106
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 06, 2016, 07:36:30 pm »
looks like we are finally getting some attention. Hopefully some of these people check out the wallet, and see how awesome bts actually is.
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.
107
General Discussion / Re: Metatrader 4 and Bitshares
« on: March 06, 2016, 07:15:04 pm »
I dont see any reason why whoever gets mt4 integrated couldn't charge significantly more than what bts charges. If the integration used our standard transactions it could simply have an extra transaction on every trade that charges the $1 fee. I am guessing that all mt4 traffic would be piped through a central server somewhere, and thus transactions could be refused by those that aren't willing to pay the fee.
If we were going to go with a FBA approach, I think that it would be smartest to design new operations that integrate with the mt4 client, and would automatically charge the appropriate fee. If we could get those 60k traders mentioned above to each pay $1 per trade we should be able to recover that quarter mil.
I don't have $250,000 hanging about. I also don't have any mt4 experience or connections in the retail trading business. I would however potentially buy an FBA to help raise the money, and hopefully share in the profits.
If we were going to go with a FBA approach, I think that it would be smartest to design new operations that integrate with the mt4 client, and would automatically charge the appropriate fee. If we could get those 60k traders mentioned above to each pay $1 per trade we should be able to recover that quarter mil.
I don't have $250,000 hanging about. I also don't have any mt4 experience or connections in the retail trading business. I would however potentially buy an FBA to help raise the money, and hopefully share in the profits.
108
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: March 05, 2016, 08:34:07 pm »
We've got tons of negative nancies that are gonna shit all over us every chance they get. Soon we will have stealth and rate limited transactions. I am interested in BTS for more than a speculative investment. I want to actually use it.
109
General Discussion / Re: Cannot create account on Openledger
« on: March 04, 2016, 04:37:55 am »
I don't know what's going on at open ledger. I'm sure they will fix whatever issue there is.
You can create accounts at dele-puppy.com but referral links arent working at the moment so no referrals.
You can create accounts at dele-puppy.com but referral links arent working at the moment so no referrals.
110
General Discussion / Re: The Bitshares blockchain as the first public sidechain for Bitcoin
« on: March 03, 2016, 11:38:55 pm »
Its too bad cryptofresh.com/u/witness-account doesn't have a private key we could use on the btc network. If we could just use that account it would solve a lot of our problems.
I would suggest something like the top 15 witnesses in something like a 10 of 15 multi sig, and then script it so that the btc account is updated if any 3 of those witnesses are voted out of the top 15. This would add the requirement for those witnesses to run a btc chain and we could pay the top 15 slots more per block for this.
I would suggest something like the top 15 witnesses in something like a 10 of 15 multi sig, and then script it so that the btc account is updated if any 3 of those witnesses are voted out of the top 15. This would add the requirement for those witnesses to run a btc chain and we could pay the top 15 slots more per block for this.
111
General Discussion / Re: Is Bitshares attempting to get on Microsoft Azure?
« on: March 03, 2016, 11:16:23 pm »
Very very nice work. What is the timetable for this? I would expect this announcement to provide a nice bump in market cap.
112
Openledger / Re: Annual Membership has not worked needs refund 4th topic i have raised
« on: February 28, 2016, 03:50:33 am »
Please provide the block number of your upgrade.
113
General Discussion / Re: [ANN] Kkachi Service is Opened to the Community
« on: February 28, 2016, 02:22:49 am »
Very nice clayop. What kind of profit have you been running so far?
114
General Discussion / Re: [COMMITTEE INPUT REQ.] Fee Schedule for Shareholder Consultation
« on: February 25, 2016, 05:46:03 pm »
Ill vote as soon as I get to a wallet with my keys. Probably about 4 hours.
115
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: February 23, 2016, 05:22:07 pm »
To me a large part of our liquidity issue seems to be caused by a lack of incentives for shorters.
Wouldn't adding yield to bitassets just increase the premium that they sell for?
I'd rather add yield to short positions. I don't think it would work if you applied yield to all borrow positions. The yield should only kick in after you sell the bitasset on the market and are actually short. Then the yield should end when you purchase back the asset. Transferring the asset would provide no yield. There would be the risk that people would be able to sell the bitasset to another account they control, but even with this risk I think it would increase the amount of bitassets for sale, thus reducing the price, and helping the peg.
Is there something I am missing?
Wouldn't adding yield to bitassets just increase the premium that they sell for?
I'd rather add yield to short positions. I don't think it would work if you applied yield to all borrow positions. The yield should only kick in after you sell the bitasset on the market and are actually short. Then the yield should end when you purchase back the asset. Transferring the asset would provide no yield. There would be the risk that people would be able to sell the bitasset to another account they control, but even with this risk I think it would increase the amount of bitassets for sale, thus reducing the price, and helping the peg.
Is there something I am missing?
116
General Discussion / Re: BitShares 2.0.160216 Released
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:20:25 pm »I know I ask this every time, but how can I confirm I'm running the latest version? The info command doesn't tell me...
about
117
General Discussion / Re: Invest in Blockchain Advertising Network - You are invited!
« on: February 19, 2016, 04:52:28 pm »
There seems to be a typo on btsr.io where you say
Quote
Buyback Dates:Everywhere else you state the first buyback will be May 2nd.
- First buyback: 1st April 2016.
- Subsequent buybacks: will occur monthly
118
General Discussion / Re: is the function of opening and closing a feature needed
« on: February 19, 2016, 03:50:42 am »
There is no reason why a wallet needs to allow any specific feature. I would much rather see different wallets for different markets. Heavy trading wallets for traders, simple transfer wallets, PM wallets, dice or other casino game wallets such as roulette, slots, or video poker.
119
General Discussion / Re: [ANN - AMA] bitCash - Digital Money of the Future!
« on: February 17, 2016, 07:51:04 pm »
I think option b would probably be best.
120
General Discussion / Re: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!
« on: February 17, 2016, 07:47:09 pm »
You could count on my support to run a witness node, or even host a webwallet and faucet. In fact if one of the current bridges is not interested in supporting the new chain, then I would be more than willing to work to develop a bridge between other crypto and this new chain. I could not touch fiat unfortunately.
I still have concerns, but I think it would be a really great experiment, and if my concerns are unfounded then it would be a superior implementation than the current system.
I think I have found a better way to express my concern as well. In the current system bitUSD is a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. Since this BTS can currently be sold, anyone wishing to exit bitshares can sell BTS directly. Thus someone who is long bitUSD, that wants to exit bitshares will sell their bitUSD for BTS and convert their BTS to whatever other currency they wish. There are two distinct markets. We have a derivative tied to USD and a backing asset that is not tied to USD.
Under this proposal bitUSD would still be a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. However because BTS can not be traded for actual other currencies, in effect the backing asset would be the externally trading asset. We would end up with a derivative that is backed by itself. I cannot view such a system as stable.
I still have concerns, but I think it would be a really great experiment, and if my concerns are unfounded then it would be a superior implementation than the current system.
I think I have found a better way to express my concern as well. In the current system bitUSD is a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. Since this BTS can currently be sold, anyone wishing to exit bitshares can sell BTS directly. Thus someone who is long bitUSD, that wants to exit bitshares will sell their bitUSD for BTS and convert their BTS to whatever other currency they wish. There are two distinct markets. We have a derivative tied to USD and a backing asset that is not tied to USD.
Under this proposal bitUSD would still be a derivative that is backed by at least $1.75 worth of BTS. However because BTS can not be traded for actual other currencies, in effect the backing asset would be the externally trading asset. We would end up with a derivative that is backed by itself. I cannot view such a system as stable.
