Topic: Tau-Chain and Agoras Official Thread: Generalized P2P Network - page 110. (Read 309654 times)

~$250k is only since tau. there were more incomes to zennet a year before tau, but they were spent on zennet's marketing (and we also lost quite much on btc going down from 800 to 200) before tau began.

7.5M * 0.075 = $562K and your offers are priced in $ not in btc.

So I guess it used to be priced in bitcoin but now it is in $

the lower price ever was 7.5 cents. and the btc price had a lot of moves over the time, some purchased were made when btc was less than $250, for example

How that is possible? Even at a very discount price of 10 cent / agora that should be $750K at least.

yes, though they're not kept as btc but converted to fiat. since tau's beginning we got ~$250k

How much btc did those tokens raised ,900 ?

Thanks.

~7.5M
can see the issuer's address http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=14gF3Up7wdRdkxAL4GgQLdnM8CThgDUSHR

how many tokens have you sold till now @ohad ??

I will ask them personally.

Hi ohad,

could you please ask decentralized exchange Bitsquare ( https://bitsquare.io/ ) to add Agora to their exchange?
For adding please see https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/how-to-add-your-favorite-altcoin/46
 
thx

You need a small amount of BTC for transaction costs in your initial wallet.

just enough btc for the transaction fees

hello I sent some agoras to omniwallet and now I want to test to send some out there. but I cant becouse this error:

Your 'From Address' does not have enough BTC to complete this transaction. Please select a different address or send enough BTC to cover the Total transaction cost.

Must I have BTC in order to cashout my agoras ? is this normal ? first time I see I need btc to send some alts... This confuses me.

why do miners prefer to mine in pools? they have very good reason: the volatility of their income is terribly impractically huge if they mine alone, even though the average revenue is theoretically the same (if neglecting some more factors). so if you have an ability to keep the expected average profit but significantly reduce volatility, that's what what rational players usually do.
same applies wrt the volatility of the price.


imagine we have an agrs/btc options market and also a spot market (i.e. being able to convert agrs to btc and vice versa). then if one sells (shorts) a call option, and in the same time buys (long) the corresponding put option, and also buys the underlying assets (all with matching amounts), you'll have a profit for sure (neglecting commissions and other frictions). this profit should theoretically be equal to the so-called "risk-free interest" in the market, but more precisely, it really is the "alternative cost", i.e. how much people believe they'll profit if their money was not locked for a given amount of time. this technique is as old as black&scholes model

Do agree, security was and will always be an economical consideration.

Just random thoughts

The ROI of attacking the network goes up as the price goes up if the hash rate stays stable.
Which it shouldnt, because more miners should come if the "miners tax" stays stable...

If the miners tax stays fixed it could make an accordion effect on miners/hash power/price but that changes once the miners have invest a lot of money and they have a huge fix cost, so they have to stay in market yes or yes just waiting for better times...
Then they will have to ask to rise in the miners tax.



miners using options to protect their profits?

not sure if I understood it really but blow my mind. I'll wait till you write it down to re-think about it.

but risk-free concept sounds quite strange for me.
"risk-free" investments are bonds, which in my opinion is not true anymore.
There is always risk associated to the project. (different points of view in the community/team, the leader leaving the project)

Just to clear up: in Dash Miners get 40%, 40% goes to Masternodes and 20% is spent according to the governance system decisions (masternode voting)

they will probably want to buy some kind of hedging. and this can be elevated to giving risk-free interest without printing new money (!). that's one of my old plans for agoras, i'll write it down soon. is all about a famous black&scholes strategy that recover the "value of time".

can add to the equations another parameter: how many miners do we want? given the cost per hash, we can calculate how much it costs to tamper the network (with e.g. 51% attack). security was and will always be an economical consideration. we have to make it unprofitable for the attacker. and ofc who will crunch the considerations and the numbers with no mistakes better than tau

what i foresee

Bitcoin since halving has 4.17% inflation in the first year 
Bitcoin since halving has 4% inflation in the second year
Bitcoin since halving has 3.85% inflation in the third year   

Bitcoin miners get the inflation (new money created) + transaction fees (depends on transaction amounts and density)

Tau since creation has 0% inflation
Tau miners get the "miners tax" (dynamic % of transaction)

The point of PoW is to motivate the people to invest in the network (asics, farms)
the question is: will be enought "motivation" to invest in Tau network? (enought transactions?)

If people invest big sums of money into the Tau network, Tau will be in the next paradox

Let's imagine we set a 0.25% "miners tax" and miners are making money and users are happy because is not expensive.

If the price goes up, the miners will make much more money and people will ask for a lower "miners tax".
Then we move the dynamic % down and everybody is still happy. Miners still profitable and users have cheaper transactions.

But, if the price goes down, (which is gonna happen because of different adoption phases we gonna pass trought)
the situation will change.
Miners will complain they're not profitable anymore, that will lead to less miners, less security, more centralization of the hash power
or a rise in the dynamic %.
If you rise the %, people will found more expensive to use it, (and it's already losing value), therefore some of the investors will sell,
getting back to previous point.
Miners will complain they're not profitable anymore.
Rise the % or lose some miners...


The point is, if choosed this way of mantaining the network, we need to be very careful at the time of selecting the % and at the time of moving it (mainly downwards, cos then raise it it's gonna be a mess)

He is referring to a deflationary model of supply.