31
Technical Support / Re: Private testnet questions
« on: October 06, 2019, 08:16:49 pm »
Is that the cryptobridge gateway? Then you have to ask them how to do it.
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.
32
Technical Support / Re: Private testnet questions
« on: October 06, 2019, 06:20:59 am »
Basically, the gateway must
* generate deposit addresses on the external chain and connect them with user accounts in your testnet
* monitor the external chain for deposits to these addresses
* issue and/or transfer UIA representing the deposit value to the testnet account
* monitor your testnet for incoming transfers to your gateway account (i. e. withdrawals)
* transfer assets on external chain to address in memo field of incoming transfer
* generate deposit addresses on the external chain and connect them with user accounts in your testnet
* monitor the external chain for deposits to these addresses
* issue and/or transfer UIA representing the deposit value to the testnet account
* monitor your testnet for incoming transfers to your gateway account (i. e. withdrawals)
* transfer assets on external chain to address in memo field of incoming transfer
33
General Discussion / Re: worker for market cap management?
« on: October 01, 2019, 05:47:22 am »
So we're officially paying for a P&D?
34
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP76:Set bitCNY feed threshold
« on: September 27, 2019, 05:55:06 am »Losing pegg for a described timeframe is not as bad as losing big part of the community and their trust because bitshares can't protect debt holders from obvious price manipulation.
Who is going to take the risk to create debt if bitshares shows that everyone can manipulate them like he is pleased.
The only manipulation happening here is this arbitrary price feed that has nothing to do with reality!
You are deliberately destroying the credibility of our SmartCoins, and you think that will instill trust in our userbase?
35
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP76:Set bitCNY feed threshold to 0.246CNY/BTS
« on: September 26, 2019, 08:39:41 pm »it really reflect the ideas from the community and the team.
It reflects the ideas from two people, abit and yourself. Certainly not "the community" nor "the team".
I don't think this will do bad to smartcoins.
It destroys the value proposition of our smartcoins. What else is a smartcoin good for? Who is ever going to believe that 1 bitCNY = 1 CNY if you decide to break the peg in order to protect the interests of speculators, using the voting power of these speculators?
Detroying credibility of our smartcoins will have a devastating effect on the entire BitShares ecosystem.
36
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP76:Set bitCNY feed threshold to 0.246CNY/BTS
« on: September 26, 2019, 06:00:01 pm »
BSIP 76 was merged without following proper procedures. Discussion was (and is) still ongoing.
This is a deliberate attempt to unilaterally destroy the concept of our smartcoins, without caring about the consequences.
This is a deliberate attempt to unilaterally destroy the concept of our smartcoins, without caring about the consequences.
37
General Discussion / Re: Shorting Attack Protection?
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:05:50 pm »stop maintaining the peg when we can't afford to maintain it.
The cost to maintain the peg "in all conditions" is simply too big for us. Better to give up at some point.
Who is "we" and "us", and what cost is associated with feeding the external price?
The obvious point where we can't maintain the peg anymore is GS price, and we have already agreed to not feed below it.
Why do you want to feed above GS if real price is lower, personal interests aside?
Feeding an arbitrary price that has nothing to do with market conditions is (once again) a kick in the ass of every smartcoin holder.
Why you always take the side of smartcoin holders ?
People are blocking to fight price manipulation so why should debt holder suffer from it?
Also bitshares community is already so small and not growing do you want to lose the next group ?
A major smartcoin holder has already said his opinion and blocking any movement to protect against price manipulation with the words .....I give a fuck if debt holders will get rekkt.
So why should debt holders give a fuck if he is losing his pegg if its him blocking any protection against price manipulation.
Where is your solution or discussion for price manipulation btw ?
Why don't you get upset that bitshares debt holders get rekkt because of price feed manipulation ?
Haven't seen any active discussion from you there.....only always if its about protecting the smartcoin.
1. I'm being paid for my work in smartcoins. Last year I took losses from bitUSD global settlement, now it looks like I'm losing in bitCNY due to price manipulation.
2. Smartcoins have guarantees that keep being broken over and over again, in the interest of margin position holders.
3. Smartcoin holders are being treated unfairly by the margin position holders. Margin position holders have the voting power from BTS that is no longer theirs, and they abuse that power to bend the rules in their favour.
4. The only price manipulation I'm aware of is the manipulation performed by feed providers. Many witnesses were coerced into manipulating prices by abuse of margin position holders' voting power.
5. I don't have a solution for price manipulation. What makes you think I should have one?
6. I don't get upset about debt holders because they took their chances and lost. Now they're complaining about markets being unfair. I didn't hear complaints when they were on the winning side. Complaining when you've bet on the wrong horse is lame.
See, I'm answering your questions. Now you answer mine. I asked first, btw.
38
General Discussion / Re: Shorting Attack Protection?
« on: September 25, 2019, 05:32:32 pm »stop maintaining the peg when we can't afford to maintain it.
The cost to maintain the peg "in all conditions" is simply too big for us. Better to give up at some point.
Who is "we" and "us", and what cost is associated with feeding the external price?
The obvious point where we can't maintain the peg anymore is GS price, and we have already agreed to not feed below it.
Why do you want to feed above GS if real price is lower, personal interests aside?
Feeding an arbitrary price that has nothing to do with market conditions is (once again) a kick in the ass of every smartcoin holder.
39
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Newsletter / 比特股快报 - 09/05/2019 (English & 中文）
« on: September 07, 2019, 09:35:22 am »vote is shi*t, holder is shi*t?
My comment wasn't judgemental on voters. I merely pointed out an inaccuracy in the report.
That said, I welcome the effort to publish a newsletter. I've been missing stuff like the "State of the Network" reports people used to make.
It's impossible to participate in every single discussion or even to stay up to date with all developments here. A comprehensive report helps immensely with staying up to date at least on a high level.
40
General Discussion / Re: BitShares Newsletter / 比特股快报 - 09/05/2019 (English & 中文）
« on: September 06, 2019, 08:08:04 am »
Perhaps you should revise this and exclude items 3, 4 and 5 thanks to item 1.
41
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on new OMO fund
« on: September 01, 2019, 09:28:41 am »
Seriously? You're kicking workers in the butt who provide actual value, and at the same time you propose to throw millions of BTS out of the window, AGAIN?
the worker mechanism is just like a man to seek better life by selling blood.
yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem, but when he is seriously ill and is going to die, I don't think I can suggest him to sell blood without stop.
42
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Seeking price feed publishers for the Norns (Urthr, Verthandi & Skuld)
« on: August 31, 2019, 01:56:32 pm »I believe they were created prior to market fee sharing and there is no way to reenable those flagsThere should be an option to allow the changes of market fees. -> hardfork
The "permissions" of an asset define the rules for both issuer and holders. By unsetting a permission the issuer *guaranteees* the he will never enable the corresponding flag. Re-enabling the permission would break that guarantee, and would be against the interests of the holders. Therefore it is not possible to re-enable asset permissions as long as the supply is greater than 0.
This is deliberately so and is unlikely to be changed in a hardfork.
43
General Discussion / Re: Bts is ill
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:17:04 pm »
Nice metaphor. What's missing is that the parents refuse to pay for the doctor. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28542.0
44
General Discussion / Re: Huge spending will lead to the collapse of BTS
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:15:53 pm »According to rough statistics, the total amount of funds applied for by all of the workers this year is about 26 million yuan, and about 8 million yuan has been allocated.
None of the projects have been fully allocated except for one worker named “steemfest”.
Now the funding gap is more than 16 million yuan, and now the daily BTS trading volume is even less than 2 million yuan.It is clear that in such a flagging market, the withdrawal of such a large amount of money will inevitably lead to the collapse of BTS prices.
Please double-check your maths. 2 million/day is 730 million/year. 26 million/year is 1/30th of that. How can that make the price collapse?
45
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] BitAsset PhD Research project - University of Colorado
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:07:12 pm »We already know:
MCR = 2.0 -> low liquidity -> unsafe
MCR = 1.01 -> unlimited liquidity -> 100% safe
How do you *know* (instead of believe)? E. g. I believe that "MCR=1.01 -> 100% safe" is obviously untrue, because a drop of 2% in BTS price will lead to undercollateralization and destroy the peg.
