it all"

I just don't want us to fall to the temptation of oversimplify things in order to appeal to and convince anyone with a checkbook to buy BitShares like this is a big accomplishment.   Companies tend not to aggressively market owning their stock to anyone who will buy.  Selling the service it provides is a different thing.  Sophisticated investors don't need us to dumb things down for them.

Whatever the merits of this pitch fork session, paranoia (fuzz), cynicism (gamey) or hostility (tonyk) does have its place in ensuring the survival of this ecosystem, as a lot of things can go wrong "politically." Hopefully Rune and others will not view this as a personal attack, but rather as an immune system reaction that helps to protect the system. I would add that the community is in a sensitive period as market cap has fallen from 65 to 40 million in 30 days, and all hope rests with forces that to most of us remain distant and opaque.

I also think we should be careful about judging people's intent too quickly. Sometimes there can be misunderstandings or disagreements about ideas that seem to turn personal.

I've never talked to Rune and haven't followed all his posts but his posts didn't jump out as malicious to me.  That being said, I can understand others may have experiences & info I don't so it is fine to share.

The other difference of course is I have proposed far less non working 'improvements' on the market engine [and have tried to explain why his will not work; as well as why I think so...something that he feels is below him(aka explaining to the less gifted of us)] and the voting scheme but.... no one is perfect.

Tony, what "non working improvements" for the market engine are you talking about?

I proposed the need and method for getting price feeds into the system:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5704.0

I originally proposed the rule to use those feeds: "no shorting below median feed price" and I vigorously defended and argued for its implementation in multiple threads including here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7816.0
You strongly argued against me on this rule in this same thread.  I think this rule is central and critical for bitUSD to work.  I don't think bitUSD works without using the price feed like this.  BitUSD could have crashed without implementation of this.

I argued that prioritizing shorts by collateral was better than prioritizing by paying the highest spread and I still think this is a true improvement.  And I discussed and defended why I feel that way when we talked here:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9512.msg123926#msg123926

Bytemaster went on to say that prioritization by interest rate paid as a yield to bitUSD holders could be an even further improvement but never said the original change didn't work or was wrong.  For what it's worth, it's still my personal preference to prioritize by collateral instead of interest rate paid as yield to bitUSD.

You obviously disagree with me on bitUSD mechanics but I also met you in Vegas and I would have been happy to talk about bitUSD but I think we were both too busy drinking.

I also think it's unfair to say I don't put in effort.  When I had a different idea for DNS incentives I wrote a full 8 page whitepaper describing it and it took time to write and you still say I don't put in effort.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6561.msg87104#msg87104

I also think people are misinterpreting me and calling me rude when I actually am just more busy than I want to be and I'm trying my best.

10x collateral only provides 5% more downward protection than 5x collateral. 

From the perspective of "before the event" to "after the event" as a single event I am not being misleading.    The what is the probability of a fall from "current prices" to "the level required to wipe out collateral".     Are you saying that the probability of falling an extra 5% from the top is equal to the probability of falling 50% from any price?

Yes, the probability that the original price drops 5% (happens all the time due to volatility) is much more likely than the probability of a full 95% drop occurring assuming it already dropped 90% because this is in actuality a 50% price difference.

10x collateral is twice the collateral of 5x collateral.  It is much more accurate to say that this offers twice the protection than to say that this offers "5% more protection."

I'm sure some people are tired of debating these things and I agree that things like multi-sig (also offline transaction signing, cold storage, non-TITAN functionality) are more important than market tweaks as long as the market works good enough for now.

Here is my take on changes:

-If we switch to 30 day required covering and this 30 day timeframe is deemed important/needed, I really hope we don't grandfather current shorts more than a couple months if at all; the health and liquidity of the whole system is more important than some individuals' desire to keep their leveraged position... everyone else shouldn't have to wait a year to see what the end result looks like.

The initial collateral ratio will be 3x rather than 2x  (2x from short + 1x from long)

Why is this the right amount of collateral?

10x collateral only provides 5% more downward protection than 5x collateral. 

I'm not sure I follow this.

remaining weaknesses are:  ...
  3) the market is asymmetric (you cannot short BTSX backed by USD)
  4) you cannot short BitGLD backed by BitUSD (or any other combo)

I don't understand the need for these things.

We have a roadmap for addressing ...
2) Implementing a prediction market that trades on the ERROR in the price feed.  This prediction market will then allow continuous, real time, price discovery on the blockchain by continuously discovering the % delta between the price feed and real price.  It can be speculated on without losing any exposure to BTSX and with limits that can be used to halt trading on the USD/BTSX market if the feed error is too great.   The USD/BTSX market can then use FEED_PRICE * PERCENT_ERROR.   In this way delegates are only responsible for "getting close" with their feeds and a free market will continuously update the price at which shorts can execute.

I don't see the need; the central market already accomplishes this in and of itself.  As it is right now, smart traders will make their trades based on the real exchange rate, not the feed as long as they expect the feed to track toward the right answer over the long run.  If the feed is wrong you shouldn't overpay and buy expensive bitUSD.  By the same token if the feed is wrong in the other direction you shouldn't sell bitUSD cheap because you know the feed will eventually correct and the market will eventually correct and 1 bitUSD will equal $1 in the long run so if the market is inefficient that is a profit opportunity.

Overall I'm not getting this and I still prefer priority by collateral, and using a bond market to manage interest rates.

Where to draw the line between meaningful protection against volatility and waisted collateral is a judgement call that is difficult to make.   

I think it's fine that the market decides how much is too much.  Let the shorts make the judgment call as they compete to short.

I think if people want long-term shorts and high yield USD then the solution is a Certificate of Deposit of a fixed term.   Someone with USD would actually LEND it to someone backed by sufficient collateral for a specified period of time and an interest rate.

Now you are moving the long-term shorts out of the market engine and into private CDs.  You are also separating the USD holders demanding liquidity from those demanding a return.  As a result you also remove all restrictions on short selling for someone who legitimately borrows the USD from a long rather than creating USD to sell.   

So now "shorts" are given an option:  pay interest to a long-term USD holder and have freedom to sell at any price and any time  *or* be restricted by the price feed and post even higher collateral.

I think providing this alternative lending process is better than attempting to integrate it all into a single market engine with competing goals.

I agree that we need a separate market to address interest rates.  I think the whole focus on yield through transaction fees is a distraction.

I think of CDs as non-transferrable whereas bonds are transferable/tradeable.  I think it is much more useful if there is a bond-market so that people holding the bonds (pays x bitUSD at x time) can trade them rather than wait for the maturity date.