Potential BitShares Road Map for 2016

[cylonmaker2053]

trolling this message board like it's 4chan makes Bitshares look like a joke.

[cylonmaker2053]

@Erlich Bachman i regret wasting about a minute of my time reading that shit. you'd be a lot more effective stripping the emotional bs and focusing on a point.

[Akado]

Updated "others" with mt4

[Erlich Bachman]

"why are sidechains so critical to our success?"

seriously?  Did you not read a word of this thread?!!

here, let me help you:











look up:










 






where's your pride woman?!

This is BitShares!


The world outside your closed bedroom door is saying that we are not a real crypto unless our workers run a bitcoin node too.



What do you think our market cap would be if the world viewed us as a "real" crypto?

And how hard is it for our workers, who are already running a BTS node, to run a BTC node as well?



Let me try to explain this to you in a ELI5 Disney fashion OK Pinochio


You are not "real" and therefore, you will not obtain any "real" capital investment.  You may think that you are "real" but you do not posess the $30 mllion necessary to raise our market cap to profitibility.  The public has this money, but they need you to prove that you are "real" in order to give you their real money.  Just like how you need to prove to a woman that your love for her is real (if you want her to love you back) you need to prove to the market that your crypto is real. And it just so happens that it is easier for us to do this than it is for BlockShares. Why? becauae DPOS has already established some (enough) trust.   They need to develop a multisig system, we don't. Why? Because  our miners have never screwed us, and thus have proven trustworthy.  Their miners have zero history, and are by definition less trustworthy than ours. Thus our first mover advantage in this particular space. So why stop competing in this race I say, when we are already half way to the finish line?  Are we not Spartains?  Now we have the ability to effectively monetize this trust.  But we need some of our miners to run multiple nodes if we want this money. 

If your definition of "success" is increasing "market cap(ital investment)" then you. MUST convince the world that you are in fact "real". and the only truly logical way that they are saying will convince them that we have become real is for us to pay a couple miners a few extra bucks to donload the BTC blockchain and manually exchange a few "actual (not fake)" BTC for BTS (without stealing them), and just like that Pinochio, you become a real man.

Call them gateway nodes, exchange nodes, masternodes, DEXnodes. Hell, I got 1000 BTS for the most creative and inspiring answer:

SpaaaTaaaaNodes!!

TLDR : this is the most bank for your buck low lying fruit that would legitimize us among the top "real cryptocurrencies", because, your market cap will continue to suck until the point in time that you choose to become "real"

So the question is simple:

When do you want to become real? When can a worker volunteer to run multiple nodes, and how much extra will they need to be paid?



If you kids don't take this free money, then I'm leaving to join the "real" men in the BlockShares community because you obviously have no clue what awaits you outside your bedroom door. Your obvious lack of life and love experience has stunted your ability to empathize with your target market (living/loving/emotional human beings who hold the cash that you desire to "successfully" raise your market cap).  See, Pointdexter, marketing is just logical math after all.

And anyone who thinks that having the ability to trade "real BTC" is bad for the bitBTC will be floored when they see that it actually legitimizes the reputation of bitBTC as a "real cryptocurrency"

[cylonmaker2053]

Bitcoin sidechain means trading real BTC on the DEX.  Surely you see the incredible implications of that.  Then imagine adding robust BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR markets so people can trade their BTC in and out of fiat in a decentralized manner.  That's just the beginning.

As for paying yield to those who create BitAssets, @bytemaster mentioned on the last mumble that he likes the idea of paying people to lock up their BTS but that it's much more helpful if they take the next step and provide liquidity.  That's why I'm suggesting a small yield paid by the reserve pool for getting people to move funds to the DEX and create BitAssets in the first place, thereby jumpstarting activity on the DEX and making us the world's crypto fiat leader....and then using another small amount of funds from the reserve pool to incentivize a subset of the BitAsset creators to participate in a liquidity pool.  The cost is neutral to those creating BitAssets.  Actually, considering the great benefits, everyone including those not creating BitAssets should gain due to a rising BTS price.  All things considered, it seems like such a no-brainer to try this.

i can def see big value in bringing BTC and other cryptocurrencies directly into our DEX. kinda defeats the purpose of trading bitBTC then, but actual BTC would have more value than the synthetic version.

what is the reserve pool anyway? i've heard it referenced repeatedly, but how much is it, how was it accumulated, and who controls it? 

[tbone]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.

why are sidechains so critical for our success?

how would the 1% (or whatever %) be paid to those who borrow smartcoins? taken from fees in each respective market? if so, i'd support something like that and go one step further and not place a specific % yield on any asset; i'd recommend setting a % split from fees collected in each respective market. that way we're really supporting liquidity by rewarding short sellers more as transaction frequency increases, and the payment stream is robust to changing market conditions ...if transactions fall, so do payouts without breaking any other funding source.

Bitcoin sidechain means trading real BTC on the DEX.  Surely you see the incredible implications of that.  Then imagine adding robust BitUSD, BitCNY and BitEUR markets so people can trade their BTC in and out of fiat in a decentralized manner.  That's just the beginning.

As for paying yield to those who create BitAssets, @bytemaster mentioned on the last mumble that he likes the idea of paying people to lock up their BTS but that it's much more helpful if they take the next step and provide liquidity.  That's why I'm suggesting a small yield paid by the reserve pool for getting people to move funds to the DEX and create BitAssets in the first place, thereby jumpstarting activity on the DEX and making us the world's crypto fiat leader....and then using another small amount of funds from the reserve pool to incentivize a subset of the BitAsset creators to participate in a liquidity pool.  The cost is neutral to those creating BitAssets.  Actually, considering the great benefits, everyone including those not creating BitAssets should gain due to a rising BTS price.  All things considered, it seems like such a no-brainer to try this. 

[cylonmaker2053]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market.

why are sidechains so critical for our success?

how would the 1% (or whatever %) be paid to those who borrow smartcoins? taken from fees in each respective market? if so, i'd support something like that and go one step further and not place a specific % yield on any asset; i'd recommend setting a % split from fees collected in each respective market. that way we're really supporting liquidity by rewarding short sellers more as transaction frequency increases, and the payment stream is robust to changing market conditions ...if transactions fall, so do payouts without breaking any other funding source.

[tbone]

I think the bond market (i.e. margin trading) is important. But I agree with @Erlich Bachman, implementing sidechains is much more fundamental to our success i.e. more of a game-changer  If possible, I would also personally contribute to helping fund it ASAP.

I would also place a high level of priority on liquidity measures.  @abit is already working on a way to track market maker contribution to liquidity by market, which will help all assets including UIAs.  But I think BitAssets will need something more in addition.  I am very much in favor of @Empirical1.2's yield idea to achieve 3 things: 1) get people's funds onto the DEX and 2) immediately make us the world's pegged fiat leader, all by offering perhaps 1% yield for creating BitUSD, BitCNY and ButEUR and 3) incentivize participation in a liquidity pool for those same BitAssets by offering perhaps another 1% (plus market making profits) to be split among the participants of the pool.  I believe these measures will have a significant impact and will take FAR less development time than it will realistically take to complete a bond market. 

[Louis]

Excellent point Erlich. I will be willing to donate also. 

[kingslanding]

  x 100 agreement w/ Erlich. 

The sidechain meme would be a total game changer for us.  Bitshares would have a clearly defined identity it badly needs.  Marketing would be a cake walk since the whole bitshares community would have something easy-to-understand to back. Imagine the bitcoin community support we would generate.  I think it would warrant the title Bitshares 3.0.  The bond market can wait.

[Erlich Bachman]

Like I said, considering that we would not have to do all that "automated sidechaining bullshit" because we already have a "vetted trusted and easily fire-able" network of responsible miners means that it would only take a fraction of the time that it would take any other community to develop a "multisig based trust" environment.

Therefore, theoretically, we are in the lead on the sidechaining forefront, and this "lead" is ours to lose.

If you do not believe this, then how can more people buy Nubits which have more counterparty risk than bitUSD?  You cannot argue with the logic here: our customers don't want security, they want ease of use, and have been voting with their cash.  The proof is in their (Nubits) marketcap.  The market wants pegged assets and sidechaining and obviously does not care that they are accepting more counterparty risk with Nubits than they are getting with bitUSD, so why would they care that our sidechain has more counterparty risk than that of "BlockShares"?

They wouldn't (as long as the principles of math are still in effect here)

Yes, we can always improve our security (counterparty risk) profile by adopting any multisig best practices in the future, but we already have invested time and money into creating a "trusted mining network" and the "multisig" level of security is not technically necessary to create a functional product.  Therefore, it would be stupid for us to not bring a simplified sidechaining product to market. And frankly, any criticism against the counterparty risk of our sidechaining system (no multisig yet) would highlight the fact that our trusted DPOS miners have been not screwing us for years, so why should they start now?

In other words, all we have to do is pay xeroc or someone else to run a bitcoin and Ether node, and transfer bitcoins to Ether to bts, and just like that, we have the first ever:

"TRUSTED (based on the fundamental power of DPOS  to create trusted mining systems) REAL (not market pegged assets or UIA's but real Ether and BTC) DEX"

and who cares that "our Nubits" have more counterparty risk than "their bitUSD"

See, the shoe is on the other foot now so to speak.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  We are beating them at their own game.  Do unto others etc.  Do you get it?  You think that they are not taking this as a competition?  They took your marketing angle:

BLOCKSHARES?!

Seriously?

Not an ounce of originality.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then, let's give them something tangible to immitate at least!

This is one area where we don't need to be perfect in order to grab market share (not just market share, but FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGE in the "REALDEX" space!)(what's that worth?)(and thus future funding).  We are getting our best bank for our marketing buck, and I would personally donate to such an initiative.

I'm no computer expert, but I know that a streamlined system is easier to develop than one with all the bells and whistles expected from a new (BlockShares, can you believe the balls of these guys, our market obviously cares not for originality either) blockchain.

So to finally answer your question about how long it would take us to launch our "simplified sidechain system ("REAL" DEX), I can only say with confidence:

not as long as it would take to launch the complex multisig-trust based sidechain system that BlockShares is proposing

They realistically can't take our "streamlined" approach, because they are not the incumbent.  Let's leverage our historically established DPOS invention here to get some more funding!  If we are not going to leverage/use our "first mover advantage" benefits (DPOS), then what kind of game are we playing?  Do we like getting our ass kicked by an unoriginal clone of ourselves?

Well then let's step it up.

I got a day job, so I got donations.  What do you bring to the table?

[mint chocolate chip]

This sidechain idea, how long would it take to build that?

[Erlich Bachman]

I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.

I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

I completely agree, with everything except doing the bond market prior to sidechains.  BM recently stated that it would take 3 months to build the bond market (they are still debating the theoretical format/mechanism), so you know this really means "6 months" in dev-speak, and would anyone really be surprised if it took a year?

So when we finally come out with our version of sidechaining, we not only would not be first or second, we would be irrelevant.  I believe Dr. Evil here makes sense in the regard that we should be paying a couple miners to run a concurrent bitcoin node just so that we can say that you can trade "real" BTC (in addition to bitBTC).  Because, check this out, here is our major advantage:

We don't have to figure out how to do "multisig" right now simply beacause our workers are already vetted (elected) and trustworthy, and of course:

able to be voted out at a moment's notice

So you see, sidechaining is a hell of a lot easier for us to do simply because we already have a trustworthy network of miners and penalty for scamming already in place.

Tell me that you would not trust xeroc running a bitcoin node?

In fact, if you took donations just to do this project alone, I think that we could have a MVP to market in no time.

Plus, if xeroc stole someone's real BTC in a trade, then I'm sure we would vote him out, and compensate the victim through community donation just to save out share price (worst case scenario)

Yes, the security (counterparty risk) would only be to a level of that of a UIA, but you know that nobody cares, why?

Does anybody care that bitUSD counterparty risk is lower than Nubits?

Based on the fact the fact that they are kicking our ass in adoption, no, it's obvious that our market doesn't care about security, so why do the whole convoluted "multisig" thing.  They must jump this hurdle because they don't already have what we have: a network of trusted miners who for years now are still working for peanuts and have not screwed us.  This network of trusted miners is a valuable asset for this particular application, and is one that can help us bring this particular product to market faster than anybody else, and to not recognize this simple fact demonstrates extreme stupidity in our ability to market our existing products (yes our existing and trusted network is a valuable asset in this case)

So why can't we play the same game and beat them to the punch (do the same thing with more theoretical counterparty risk because it's proven that the market frankly don't give a shit about counterparty risk) the worker is already proven trustworthy, and technically, the asset is "Real" bitcoin.

I think that by overlooking the fact that we already have an established "miner trust" mechanism in place, that we already have a serious advantage of getting a MVP to market tomorrow!

[cylonmaker2053]

I am in favour of anything that strengthens the DEX though as I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.

well said, i agree. We already have products that the world doesn't yet know it needs, so i support any effect that goes towards making the products better, more readily available, and the DEX more efficient.

[Empirical1.2]

I vote that we should wait until Nubits does it first (they should be launching soon):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.msg11153629#msg11153629

"The Basics:

B&C Exchange will be an open-source decentralized exchange that completes cryptocurrency trades between users by utilizing multisig signers that compete for blockchain rewards based on their effectiveness and honesty. Trades will occur using real cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and NuBits, as opposed to artificial proxy cryptoassets like those found in BitShares."

Face it fellas, the game is over, and you lost.  You gave bitUSD to Nubits and now you are giving the DEX away, when all you had to do to become a "real crypto" in the eyes of the crypto masses was to have your miners simply run 2 chains instead of 1. Just go and build your bond market, that nobody cares about right now, and leave the spoils of victory of becoming the "first real DEX on planet earth" to the real players.

I'm not sure how soon they'll be launching, the latest update is that their most optimistic guideline is middle of the year which hinges on the work of two developers yet to be hired.

B&C Exchange is hiring two full time C++ developers.

Progress has been slower than expected because developers (most of whom had agreed to work about half time) haven't put in the quantity of hours that were discussed when the project began. Fortunately, this means little funding has been consumed, so we get another chance without needing any additional funding. The best way to resolve the issue is to simply require full time developers, so they don't have any other work competing for their time and attention. Additionally, these two full time developers won't be working on the NuBit project at all. There has been a dynamic where the shared team for B&C Exchange and NuBits tends to put more time than expected on NuBits because it is a live and operational network, which means issues tend to seem more urgent than they do for the not yet operational B&C Exchange.

Previously, the strategy had been to use the same team members that had accomplished the amazing technical feats we see in the NuBits project. This approach hasn't worked. During NuBit development, we had a team of 5 or 6 people working full time. The NuBit budget experienced an 80% reduction in funding before B&C Exchange funding was successfully obtained. So, the team was mostly disbanded. Getting funding for B&C Exchange was not sufficient to pull the team back together for a second project.

With two full time developers, a full time QA resource, most of my attention going to my architect role, and a number of veteran part time developers, the project should be well positioned to be completed the middle of this year.

I am still very confident the design of B&C Exchange is practical and viable. Major progress has been made, particularly in the form of our 4.0 RC2 build, which contains a large percentage of the features needed in B&C Exchange. The change in direction toward new full time developers is likely to bring the core software to completion in a timely manner. While there is still a good chance we will be able to complete non-core infrastructure such as a web interface with our current budget, the chances appear lower than they did a number of months ago.

Much will hinge on the quality and devotion of the developers who have yet to be hired. Active shareholders should do their best to encourage excellent candidates to reach out to me.

It's just too bad that the rest of the community is blind to the millions of dollars looking for the world's first "real" DEX

BlockShares only raised a few hundred thousand and are short of funds so I wouldn't say it's a case of people throwing money at them atm. I am in favour of anything that strengthens the DEX though as I anticipate the SmartCoin leader could easily be the overall crypto market leader in a few years.

The world is looking for a decentralized place to store the value of USD/Gold/Other that won't have negative interest rates/bail-ins/capital controls/KYC etc.

There has never been a greater time in the history of the world for what the DEX & SmartCoins can potentially offer.

So liquidity subsidy, yield subsidy (Self funding), bond market, sidechains, get BTS SmartCoins to market leader position now and stay there.