Topic: BitShares (wth?!) - page 2. (Read 4039 times)

Anybody who says that the mechanism works without price feeds is (probably) wrong. The most recent mechanism is different from the original whitepaper and is much more "believable".


The answer to the trilemma is that BTS does not have sovereign monetary policy (that would be the FED, PBOC, etc - whoever the assets are tracking). The supply is dynamic and controlled only by real demand for the bitasset, not by the blockchain.

Why? The quote said they need training wheels. And now three months later they still need them according to you. So it's very much applicable.

You also wrote justifications for the power of the devs to unilaterally change how the market works. Which illustrates my point... to give an analogy: We don't accept dictators because they can do more effective work - we reject them on moral grounds.


That's the thing though - I'm originally not against BTS. I invest in what works. But whenever I read more about it, it seems worse instead of better. Just the first post in that thread shows that they have no clue what they're doing. There is no way you could calculate a meaningful risk profile that way.


Point taken... they do work on the peg at least since one and a half year though.
And it's work on something economists consider impossible.

You do understand that given the current valuation of BTS these developers are making far less than they are worth... Stop calling people greedy because you want them to provide you something for nothing. Their time and resources cost money, and simply because you are not willing to help foot the bill doesn't mean others are not. Also as an aside, every long term investor has made tremendous gains.

supranetico:
You are correct about the +1 BTS for the dev's however there has been quite clear accounting of all the donations.

PTS transaction log
https://docs.google.com/a/invictus-innovations.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydFZ3bVVWT0o1OUwzXzdESHFBY0FkUWc&usp=sharing#gid=0

BTC transaction log
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTwk-e7yzJydDFnQmlkTVlkbWpubnJBbzR2UG5ucnc&usp=sharing#gid=0

Operations log
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtRmp4NraeAydElLdUpwSERlY3luVkZNZnoxRm5md3c&usp=sharing#gid=0

Original AGS announcement:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1863.msg21379#msg21379

More so, anyone that invested has made money and with the additional focus of the super dac updates should be completed much quicker thus bringing in functionality and users ($$$).  New features are coming in a quite a pace recently.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11921.0 User issued assets with legal compliance
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11697.0 escrow in next version
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11524.0 Multisig and offline transaction building
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11597.0 <-- This could be a nice helping hand!


TinEye:
It is sad to see the PTS name being used however this is a 3rd party dac, no direct relation to the main dev's of Bitshares.  Since all PTS donations were returned to their original owners, the bts dev's will not make anything on this deal besides what they held from mining themselves.  This could very well hurt bts if the launch and product is botched.

Its the greed of the involved group which makes it difficult to warm up to them despite their fantastic tech. They are now trying a new pump and dump with the PTS.

Um, no. High level history of BTS:
Protoshares was launched as a minable investment vehicle, ----devs underestimated the pump/demand and weren't able to mine enough to sustain themselves. so they introduced AGS to raise more money when the mine to fund failed. along side AGS which users could donate PTS or BTC directly without mining.  50% PTS and 50% AGS is what made up the genesis block of BTS, this was quite fair.  -- Distribution is not fair as 1 PTS ~ 1BTS was the original plan. Now AGS was raising funding in PTS too. So each PTS you donated meant 1 AGS to you. And (assuming parity for sake of simple explanation) 1AGS = 1BTS for you but....the PTS raised within the AGS framework also got their allocation. So it meant, 1 PTS donated = 1AGS=1BTS For you + 1 BTS for 3I because of the ownership. Yes they promised they wont use BTS earned from the raised PTS for any use but in crypto, promises mean shit. They should have burned it and reduced the total coin but they dint.  Original plan was to have individual dac's such as BTS, Vote, Play, Music, etc... however this would divide the attention of the dev's too greatly.  Thus with PTS and AGS no longer viable, why not unite all the products under one umbrella?  Great win for investors, great win for the dev's who can concentrate on one super DAC with all the features of the individual dacs.  BTC and LTC were born competitors, BTS simply originated from PTS and AGS.

There was no clear consensus on the "super DAC" and people had rejected the PTS rollup to BTS too. Those concerns have been ignored. So nope, not a great win for investors. Just my 2 cents to it.

Short positions are settled every 30 days at the feed price (the market price on external exchanges)...Your claim is like saying futures contracts can only be settled with the underlying asset, which is not true at all. Most contracts are settled in cash payments.

.
.
As a side note bytemaster has 1466 more posts since then.
.
.

Posting a 3 month old quote is not exactly showing BTS is not working.  Please explain your points such as claiming the algo as economic nonsense.

Feed statistics can be found here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11523.0

I also want to add that Rome was not built in a day and direct on/off ramps are being worked on for bit assets.  Browsing their forum will provide all this information plus feel free to post questions, the dev's interact with the community very well!

NO, the asset algo won't work because it's economic nonsense...
They are realizing that it's NOT WORKING, but blaming collateral issues like liquidity, etc.
As in "if only enough people trade it will magically become a peg". No. No. No.

A USD "peg" or "future" is viable *** ONLY *** if it is "convertible" or can be "settled" with USD...
It cannot be conjured or willed or finagled or "forced to parity" in the complete absence of USD.



So according to this post... BTS is, in fact, worthless.

^^^^^^^^^You put it into words better then I could have ever managed too.

In what respect is Bitcoin trust-less and Bitshares not?  From a mining perspective, with btc you are trusting very few pools who have most of the control.  More so, anyone with $ can go after the hash race and attempt control of the network.  On the Bitshares side with DPOS the stake holders vote on the 101 delegates, if one misbehaves or does not contribute such as providing price feeds for the asset market, stake holders can see this and vote them out immediately.


Conservative development based on research?  What research exactly?  Decisions on the BitShares side have been made constantly with community feedback.  I have listened in on their mumble sessions, visit their message boards, watch their gitbub repository and it's one of the few communities that comes together to continually upgrade the product. 


We should all be thankful for Bitcoin which provided the blockchain public ledger.  One negative however is the wasteful mining and centralization of hash.  You are correct in that BitShares is following the profit as the blockchain itself pays delegates.  This is a fantastic development for devs, marketers, etc... to be paid for the work they perform.  This should allow BitShares to attract higher quality dev's that will be voted in by users as delegates and paid accordingly.  If users are no longer happy with such a delegate they can once again vote them out.


No crypto market cap is predictable for 5 minutes and this is one of the reasons why bit assets have come to existence.  Merchants will always be reluctant to use btc because of the volatility however if they accept BitUSD, BitEURO, BitCNY, they will know the value of those will be worth basically the same tomorrow or a year from today!  BitShares is a decentralized bank, exchange, and derivatives market all in one.


I would have to say both BTC and BTS are corps.  BTC pays miners, BTS pays delegates.  BitShares however is much more profitable as there is no wasteful mining and overhead.


To answer your question on stopping the asset market, there are training wheels in place that will bring the market to a halt.  Deviation of price feeds, minimum liquidity, minimum price feeds, etc... which in the very beginning were easy to bump into as there were very few users.  The dev's put a lot of money into these markets to jump start them and in the beginning if they pulled it out, the market would come to a pause.  They have been constantly tweaking the asset rules to provide additional functions, more liquidity, and reduce possible abuse thus everyone wins here.  There are tools becoming available to track the market peg however the most accurate way to measure it is with the client itself, not an exchange such as bter until more users jump on board.  If you look at the history on the client, the assets have tracked quite nicely!  Looking at the client right now there is also over $1 million in BitUSD out in circulation and based on the rules that means there is > $3 million in BitShares backing this as collateral.  With this amount there is no way a single user could pull out and bring the market to a halt...

Do you know that for every bitUSD that comes to existence 3X that value is held as collateral in BTS? Actually you sound as if you really like your bankers, weird.

DPoS is working perfect, btw who are you to judge if a delegate is incompetent? you don't even know that BitSharesX was renamed to BitShares. You know nothing Jon snow...

BitSharesX is reinventing the proverbial wheel.  BitSharesX is trying to replace $Fiat bankers with a banker version of themselves, but doesn't explain why we would want to replace our bankers with them.  Better the devil we know than the devil we don't.  DPos is also not working as people have held their positions since launch despite being incompetent and/or absent from their duties, reminds me a lot of crooked politicians and elected officials who can't be voted out.

Its in the pump phase and hasn't got anything to do with the pros and cons of the project. Every coin including Bitcoin is at the whims of speculators and whales. Ride the trends and make money

Bitcoin: Trustless
Bitshares: Respect based

Bitcoin: Conservative development. Decisions based on research
Bitshares: Decisions based on idolizing founders

Bitcoin: Following an ideology
Bitshares: Following profit

Bitcoin: Market cap and inflation predictable for hundreds of years.
Bitshares: Market cap and inflation redecided every couple of months.

Bitcoin: Protocol
Bitshares: Corporation

I'm not saying Bitcoin is perfect - I'm in the alt-section after all. And I'm aware that alts can't always afford the same procedures. But we should thoroughly think about before we throw away key ideas.
Short term rational reasons are not the only thing decisions (i.e. inflating the cap) should be based on. We have to consider if setting such precedent isn't destroying the basis for promoting cryptocurrrencies.

That includes speculators: If they support for example Ripple by buying their coins, then we just might as well promote shares of Bank of America.

I don't quite follow what you are trying to conclude, crypto software is in its infancy, of course it will be updated throughout its life cycle?  Are you not agreeing with their asset market rules, changes in direction, or way going about business?

I am not avoiding your litecoin example however it has nothing to do with BTS merging, 100% different situation.  I can't tell by your join date if you have been around for awhile and saw BitShares through since the beginning?  I would not go by that thread you linked, instead do the research yourself by looking at Bytemaster's posts which date back to having conversations with Satoshi.


High level BTS history:
Protoshares was launched as a minable investment vehicle, along side AGS which users could donate PTS or BTC directly without mining.  50% PTS and 50% AGS is what made up the genesis block of BTS, this was quite fair.  Original plan was to have individual dac's such as BTS, Vote, Play, Music, etc... however this would divide the attention of the dev's too greatly.  Thus with PTS and AGS no longer viable, why not unite all the products under one umbrella?  Great win for investors, great win for the dev's who can concentrate on one super DAC with all the features of the individual dacs.  BTC and LTC were born competitors, BTS simply originated from PTS and AGS.

That was true for Bernie Madorff for about 40 years. Which is simply to say that this is no guarantee. Exactly what Crypto was supposed to fix.


How is it prevented? They did stop the BitAsset markets before and changed the pegging system.
They will not be able to do this once the USD price slips again?


They have been quite inconsistent from the start.


You're avoiding my Litecoin example - giving Litecoiners some arbitrary numbers of Bitcoins and then adding those to the bitcoin cap might also make sense. Litecoiners might even agree as it would stop their bleeding. That's still pretty clearly a bad thing to do.

Caps are supposed to stay stable - else I can have no trust that in 3 months there will not be another big inflation - because the devs are respected and enough delegates profit.
If voted officials and corporations can do these kind of acts, then we can just stick to the current banking system.

Make sure you have the latest version (0.4.24) and it is synced.
https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/releases

If you want to register a name, post here and someone will send over the fee.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6439.0

None of the market functionality is working for me. (it says there must be no orders) Is this normal?