bitcoin->bitBTC gateway needs testers!

[sumantso]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

This is also why bitUSD is a better alternative to bitBTC. If the reserves for bitUSD run low you can purchase them on bter and circumvent the 1% fee. I personally don't believe we should use bitBTC at all but we'll see how the market develops.

Request them to remove this. It would bring more volume and benefit them also.

[clout]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

This is also why bitUSD is a better alternative to bitBTC. If the reserves for bitUSD run low you can purchase them on bter and circumvent the 1% fee. I personally don't believe we should use bitBTC at all but we'll see how the market develops.

[biophil]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

I think he's taking into account the 1% BTS withdrawal fee on Bter.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

[jshow5555]

I played a bit with this service, today.

I realize I did not follow the instructions [partly because my Armory does not provide compresses private keys only the one that start with 5. So does the BTS client  btw when you use wallet_dump_private_key, even though you say it does use compressed ones, maybe internally], anyway with that in mind I used amounts that I really do not care about.

- I dumped the private key, using wallet_dump_private_key, of the active public key of an unregistered BTS account.

- Imported those in the BTC wallet.

-Transferred BTC to the gateway address from there and got the bitBTC.

- Using the GUI sent those bitBTC to metaexchangebtc and got nothing back...

No worries, as I said it was a very small amount, just letting you know how it went.

[clout]

with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

I don't really follow this statement. Theres also a negligible fee associated with bitcoin and bitassets deposits/withdrawals. You'd only really be subject to the 0.2% for converstion from btc to bts.

[toast]

I think we should call services like this "bridges" to distinguish from "gateways" which issue IOUs.

[Shentist]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway,  for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.

If you guys can handle transactions from third party services is it necessary to establish a fiat gateway?

It would be cool if I could buy $500 worth of btc instantly from circle.com. Send those btc to the gateway and receive 500 bitusd. I know that you have said you want to monetize the services of this gateway but I think it would be far more beneficial to not charge users for converting btc to bitassets. We want want to make the on and off ramp process as frictionless as possible. Actually, it might be useful to use another delegate spot to subsidize the spread costs. I'd certainly vote for the use of funds in this way. 

we don't care to make money at this point, but we have to think not to loose money by providing this service. I think we can discuss any possibility if anything is running and the community thinks it is better to make it without fees.

the only concern was that we are running out of funds and we need to convert on extern sources and this will costs fees. if we could cover this fees with a delegate position - fine! with 1000 USD at this moment and assume 1.2 % fees on BTER you can transfer 83.000 USD into BTS every month.

But, now, we need first to prove that this service is function without bugs.

[clout]

What jurisdiction are you based in?

UK / Germany

In Germany you most likely need permission from the BAFin for such a gateway. I can only recommend *not* running that service from here, you may get into serious trouble.

In the future we hope to provide a FIAT gateway,  for this we need a permission. We are fully aware of this.

If you guys can handle transactions from third party services is it necessary to establish a fiat gateway?

It would be cool if I could buy $500 worth of btc instantly from circle.com. Send those btc to the gateway and receive 500 bitusd. I know that you have said you want to monetize the services of this gateway but I think it would be far more beneficial to not charge users for converting btc to bitassets. We want want to make the on and off ramp process as frictionless as possible. Actually, it might be useful to use another delegate spot to subsidize the spread costs. I'd certainly vote for the use of funds in this way. 

[fluxer555]

That's true, however for optimal performance, a gateway should be able to handle high volumes, as well as high asymmetric volumes. Being able to change funds in only one direction could leave a bad taste in the mouths of some new users.

[clout]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

There is no issue of solvency because this is a bitasset gateway not an iou gateway. Theres no obligation to provide or redeem bitBTC.

[Shentist]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

Perhaps you could do what alt did and create a UIA to fund liquidity of operations. You could give shareholders of this UIA dividends of your profits.

this could be done if needed. in the moment we need to prove - that it is working, nothing do think to far ahead.

[fluxer555]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

Perhaps you could do what alt did and create a UIA to fund liquidity of operations. You could give shareholders of this UIA dividends of your profits.

[Shentist]

Thinking about this... it seems you will need to hold 2x the value of the volume at any point in time in order to remain both instant and 100% solvent at all times. If somebody sends you 1BTC, then you purchase 1 BitBTC with your own funds, and hold the 1BTC. You need to hold on to that 1 BTC, so that when they cash out from BitBTC to BTC, you have the funds readily available to send them instantly.

If you go the route of only holding 1x funds, then first of all there will be a delay between when you send BTC and receive BitBTC (receive BTC > centralized exchange > buy BTS > send to wallet > buyBitBTC > send to customer) and a delay from withdrawals (receive BitBTC > sell for BTS > centralized exchange > buy BTC > send to customer). Secondly, you are exposed to volatility in that time frame. Thirdly, you will often be <100% solvent in the middle of these trades.

Thoughts?

no we will hold both sides at the same time. the only problem is, if we are only trading in one side and running out of bitBTC or BTC. We are thinking of some solutions, but we need just to make the test runs and bring the webside online.

would be nice to get some feedback from people who tried it, and can provide information how it work or are there problems we are not aware at the moment.

[vikram]

Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas

>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_name

does not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.

I didn't try it in the GUI clients.

Yes, I believe this is a bug in the client related to receiving a transaction sent to a BTS address instead of a BTS account.

Yes, there are many bugs in the transaction history like this that we are aware of. Ignoring that, the output of wallet_account_balance should always be correct!

[monsterer]

Shows the correct balance (with the received bitBTC), whereas

>>> wallet_account_transaction_history receiving_account_name

does not show the record of the transaction or the correct balance.

I didn't try it in the GUI clients.

Yes, I believe this is a bug in the client related to receiving a transaction sent to a BTS address instead of a BTS account.