Any pair is instantly available once the asset is created, there's no minimum market depth AFAIK, however you might want to focus on the major ones, ie against BTS, CNY or USD.

You can find these markets by searching in the client.

Once you've issued say 100 units of UIA asset to yourself, simply go to your desired market and place a sell order.

How does one go about establishing a trading pair for a UIA.
So if I wanted to buy NOTES with my bitUSD. How would I go about issuing such a buy order.

I assume I would need to wait for someone who then wants to sell NOTES for bitUSD. Is there a minimum market depth requirement?

Followup question: If a user issues a UIA and then sells it on the market at a set price to raise funds, can the user specify the trading pair with which he is selling the UIA (eg selling the UIA at 40bitEUR per asset token.

Quote from: nickelback70 on June 23, 2015, 02:55:51 PM
Hello friends,

I am a newbie and a fan of bitshares.  I have been purchasing bitshares on an exchange.

I am wondering if Bitshares 2.0 will include a web wallet and can you can speculate on a release date.

Thanks.

Yes there will be a webwallet.

I would speculate that the release of BTS2.0 will be around early September if everything goes according to plan.

Hello friends,

I am a newbie and a fan of bitshares.  I have been purchasing bitshares on an exchange.

I am wondering if Bitshares 2.0 will include a web wallet and can you can speculate on a release date.

Thanks.

Yep, I bet that's right. The point of the question is at what point (users / transaction volume) will the avg, user no longer be able to run a full node?

It testing is as thorough as we're led to believe, to the point of benchmarking transaction throughput in the neighborhood of 180,000 transactions / sec, then I would certainly hope they would be able to provide some type of projection about the rate of ecosystem growth and the requirements on RAM / bandwidth / CPU as adoption / use expands.

Not only am I asking to plan for necessary VPS upgrades and failover servers, but it is also my plan to run a full node as long as possible to support a local wallet. There's no question in my mind that there is less vulnerability on a one wallet / one server configuration than the multi-user-server configuration that will become the dominant standard. I prefer to be as safe and secure as I can and see how this entirely new code base it going to workout before I rely on it in the multi-user-server configuration. Better safe than sorry approach.

Quote from: Thom on June 21, 2015, 06:00:05 PM
Bytemaster has spoken to the reduced RAM requirements of the full node, saying in his interview with Adam Lavine only 1GB is needed for current ecosystem size.

How big will the transaction volume need to get it before it outgrows a 4GB RAM system?

I think it has less to do with transaction volume and more to do with the amount of adoption. The nodes need to be able to store the full database (anything that needs to be accessed by the single-threaded transaction processing engine in order for it to do its job, and anything that can potentially be updated as a result of processing the transactions) in RAM. So it scales with the number of accounts, the number of assets, the number of orders in the order books, etc. If done right, I think it should not scale with time (other than due to the natural growth in accounts, assets, smart contracts, orders, etc. that we expect to see over time due to growth and user adoption).

I think a fair first attempt at approximating database size over time is to model it as proportional to the number of users. This of course requires all kinds of assumptions about how the average user uses the system (how many accounts do they have, how many orders do they typically have in the markets, what other features of the network are being used and to what extent). It also requires predicting how the number of users will grow over time. But I think the main takeaway point from bytemaster's comments were that it is unlikely to be the bottleneck anytime soon even given current technology (and of course memory density will continue to increase while getting cheaper). The more likely bottleneck will be bandwidth and CPU clock speed, but even that is something we don't have to worry about until BitShares is much much bigger and more successful.

Bytemaster has spoken to the reduced RAM requirements of the full node, saying in his interview with Adam Lavine only 1GB is needed for current ecosystem size.

How big will the transaction volume need to get it before it outgrows a 4GB RAM system?

@xeroc: on point #3 you have $80, but I believe you mean 80% of transaction fees with a lifetime subscription and 50% for an annual subscription, inclusive of the subscriber and all referred accounts.

+6%

looks good

Quote from: mindphlux on June 10, 2015, 02:27:18 PM
Interesting, thank you. So there will be native wallets for both iOS and android.

Yes that is the plan, although it will take a little longer.

Interesting, thank you. So there will be native wallets for both iOS and android.

Quote from: mindphlux on June 10, 2015, 09:56:20 AM
What about native ios and android apps? Are they planned?

I see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/tree/master/ios, is this just a ios-view for the webwallet when you login via your iphone?

No it's the initial framework for a native iOS app. We plan to build the native apps using React Native which is currently only available for iOS, although the Android version should be out soon as well. What this does is enable us to build native apps while reusing large parts of the code from the full web client.

What about native ios and android apps? Are they planned?

I see https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/tree/master/ios, is this just a ios-view for the webwallet when you login via your iphone?

Quote from: xeroc on June 08, 2015, 06:21:54 PM
6.What has been done to stabilize the user interface and make it user friendly/more responsive?

   A lot has been done to this regard. Mainly, the full client has been separated into a lightweight client which
   connects to a set of trusted servers, and an optional core client that handles the full block chain and P2P
   networking. Furthermore, the lightweight client has been rewritten to employ next generation web technologies

Ahhh, now bytemaster's reply from a month ago makes sense.

Quote from: bytemaster on June 09, 2015, 09:33:52 PM

Quote from: Shentist on June 09, 2015, 09:32:22 PM
will the browserclient have blocktrades.us and metaexchange.info integrated?

Yes, actually it will have a fiat deposit integrated.

+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%