Beyond Bitcoin (CNX) Hangout w/ Bytemaster @ 10AM EST

[jakub]

If you are protecting someone from paying too much you say - you will pay up to [read no mere than] 10% above market price.
and not like it is now - You will pay 50% above market price, but NOT LESS than that.

Let's talk about the USD:BTS market, i.e. prices indicate how many BTS you need to pay for 1 USD, e.g. 250 BTS/USD.

My understanding of BM's SQP concept is this: if you are a short position holder and you are in a margin-call situation (i.e. lowest ask is above your call price) you are guaranteed that you will not be margin-called with a price worse than SQP.
In other words, you will be protected from being margin-called until the longs offer you a decent price within 50% of the feed (i.e. the lowest ask is below SQP). In that sense you are actually protected: the margin call will either not happen at all or, when it does happen, it will be executed at a price not worse than SQP.

So why do you say that a short position holder will pay 50% above market price, but NOT LESS than that?
For me the opposite is true, if he is margin-called he will pay 50% above the feed or LESS.

EDIT: I've revised my opinion and expressed in the other thread:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.msg252973.html#msg252973
My general conclusion is this: @tonyk and @Xeldal are right - we do have a problem and it needs to be addressed asap.

[tonyk]

@jakub are you Nathan by any chance?

I do appreciate the humor in ' "allowing" 1.75x collateral, but requiring 2.625x collateral at the start of 2.0 ' . I do think he has this kind of humor and that's why I think he is the one that came with this idea...and laughed his ass off during the first few days.

[tonyk]

@jakub

Attempt # 77

If you are protecting someone from paying too much you say - you will pay up to [read no mere than] 10% above market price.

and not like it is now - You will pay 50% above market price, but NOT LESS than that.


 carpet ride - 10% could be fine[ although I personally do not see the reason for more than 3%] if, and only if, it is up to 10% as described above.

[carpet ride]

I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.

OK attempt #4

If you understand BM's design you must already know that it requires certain market participants [namely short position holders] to buy assets at price 150% [in the original design]  above the market price [i.e. feed price].

If you find nothing wrong with this, I really do not think any argument in any language [even perfect English] will make you change your mind.

What would you recommend, 100% instead of 150%?

[tonyk]

I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.

OK attempt #4

If you understand BM's design you must already know that it requires certain market participants [namely short position holders] to buy assets at price 150% [in the original design]  above the market price [i.e. feed price].

If you find nothing wrong with this, I really do not think any argument in any language [even perfect English] will make you change your mind.

[tonyk]

@tonyk, you've been asked this question before:

What are you suggesting should be changed, to make this wheel round? 

And you just replied:

Not trying to discover and/or use new and improved square wheels, comes to mind as a good starting point.

Please propose your solution. Describe it in plain & grammatically correct English where each sentence has a subject and a verb and your sarcastic mode is temporarily switched off. What is the alternative to having the SQP defined as it is now?

I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.
And I do understand in general terms you saying that BM's concept is based on a false assumption (i.e. according to you it assumes an irrational behavior of market participants).
This is where my understanding ends.

your write, their is nothing two ad too help u.  He's model is bestest.


PS
@jakub Hope the above is grammatically correct. Sorry, could not find the switch off switch for the sarcasm.
Really sorry but you obviously have not made the attempt to understand what I mean. I have put 3 times more post and explain my point from several different angles. Don't have the time to come with a 4th angle that will make it more clear for those that do not even try to understand it.

[jakub]

@tonyk, you've been asked this question before:

What are you suggesting should be changed, to make this wheel round? 

And you just replied:

Not trying to discover and/or use new and improved square wheels, comes to mind as a good starting point.

Please propose your solution. Describe it in plain & grammatically correct English where each sentence has a subject and a verb and your sarcastic mode is temporarily switched off. What is the alternative to having the SQP defined as it is now?

I've made an effort and now I can say I fully understand BM's concept of SQP but still I cannot see a major flaw in it.
And I do understand in general terms you saying that BM's concept is based on a false assumption (i.e. according to you it assumes an irrational behavior of market participants).
This is where my understanding ends.

[Tuck Fheman]

walking over your sarcastic minefield

Thanks for the lyrics! 

[tonyk]

So, you did ask it fuzz! for that.

The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was  it  kept hidden for well after launch."

But it is a great step on fuzzy's part.  You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions  - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."

@tonyk, I'm starting to think you actually enjoy being misunderstood.
From now on I'm going to be very careful when walking over your sarcastic minefield and shall not take a single word of yours at its face value.

Nevertheless, I begin to suspect that your whole point boils down to the conclusion that actually nothing is wrong with the current trading rules and you are just upset that those rules were not communicated clearly before Oct 13th.
Is this correct, tonyk?

Nope - the hiding of the new rules is indeed truly real bad element of the whole story, but the rules themselves are bad enough on their own.

So, BM claims that the 'screw the shorts' rate is there, so to have less dependency on feeds. Yet the actual number is derived by multiplying the feed price by this rate. How is this making us less dependent of feeds is beyond my ability to comprehend.

The above being the rules, this leads "to expecting the sellers to sell for less when they can sell for more" - that is according to BM's believes, "in a liquid market" he says "that's is to be expected."

 For me this is basing the market  on an expectation for illogical behavior from the market participants.

PS
The believe by BM , and I think some people around here agree with his logic, is that the bitUSD sellers [in a deep and liquid market] will compete with each other and so they will drive the price down... where I see this lacking logic is - so, they will compete for some possible but uncertain trade at lower price, when on the order book exist real available party to which they can sell? And seller at higher price? => expectations for illogical behavior by your model guys.

PSS
The whole debate, would have been more clear to more people if everybody was using the standard pricing we see in our local stores - i.e.  0.47 USD for a can of coke, corn with a price of 2usd/pound etc. But some people insist that the *right* way to express prices is "6.6808 cans of coke for 3.14USD, houses with an offer price of 4.54e-6 houses per dollar etc", so it becomes even harder to follow who is saying what....when one says higher does he really means lower, is it X/1.75  or X*1.75...

[jakub]

So, you did ask it fuzz! for that.

The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was  it  kept hidden for well after launch."

But it is a great step on fuzzy's part.  You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions  - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."

@tonyk, I'm starting to think you actually enjoy being misunderstood.
From now on I'm going to be very careful when walking over your sarcastic minefield and shall not take a single word of yours at its face value.

Nevertheless, I begin to suspect that your whole point boils down to the conclusion that actually nothing is wrong with the current trading rules and you are just upset that those rules were not communicated clearly before Oct 13th.
Is this correct, tonyk?

[tonyk]

So, you did ask it fuzz! for that.

The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was  it  kept hidden for well after launch."

But it is a great step on fuzzy's part.  You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions  - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."

[cube]

It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?

or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]

Testzcrypto on soundcloud has one.

Thanks.

For the eager ones: -

https://soundcloud.com/testzcrypto/e114-2015-10-30-developer-hangout-with-bytemaster

[tonyk]

It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?

or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]

Testzcrypto on soundcloud has one.

Thanks.

[carpet ride]

It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?

or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]

Testzcrypto on soundcloud has one.

[tonyk]

It's been 12+ hour. Any raw recordings yet?

or someone can just confirm fuzzy did not bother asking my questions.[no censorship, just the 'no time for them' excuse]