Quote from: vlight on February 14, 2016, 02:58:10 PM

Quote from: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 10:44:31 PM
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.

How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?

Nice try, but no thanks.

Where is BTS used as a currency?  What would it lose exactly?  If the changes in behaviors/incentives outweigh what we are losing dropping BTS as a currency then it would be a good thing.

Quote from: tonyk on February 10, 2016, 10:44:31 PM
1. bitSHARES (or dShares if BM is stubborn and we have to make a separate chain) are NON - send-able digital shares in a decentralized exchange co-op.

How is removing a feature from BTS actually can be a good thing?

Nice try, but no thanks.

Quote from: monsterer on February 13, 2016, 11:42:15 PM

Quote from: tonyk on February 13, 2016, 11:28:14 PM

Quote from: monsterer on February 13, 2016, 11:06:31 PM
Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.

I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?

There ought to be genuine arbitrage opportunities in the internal markets - e.g. triangular arbitrage between bitUSD/BTS, bitUSD/bitCNY,  bitCNY/BTS. The blockchain would always be the one profiting from any opportunity because it can act instantly before any other participants.

In my view the guy placing the last order is the one creating the opportunity. From here on there are several scenarios:
- Let his order sit on the book and wait for some guy with a bot to come and capitalize on it, or new orders to remove the opportunity;
-The blockchain finds it/matches it using the 'general' rule - the later (latest here) order gets what they asked for or better.
-The blockchain finds it/matches gives the last guy what he asked for and keeping the arbitrage for itself.


PS
hmm  with the blocks and such in blockchains, I guess all orders can come in one block, theoretically.
PSS
More generally speaking there is someone that has all the info one step before the blockchain... the signing witness. Front-running paradise.

Quote from: Akado on February 13, 2016, 10:25:01 PM
I admit I haven't fully grasped the potential consequences or negative aspects this idea might have but I actually liked it. Dividends was our strongest selling point, ever. We have a chance to bring them back with this.

This puts everything in place. Shares stay here and our products outside, everywhere to be properly used. And is the use of those same assets that dictate the success of BitShares, not the speculation going around in crypto. I'm afraid the short term impact this could have honestly but on the other hand, BitShares would be way more solid with this. Something to back it's value. Adoption and usage of its products instead of just being tossed around for speculation like any other crypto out there and no one could ever argue with that.

It would make BitShares more firm and its value would derivate from its utility, speculation could potentially have less influence. Combine this with Rate Limited Fees and Bond Markets. Receipt for success? It would be the most solid crypto project I've ever seen and finally one who backs its value with utility and not speculation only. That would set us apart from the rest, would place us another whole new league imo.

+5% +5% +5%

Quote from: tonyk on February 13, 2016, 11:28:14 PM

Quote from: monsterer on February 13, 2016, 11:06:31 PM
Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.

I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?

There ought to be genuine arbitrage opportunities in the internal markets - e.g. triangular arbitrage between bitUSD/BTS, bitUSD/bitCNY,  bitCNY/BTS. The blockchain would always be the one profiting from any opportunity because it can act instantly before any other participants.

Quote from: monsterer on February 13, 2016, 11:06:31 PM
Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.

I do not know if would call it arbitrage, but finding other paths (say selling bitUSD for bitBTC) and using bitUSD-BTS->bitEth->bitBTC or whatever is the cheapest path instead; is something that intrigues me as well.
The question is thus more for you than for me - do you think it is computationally cheap enough for the blockchain to do it itself. My almost totally uneducated guess is - it should be doable. Your opinion?

Here's a question for @tonyk - with external arbitrage now being impossible, would it be possible to have the blockchain itself as a market maker with internal arbitrage? Price risk would be mitigated by the fact that the blockchain can act instantly to arbitrage between internal markets.

Quote from: Pheonike on February 13, 2016, 10:13:24 PM
Could we create a new a type asset called BitBond that is used for this?

What I did not like in the other thread? This bond fund might as well lose money (well over the 1% fee, with 50/50 contribution to 201% total collateral), then we have the socialization of losses. [apparently  good now thing in BM's new found believes,btw]

Without the bond - I do not like this non-market approach. It results in the case of the BTS price going down and certain collateral being sold - even more BTS in circulation. Or in the case of enormous collateral - say 10x in using artificial back up because the logical market participants are not willing to do the same themselves. And as I have said several days ago, if the leader of this project has any faith in his child he will lead with himself shorting with 7-10x collateral... and this will help a lot in everyone else also believing and following... and will go a long way.

I am personally thinking of market approaches to aid/share responsibilities with the gateways, if need be... my ideas in this regards are not fully crystalized to see public scrutiny yet though.

I admit I haven't fully grasped the potential consequences or negative aspects this idea might have but I actually liked it. Dividends was our strongest selling point, ever. We have a chance to bring them back with this.

This puts everything in place. Shares stay here and our products outside, everywhere to be properly used. And is the use of those same assets that dictate the success of BitShares, not the speculation going around in crypto. I'm afraid the short term impact this could have honestly but on the other hand, BitShares would be way more solid with this. Something to back it's value. Adoption and usage of its products instead of just being tossed around for speculation like any other crypto out there and no one could ever argue with that.

It would make BitShares more firm and its value would derivate from its utility, speculation could potentially have less influence. Combine this with Rate Limited Fees and Bond Markets. Receipt for success? It would be the most solid crypto project I've ever seen and finally one who backs its value with utility and not speculation only. That would set us apart from the rest, would place us another whole new league imo.

Could we create a new a type asset called BitBond that is used for this?

Quote from: liondani on February 13, 2016, 10:01:21 PM

Quote from: tonyk on February 13, 2016, 02:14:57 PM
"What is good instead is dilution to the max" he says. "

Hmmm......
So it will make only sense to hold/buy  bitAssets and/or ... (?)

"the bitAssets are no gooda now", he also says
ha also says "those that sponsored me in the past are no gooda either... they are diluters now, diluters of my effort now"
"let them sell. let them sell.
I need new blood. New blood to."

Quote from: tonyk on February 13, 2016, 02:14:57 PM
"What is good instead is dilution to the max" he says. "

Hmmm......
So it will make only sense to hold/buy  bitAssets and/or ... dump/sell BTS.... (?)

Quote from: mf-tzo on February 13, 2016, 10:02:27 AM
Having said that if the OP is implemented then it will be more likely that whales will come on board and create those bitassets...So I don't know how I should feel about implementing this change...Please whatever you decide don't create a shock in the market and bts drops to $3 mil market cap because then my wife will divorce me.. :)

Your marriage is safe for now. If you have not heard the latest news, this idea was evaluated by BM and he has come to the conclusion it is not good for Bitshares!

"What is good instead is dilution to the max" he says. "Because it puts the new shares into the hands of those that do the work"... and he encourages people like abit to do the work first and come and ask for the money...The problem is of course many fold, but let's just see it from the perspective of the crowds willing to come and dig into BM's jem of a code with no support from him... Well when they are done with this great  endeavor they have no guarantee to be paid at all...It is easy to speak when you can vote whaterver worker you come up with yourself . Not the case for those volunteers though.

So in short, the slow (as in 1-2 full time devs),  doing whatever work BM feels is most profitable coding wise or most interesting for him on personal level,  BTS system is here to stay for the time being. Charity of kinds for his personal pursuits. You might like it this way and find him the best thing that ever happened to mankind, I am not saying you should not.

My initial thoughts to that are:

1) Great idea. Bts should be shares of the DEX and not traded to external exchanges and only trade the bitassets. Great idea! It should have been like that from the start and if I remember correctly Tonyk was saying these things a long time ago and was ignored..

2) Unfortunately, like it or not, stable coins like bitusd don't have much demand yet. In total there are c$1.5 mil tether, c$800k Nubits etc.. So in a best case sceanrio there would be $1 mil bitusd and maybe some other bit assets which will make bts a market cap of c$3-$4 mil and will stay at those levels for another year..

The current market cap of bts is mostly based on traders speculation, on pumps and dumps like all the other crypto out there and on the expectation that maybe a big whale will jump in and lock a lot of collateral to create bitassets and bts will skyrocket to market cap. Not much of utility yet, but things were starting to progress (ccedk, kencode POS, stealth are things that will bring utility)  so I am not sure this is the right time to go with a proposal like the OP.

Having said that if the OP is implemented then it will be more likely that whales will come on board and create those bitassets...So I don't know how I should feel about implementing this change...Please whatever you decide don't create a shock in the market and bts drops to $3 mil market cap because then my wife will divorce me.. :)

Quote from: jakub on February 12, 2016, 10:07:48 AM

We are giving up our right to transfer BTS for the privilege of having liquidity for SmartCoins.
It's a trade-off.
Which do you prefer: transferability of BTS or liquidity for bitUSD?
For me, the choice is quite obvious. I prefer liquidity.

BTS has not been that successful as a currency. We don't need it to be one. BTS will be stronger if it has only one purpose: serving as shares for the DEX. Why do we have bitUSD and other assets? Those should be the currencies while BTS will back their value.