Author Topic: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time  (Read 14435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline agree

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: agree
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2016, 01:23:45 am »
I'm going to start writing  articles to promote bitshares.
bts id: agree

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2016, 01:34:08 am »
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=1513568.0

BTS 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.

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

Offline Erlich Bachman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
  • I'm a pro
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2016, 01:36:15 am »
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  :P

Q: What is Bitshares positioning itself to be?a profitable DAO
A: 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 answer
You 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.

Of course, haters gonna hate, especially when he warned the Nubits / DAO fanatics about the pitfalls of GROUPTHINK!  They killed Jesus too.  Do you know what percentage of humans are actually honest? About the same percentage of the general crypto community that supports us.  Coincidence?  What DAO would you rather be a part of now?

BTS?
Lisk?
Decred?
The DAO?

The only difference currently is that we have a working (but still unprofitable) business model/product
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 06:54:27 am by Erlich Bachman »
You own the network, but who pays for development?

Offline yvv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2016, 02:15:04 am »
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!

 +5% That is correct. Saying "decentralized" is not enough to sell the DEX. We should demonstrate in practice what advantages this decentralization gives to user. It surely does, it just should be explained on practical use cases. What can you with DEX which you can't do with regular exchange?

Quote
-Ken's block POS should bring some real world smartcoin usage/liquidity.

This is questionable. Block POS project is the best project on top of bitshares imo, but this is half way for acceptance of smartcoins by merchants.  Merchants don't like crypto. It is a great pain for them in terms of taxes, regulations etc. Merchants want to receive their local fiat into their bank accounts without pain in the ass touching these crypto tokens. In bitcoin world, bitpay and coinbase are sort of gateways which help merchants to go from user's BTC into fiat. How would merchant go from user's bitUSD into their bank account? Until this problem is solved, talking about real world usage of smartcoin  is naive.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2016, 04:24:24 am »
...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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjyZKfdwlng

The point is- it is known it is definitely > 0
... other wise swing at it...
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline ag

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2016, 07:09:10 am »
No changes, no hard fork... First we need a lead developer like steem has ( Dan ) and also an economist ( Dan again? or Ned? ). Enthusiasm alone ( stan ) is not enough.  How to bring liquidity to smart coins, is maybe a question more of a re-implementation. Not so simple. steem-back-dollar is one experiment, but for what bitshares wants to do, I don't think it is ideal even, but we can look at what happens there.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 07:12:19 am by ag »

Offline innuendo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2016, 10:48:58 am »
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)

Offline lil_jay890

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2016, 11:26:59 am »
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've posted dozens of times about how to get traders. Kind of getting tired of typing it over or digging up the threads since it never seems to go anywhere...

I'll try to dig up the threads though.

Offline kokojie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2016, 01:27:43 pm »
I think PoW should no be more than 50% share of block generation, otherwise the "soul" of Bitshares is become PoW.

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2016, 02:36:48 pm »
I don't think we should be introducing POW to DPOS at all, POW is figuratively the cancer killing cryptocurrency.

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #70 on: June 28, 2016, 04:46:30 pm »
I think [member=16778]CoinHoarder[/member]'s idea to introduce PoW could make sense as a marketing ploy.  But as the primary consensus mechanism, I think it is becoming more and more clear that PoS is superior.  And PoS is increasingly being accepted within the crypto community.   After all, everyone knows ETH will be switching to PoS, and aren't all of the recent ICO projects using PoS already, including Lisk which is specifically DPoS?  We really don't need to go down this road, except maybe to have token mining for marketing purposes.  But even then, I think we have much higher priorities, namely taking steps to incentivize liquidity providers. 

Speaking of which, I think we should have a liquidity pool that shareholders can participate in and earn returns.  Returns can be funded not only by trading profits, but also by blockchain sponsored liquidity provider rewards that anyone or any entity (including the liquidity pool) can compete for. 

Also, perhaps we can introduce some form of [member=32211]Empirical1.2[/member]'s yield harvesting to simultaneously incentivize both BitAsset creation and participation in the liquidity pool.  We really need to start taking real measures to increase liquidity. 

Thank you [member=16778]CoinHoarder[/member] for helping to shine the spotlight on the critical issue of liquidity again.

Offline mike623317

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #71 on: June 28, 2016, 07:40:59 pm »
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 ([member=18687]abit[/member] ?) 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.

 +5% +5% Well said SVK. Good points.

Offline Yao

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: yao
  • GitHub: imYao
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2016, 08:45:36 am »
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)
+5%

Fix bugs first. Please!
I'm a shareholder, but now i'm more of a user, I have a bug to report here.

Have you guys used the asset's Whitelist?

Quote
WHITELISTS AND BLACKLISTS
Some 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.


us-in (an account name ) issued an asset called UIATEST , and enabled all the flags:
Quote
Require holders to be white-listed   
Issuer may transfer asset back to himself
Issuer must approve all transfers
Disable confidential transactions
and add uiatest (an account name) to the Whitelist of us-in (an account name ), then us-in sells UIATEST in the market, uiatest can buy it, usinnot a whitelist account of us-in)can buy it too, Where is the problem?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 08:50:16 am by Yao »

Offline karnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1068
    • View Profile
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2016, 10:37:50 am »
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 ([member=18687]abit[/member] ?) 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.

 +5% +5% Well said SVK. Good points.

+5%

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1903
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: Bitshares 3.0 - It Is Time
« Reply #74 on: December 28, 2016, 04:12:32 am »
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/topic,21263.0.html, and seems BM has put it into to-do list.but...
I wonder is it possible for the team to develop this without BM?
 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:04:54 am by bitcrab »