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 - pc

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 95
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP 36 proposal - Remove expired feeds
« on: February 23, 2018, 09:16:15 pm »
I think in the long run this will be an important change for keeping nodes healthy. Full ACK.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP 37 proposal - Extend created asset names
« on: February 23, 2018, 09:14:02 pm »
Thanks Alfredo! IMO this proposal absolutely makes sense, will support it.

General Discussion / Re: A proposal to update the margin call process
« on: February 05, 2018, 02:24:32 pm »
I think that hurts the BTS price when the whole market is going up. Clever traders can bet on the markets rising (all cryptos are connected in that somehow) and simply buy the whole margin call order without driving up the BTS price accordingly, which is bad for all BTS holders.

When BTS is going up it is unlikely that there are any margin calls that could be "exploited" like this. Also, the volume of buying up a single margin call will usually be too low to influence the price one way or another.

IMO we shouldn't make the margin call algorithm more complicated than necessary. Just match full orders until the call price is safe again.

General Discussion / Re: A proposal to update the margin call process
« on: February 04, 2018, 04:24:18 pm »
IMO it's a bad idea to split one short into two, because the lower collateralized one is more likely to cause a black swan.

But I agree that it is not really required the the whole position is margin called. In fact I think the current implementation is flawed in that regard. It would normally be sufficient to sell *some* of the collateral to cover the debt. As long as the price is better than the collateral ratio (CR) of the short position, the CR will improve through such trades, and can eventually move out of margin call territory. At this point, the short position should no longer automatically buy back the debt. The current implementation continues to do so. This should be fixed.

General Discussion / Re: coin days earned
« on: January 24, 2018, 02:29:30 pm »
As a lifetime member you receive a cashback of all fees you pay, and part of all fees paid by members you have referred. That cashback is paid into a vesting balance, from which you can withdraw it after it has accumulated 90 (I think) "coin days".

"coin days" is simply the amount of BTS in your vesting balance, multiplied with the number of days it has been sitting there. So if you receive 1 BTS cashback today, it will have accumulated 1 coin day by tomorrow,, and it will have accumulated 90 coins days in about 3 months, at which time you can withdraw it. You could also withdraw 0.5 BTS after 45 days, or 1/90th BTS tomorrow. That would consume your accumulated coin days, which means you'd have to wait another 90 days to withdraw the rest.

Thanks. I've had a look at proposal and seems it's more complex and costs more if I understand correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Say I have a "multisig" account which is controlled in 2/3 way with active and owners PkA,PkB and PkC. What I want is simply transfer fund from "multisig" account to "someone".
To my understanding,
1. I need a transaction which contains proposal_create_operation. I don't even know who will pay the fee as  I have only the multisig account.
2. I need PkA to sign a transaction containing proposal_update_operation to add his/her approval, again I don't know which account to pay the fee.
3. I need PkB to sign a transaction containing proposal_update_operation to add his/her approval, again where can PkB pay the fee.
4. The proposal executes.

As I understand, this will be more complex and fee is about <0.0277 BTS for proposal create + 2*0.00092 BTS for proposal update> where as simple transfer costs about 0.0033 BTS. The proposal way will cost about 10x of simple transfer.

Yes, it is more complex, because what you're trying to do is more complex. You want to coordinate multiple independent signers. That's what proposals are made for.

Fees are paid by the party who creates the respective transaction. I. e. whoever creates the proposal has to pay the creation fee, whoever updates it has to pay the update fee.

Why not just make GRAPHENE_DEFAULT_MAX_TIME_UNTIL_EXPIRATION long enough like the same 4 weeks as proposal max time until expiration?

Nodes must remember all unexpired transactions to prevent replay attacks. Increasing the allowed expiration time means higher resource usage on all nodes.

Use a proposal instead.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Witness Proposal] - South Africa
« on: January 21, 2018, 09:24:30 am »
:-( Please reconsider. You have shown initiative, you have the skills, and you seem to quickly grasp how things work. I'd say we have active witnesses in the list who lack in more than of these regards. We need more witnesses than we have, and the pay is quite generous.

I know the lobbying part sucks for technically oriented people. And it's especially difficult for newcomers. But be persistent - all it takes is to convince some of the voting proxies. I've already voted for you.

General Discussion / Re: Help me understand User Issued Assets
« on: January 18, 2018, 08:33:28 pm »
Possibly because you have created a market-pegged asset. Nobody knows though, because you're not telling us which asset you're talking about.

Technical Support / Re: Can't vote?
« on: January 15, 2018, 08:57:28 pm »
You have to unset your voting proxy before you can cast your own votes.

1. IMO a good trading bot will be able to pay for itself. Which is also the reason why I wouldn't publish it if I created one. :-)
2. Offering a trading bot to the public is a bad idea, IMO. Such a bot makes it too easy for users to shoot themselves in the foot. They will blame it on us, even if was their own fault. See here for example:,23457.msg300913.html#msg300913

General Discussion / Re: How were the BTWTY tokens issued?
« on: January 15, 2018, 02:54:20 pm »
There's a command in the cli_wallet:

I don't think there is support in the GUI at this time.

General Discussion / Re: How were the BTWTY tokens issued?
« on: January 14, 2018, 09:46:05 pm »
Right now there is no short position that could have been margin called, because the asset is still in black swan state.

It will be revived when either the BTS price increases so that the value of the settlement fund is higher than the collateral requirement for the existing BTWTY, or when an investor shows up and creates a bid for the missing collateral.

With 1.016 BTWTY currently in existance, a price feed of 576133 BTS/BTWTY, MCR of 175% and a settlement fund of 352693, an investor would have to offer this amount to get it revived:
1.016 * 576133 * 1.75 - 352693 = 671672 BTS

That's a lot of money. (And he'd be in danger of being margin called quickly, unless he'd put in even more.)

[member=32961]EstefanTT[/member] you really should remove the override_transfer permission, or explain what you need it for. Doesn't look good.

As of right now, Cryptonomex holds the domain. Cryptonomex is a profit company and can go bancrupt (I couldn't find any transparent reports on that side), then the domain(s) are on the market again. Also, it is lead by one individual with all the power. Of course I do not want to  insinuate any ulterior motives, but this is something one needs to think about in a worst-case-prevention model.  For that reason it would feel better to give it to a non-profit entity, may it be the BBF or a new trustee.

If we plan for a fixed release schedule we need the resources to deliver. Which means mostly it's up to our paid developers. You decide, [member=18687]abit[/member] [member=43274]oxarbitrage[/member] . :-)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 95