Author Topic: BitUSD used to buy artistcoins?  (Read 15282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.
They are user issued assets.

bitUSD is a bitAsset what's your point ? Besides we still don't know how artiscoin will work

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile

artistcoins are not bitAssets , aka are not collectivized by the shares of the music DAC.
They are user issued assets.
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).

The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.


Makes a lot of  sense :) !!  The marketing department will need to switch  in high gear to defend the fundamentals of bitAsset,   first we will need to have strong, solid and steady  bitAssets market going already with different DAC. That's why DNS and Music are very important in the ecosystem this will confirm that the whole idea of bitAssets and DAC is working as is supposed too. If all this happens then you can talk about financial revolution. Yes we are almost  there  we can smell it but let's be careful please, let's not screw this thing with trivialities. 
« Last Edit: September 11, 2014, 03:47:44 am by oco101 »

Offline arhag

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

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Anyone holding BitAssets on a particular DAC is still exposed to the risk of that DAC failing. If you think the DAC is too new, risky, or small in market cap, then don't keep a lot of BitAsset value on the DAC until it proves itself. Think of the DACs like banks and exchanges that also have some other value added service on top. You want to keep your dollars in that bank because you can use them to pay for the additional services that bank provides. But if you don't need to have a lot of money around to pay for services in the near future, you would probably prefer to move them to a more reliable bank that everyone else uses (BitShares X).

The important thing we need to make clear from a marketing perspective is that just because a small crappy DAC fails and some people lose their BitAsset value on that particular DAC (which there is a good possibility of happening sometime in the future) that doesn't mean the BitAsset concept is flawed or that the BitAssets on a reliable large DAC like BitShares X are in any danger.

If every DAC can have their own bitUSD,  how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?

Network effect. In theory we could have a BitShares X clone for every city. This splits the market cap over many different DACs rather than unifying it into one (BTSX). While that does make things more scalable, it is also very annoying. Someone might keep most of their wealth in their home city DAC, get paid a salary in their workplace city DAC, and if they are visiting a neighboring city they need to move their money from the other DACs into yet another DAC to pay the merchant in the neighboring city. Moving money from one DAC to another using cross-chain trading is inconvenient and could even add up in costs. For convenience, people will tend to centralize to one particular DAC if it can handle the transaction volume. BitShares X (by virtue of being the first DAC designed for that purpose) can be that one DAC we all congregate around. Once the network effect is built around it (merchants set up the BTSX client software to receive payments, employers set up the BTSX client software to pay workers, people install the BTSX client software and amass their savings on the BTSX DAC) it will be too difficult for just another clone DAC to take away that spot from BTSX.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 09:15:31 pm by arhag »

Offline 麥可貓

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
    • View Profile
I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.

If every DAC can have their own bitUSD,  how is BitSharesX exchange better than other DAC?
PTS: PmRVDPymZqSAZEXauHZSewrUrE66af7epT
BTSX: michaelcat
Delegate Team: x1.sun  x2.sun

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile
Ok the conclusion is we need bitUSD issued on Bitshare Music AND DNs that is the most elegant solution, then we can cross chain trade all we want :)

 

I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.


This is the scary part, how you gonna control cloning "to much" ?   People will clone and launch shitty DAC that will have their own  bitUSD that could very well not peg well, and this will for sure will hurt the whole DAC ecosystem very badly. We are not there yet but those times will come.

Offline cob

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: cobb
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:

Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.

1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com

I would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value.

So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service. 

You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.

3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains.

4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.

I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.

There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.

Quality post right here!

This is especially well put.

Quote
My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I am eagerly awaiting ALOT more information about cross chain trading .. especially considering the fact that peerTracks can control 51% of the delegates in bitshares MUSIC they could short bitUSD to them selfs against notes for almost free setting a proper price feed through their delegates ... or am I wrong?

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
To issue "BitUSD" backed by "notes" (as collateral) on Bitshares Music blockchain(or any other DACs besides BTSX) is a BAD idea:

Having BitAssets on different blockchains and using atomic cross-chain trading is the brilliant solution to blockchain scalability. The alternative is to have everything on a single blockchain (Ethereum style) and burden everyone with validation costs for every single DAC idea people come up with. That just doesn't scale well. While trading BitAssets does not allow for communicating other types of useful information between independent blockchains, it does allow communicating value transfer, which I would say is the most important information for DACs.

1. The fundamental basis for BitUSD market peg is the community consensus that BitUSD could be used/accepted as fiat USD by massive merchants, market, public. The blockchain inside market mechanism is a tool to kick off the loop and a place to reflect the community consensus from beginning. BTSX has almost proved that the blockchain inside mechanism works but need much more time to grow up to achieve the real/solid market peg. So even if btsx backed BitUSD works well, does not mean that "notes" backed "BitUSD" could work since "notes" backed "BitUSD" is a new thing to market and will have little market depth in internal market and no merchants acceptance except for peertracks.com

I would tweak that to say the fundamental basis for the BitAsset market peg is the idea that people didn't get something for nothing. If I have a DAC with market rules that allow me to print as much FakeUSD as I want without restriction, the rest of society will consider FakeUSD to be worthless. On the other hand if everyone had to provide 1 USD worth of value to society in order to get 1 FakeUSD, then people might consider FakeUSD to have about the same value as a real USD. BitAssets achieve this. It create a system where I am forced to lock up 1 USD worth of BTSX, in order to print 1 BitUSD. I cannot get back the 1 USD worth of BTSX that has been locked up until I destroy my 1 BitUSD. As long as BTSX has value and we avoid black swan events, the theory is that people should value BitUSD as the same as a USD. Nothing in this theory requires that you actually need to be able to spend the BitUSD for goods/services (although that is what gives BTSX value in the first place). As long as you can trade it (or the DAC shares backing it) for something else of value that you can spend, then the BitUSD should maintain its value.

So as long as there is some reason to value the core shares of the DAC, I see no reason why the same theory cannot be applied to other blockchains. Notes have some value (not sure how valuable they will really end up being though) because they make the BitShares Music service possible which allows people to profit off of music sales, and the DAC collects fees from users of this service. 

You do have a valid point about the market depth for the Notes / BitUSD exchange though. This may or may not mean the peg for BitAssets on BitShares Music will not be as strong as the one for BitShares X. I think that is a good reason for why DACs should not clone too much. Some amount of cloning/diversification is necessary to provide new, interesting services without having scalability issues. On the other hand, too much and you split the market which could hurt the peg and even hurt DPOS security.

2. If other DACs have their own "BitUSD", what's the value/meaning of BTSX? Other DACs have same internal BitAssets market and even additional function like Music/DNS/Play.

3. This another "BitUSD"("notes" backed "BitUSD") will confuse merchants/public and make them concern about that if BitUSD is fungible or not. We could imagine that people will question about the difference between two(or more) kinds of "BitUSD" and how difficultly we try to "educate" them that all of these "BitUSD" could peg to fiat USD and they have equal value which is not exactly true since they are backed by different collateral and blockchains.

4. Due to item 2&3 above, the additional "BitUSD" will debase the value of BTSX and the whole Bitshares DACs ecosphere and even the concept of BitAssets.

I think you are correct that splitting BitUSD over different DACs might reduce the value of BTSX compared to having all of the BitUSD on the BitShares X blockchain. But the scalability benefits and the ability to experiment with different DAC ideas without burdening existing blockchains will bring much greater value to the ecosystem as a whole in my opinion.

There is still a strong network effect promoting people to keep most of their money in one chain (BitShares X). Cross-chain trading is inconvenient. People want to be able to have the money ready to go if they need to spend it for some good/service. So keeping most BitUSD (and other BitAssets) on BitShares X means that a consumer can easily pay a merchant for a good/service, and that merchant can later use that money to pay their workers and other expenses. If everyone is on the same chain, people do not need to bother with cross-chain trading which may cost them some small fees to carry out the trade. My guess is that BitShares X will keep the BitAssets meant for spending on "real world" goods/services, while BitAssets on other DACs will be kept only to pay for that DAC's "digital" services. This way DACs would all accept the BitAssets on their own blockchain for payment of services (they have to), but everyone else in the real world would still accept the BitShares X BitAssets for payment (so there shouldn't be any confusion).

Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

It is a hard problem and I think different chain BitAssets with atomic cross-chain trading is the best solution. I do have an idea of how it could be done without this, but I think it is a inferior solution. It requires converting BTSX into a meta-DAC that still holds and exchanges BitAssets but also manages the shares and delegates of other DACs, and it requires trusting that all of the DAC's delegates do not ever collude to steal the BitAsset reserves of the DAC (stored on the meta-DAC blockchain). Since there could be a considerable amount of money stored in the DAC's reserve, there is a much greater incentive for the delegates to all discard their future delegate income and instead take the money and run. In addition, I think it still creates a bit too much blockchain bloat on the meta-DAC. So, overall I don't think it is a great idea compared to the existing solution.

Offline bytemaster

I strongly support having   CHAIN-BitUSD on every chain out there including DNS.  It is a HUGE value add that allows people to hedge without leaving the chain and facilitates cross-chain trading by eliminating the bid/ask spread.  You just trade it a par value.

It is no more confusing than having GoxUSD and BitstampUSD and BTC38_USD.   It is a core feature that all DACs should have.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Cross chain trading does not help . In cross chain trading  you change bitUSD for notes.  So say if I want to transfer 1 bitUSD to Bitshare Music you'll end up with notes that are worth 1$. If you want bitUsd from Bitsharex then you need bitUSDmusic on the bithsare music blockhain.
My understanding was that I can simply send bitUSD from BitSharesX into my bitUSD account on BitShares Music.. without going over Notes or BTSX!

Offline oco101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
    • View Profile

Regarding tech feasibility for taking BTSX's BitUSD and allowing shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain, to my knowledge of crypto blockchains, I do believe it's viable and the real question is how efficient compare to have Music's BitUSD and what does them mean to the big picture

Yeah but how ??


Cross chain trading does not help . In cross chain trading  you change bitUSD for notes.  So say if I want to transfer 1 bitUSD to Bitshare Music you'll end up with notes that are worth 1$. If you want cross chain trade bitUsd from Bitsharex to music then you need bitUSDmusic on the bithsare music blockhain.

When  a user is putting 20$ in his account 2 months later  he needs to find the same value in his account. How he will do that without bitUSD collateralize in notes ?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 06:14:00 pm by oco101 »

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
If they aren't pegged pefectly then someone will take a loss or they won't trade 1:1.

I think it is good to have tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I do not really understand how to "tightly controlled low-cap markets for bitassets outside btsx". Is there any hardcoded constraints? Otherwise I do not think it could be controlled as low-cap.
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline yidaidaxia

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Get your brains problem solving guys!

We REQUIRE a volatility free currency for our NON CRYPTO NERD customers. People shopping for that new Arctic Monkeys album and NOT there to day trade crypto-currency. This can't be stressed enough.

Our solution so far is: the BitUSD.

If anyone has any other proposition, one that would reach our goal of customer satisfaction / good user experience, then spit it out.

If you know of a way to take BTSX's BitUSD and allow our shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain with it, then we are all ears.

So far the only solution to the volatility problem is a BitUSD, whatever it's collateralized with. Let me know what solutions you guys come up with.

I believe everyone on this thread know about the needs for volatility free currency for Bitshares Music and its customers. All the discussion is based on trying to have a solution for Bitshares Music with BitUSD to meet this demand. Just want to let community know(or, at least, discuss) that we need to keep BitUSD collateralized by BTSX only. I'm glad that it's clear you focus on the core value of Music blockchain and customers demand, don't really care about where BitUSD is from. I'm with you since the Music market is real big and the value of Bitshares Music should be based on it instead of collateralizing notes to issue BitUSD.

Regarding tech feasibility for taking BTSX's BitUSD and allowing shoppers to pay artists on the BitShares Music Blockchain, to my knowledge of crypto blockchains, I do believe it's viable and the real question is how efficient compare to have Music's BitUSD and what does them mean to the big picture - Bitshares DACs ecosphere(it's important not for BTSX only, but also for every DACs including Music). That's why I said we need to think/list pros/cons for different proposals. Frankly, I'm not a programmer so I do not know the details of crypto tech, but we have a very strong community to come up with insights and good ideas to work it out.

PS: No offense. All I want to do is to support community/ecosphere building up and development, again not just for BTSX but also for Bitshares Music. In the other hand, I think you need to watch your words("brains problem"?!), otherwise I would worry about public relationship of peertrack.com
PTS: PmUT7H6e7Hvp9WtKtxphK8AMeRndnow2S8   /   BTC: 1KsJzs8zYppVHBp7CbyvQAYrEAWXEcNvmp   /   BTSX: yidaidaxia (暂用)
新浪微博: yidaidaxia_郝晓曦 QQ:36191175试手补天

Offline BTSdac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: K1
I have some rough ideas
A translation/exchange is record to different chain. One chain is main chain ,other chains are aux chains
Take bitshares music as example.
1. All the user in bitshares music must have a BTSX address or name or link to a BTSX address or name ,if they want to have bitusd . bitshares music read address or name from BTSX chain.
2. All the translation of bitusd in bitshares music have to broadcast to BTSX chain and meanwhile all validation of bitusd base on BTSX chain.  chain of bitshares music don`t record any tx of bitusd.
3.To valid bitusd ,bitshares music have to own BTSX`s chain , to reduce the size of chain and the cost of validation  ,BTSX supply snapshoot

I am a little investor of AGS and PTS, I have an idea about how to reduce volume of block chain using snapshot,  English is not my native language , I hope I can been understood.
1.   The purpose of snapshot in my express is different from normal , this snapshot is to replace blocks before them to reduce this size of block chain.
2.   Perform a snapshot per N block; and the next block is a special block , its header include the hash both previous block and this snapshot.  We also can set the confirm time of this block is longer than others, maybe need  all delegates honored.
3.   Each block after this snapshot include the status if honor this snapshot.
4.   Each translation include the status if honor this snapshot
5.   if the snapshot was honored by N block, and was honored by translation witch hold 90% stockholder , this snapshot is a formal snapshot.  The blocks before this snapshot can been ignore . ignore the blocks before this snapshot have risk ,so there have N block time to check if there is no attack/ scam in the snapshot ,  if  select N equal 100,000, it mean , every delegate check this snapshot 1000 times if there are 100 delegates, and every client also check this snapshot when a translation is done, and the meantime ,any node can select to keep all block for checking.
6.    If all process was finished smoothly, block chain only include a snapshot +N blocks no matter how many years this chain have been running , the volume of a snapshot maybe is constant,   if N equal  100,000, consider 30 sec per block , it is about 34 days , so all the size of block chain is equal a constant volume  +  volume of 34 days translation. It doesn’t increase as time passing  .

4. Other translations /information exclude bitusd are recorded in chain of Bitshares music.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more
if A exchange music coin to bitusd with B
1.TX1 : A locked this quantity exchanged music coin (like sell)
2.TX2 : B send bitusd to A and broadcast to bitshares BTSX`s chain
3.TX3: after TX2 is confirmed A send music coin to B and broadcast to bitshares music chain
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 03:21:40 am by BTSdac »
github.com :pureland
BTS2.0 API :ws://139.196.37.179:8091
BTS2.0 API 数据源ws://139.196.37.179:8091