0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:1) We create the two-way peg2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.Any large-enough group of witnesses could claim to be hacked and steal all the sidechained bitcoins. This isn't possible on the network today, I mean, witnesses can't steal your BTS. Using this would be very scary for me, just because I'm trusting that 20 or 30 people won't be tempted to steal 25 million dollars that they collectively control.Another potential attack: a majority-by-votes BTS holder can vote in new witnesses for himself. Before, it was scary enough, as he could mess with our blockchain somewhat, with double-spends, etc. But with this sidechain, now he can steal all the bitcoins.Thoughts?
I've put some thought into a bitcoin sidechain peg. One major challenge: it turns Bitshares into a high-trust environment. Here's why:1) We create the two-way peg2) Various users transfer a large amount, for example 25000 BTC, onto the BTS chain3) Those bitcoins are held in the BTC chain, controlled by Bitshares witnesses in case of "withdrawal request"4) This creates a huge bounty for witnesses to go rogue and steal the bitcoins.
I've discussed it with several community leaders over the past few months. It's one I'd like to see happen in the coming year - no promises yet.
the lightest idea here is to introduce real asset to trade in DEX.in other words, to connect Bitshares and Bitcoin via sidechain.the topic has been discussed deeply in https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php, and seems BM has put it into to-do list.but...I wonder is it possible for the team to develop this without BM?
Quote from: svk on June 27, 2016, 11:00:59 amI appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important. Well said SVK. Good points.
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.
Guys, before you even consider doing anything, just do those two little things which are really obvious:- Make the GUI finally free of bugs (Yes, there are still terrible bugs in the GUI - no errors show up but the UI often gets stuck and needs to be reloaded in the browser)- Upgrade the website to make it look like you actually want a new user to try out your product(Yes, when you sell some software it's usually a good idea to show a screen-shot)
WHITELISTS AND BLACKLISTSSome 3rd party service providers may want to select which customers are allowed to hold their assets , e.g. after verified their identity for KYC/AML. Those services can use so called whitelists (or, alternatively, blacklists) of their assets that will prevent unauthorized participants to use this particular asset.In BitShares 2.0, account names (life-time members only) and also user-issued assets have their individual whitelists. Hence, if you issue an IOU on the blockchain, you can define who can hold and trade your tokens, if you wish.User whitelists on contrast can be used by independent KYC/AML providers to state proper verification. An asset issuer may then use those providers to oursource identity verification completely.
Require holders to be white-listed Issuer may transfer asset back to himselfIssuer must approve all transfersDisable confidential transactions
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pmQuote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pmbut disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?Great.. we need liquidity... how?maker/taker rewards? What does that look like? What would be enough to attract traders? How much liquidity is enough liquidity?
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pmbut disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have. Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
but disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.
Quote from: tonyk on June 27, 2016, 11:35:43 pmQuote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 10:55:18 pm...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.What made you change your mind? Last I remember you considered the tonyk's proposal a total pile of BS? Anyway that proposal is a no go in this community - the proposal has as its essence using the true (even if lower) valuation of its shares... as it has became crystal clear since then at least 90% of this community prefers - made up, artificial centralized some might call it Ponzi-like schemes where one gets money out of thin air granted by centralized god like whales... the community is apparently great at prizing endlessly such phony schemes so the masters can drop/grant them a few (printed by those masters themselves btw) steeeming pennies.2b -subsidizing liquidity - is indeed the true needed step... but then again instead of this being done months ago...it was not... all the effort of this community went in supporting the crazy balloon called steem.... The lack of desire for this badly needed element to be implemented speaks volumes.If there was subsidized offering for traders to be rewarded, what level of reward would be enough to make you want to trade on the dex?
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 10:55:18 pm...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.What made you change your mind? Last I remember you considered the tonyk's proposal a total pile of BS? Anyway that proposal is a no go in this community - the proposal has as its essence using the true (even if lower) valuation of its shares... as it has became crystal clear since then at least 90% of this community prefers - made up, artificial centralized some might call it Ponzi-like schemes where one gets money out of thin air granted by centralized god like whales... the community is apparently great at prizing endlessly such phony schemes so the masters can drop/grant them a few (printed by those masters themselves btw) steeeming pennies.2b -subsidizing liquidity - is indeed the true needed step... but then again instead of this being done months ago...it was not... all the effort of this community went in supporting the crazy balloon called steem.... The lack of desire for this badly needed element to be implemented speaks volumes.
...but if you have to narrow it down... I would choose 2a (tonyk's proposal), 2b (subsidizing liquidity), and 2d (temporarily have no trading fees until sufficient liquidity is reached). You could even add in maker taker fees, but is is kind of redundant with subsidizing liquidity. You could do it either way... maker/taker or subsidizing liquidity.
low hanging fruit:-Short term we need to remind the crypto crowd how un transparent 3rd party exchanges are. They do not grasp the concept about having gateways competing for your business, instead of users going to specific exchanges. Your always in control of your investment!
-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.
Again, the first step is admitting you have a problem. That is the hardest hurdle. I can see most of you cannot admit/realize that these are all huge problems Bitshares faces. I see a lot of groupthink, which is unfortunate for the future of Bitshares. Don't shoot me- I am the messenger. Unlike most of you, I spend 98% of my time in the greater cryptocurrency community- not sequestered in Bitsharesland and Steemitland. I have conversed and debated with many people that do not use Bitshares over the past 2 years, mainly on the Bitcointalk forums (where I have 3.3k+ posts.) These issues always come up as being the reason why people don't like or use Bitshares. what issues? "Groupthink?"big deal we all agree that POW is wasteful and we hate counterparty risk hence the smartcoin love. And please tell me that you have never heard a Friday morning discussion where any and all conflicting viewpoints are discussed in real time week after week. Have you met Fuzzy? What Bitshares has is a unique product that is different than the greater crypto group. You think we suffer from "groupthink" then you need to meet the Ethereum/DAO community man. I'm sorry, but I think that iconoclast is the term you are looking for. Say what you will about how your strategy is working and liquidity will improve (I would refer you to the scoreboard... the value of the BTS token). who exactly are we competing with in the smartcoin market again? I absolutely love this BTS price Say what you will about dPoS (the antagonists will continue to write Bitshares off because of it). So you think that if we had POW and smartcoins, then the bitcoin world would be beating a path to our door, but because we have 2 major mind blowers (dPoS and smartcoins) then nobody believes we exist. That is a valid point, especially after Ethereum just publicly displayed the dark side of hard forking. I tell you what would make people trust dPoS though, is if someone got a bunch of coins stolen, and the BTS was not only unwilling to hard fork to re-secure the funds, but "unable" to. This is the downside to DPOS: it is "forkable" and because of this, how can we ever claim true immutability. Ethereum can never claim immutability and even though we may never ever roll back the blockchain, we still "could" based on the mechanisms in place. So in essence, we trust the integrity of our community and most crypto heads don't want to ever have to trust a community, and those who do, are already happy at home in the Ethereum Proof of Vitalik world. The fact that Dan has let go of his control over this coin to start more projects is the next best thing for BTS immutability than switching to an expensive POW scheme. Also, is it even possible to achieve our current level of speed and scalability that we have all grown accustomed to with POW? I doubt it. Say what you will about OpenLedger solving all of Bitshares problems (but remember the whole point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties and IOUs). Say what you will about Smartcoins (some people will always prefer to hold/trade the tokens of the real assets).OK, so not everyone is going to love smartcoins. So?I am having "deja vu". I gave a similar talk to the Litecoin cryptocurrency community in 2014. At the time, they were #2 on coinmarketcap and at the top of the alt coin food chain. Their problem was that Litecoin lacked any innovation compared to most other newer cryptocurrencies. It was, and still is to this day, being propped up by its network effect. I begged and pleaded that they break rank with Bitcoin (stop copying it code line for code line) and branch out on its own innovative path. Then, Ethereum came along and surpassed Litecoin by a wide margin and it is now valued at over a billion dollars. I knew innovation would eventually win out, as relying on network effects can only get you so far. Two years later, my prediction is starting to take place and Litecoin has reverted to the #4 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap. Is the same thing going to happen with Bitshares? If it does, then maybe people will start to listen to me when I give "the talk" to a 3rd cryptocurrency community... whoever that may be in the future. lol Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?a profitable DAOA: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange.Q: Who uses cryptocurrency exchanges?A: The cryptocurrency community.In order for a cryptocurrency exchange to be successful, it must have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. At this time, Bitshares does not have the general support of the cryptocurrency community. Who cares? We don't need to dominate the cryptocurrency landscape to be profitable, all we need is a small percentage of the whole, and suddenly, we are not only the world's first DAO, but the world's only profitable DAO.Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares. It always comes up when anyone mentions Bitshares on Bitcointalk. PoS is considered as being less secure than PoW, and for good reasons (of which I don't care to diving into.) Implementing a PoW hybrid would be a way to appease these types of people in the cryptocurrency community that have written Bitshares off based solely on the fact it is secured by dPoS.This is true, but again, can we afford to spend money to change our consensus mechanism and bear the performance degradation that comes with such a change just to offer the more security? I would not know how to quantify the potential, but I suspect that Dan could give an accurate answerYou guys also don't seem to get the need for drastic liquidity measures. It is a chicken and egg problem if you continue down the same road, and therefore sufficient liquidity/depth will never be reached. Where Bitshares is headed is a dead end, and someone will come along and eat Bitshares' lunch. That is guaranteed.Possibly, but our smartcoin competitor you speak of will have 1000 TPS max with 20 second block times and a halving date that will suddenly make all miners unprofitable at the current price, just to theoretically offer a little more security. Bring em' on I say, I could use a good laugh. My bitUSD cares not the price of BTS or any crypto to for that matter. Another reason people don't like the DEX are the inherent weaknesses with Smartcoinswhat? Please elaborate.., and maybe you guys don't get that either? nope, like I said, my bitUSD never loses value ever.Reliance on trusted third parties is not the solution (open ledger, meta exchange, etc), as the point of a DEX is to eliminate trusted third parties. Supernet and B&C Exchange will trade the REAL assets... not smartcoins and not open ledger IOUs. Maybe you all fail to see how this is a huge advantage when it comes to competition against DEXs? open.BTC, meta.BTC, etc, should be a means to an end, not the solution as you guys are hoping it will be. IOUs will always be IOUs, and suffer the inherent shortcomings that all IOUs do.Then, of course, there is the huge dislike of Larimer & Co. throughout the greater cryptocurrency community.
You own the network, but who pays for development?
As an active trader, I do not see fee's as being an issue holding back others from trading.I started this thread on btctalk to get some additional input. Many people claim the wallet is overly complicated. People have a hard time grasping btc, yet bts is bringing so much more to the table. Many do not know how smart coins keep the peg, others have no idea about being able to withdraw/deposit straight from the wallet utilizing a gateway etc... I would use the dex even more if there was liquidity however at this point in time I can not get away from 3rd party exchanges completely.https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1513568.0BTS goes after many different target markets, thus we should focus how to attract these specific users.low hanging fruit:-Short term we need to remind the crypto crowd how un transparent 3rd party exchanges are. They do not grasp the concept about having gateways competing for your business, instead of users going to specific exchanges. Your always in control of your investment!-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.
Quote from: xiangxn on June 27, 2016, 05:35:27 amWhy not use BTS to IPO?Then assets within the disc tokens for IPOI agree, any IPO should be done on the BTS 2.0 network. The initial distribution of Bitshares 3.0 could be derived from that distribution of BTS 3.0 tokens issued on Bit shares 2.0Worst case scenario, it provides short term buy pressure to the BTS token. Best case scenario... BTS 3.0 takes off like Ethereum, and shareholders are content with the equity reduction based on evaluation increase of the BTS 3.0 token.If you antagonists are correct, Bitshares 2.0 will beat out Bitshares 3.0 in the market. Otherwise, Bit shares 3.0 will beat out Bit shares 2.0, and you may not get such a pleasant share drop. Someone will eventually come along and do what I am proposing.
Why not use BTS to IPO?Then assets within the disc tokens for IPO
I know this has been discussed in other threads which I can not find, however what is/was the reasoning for having all the gateway specific assets? Why can they not just use BitBTC and charge a fee on deposit or withdraw?
Before joining Bitshares I took a look at supernet/next, nubits....n choose bts......if bts model cannot made it no one can.I dont have the answer to increase liquidity in a faster rate.....but if big guys have contacts with some market maker maybe you will get some answers n see what they want/need to make it happen so we can focus on what is needed to be tweaked, if any, to make it happen, if a great market maker demands money to make it happen lets pay, I will gladly pay for a worker that puts a strong volume in smartcoins.
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on June 27, 2016, 10:48:46 pmYou seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?B&C is still in development... vaporware at this point.Supernet's assets cannot be traded in the main Supernet client yet, but the multi-wallet part is done. Supernet is IMO has a very slick GUI. It takes about 15 seconds to install, and you can store/send 7 different cryptocurrencies in one wallet. It is easy and fast to try it... just copy/paste and throw away the private seed (unless of course you want to try it out). I have tried out the multi-coin send and receive feature, and it works as advertised. https://github.com/Tosch110/SuperNET-Lite-3/zipball/master
You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?
"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider. The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers. The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account. They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity, while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.
Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pmQuote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pmbut disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have.Exactly.Quote from: arhag on June 27, 2016, 08:23:41 pmMultisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?They both use multisignature addresses.Supernet's setup is pretty basic and less secure IMO. The way I understand it, they only use 3 signers spread across 3 servers. They are simply assets on the Nxt exchange utilizing multisignature addresses. Their GUI wallet is super spiffy/lightweight/gorgeous though, and the exchange is functional and works, so they are still a competitor. They need to work on their exchange's GUI, because for now it just runs on Nxt's exchange GUI which is quite ugly.B&C's design implements multisig addresses as well, except that it uses a reputation-based system in which an arbitrary number of participants compete for blockchain rewards- based on their effectiveness and honesty. I think it is similar to dash's Masternodes... they put up a deposit of B&C tokens to become a signer, lose the deposit if they are not honest, and are incentivized to remain honest. That is just from memory the way I understand it anyways. I am having trouble finding the whitepaper... there has been a lot of drama going on in the Nubits/B&C Exchange camp, but even among the drama there seems to be a realization that B&C has a pretty good design for a DEX using real assets.There is a 40 page thread on Bitcointalk in the Bitcoin Development section that goes over B&C Exchange in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1033773.0 and also information on Nubit's forums.I think we should let the free market decide whether they want to trade Smartcoins, Exchange IOUs, or the real assets. We should not play as puppet master, and doing away with exchange IOUs is one of the huge benefits of DEXs. Don't let the special interests of OBITS/METAX be the death of Bitshares! Someone will come and do it anyways, and it is better to have a piece of the pie. In this industry, you need to innovate or eventually die. There is no inbetween.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:56:23 pmbut disdain for idea #1 should not be a reason to write off the other ideas.Absolutely. Bootstrapping liquidity is very important. And for the DEX to actually be decentralized, we really need something better than OPEN.X assets which have all the counterparty risk that centralized exchanges have.
Multisig sidechains are one way of solving that. Can you explain what the SuperNext and B&C Exchange model for solving the counterparty risk problem is?
For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons.
PoW is shit, thought we got over this debate months ago on a more serious note, what BTS needs is liquidity and traders - everything else is secondary
Quote from: xeroc on June 27, 2016, 06:29:42 pmThe only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..Also the PoW implementation in Steem doesn't even gain any of the pros of PoW that CoinHoarder is concerned about. It is entirely a marketing gimmick so that irrational PoW zealots [1] don't automatically dismiss it because it isn't PoW. [1] CoinHoarder, I am not calling you that, since you seem to have weighed the pros and cons and analyzed it critically (you just seem to have different values than me on what is important for you to come up with a different conclusion). But the vast majority of cryptocurrency PoW enthusiasts don't have the skills to actually analyze consensus mechanism critically and they just follow the herd blindly.
The only difference for steem that justifies the small additional pow is to capture a large initial community. Steem depends on its community way more than BitSahres. The target audience for BitShares are TRADERS ..
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 06:11:59 pmAll consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.I know the pros and cons. I have carefully weighed the pros and cons. And the optimal solution to me is crystal clear.There are plenty of PoW coins out there for people if they personally believe PoW wins over DPoS in the pro/con analysis. I would hate to see BitShares lose one of its defining features that makes it so great in my opinion. The good thing is I am pretty sure this community overwhelmingly sees it the same way.
All consensus mechanisms have both, pros and cons. You guys are focusing on dPoS's pros, meanwhile forgetting the cons of dPoS and the pros of PoW.The main issue with dPoS (and all other forms of PoS) is that an attack can be maintained indefinitely at no to little cost once 51% is reached. The same cannot be said for PoW, because of the costs of electricity to maintain an attack.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 05:28:37 pmMaybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.I realize it, but they are wrong. If they are ignorant about the benefits of DPoS over PoW, then we can try to educate them. But if they refuse to listen to reason (which so far seems to be the case), then that's unfortunate. We have created the internal combustion engine, and you are asking us to go back to horse and buggy because that is what some of the people in the cryptocurrency crowd are comfortable with. I refuse.My hope is some of them wake up after fully realizing that even Ethereum is switching from PoW to PoS and that it isn't going to be some security disaster.
Maybe you all have spent too much time sequestered in this community to realize this, but dPoW is a big reason why a lot of cryptocurrency users have written off Bitshares.
I appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it.
I agree that liquidity is the most important thing we need to get going in order to increase the BTS toke value... I think it can be done in a less aggressive way than what the OP is suggesting.We need to focus on forex traders. This is the demographic that the Dex is geared toward already. There is a common belief that we need microscopic fee's to entice traders. That's not true. Traders demand liquidity and are HAPPY to pay a fee as long as there accounts are secure and there orders are filled immediately. A fee of .10-.25 per filled trade is so small a trader wouldn't even blink an eye. @Empirical1.2 has had a few good posts about increasing liquidity.If we are able to increase liquidity on a few smartcoins then traders will come. Once the traders start trading, bts will finally be generating a profit. By generating a profit BTS becomes more like a company and its shares become more attractive. Speculators enter the system and buy BTS while also trading and dabbling within the system therefore creating more liquidity for smartcoins. More liquidity means more traders means more fees means more profit means higher BTS price. It's a circle and can be done without a hardfork.I do agree with some here, that a hardfork snaphshot that changes the supply would be the death knell for BTS.
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.
Quote from: svk on June 27, 2016, 11:00:59 amI appreciate the effort put into the OP, but I have to disagree with most of it. The one thing I do agree with is point 2: the liquidity proposals. I do think some kind of liqudity incentives need to be implemented, but we probably need some more discussion and some concrete proposals by developers able to implement them (@abit ?) before we decide what to do here.Otherwise, I'm happy to finally see some stability in terms of features for Bitshares, and will not support any kind of 3.0 involving a change in the supply or IPO. We now have Ronny from Openledger stepping up to support development of the GUI, and many other projects taking advantage of the recent stability of BTS, let's not jeopardise that.I also have no problems whatsoever with DPOS as the consensus model, it's been working very well and there's no point changing it if you ask me. While implementing a queued mining system like Steem has might be possible, I don't really think it's worth the effort. Mining will slowly disappear from crypto if you ask me so we would be adding support for a legacy, wasteful, soon-to-be obsolete system. Keep in mind I'm not saying it will disappear soon here, but over time I think it will become less and less important.I can see merits from mining when it comes to building a "community" .. In Steem, the whole platform DEPENDS on a community, while in BitShares, the platform depends on business partners, traders and liquidity .. That's why I agree with svk that mining BTS (compromising max supply) makes no sense for BTS.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 01:37:37 amOK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:20:13 amCoinhoder,I will give my input.Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.I would argue Bitshares as we know it today is only 8 months old.. when 2.0 came out it was a giant rest button really. Since then refooting to gain liquidity into the network has taken place. Due to some of the changes some has been lost.I like some of your suggestions. I understand the idea of appealing to crypto folk and it makes sense in certain ways.You are proposing we hit the rest button again.. but with no real serious innovation to justify it. At present Steem is going through an experiment that may lead to solving the liquidity problems we see in bitshares today. We are not very far from seeing what the results of that experiment yield, and I would rather see that before making any kind of clear cut plans. I agree that liquidity is needed, and various projects are actively creating ways to produce that. BlockPOS through merchant adoption for example. Peerplays through online tournament wagering. Openledger with ICOO and all the other projects that make up the pyramid of the decentralized conglomerate.. and so on. There are other projects in the making as well that are not publicly discussed that plan to introduce solutions to liquidity as well, like Freedom Ledger. There is the bitCASH wallet, there is Echo... list goes on. I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago. I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point. Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.I like to hear more ideas on creating liquidity though.. its a good discussion to have.
OK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:20:13 amCoinhoder,I will give my input.Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.
Coinhoder,I will give my input.Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on June 27, 2016, 01:37:37 amOK, I am pretty much done with the OP pending any other thoughts jumping into my head (or feedback from replies).Quote from: bitsharesbrazil on June 27, 2016, 01:20:13 amCoinhoder,I will give my input.Bitshares model is pretty stable.......n is innovative by itself......what bitshares have we can call it 3.0, 4.0....whatever......Too much people looking for problems because a lot ofcoins had huge pumps n Bitshares "only" made 50% in the last few days.....I follow a lot of data about bitshares n other projects n can safely say bitshares can explode at any time, it will, it has everything needed to make crypto scene shake hard. be patient about ROI.This reasoning was not developed based on the past 3 days of market indications, but instead from a year and a half of market indications, and two years worth of many discussions/debates with Bitshares' antagonists on Bitcointalk.No offense, but the lazy mantra of "Bitshares will explode at any time" and "Liquidity will increase with adoption" has been used for two years with no to little effect. It is time to take matters into our own hands, and realize there are issues with Bitshares that we need to fix.I agree with 2) without it it will go nowhere....does not mater if we have more n more stuff n new things.....work on what can improve liquidity n adoption is a must...I will take a look at those topics, thanks for input.
about 3 Im not convinced that more money is the problem here, would be great for sure, but we should make something sustainable n useful without focusing too much about creating new things......in my opinion we should focus pretty much about people use what we have, because hide behind development on somenthing is pretty much what factom maid n others do.....but do they will delivery something useful n needed for crypto world?
I don't think bastardizing dpos really provides any value aside from making those that invested thousands in mining equipment happy they got another coin to attempt to get their investments back. Believe me, I know the feeling.While going the ICO route sounds like the latest gravy train to get on, I think it would be particularly challenging for Bitshares. Frankly, anybody can do this.. doesn't need the community to do it.. and the market will decide afterwards.. as bytemaster himself said a few months ago.
I think as long as everyone executes and completes the projects they are working on to take to market, you are going to see our liquidity issues reach a tipping point and no longer be an issue. Look at our transaction volume... its slowly but surely increasing. That is the right direction we want to see.. its just a matter of like @bitsharesbrazil already said.. we just got to be a little patient and just keep doing MORE of what we are doing to reach that tipping point.
Also.. from a value proposition perspective as a reboot ICO offering... the optics of doing an ICO for Bitshares right now would go TERRIBLY bad... as a matter of fact.. I am certain it would be the death blow for Bitshares market cap. It has to do with how messaging is currently handled that would inevitable lead the ICO into a very bad place. Again I say though, anybody could do it if the choose too.
The only major issue with bitshares right now is volume.We need to concentrate on making openledger a great centralised exchange first by focusing on the OPEN.BTC trade pairs. When Openledger has good volumes and people actually use it instead of poloniex we can then think about how to make the BITUSD market deeper.
Who is Bitshares target market? Investors, businesses, individuals, to use the dex?Will changing the algorithm bring non crpyto people to actually use the dex? I'm not sure the average person cares to understand how the back end works.