Dump Poloniex, use OPENBTC

[dannotestein]

Instant gateways like blocktrades that offer BTC -> BTS need someway to figure out what price to offer. Right now, we use the prices on the centralized exchanges that support these pairs (and other indirect paths between these two coins). But we think it would be nice if such prices could be determined from the internal DEX as well. Now perhaps one could argue that we could just value 1 bitBTC as exactly 1 BTC. Then we could use pricing of BitBTC->BTS to price BTC->BTS. But while a BitBTC tends to be near in value to a BTC, it's generally not the same, so this becomes a somewhat tricky proposition. From our point of view, it's much easier to price against something that is worth exactly 1BTC to us, and TRADE.BTC fits this bill for us (OPENBTC would also work, since we could redeem it for a BTC).

(this is academic/theoretical): To use DEX discovery, just turn off BTC -> BTS. Only do XXX to -> TRADE.XXX. Then the use goes and sells trade.xxx for BTS. This works in a liquid market, and you don't have to worry about any losses from volatility. Kind of defeats the cool "instant exchange" idea though. Once the market is liquid, you could sell BTS by an automatic BTC -> TRADE.BTC -> BTS action (when TRADE.BTC and BTS are liquid). Market makers will compete to narrow the spread, and you eliminate price discovery and losses from volatility.

Well, this is roughly accurate, but BlockTrades does that automatic BTC->TRADE.BTC->BTS type buy you're talking about (sometimes it just prices according to it, other times it does the actual buy). But it searches lots of such paths, not just this one. So it can look for a better price along complicated paths that span multiple exchanges it talks to (e.g. BTC->poloniex_BTC->poloniex_LTC->LTC->btc38_LTC->btc38_BTS->BTS). Doing this is rather difficult for a person to do, so I think there will be room for such services for some time to come.

[maqifrnswa]

Instant gateways like blocktrades that offer BTC -> BTS need someway to figure out what price to offer. Right now, we use the prices on the centralized exchanges that support these pairs (and other indirect paths between these two coins). But we think it would be nice if such prices could be determined from the internal DEX as well. Now perhaps one could argue that we could just value 1 bitBTC as exactly 1 BTC. Then we could use pricing of BitBTC->BTS to price BTC->BTS. But while a BitBTC tends to be near in value to a BTC, it's generally not the same, so this becomes a somewhat tricky proposition. From our point of view, it's much easier to price against something that is worth exactly 1BTC to us, and TRADE.BTC fits this bill for us (OPENBTC would also work, since we could redeem it for a BTC).

(this is academic/theoretical): To use DEX discovery, just turn off BTC -> BTS. Only do XXX to -> TRADE.XXX. Then the use goes and sells trade.xxx for BTS. This works in a liquid market, and you don't have to worry about any losses from volatility. Kind of defeats the cool "instant exchange" idea though. Once the market is liquid, you could sell BTS by an automatic BTC -> TRADE.BTC -> BTS action (when TRADE.BTC and BTS are liquid). Market makers will compete to narrow the spread, and you eliminate price discovery and losses from volatility.

[dannotestein]

There are a couple of reasons why we need backed assets like OPENBTC and TRAD.BTC. The main reason in my mind is price-discovery. Other reasons also exist for these type of assets such as immediate liquidity can be offered by a market maker without entering into a short position, and exchanges can move their order books more easily to the DEX this way (and in a way that fits their existing business model). But I want to focus on the price-discovery issue here.

Instant gateways like blocktrades that offer BTC -> BTS need someway to figure out what price to offer. Right now, we use the prices on the centralized exchanges that support these pairs (and other indirect paths between these two coins). But we think it would be nice if such prices could be determined from the internal DEX as well. Now perhaps one could argue that we could just value 1 bitBTC as exactly 1 BTC. Then we could use pricing of BitBTC->BTS to price BTC->BTS. But while a BitBTC tends to be near in value to a BTC, it's generally not the same, so this becomes a somewhat tricky proposition. From our point of view, it's much easier to price against something that is worth exactly 1BTC to us, and TRADE.BTC fits this bill for us (OPENBTC would also work, since we could redeem it for a BTC).

These type of backed assets are particularly important when there is no corresponding asset being traded anywhere else yet (i.e not traded on a centralized exchange or the DEX). For example, we plan to offer TRADE.MUSE in a day or so, to enable people to buy/sell MUSE. In order for BlockTrades to offer BTS <-> MUSE instant pricing, we first need a market to be established between TRADE.MUSE and BTS on the DEX.

Also, since there seems to be some confusion about who owns what, I'd like to clarify that:

1) BlockTrades owns TRADE.xxx assets. We're mainly using them to test out the transaction software we've developed and we currently plan to keep them around as a backup if OPEN assets are temporarily inaccessible (this can happen if OpenLedger server loses internet service, has a wallet problem, or even just a computer dies).

2) OPEN assets are owned by OpenLedger (which is a CCEDK brand).

3) Cryptonomex is under contract to help CCEDK to get the OpenLedger service going and improve the service over time. I'm pretty sure Cryptonomex is willing to assist other exchanges to setup similar businesses. BlockTrades is too, for that matter, as we do contract work also.

[maqifrnswa]

why openbtc trade.btc is used by exchanges instead of bitbtc?

Because the market rules only enforce one side of the peg. (I've been ranting about this for months). The only rule is 1 bitBTC >= 1 BTC.

If I'm an exchange,  and someone gives me 1 BTC, I don't want to exchange it 1:1 for something that is guaranteed to be worth more than 1 BTC. Same goes for users, I don't want to give my valuable bitBTC over to someone just to get a cheaper BTC. So I (the exchange) creates my own asset which is force pegged at 1 BTC (minus fees) because I will always give you a BTC in exchange for your XXXbtc. In that way, closed UIA are better than core assets -- they actually have a forced peg.

Once an XXXbtc is in the system, I don't know what you can do with it. Sure you can trade it for BTS, but you could have just done that instead of getting XXXBTC. And blocktrades / openledger can just convert BTS->BTC for you, no need to go through XXXbtc first. I guess if you're a high frequency trader you might save money on the DEX versus blocktrades/ccdek <-- post below me answers this, you can trade against things there are no market for yet at any other exchange -- like MUSE

[Shentist]

if anyone remember, metaexchange had in the past this pair bitBTC:BTC but not much wanted this pair anyway.

if you look on the internal exchange bitBTC is not much traded. what do you all expect.

only complaining all the time and not trading.

[fav]

The only difference between polo and openbtc at this moment is liquidity.

I'd support bitBTC though

[chryspano]

I may have this completly wrong but I think that If a major exchange decides to join OpenLedger and users start transfering thousands of btc in openledger, where will the exchange find those bitBTC's ? It's the exchange's role to be a marketmaker and start shorting in to existance bitBTC's ? or it's role is to offer the platform for traders to do so? I think that it's much easier for the exchanges to use a UIA especially in the begining when there is low liquidity. What would you do if you owned coinbase/bitstamp and you were asked to join openledger?

[Xeldal]

gateways are fine [and necessary/eesential]
as long as they provide BTC <--> bitBTC
at least as an option.

Ok, well hopefully we will see that.  I don't know why we wouldn't.  I think all these avenues are legitimate whether through X's uia or a straight conversion to any bit asset.    We will likely see them all.

[Pheonike]

The problem is who's gonna short bitbtc into existence when btc is doubling and BTS tanking.

[tonyk]

The only point here is that CCEDK /  OpenLedger / CNX or whatever you want to call them, are supporting some ass f*** UIA for btc instead of the core product - bitBTC

... and some people... unfortunately you including, are praising them for that!

I think CNX is only a temporary custodian for OpenLedger/CCEDK  , partners in a sense but I don't know the specifics of where 1 starts and the other ends.  Almost entirely separate though, is my understanding.

Are you looking to have more support for XXXBTC : bitBTC pairs or for pure bitBTC : bitXXX pairs.

Would you support  OpenBTC : BTC ?

How do we get to bitBTC if not by a gateway?

 

gateways are fine [and necessary/esential]
as long as they provide BTC <--> bitBTC
at least as an option. [they can have their OPen/semi-closed/closed  X.BTC UIAs as much as they like]

[Xeldal]

The only point here is that CCEDK /  OpenLedger / CNX or whatever you want to call them, are supporting some ass f*** UIA for btc instead of the core product - bitBTC

... and some people... unfortunately you including, are praising them for that!

I think CNX is only a temporary custodian for OpenLedger/CCEDK  , partners in a sense but I don't know the specifics of where 1 starts and the other ends.  Almost entirely separate though, is my understanding.

Are you looking to have more support for XXXBTC : bitBTC pairs or for pure bitBTC : bitXXX pairs.

Would you support  OpenBTC : BTC ?

How do we get to bitBTC if not by a gateway?

   

[tonyk]

BM in a girly voice on mumble " Margin rule are very good...bla bla bla"

BM having to short bitBTC so the blocktrades can provide liquidity. [in a very deep  voice] "Fuck this bitBTC and its impossible collateral and overall rules. we just gonna use good old UIA of our own instead".

And he called it OPEN...later  openBTC and so on.

[tonyk]

Whats the difference between CCEDK and OpenLedger?  why are these 2 exchanges?

Whats the difference between the BTC:BTS pair on CCEDK and OPENBTC:BTS?

Either one you can withdraw BTC to your wallet,  on OPENBTC:BTS you already control your BTS.

I don't really understand the over-the-top reaction against this.    Perhaps someone could coherently clarify.

I've nothing against Polo and certainly not advocating "dumping" them, in some attack or some such thing.  What are we trying to accomplish here if we can't be expected to want to use our own system? 

If its something personal for you against OpenLedger, use Trade.BTC:BTS.  I think the OP sentiment applies equally there.

What am I missing?

and there is no BTC - bitBTC pair nowhere

what do you mean by this?  BTC:bitBTC pair has been available forever on Yunbi, and noones  ever used it.

 

openBTC is CNX pretending they are not CNX and trying to sell IOUs for BTC instead of supporting bitBTC!

I'm a little slow perhaps.  I'll think about this, but I thought OpenBTC was primarily a CCEDK creation.

Maybe, I am the slow one here. "Whats the difference between CCEDK and OpenLedger? "
I do not think there is any difference.


The only point here is that CCEDK /  OpenLedger / CNX or whatever you want to call them, are supporting some ass f*** UIA for btc instead of the core product - bitBTC

... and some people... unfortunately you including, are praising them for that!

[ag]

Many of us are concerned about bitAssets. Since this feature was suppose to have BitShares rival Bank of America... once upon a time.

[Xeldal]

Whats the difference between CCEDK and OpenLedger?  why are these 2 exchanges?

Whats the difference between the BTC:BTS pair on CCEDK and OPENBTC:BTS?

Either one you can withdraw BTC to your wallet,  on OPENBTC:BTS you already control your BTS.

I don't really understand the over-the-top reaction against this.    Perhaps someone could coherently clarify.

I've nothing against Polo and certainly not advocating "dumping" them, in some attack or some such thing.  What are we trying to accomplish here if we can't be expected to want to use our own system? 

If its something personal for you against OpenLedger, use Trade.BTC:BTS.  I think the OP sentiment applies equally there.

What am I missing?

and there is no BTC - bitBTC pair nowhere

what do you mean by this?  BTC:bitBTC pair has been available forever on Yunbi, and noones  ever used it.

 

openBTC is CNX pretending they are not CNX and trying to sell IOUs for BTC instead of supporting bitBTC!

I'm a little slow perhaps.  I'll think about this, but I thought OpenBTC was primarily a CCEDK creation.