QuoteCan someone explain to me though why they have such high volume, ($1 million 24 hours) but the CAP of Nubits is staying the same, this week, circa $2.3 million? I don't understand.

NuBits market capitalization isn't changing, because the supply of NBT hasn't measurably changed and the price per NBT hasn't fluctuated much. CMC reports market cap as:

* Marketcap = Price x Total Supply
* Prices are calculated by averaging the prices at the major exchanges weighted by volume

Source: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=199685.0

Quote from: cryptillionaire on October 07, 2014, 11:55:58 AM
TL;DR: Nubits is a ponzi scheme.

Yup it's a ponzi. Can someone explain to me though why they have such high volume, ($1 million 24 hours) but the CAP of Nubits is staying the same, this week, circa $2.3 million? I don't understand.

I'm going out for the day, but if that is real volume, I'll do a marketing initiative I fund myself that tries to copy all their steps, excl. the provision of a simple BitUSD wallet that is completed within a week.

It seems all that took was

1. A simple BitUSD wallet
2. A simple BitUSD website  (Theirs https://nubits.com/ )
3. Main page Coinmarketcap listing
4. 2 Million CAP (Top 20 CMC)
5. Bter liquidity
6. Bit o advertising
7. Being ready when Bitcoin tanked

I expect their volume to go down now that BTC is stabilising but still if that's the kind of volume that is available right now within the alt-coin market for a ponzi pegged asset and very little outlay then we need to step up and compete.

TL;DR: Nubits is a ponzi scheme.

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 06, 2014, 08:55:08 PM

Quote from: Ander on October 06, 2014, 08:31:59 PM

Quote from: Gonzo on October 06, 2014, 08:26:54 PM

Quote from: bitmeat on October 06, 2014, 08:10:15 PM
Reality is NBT so far works better than BitUSD, when it comes to liquidity. Can you buy/sell 1000 BTC worth of BitUSD without pushing the market? No.

Straw man argument.  You can't argue against the potential wet bag of shit Ponzi scheme that is NuScam

So...we just say over and over that NuBits is a scam.

Plenty of other people say bitUSD is a scam and the peg wont work. 

How are we different?


We need to bring technical arguments to these discussions to demonstrate why bitUSD is better.
We need to have more market volume in bitUSD, to show that it is the superior choice. 

We dont need to circlejerk and repeat 'nubits is a scam' over and over whenever anyone talks about it.  Having our heads in the sand and just 'believing' in BTSX isnt going to accomplish anything.  This isnt a religion.

Makes us no better than Bitcoiners otherwise. The way I understand it is NuBits can't contract it's supply, while the supply of BitUSD reaches equilibrium naturally.

Also, NuBit volume is the result of bots trading. It's not organic.

EDIT: Truthfully though, I've been keeping an eye on both communities. I'll switch to NuBits if they implement a superior marketing strategy and I think they have a shot at gaining network effect. I like the simplicity of NuBits and their singular marketing/development focus. The BitShares devs have spread themselves thin across multiple DACs and their branding is needlessly complex.

Don't leave! BitSharesX needs MethodX :) For Real

Quote from: tbkmcjl on October 07, 2014, 02:39:30 AM

That is because ALL Nubits is owned by one team.

They sold 100 NBTS,get 100USD CASH.

IF they do not wish to run off with the 100USD CASH AT THE MOMENT,they can easily do whatever liquidity they like .Because everytime they sold a NBTS,
THEY GET CASH !!!!!!

Of course,as long as they do not want to run off ,even after selling 2 Million NBTS and get 2 Million USD eash CASH .

If I make a coin with 100% premine , I can easily do the same trick,as long as I don't run off with the money I sold from the coin.

And ,the team maybe only 1 person ,even after selling some shares in the public,the main power and fund still controls in 1 person.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are currently drunk in vegas, and that is the reason why this post doesnt make sense, has fractured sentences, and cannot manage to place commas or periods correctly at the end of words, with spaces after them.


I'm pretty sure that crazy rants against NuBits like this are not what we need on this forum.  What we need is intelligent discussion about how we can make bitUSD the best it can be, so that we can beat our competitors.

Quote from: tbkmcjl on October 07, 2014, 02:39:30 AM
If I make a coin with 100% premine , I can easily do the same trick,as long as I don't run off with the money I sold from the coin.

And ,the team maybe only 1 person ,even after selling some shares in the public,the main power and fund still controls in 1 person.

The team is not one person. The members of the dev team  have long track record in the peercoin community. Every one in the community can chip in ideas and expect the ideas to get considered. The Nu networks is owned by share holders, and executed by custodians that the network can afford to lose. The long-term goal is decentralized shareownership and custodian selection.

You can't easily do the trick. The protocol and the commnity interact to make Nu working.

Quote from: Chuckone on October 06, 2014, 11:10:59 PM

The point is, it's easy to get confused. I read through the forum a lot, and I'm still confused sometimes on how the market mechanics work, and even starspirit with 71 posts (which suggests he did quite a bit of reading in here) still has some misunderstanding of what is really required to hold bitUSD.

So I can imagine how confusing it must be for someone who never heard of crypto just trying to get a grasp of the concept.

Edit 1: Or anybody holding Bitcoin who wants to understand pegged assets, it's not like learning to play tic tac toe
[/quote]

Oh how I've tried to understand! Sorry I'm not quite there yet, but its difficult to keep poring over threads to try to scratch things together in an ad hoc fashion. It would be useful for someone in the community to start producing some "How To" documentation.

Quote from: Ander on October 06, 2014, 11:19:25 PM

Quote from: starspirit on October 06, 2014, 10:13:01 PM
But the main issue to adoption in my view is complexity. It requires a BTSX wallet (and BTSX as collateral) to access and hold BitUSD. Its a multi-step process. And trading it requires a knowledge of some quite complicated (and constantly shifting) rules to understand the market dynamic, at least until enough history means people can just default to trusting it.

Listen to the most recent podcast:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9666.0

Bytemaster describes a potential future system where the average person could use bitUSD without all this complexity, without owning BTSX.  They use bitUSD the way they use a credit or debit card, and all of the complexity is handled by the payment processor. 

This, or something like it, is what we need to happen to have widespread bitUSD adoption.

Yup, it's coming. Mentioned in multiple other threads and podcasts. There will be a one-stop shop for people getting into BTSX/BitUSD.

Quote from: starspirit on October 06, 2014, 10:13:01 PM
But the main issue to adoption in my view is complexity. It requires a BTSX wallet (and BTSX as collateral) to access and hold BitUSD. Its a multi-step process. And trading it requires a knowledge of some quite complicated (and constantly shifting) rules to understand the market dynamic, at least until enough history means people can just default to trusting it.

Listen to the most recent podcast:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9666.0

Bytemaster describes a potential future system where the average person could use bitUSD without all this complexity, without owning BTSX.  They use bitUSD the way they use a credit or debit card, and all of the complexity is handled by the payment processor. 

This, or something like it, is what we need to happen to have widespread bitUSD adoption. 

Quote from: Troglodactyl on October 06, 2014, 10:45:55 PM

Quote from: starspirit on October 06, 2014, 10:13:01 PM
None of the pegged currency concepts is yet ideal. And all are in constant development. So I think its important to not get on our high horses and be overly critical of any innovation, its all moving to a better world.

The robustness problem with NuBits is well acknowledged here. But there are positives from a user perspective that should also be acknowledged - it is very simple and accessible.

BitUSD is not ideal yet either.

Though BitUSD has a flexible supply to deal with demand shocks, sellers of any size will still need to take some haircut to the peg to exit. The proposed rule that shorts must cover in 30 days will help to ensure the discount does not grow too great.

But the main issue to adoption in my view is complexity. It requires a BTSX wallet (and BTSX as collateral) to access and hold BitUSD. Its a multi-step process. And trading it requires a knowledge of some quite complicated (and constantly shifting) rules to understand the market dynamic, at least until enough history means people can just default to trusting it. For outsiders interested in holding BitUSD it requires some view on this relatively unknown thing called BTSX, which is held as additional collateral at risk, but also if it moves up too far can knock you out of your BitUSD position through a margin call. This requires another layer of monitoring and risk.

These are big hurdles for the outside layman, and does not facilitate easy trading of BitUSD outside its specialised environment, so heavily constrains liquidity. NuBits by comparison is bought and sold like any other crypto and so can be used easily by traders on the exchanges.

I'm not taking any sides here.

But I think it would be useful if BitUSD could be wrapped in some way that is simpler to handle. For example, if there were a fund/DAC/crypto/ETF that did the job of managing all this on behalf of the underlying investors.

I think you're misunderstanding a few things.  You don't have to hold BTSX to hold bitUSD, and a margin call will not compromise your bitUSD.  BitSapphire is also working on a simplified wallet for those who just want to transact simply, and already in the existing wallet most of the complexity can be switched off and ignored if all you want to do is use bitUSD. You can buy bitUSD directly without holding BTSX first.

The point is, it's easy to get confused. I read through the forum a lot, and I'm still confused sometimes on how the market mechanics work, and even starspirit with 71 posts (which suggests he did quite a bit of reading in here) still has some misunderstanding of what is really required to hold bitUSD.

So I can imagine how confusing it must be for someone who never heard of crypto just trying to get a grasp of the concept.

Edit 1: Or anybody holding Bitcoin who wants to understand pegged assets, it's not like learning to play tic tac toe

Quote from: starspirit on October 06, 2014, 10:13:01 PM
None of the pegged currency concepts is yet ideal. And all are in constant development. So I think its important to not get on our high horses and be overly critical of any innovation, its all moving to a better world.

The robustness problem with NuBits is well acknowledged here. But there are positives from a user perspective that should also be acknowledged - it is very simple and accessible.

BitUSD is not ideal yet either.

Though BitUSD has a flexible supply to deal with demand shocks, sellers of any size will still need to take some haircut to the peg to exit. The proposed rule that shorts must cover in 30 days will help to ensure the discount does not grow too great.

But the main issue to adoption in my view is complexity. It requires a BTSX wallet (and BTSX as collateral) to access and hold BitUSD. Its a multi-step process. And trading it requires a knowledge of some quite complicated (and constantly shifting) rules to understand the market dynamic, at least until enough history means people can just default to trusting it. For outsiders interested in holding BitUSD it requires some view on this relatively unknown thing called BTSX, which is held as additional collateral at risk, but also if it moves up too far can knock you out of your BitUSD position through a margin call. This requires another layer of monitoring and risk.

These are big hurdles for the outside layman, and does not facilitate easy trading of BitUSD outside its specialised environment, so heavily constrains liquidity. NuBits by comparison is bought and sold like any other crypto and so can be used easily by traders on the exchanges.

I'm not taking any sides here.

But I think it would be useful if BitUSD could be wrapped in some way that is simpler to handle. For example, if there were a fund/DAC/crypto/ETF that did the job of managing all this on behalf of the underlying investors.

I think you're misunderstanding a few things.  You don't have to hold BTSX to hold bitUSD, and a margin call will not compromise your bitUSD.  BitSapphire is also working on a simplified wallet for those who just want to transact simply, and already in the existing wallet most of the complexity can be switched off and ignored if all you want to do is use bitUSD. You can buy bitUSD directly without holding BTSX first.

None of the pegged currency concepts is yet ideal. And all are in constant development. So I think its important to not get on our high horses and be overly critical of any innovation, its all moving to a better world.

The robustness problem with NuBits is well acknowledged here. But there are positives from a user perspective that should also be acknowledged - it is very simple and accessible.

BitUSD is not ideal yet either.

Though BitUSD has a flexible supply to deal with demand shocks, sellers of any size will still need to take some haircut to the peg to exit. The proposed rule that shorts must cover in 30 days will help to ensure the discount does not grow too great.

But the main issue to adoption in my view is complexity. It requires a BTSX wallet (and BTSX as collateral) to access and hold BitUSD. Its a multi-step process. And trading it requires a knowledge of some quite complicated (and constantly shifting) rules to understand the market dynamic, at least until enough history means people can just default to trusting it. For outsiders interested in holding BitUSD it requires some view on this relatively unknown thing called BTSX, which is held as additional collateral at risk, but also if it moves up too far can knock you out of your BitUSD position through a margin call. This requires another layer of monitoring and risk.

These are big hurdles for the outside layman, and does not facilitate easy trading of BitUSD outside its specialised environment, so heavily constrains liquidity. NuBits by comparison is bought and sold like any other crypto and so can be used easily by traders on the exchanges.

I'm not taking any sides here.

But I think it would be useful if BitUSD could be wrapped in some way that is simpler to handle. For example, if there were a fund/DAC/crypto/ETF that did the job of managing all this on behalf of the underlying investors.

Quote from: inarizushi on October 06, 2014, 09:59:57 PM
Why are you so in such a hurry ? Nubits promoters themselves know and say that one day nubits will be worth 0$. If people flock to the bandwagon, it will just hinder bitUSD until the first big crisis. It's condemned to death. Regarding bitshares, the devs are devoted to making a great product, the marketing plan is mouth watering, and in a year or two BTSX may change history. Can't we just sit back and relax ?

Well said.

Why are you so in such a hurry ? Nubits promoters themselves know and say that one day nubits will be worth 0$. If people flock to the bandwagon, it will just hinder bitUSD until the first big crisis. It's condemned to death. Regarding bitshares, the devs are devoted to making a great product, the marketing plan is mouth watering, and in a year or two BTSX may change history. Can't we just sit back and relax ?

Quote from: MeTHoDx on October 06, 2014, 08:55:08 PM

Also, NuBit volume is the result of bots trading. It's not organic.

I dont think that matters.

When bitUSD is up and running well, almost all of the trading in it will be bots as well.  (market maker bots, etc). 

Its still volume.