Quote from: tonyk2 on December 07, 2014, 12:48:44 AM

Quote from: arhag on December 07, 2014, 12:44:10 AM

Quote from: tonyk2 on December 07, 2014, 12:39:04 AM
My bad probably, but I understood it to mean that 'get what you asked for' market rules destroy some of the user issued asset and this is effectively a 'dividend' for the issuer. Trying to convert such destroyed UIA to the BTS equivalent is a hard to do and am not sure necessary. And we are already collecting the bitAssets( or BTS) when they are the one destroyed by such price overlaps.

I wasn't talking about converting the UIA into BTS automatically. Every time a trade occurs between asset A and asset B on the BitShares exchage, the blockchain can choose to collect the overlap either as asset A or asset B or some combination of both. In the BitAsset/BTS exchanges, it is currently collected 100% as the BitAsset to give those profits to BitAsset holders as yield.

I have not figured out how is the bold part possible. And my requests for some help explaining those mechanics to me have not been answered. So I continue to assume that only one or the other is destroyed(collected) in each particular transaction.

Anybody willing to explain to me how this choice works? (if it indeed does)

Quote from: vlight on December 02, 2014, 01:29:22 PM
Is there a 5% fee for manual short cover?

No.

QuoteCan also anyone tell why such a large 5% fee is used ?

No idea ..

There is 0% fee  for expired short cover and 5% fee for forced short cover. Is there a 5% fee for manual short cover? Can also anyone tell why such a large 5% fee is used ?

I'm seeing seeing expired margin calls on BitBTC and BitGold.

I thought they weren't called, because there are no shorts.
But just now I tried to go short in Bitgold, to see if it would get instantly "hit".
But nothing happend, I left it there for 10 blocks before canceling.

The question is, when will these expired shorts be closed?

Edit : I give up. I'll figure something out.

Thanks for both answers! They were very helpful.

Quote from: lafona on November 26, 2014, 11:53:00 PM
Do delegates pay a fee to to publish a price feed? and if so is it on fee per Asset (5 x fee per update for five assets) or can multiple asset feed updates be lumped into one transaction?(one fee per update for five assets) Thanks

You can take a look at the rpc call in
https://github.com/xeroc/pytshares/blob/master/bts_feed.py#L246

Two scripts are currently listed here
http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Delegate/Feeds
at least emski's script is not listed there yet .. should be though

Quote from: lafona on November 26, 2014, 11:53:00 PM
Do delegates pay a fee to to publish a price feed? and if so is it on fee per Asset (5 x fee per update for five assets) or can multiple asset feed updates be lumped into one transaction?(one fee per update for five assets) Thanks

They pay the normal transaction fee but multiple assets can be updated in a single batch transaction.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Do delegates pay a fee to to publish a price feed? and if so is it on fee per Asset (5 x fee per update for five assets) or can multiple asset feed updates be lumped into one transaction?(one fee per update for five assets) Thanks

Quote from: svk on November 25, 2014, 11:48:09 PM

Quote from: delulo on November 25, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
When I vote I transfer all my stake to myself. Isnt that publicly visible on the blockchain incl. how much I transferred to myself so that when someone knows the exact time at which I voted he also knows how much stake I have?

Correct.

Thanks. That was really a stupid question :)

Quote from: toast on November 25, 2014, 11:43:27 PM

Quote from: bytemaster on November 25, 2014, 09:50:12 PM

Quote from: Graffenwalder on November 25, 2014, 08:17:32 PM
Not sure if this has been brought up already.

At the moment 101 delegates are enough.
But if we use the company metaphor, and BTS grows. Wouldn't we need more than 101 employees?

Think of it instead as 101 divisions heads....where each delegate position has a budget for an entire division.

FFS this is the wrong answer. We will eventually have dynamic delegates.

I don't think it is the wrong answer but for different reasons. The number of delegates should be large enough to ensure a sufficient amount of decentralization to avoid corruption and control by outside forces (even if it is just temporary until the stakeholders hard fork). I think 101 delegates is sufficient for that and there is no need for it to be larger even as BitShares grows (grows in users, grows in market cap, grows in number of employees working for it).

The reason some people want an unbounded number of delegates is because we have been selling this idea that the block producers (delegates) are also optionally the employees of the DAC. Thus naturally people think we will need more employees to grow big and thus that means we need more delegates. But this is the wrong way of thinking about it in my opinion because the delegates should be decoupled from the employees (the workers).

Bytemaster's solution to this is that this should all be done informally through a social consensus where delegates receive the money and pay the workers what the stakeholders think they are worth. My view on this is that this process should be formal and enforced by the DAC itself through delegate proposals ratified by shareholder vote. We both apparently agree that the solution is NOT to increase the number of delegates because that just hurts the economic efficiency of the network.

Quote from: delulo on November 25, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
When I vote I transfer all my stake to myself. Isnt that publicly visible on the blockchain incl. how much I transferred to myself so that when someone knows the exact time at which I voted he also knows how much stake I have?

Correct.

I think what BM is trying to say is that "we won't *need* more any time soon because they can act as division heads"

Quote from: bytemaster on November 25, 2014, 09:50:12 PM

Quote from: Graffenwalder on November 25, 2014, 08:17:32 PM
Not sure if this has been brought up already.

At the moment 101 delegates are enough.
But if we use the company metaphor, and BTS grows. Wouldn't we need more than 101 employees?

Think of it instead as 101 divisions heads....where each delegate position has a budget for an entire division.

FFS this is the wrong answer. We will eventually have dynamic delegates.

Quote from: Graffenwalder on November 25, 2014, 08:17:32 PM
Not sure if this has been brought up already.

At the moment 101 delegates are enough.
But if we use the company metaphor, and BTS grows. Wouldn't we need more than 101 employees?

Think of it instead as 101 divisions heads....where each delegate position has a budget for an entire division.