Author Topic: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time  (Read 19829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Where this conclusion that crypto traders don't like IOUs and DPOS comes from? They seem to be happily trading IOUs on centralized exchanges, completely relying on security of exchange server. Oh, boy, I don't even want to talk about how "secure" it is.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
...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.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

You 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

So all of these competitors don't have liquidity either?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
You 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
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
but 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?

I propose that all features I suggested in the OP will help with liquidity, 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.

As to what does it look like... there is a lot of information in their respective threads. Ideally, it incentivizes orders put on the book which are weighted for their duration, closeness to the price feed, and size.

As to "what would be enough"... we can make that parameter dynamic, just like Bitshares' other dynamic parameters which are changeable by committee consensus. We then start low, and gradually raise the amount until equilibrium is reached.

Another way of subsidizing liquidity is the way Nubits does it. So really, there are 3 different ways to subsidize liquidity (maker/taker; NASDAQ-based model, or Nubits-based model). Someone with a lot of knowledge on Nubits came here and claimed to be able to buy us thousands of dollars in liquidity for $9 or less a day.

"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.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline facer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: facer
but 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?
Most People is using mobile now, the most important thing is providing a mobile website or App

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

but 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.

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?

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.

You seem to know a lot about whats going on there.. hows their liquidity.. how did they solve it?
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
but 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.

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?

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.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline nmywn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons.
From my noob perspective (reading various forums all the time):
1. People don't like constant dumps at their holdings.
     "It's like someone is determined to not allow bts to rise"
2. People think bytemaster is a scammer (is he?)

I think some of the reasons are eliminated itself.

Counterparty risk is only for those who want. You can secure your holdings by keeping your funds in BTS or smartcoins and you're perfectly safe.
Trading is risk anyway.

What we need now is:
Doom of eth (in progress)
Excellent gui (in progress)
Buisnesses build on top (in progress)
Stop funding new ideas until we reach 30x marketcap and even then do it carefully  => 1. People don't like constant dumps on their holdings.
Build trust: explain like i'm five why smartcoins can't fail


Offline okidoki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
I think the most damaging i the instability which is implied by further drastic changes like Coinhoarder proposes. Leave the ecosystem alone once and for all.
People need to know that there will not be any more changes, so that they can trust the system and get used to it.

DPoS is the one of the best features BitShares has to offer... if you want a PoW Bitshares, please fork the code and make a PoWShares or whatever you want to call it... But leave BitShares alone... such changes now would kill this, for a good reason.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

but 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?

 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline bitsharesbrazil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
but 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?

arhag,

we can say dex is already decentrilized, we can create bitLTC bitETH bitBTC bit SUMO, but we dont liquidity........
Supernet is another gateway multisg. Sidechain, for me is a big thing without guarantee that people will want to lock their btc to bring a virtual btc into dex.......it does not make my mind because if they wantt to put their btc in dex in a decentrilized way, investing,they can do using smartasset, including creating smartbaskets collateralized by bts.......for me huge cost without any guarantee........n we know that smartcoins works but we do not have liquidity

exchange.assets is part of ecosystem, without gateways smartcoins cannot grow, trade n store value in a decentrilized way. of course is better to have a gateway of bitcny, bitusd...but we have to respect the stabilished ecosystem that exist right now n change it slownly.......

more exchanges using te software more fees it will generate, more development, more interest n more apreciation.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 10:07:32 pm by bitsharesbrazil »
bitcointalk ANN https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1084460.0
chat, post, promote it!!!!!!!! Stan help to improve OP!

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
but 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?


Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
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

Regardless of your opinion on PoW or dPoS, my proposal gives you liquidity and gives you traders. It gives you everything you want.

All you need to do is take a step back and look at the big picture, and forget about dPoS vs PoW for a second.
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
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 ..

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.

I am most certainly not a PoW zealot. I don't have a preference, but I am willing to admit the pros and cons of each. I see both as being useful.

For instance, a marriage of dPoS and PoW would still result in one of the biggest benefits of dPoS in the first place... energy savings. Which results in a more "green" cryptocurrency. Consider that, as proposed, dPoS will have a 40% chance to find each block and PoW will have a 60% chance. Since PoW only has a 60% chance to find the next block, it reduces the possible block subsidies won by mining by 40%. In other words, profitability of mining is decreased by 40% as compared to purely PoW cryptocurrencies. Consequently, since the overall pie is smaller, less electricity will be wasted to try and obtain it. Theoretically, this reduces the amount of electricity needed to secure the blockchain (compared to purely PoW coins) by 40%. In summary, it provides the energy savings of dPoS while maintaining the higher security against prolonged attacks of PoW.

I understand that you guys don't want any more inflation, but this is unfortunately another issue that Bitshares faces.  I just remembered that Bitshare's faces another problem... getting "new money" to participate, and getting the now larger cryptocurrency community financially vested in Bitshares. There have been a ton of newcomers since PTS/AGS/etc happened. There is a lot of money behind this "new money". It has propelled Ethereum to a billion+ evaluation, Bitcoin to highs it hasn't seen in two years, and other alt coins from near death to top 10 market capitalizations. For some reason this new money is not entering the Bitshares ecosystem. Find out why and eliminate the reasons. I think that the OP takes care of most them but we also need to get newcomers financially vested in the success of Bitshares. What better way to do this than by starting Bitshares 3.0 via an ICO AND adding the ability for future "new money" to obtain coins via PoW mining. IMO, getting more people in the cryptocurrency community vested in Bitshares' success is another key issue that Bitshares faces.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2016, 07:31:28 pm by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/ -> Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, Blogs, Etc.
https://www.cryptohun.ch/ -> Tradable Blockchain Asset PvP Card Game